That article is going to give me nightmares. I try, honest I try, not to be a liberal elitist. But reading something like this, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that we live in a country of genuine idiots. LOOK at this:
In a paper written in 2004, the Princeton political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels estimate that "2.8 million people voted against Al Gore in 2000 because their states were too dry or too wet" as a consequence of that year's weather patterns. Achen and Bartels think that these voters cost Gore seven states, any one of which would have given him the election.
If none of the "ideological" stuff matters much in determining political outcomes, then we intellectuals ought to be more willing to pursue the ideological stuff -- you know, actual arguments -- without such grave concern for Loyalty to the Cause. We can be less interested in ostracizing traitors and more interested in pursuing the logos.
Given that those who determine outcomes do not care about politics, those of us who do care about politics can relax and have real conversations -- resigned to the realization that our endeavor is epiphenomenal.
A policy wonk friend describes status in political campaigns as being about access to the candidate (of course), but also about the ability to "move ideas around," which means, ultimately, getting your words to come out of the candidate's mouth.
I think bloggers suffer from the same sort of aspiration: they want to write a post (or cover a topic) that will be picked up by more popular bloggers, and eventually by the most popular bloggers, and then, please god, by newspapers. So a lot of blog-time is spent pitching messages to some imagined populace, which can be tipped one way or the other if only the right words reach them.
Sadly, in rare instances, this happens, so people aren't sufficiently discouraged. I've been wondering what the hell the blog is for lately, and doing much less political blogging as a result (though my will is imperfect, even now). Part of my problem is that the question of just which message will be effective is interesting to me, as such. And it's very hard not to play armchair campaign manager.
But, seriously, I was a bit disappointed in the article, because it never seemed to strike the right balance between individual/group decision-making. For most of the article, voters are treated as atomistic decision-makers, then the emphasis is on the reliance on parties, but aren't most of the voters you know influenced far more by some other membership: family, union, bowling league, etc.?
This is speculative, but it seems to me that people are usually decisively influenced by their close social peers, and among those peers, one or two will be "idealogues," themselves influenced by the press and the "elites." So there is some value to crafting a message: it trickles down.
But (last point, promise), I don't think the reasons sway voters, they just serve as social cover for their prejudices. So, Joe is predisposed to vote for X, because all of Joe's friends prefer X, and because Y really rubs Joe the wrong way, but Joe needs to feel like a rational, in-control decision-maker, and the job of the campaign, through the press, is to give Joe some reason he can use: X seems strong on defense; X cares about the little guy. If that reason resonates with Joe's prejudices, so much the better, but if not, it might yet be good enough.
So, the massive campaign/elite/media apparatus isn't for nothing, but it works in roundabout, mediated, and inscrutible ways. So loudmouths (like bloggers), can feel (like voters), as if each little bit might make a difference.
Oh. My. God.
That article is going to give me nightmares. I try, honest I try, not to be a liberal elitist. But reading something like this, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that we live in a country of genuine idiots. LOOK at this:
In a paper written in 2004, the Princeton political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels estimate that "2.8 million people voted against Al Gore in 2000 because their states were too dry or too wet" as a consequence of that year's weather patterns. Achen and Bartels think that these voters cost Gore seven states, any one of which would have given him the election.
The horror...
Posted by Realish | Link to this comment | 08-24-04 1:07 PM
Yes. Linda is a bank teller. Linda is a jazz musician. We are all doomed.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 08-24-04 2:30 PM
It's horrifying but also in a way liberating.
If none of the "ideological" stuff matters much in determining political outcomes, then we intellectuals ought to be more willing to pursue the ideological stuff -- you know, actual arguments -- without such grave concern for Loyalty to the Cause. We can be less interested in ostracizing traitors and more interested in pursuing the logos.
Given that those who determine outcomes do not care about politics, those of us who do care about politics can relax and have real conversations -- resigned to the realization that our endeavor is epiphenomenal.
Posted by Ted H. | Link to this comment | 08-24-04 3:03 PM
A policy wonk friend describes status in political campaigns as being about access to the candidate (of course), but also about the ability to "move ideas around," which means, ultimately, getting your words to come out of the candidate's mouth.
I think bloggers suffer from the same sort of aspiration: they want to write a post (or cover a topic) that will be picked up by more popular bloggers, and eventually by the most popular bloggers, and then, please god, by newspapers. So a lot of blog-time is spent pitching messages to some imagined populace, which can be tipped one way or the other if only the right words reach them.
Sadly, in rare instances, this happens, so people aren't sufficiently discouraged. I've been wondering what the hell the blog is for lately, and doing much less political blogging as a result (though my will is imperfect, even now). Part of my problem is that the question of just which message will be effective is interesting to me, as such. And it's very hard not to play armchair campaign manager.
But, seriously, I was a bit disappointed in the article, because it never seemed to strike the right balance between individual/group decision-making. For most of the article, voters are treated as atomistic decision-makers, then the emphasis is on the reliance on parties, but aren't most of the voters you know influenced far more by some other membership: family, union, bowling league, etc.?
This is speculative, but it seems to me that people are usually decisively influenced by their close social peers, and among those peers, one or two will be "idealogues," themselves influenced by the press and the "elites." So there is some value to crafting a message: it trickles down.
But (last point, promise), I don't think the reasons sway voters, they just serve as social cover for their prejudices. So, Joe is predisposed to vote for X, because all of Joe's friends prefer X, and because Y really rubs Joe the wrong way, but Joe needs to feel like a rational, in-control decision-maker, and the job of the campaign, through the press, is to give Joe some reason he can use: X seems strong on defense; X cares about the little guy. If that reason resonates with Joe's prejudices, so much the better, but if not, it might yet be good enough.
So, the massive campaign/elite/media apparatus isn't for nothing, but it works in roundabout, mediated, and inscrutible ways. So loudmouths (like bloggers), can feel (like voters), as if each little bit might make a difference.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-24-04 3:56 PM