THE STASH NOVEMBER 6, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
So yesterday I posted an item complaining about the line of argument that attributes Tuesday's election results to the fact that Democrats had strayed too far from the center, had done too much to quickly, were expanding government too far, etc., etc. I argued that it was much more plausible that voters--particularly the independent voters who decide elections--were just pissed off about the economy. To believe the former, you'd have to believe that these voters have well worked-out views about the proper size of government, and that they're supremely self-aware about where they stand on the ideological spectrum, and where politicians stand relative to them at any given moment, which strikes me as a bit implausible.
Alas, today David Brooks basically takes the too-far-from-the-center argument and runs with it. It's as though he read my post and tried to construct a column that came to the precise opposite conclusion on every point. (Though, as long as we're on the subject of implausibility, let me point out that that's fantastically implausible.)
Brooks and I agree that Democrats took a real drubbing among independents Tuesday. (It would be hard to disagree--the numbers are the numbers.) And we both agree that the economy was a major factor. As Brooks reports:
Middle-class suburban voters who have been trending Democratic for a decade suddenly lurched out of the Democratic camp — and are now in play.
Why? What do these voters want?
The first thing to say is that this recession has hit the new suburbs hardest, exactly where independents are likely to live. According to a survey by the National Center for Suburban Studies at Hofstra University, 76 percent of suburbanites say they or someone they know have lost a job in the past year.
But whereas I think you can basically stop there--the recession hit independents hard, and so they're pissed about it--Brooks goes on to construct an intricate theory about the worldviews of these political creatures:
Democrats did poorly in elections on Tuesday partly because of disappointed liberals who think that President Obama is moving too slowly, but mostly because of anxious suburban independents who think he is moving too fast. ...
According to that same survey, only 31 percent of Americans believe that the president and Congress “should worry more about boosting the economy even though it may mean larger budget deficits.” Sixty-two percent, twice as many, believe the president and Congress “should worry more about keeping the deficit down, even though it may mean it will take longer for the economy to recover.”
These shifts have not occurred because conservatives and liberals have changed their minds. They haven’t. The shift is among independents.
According to Gallup, the share of independents who describe their views as conservative has moved from 29 percent last year to 35 percent today. The share of independents who believe there is too much government regulation of business has jumped from 38 percent to 50 percent.
This all sounds pretty plausible: Independents are saying they're worried about the deficit, that they've become more conservative, and that the government is too intrusive. Who am I to say they're lying.
Problem is, voters almost always say stuff like this when the economy gets worse under a Democrat, and they stop saying it when the economy gets better. Again, I'd direct you to John Judis's recent piece about presidential disapproval ratings and the unemployment rate, which almost perfectly track one another. My guess is that all of the numbers Brooks is citing are basically reflecting the same thing, which is that independent voters don't think Obama's policies are fixing the economy. If that's the conclusion you start with, then it makes sense to answer pollsters' questions with skepticism toward Obama's agenda (too costly, too liberal, to intrusive). But the good news for Obama is that he almost certainly doesn't have to address these specific complaints. He just needs a little help from the labor market. (Conversely, if the labor market doesn't improve, then addressing these complaints isn't going to help him a hell of a lot.)
5 comments
Jeez, it was 2 races. I voted for Tom Kean and Christie Todd Whitman when I lived in Jersey, Christie is in line with these kind of reformist, pragmatic good government types, and Corzine was terrible (arrogant, elitist) and ran a nasty campaign. But if the Republicans had nominated a right wing nutjob like Lonegan, (who wanted to raise the taxes on the poor to give to the rich as some kind of bizarre incentive) Corzine would have creamed him. You know, sometimes Republicans (moderate ones) are better Governors. And I can also see the value of voting for a Republican for Governor if a Democrat is president. When the federal government is likely to grow, elect a Republican who will shrink state. And the reverse can be true. If the Republicans nominate a bunch of teabaggers in swing districts, no matter how the economy is, I just don't see many winning. If they go with a bunch of Dede's (who would have won that election) then the Republicans can win.
- blackton
November 6, 2009 at 5:00pm
Excellent point blackie. As a Radical Moderate, I find divided government by far the most comfortable kind, and the record shows it's by far the best circumstance for actually getting things done. Reagan's tax revolution, arguably the most significant reform of a generation, was made possible largely by Tip O'Neil; Clinton's welfare reform, arguably the most significant reform of the next generation, would have be impossible without Newt.
- Robert Powell
November 7, 2009 at 6:16am
Most voters have no trouble identifying a problem. But most also have no idea of what might be a genuinely effective solution to that problem. This can make many vulnerable to all kinds of knee jerk, emotional appeals of the "throw the bums out" (or make it impossible for them to govern) variety. This is especially true of those voters who have given the least thought to, or in some cases have the least concern for, the inevitably complex and competing political, cultural and economic interests (beyond their own immediate self-interest, and sometimes even including their own self-interest) abroad in the land. Voters who are the least likely to have developed a thoughtful and consistent set of guiding principals as to how those natural conflicts might best be approached and resolved. In a nation as complex in terms of economics, geography, ethnicity, history and culture as the US, nothing significant can be accomplished without compromise (as the writer Michael Ventura has said, "freedom doesn't mean you get everything you want -- it means no one gets everything they want." When anyone does get everything they want, that's tyranny.) So too strict an adherence to ideology is likely to be oppressive and unproductive. But, too little thought given or commitment to basic guiding principles and ideals also makes solutions and progress impossible. Cynics and ideologues are equally problematic. In the US today we seem to have too many of both.
- esmense
November 7, 2009 at 12:43pm
esmense: "When anyone does get everything they want, that's tyranny." Except, of course, when it is I that gets it. I have always strived to live by this rule: "everyone is entitled to my opinion." Really, what good is my own opinion if I didn't believe it to be correct? Yes, I am pulling your leg a bit, but I am with Bob. Makes me wonder where radical moderation falls within the political spectrum. People who have a pragmatic, centrist view are not so uncommon. It is all the ranting heads on TV and on the net that get the outsized attention. In a way, I find your posting a little too cynical in your views of the voters but, of course, it doesn't mean you are wrong either.
- blackton
November 7, 2009 at 3:31pm
blackton -- I should have more accurately said that absent access to reliable information and opportunities for honest debate most voters "have no idea what might be a genuinely effective solution" I'm not as cynical about the average voter as I may sound. I think that democratic majorities consistently do a good job of identifying problems. And, when given the facts, they make good judgements about solutions to those problems. But in making those judgements in our modern era they are confounded by the relentless, over-whelming, self-serving manipulation of "the facts" and public opinion indulged in by powerful economic interests -- and very ill-served by an equally self-interested modern media (the "ranting heads on TV" among them). No one is giving them the facts, and finding them ain't easy. There is a saying in the advertising world (the field I worked in before starting my own business); "The worst thing that can happen to a bad product is good advertising." Of course, that "worst thing" depends on people first being, less than honestly (advertising rarely lies, but it even more rarely tells the truth), seduced into trying, and then rejecting, the bad product. Sophisticated modern political marketing has been very good at selling some very bad political ideas. Which do eventually get rejected. Unfortunately, most of the seductively packaged alternatives on offer are produced by the same manufacturers. It's not surprising that so many voters are so cynical.
- esmense
November 7, 2009 at 5:11pm