Democracy’s Myopia Problem
I did a post yesterday on Larry Bartels’ observation that in Depression-afflicted countries “the party that happened to be in power when the Depression eased [in the mid-30s] dominated politics for a decade or more thereafter” even though in different countries this meant all kinds of different political parties. A good example of this phenomenon at play is by comparing the United States, where the bursting of a housing bubble and a growing recession is crippling the incumbent Republicans and boosting the Democrats, with the United Kingdom, where the bursting of a housing bubble and a growing recession is crippling the incumbent Labour Party and boosting the Tories.
On its own terms, though this can sometimes produce unfair outcomes (like Jimmy Carter getting booted for problems that were far beyond his capacity to control) I think swing voters’ habit of punishing incumbents for poor performance is an okay satisficing strategy. It’s part of the reason why democracy manages to work despite massive voter ignorance. The electorate may be composed of people who don’t understand the issues or where the candidates stand on them, but the people running the government have an incentive to try to implement policies that work out okay in order to avoid “throw the bums out” sentiment. The trouble is that Bartels’ study of American elections, at least, suggests massive myopia on the part of voters. Economic performance in an election year has a big impact on election outcomes, but economic performance in other years doesn’t get you anywhere. If that carries over to the UK (and, indeed, it seems to) that means that Labour won’t get any credit from voters for the fact that current problems were preceded by a long and impressive string of growth. And by the same token, voters don’t understand comparative issues — the fact that your country is doing better than most other countries amidst a global downturn won’t get you any credit.
50 Responses to “Democracy’s Myopia Problem”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 8th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I think swing voters’ habit of punishing incumbents for poor performance is an okay satisficing strategy.
I can’t get no satisfiction?
October 8th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
…but the people running the government have an incentive to try to implement policies that work out okay in order to avoid “throw the bums out” sentiment.
True, but in the US — principally because of the frequency of elections (because of mid-terms) the incentive for politicians is nearly always to avoid implementing effective policies at all costs if said policies involve even a modest and temporary degree of pain. At least in Britain, depending on where you are in the cycle, you might have four or five years to allow bitter but effective medicine to work. For this reason I’d really like to see the US make House terms last four years. Too much of anything — even democracy — can be a bad thing.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Sure, but Labour and the Republicans have something else in common, too: Iraq. While both parties are getting hammered for their respective countries’ economies at the moment, both first started bleeding support because of their shared Iraq disaster. (In Labour’s case, they lost their core left-of-centre partisans, while the Republicans alienated moderates and independents.) So it’s true that voters are angry at both parties, but it’s a case of cumulative failures rather than simply the current economic woes.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Could this be construed as an argument for why Obama will be guaranteed eight years?
October 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Off topic, but I wonder if MY caught this article where Dukasis mentioning Joe Biden say that “if he and Obama were elected…this would be the most train-friendly administration in history.” Exciting!
October 8th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Um, actually Brown’s poll numbers have recovered a bit over the past few weeks.
The UK probably hit bottom a bit earlier, so provided the economy recovers by 2012, Labour may be able to hang on.
The analogous situation is of course George W. Bush in 2000, who inherited a falter economy, saw it collapse post 9/11, but managed to right the ship just enough to win reelection in 2004.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I don’t see why Matthew sneers at the common folk — the intellectuals are just as ignorant, but in different ways.
You aren’t better informed from reading the New York Times or sitting in a Harvard classroom instead of watching Fox News– you’re just soaking up a different pack of lies.
Consider the Depression. We didn’t pull out of it because of Keynesian spending –either in 1932-1940 or due to WWII spending.
We prospered in the 1950s because we had bombed the living shit out of every other potential economic competitor except for Russia and England. And the Nazis tooks care of them for us.
In 1945, we were last man standing — while the rest of the world was in ruins, the US continent didn’t have a hair out of place or a smudge of dirt on its clothes.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Could this be construed as an argument for why Obama will be guaranteed eight years?
Not sure. And not to get ahead of ourselves, but I can’t help but think an Obama administration will be nicely placed in terms of its timing with respect to the business cycle. I tend to be a bit of an economics determinist when it comes to electoral politics. It would have been virtually impossible for anybody to get reelected as president in 1932, say, or 1980. Or for that matter to lose a reelection bid in 1984. This current downturn sure looks like it could be a doozy, but it could very well lead to a robust expansion by 2012.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
But Labour did benefit from the long and impressive string of growth by being re-elected twice to form the longest-ever continuous Labour government in British history, which suggests that voters keep rewarding you as long as things are going okay, but as soon as things go wrong, out you go.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Randy Newman gave the best advice on get the good ole USA out of this hole:
————-
“No one likes us-I don’t know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let’s drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they’re spiteful and they’re hateful
They don’t respect us-so let’s surprise them
We’ll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia’s crowded and Europe’s too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada’s too cold
And South America stole our name
Let’s drop the big one
There’ll be no one left to blame us
We’ll save Australia
Don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo
We’ll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin’, too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We’ll set everybody free
You’ll wear a Japanese kimono
And there’ll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let’s drop the big one now
Let’s drop the big one now “
October 8th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
The UK probably hit bottom a bit earlier, so provided the economy recovers by 2012, Labour may be able to hang on.
In the UK the government must hold an election no later than June of 2010. Most observers had expected it to occur in 2009, although that may no longer be the case, given the state of the economy.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Jimmy Carter getting booted for problems that were far beyond his capacity to control
You know, I wasn’t alive at the time, but I tuned in for that Carter PBS special that’s been advertised on Ezra’s blog, and - wow. Just wow. “Weahh sufferin a criss of conshenz.” He might’ve had a shot against Reagan if he wasn’t such a poor politician.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Er, didn’t Labour already get rewarded for this with majorities in 2001 and 2005?
October 8th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
He might’ve had a shot against Reagan if he wasn’t such a poor politician.
Not a chance. Nobody wins reelection with 13% inflation, 19% mortgages, and swiftly rising unemployment. And by November of 1980 the initial rally-around-the-flag effect flowing from the hostage crisis (so helpful in enabling Carter to defeat Ted Kennedy’s primary challenge) had morphed into national disgust and anger over US foreign policy impotence.
That said, there’s no question but that the history books will rightly hold Jimmy Carter’s presidency in high regard. To a great extent they already do.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Bartels’ original article is a crock, by the way.
“In Britain and Australia, voters replaced Labor governments with conservatives and the economy improved.”
But neither in Britain or Australia did the Depression cause the conservative parties to achieve realignment. The UK booted the Tories as soon as WWII was won (and there was a national unity government during the war), and the Australians booted their conservatives for another try at Labor governments during the war. (Bob Menzies only solidified control for the Australian conservatives using Keynesian-esque policies in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s).
Essentially, almost every party in a capitalist country that formed the mainstream political center after the Depression was using one or another variety of Keynesian (or softer social democracy) economics, no matter whether the party was nominally right or left from 1944-mid 1970s. The parties which didn’t succeed very much in that period (hard-right Republicans in the North, for instance) were the ones who tended to oppose Keynesian economics.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I think a lot of pre-hatched chickens are already being counted.
Already taken for granted: Obama wins on Nov 4 with
a huge majority in house and senate.
Important if true, but facts not yet in evidence.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“Too much of anything — even democracy — can be a bad thing.”
When I think of America I think, “too much democracy”. And I dream of the day that our multi-party, localist social democracy is replaced by a heavily centralized mega-state controlled by a two-party oligopoly funded and executed by the wealthiest sector of society with only marginal input by the broader population. Jasper–can you dream with me?
October 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
And I suppose it might be pedantic to ask but, can you give a single historical example of this:
“True, but in the US — principally because of the frequency of elections (because of mid-terms) the incentive for politicians is nearly always to avoid implementing effective policies at all costs if said policies involve even a modest and temporary degree of pain.”
True, there was the highly populistic bailout of a week ago, so maybe you have a strong point.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
World Food prices doubled and Carter got the blame. At the time, most Americans weren’t aware that it was a global phenomenon, and that’s probably because it wasn’t reported that way.
Reagan was all Morning Mary Sunshine in America. People who are moved by sentimental public relations ploys are clearly not interested in the facts, so how are they going to understand cause and effect on a macroeconomic scale?
Maybe now would be a good time for elected officials to give people more useful and accurate information. Congress can start by reading the bills they sign.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
And I suppose it might be pedantic to ask but, can you give a single historical example of this…
It’s hard to demonstrate proof, because what I’m arguing is that common sense policies frequently seen in other rich democracies haven’t been implemented in the US. I would argue that one reason (and please, no straw men — I’m not saying it’s the only reason) for this is that, unlike in parliamentary systems where an electorally successfully government has some “breathing room” before it has to face the electorate again (and therefore it has time to allow its policies to translate into good results), a US administration must rely on legislators who are never more more than 24 months away from the possibility of losing their jobs. An increase in fuel taxes, say, or much-needed healthcare reforms are never easy to enact in a rich country with lots of vociferous constituencies. But in America such things are seemingly impossible, and I think a primary (but seldom remarked upon) reason for this is the brevity of House terms (and the consequent frequency of elections).
And I dream of the day that our multi-party, localist social democracy is replaced by a heavily centralized mega-state controlled by a two-party oligopoly…
Huh? I’m arguing for an American political system that is more like those of Canada, Britain, The Netherlands, The Nordics…
October 8th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
“But neither in Britain or Australia did the Depression cause the conservative parties to achieve realignment.”
well in the uk the 1931 election had the tories go from 260 seats out of 616,to 473 seats out of 616 which looks like a realignment to me.
Between 1931 and 1997 the tories were the largest party for 50 years and labour 16 years.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Interesting point, Jasper. Parliamentary governments seem to have room for a lot more different parties as well. Our bipolar party system politicizes issues too much and spawns group-think.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I had a long post in response to Jasper but it was deleted (forgot to include my email). Basically, I shew (convincingly) that, far from being “vociferous” the population is highly depoliticized, that most people don’t vote and that Congressional elections themselves are largely pro-forma contests between individuals whose policy views coincide to the nth degree and which the incumbent wins roughly 80 percent of the time.
Correspondingly the population has a disproportionately small voice in the formulation of public policy as opposed to corporate backers, lobbyists and corporate media and intelligentsia. Hardly the picture of “too much democracy”
And consequently the views of the population at large are very poorly represented by the political class. For instance: universal health care, which has long had majority support among Americans, since at least the Sixties.
But according to Jasper “much-needed healthcare reforms are never easy to enact in a rich country with lots of vociferous constituencies. In America such things are seemingly impossible, and I think a primary [sic](but seldom remarked upon) reason for this is the brevity of House terms (and the consequent frequency of elections).”
In other news: “As of July, people affiliated with the health sector and political action committees (PACs) associated with the sector had contributed about $29 million to presidential candidates, including $8.8 million to Obama, $6.6 million to Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, the former Democratic contender, and $4.7 million to McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org), a nonpartisan organization that researches money in politics. Although these contributions represent less than 3% of the funds raised by presidential candidates, it is remarkable that the health sector has reversed a long-standing pattern of favoring Republican candidates, by contributing substantially more money to Democrats ($17.7 million) than to Republicans ($11.2 million). This trend also holds when the presidential and congressional elections are considered together (see Figure 1): as of July, the health sector had contributed $54.5 million to Democrats and $46.1 million to Republicans.”
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/13/1313
October 8th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
“well in the uk the 1931 election had the tories go from 260 seats out of 616,to 473 seats out of 616 which looks like a realignment to me.”
Problem: there were no Parliamentary elections at all from 1935 to 1945. Hard to have a realignment when you have no elections for 10 years. It’s certainly true that Labour lost huge in 1931 and only recovered some in 1935. But the Tories lost massively in 1945, the first election after the Depression was over. That’s simply not a permanent realignment (unlike FDR’s realignment - there were no conservative Republican Presidents whatsoever from 1932 to 1968.) And the Tories who did get elected in the 1950s and 1960s were largely Keynesians, entirely unlike their forefathers of before the Great Depression.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
…far from being “vociferous” the population is highly depoliticized…
Mark: I didn’t write that “the population” is politicized. I wrote that specific constituencies are “vociferous” in their defense of or opposition to particular policies. I’m thinking in term of the elderly, for instance, or gun owners. Please read more carefully and you’ll generally find yourself making straw man arguments less often.
Congressional elections themselves are largely pro-forma contests between individuals whose policy views coincide to the nth degree…
Nonsense. If you want to see a small disparity in policy views go to Canada. In the United States the political spectrum is wide.
Correspondingly the population has a disproportionately small voice in the formulation of public policy as opposed to corporate backers, lobbyists and corporate media and intelligentsia.
What does “disproportionately” mean in this instance? Care to quantify? It seems to me you’re stating a truism. Obviously an individual with money, or a person with 40 members of Congress in his Rolodex, or a person who interviews presidential candidates, is likely to possess a “disproportionately” stronger voice with respect to policy than someone who lacks these attributes. What I’m saying is that public policy in democracies is comparable to bribery: elected officials attempt (almost always successfully in the US) to win reelection by giving voters in their districts what they want. The need to engage in such “bribery” is more acute in the US political system because of the frequency of elections. A legislator in Britain taking office can “relax” in the knowledge he may not need to face the electorate for another for or five years. It is thus easier in the British (or other, similar parliamentary governments) system to enact policies for the common good that may cause pain in the short run.
…which the incumbent wins roughly 80 percent of the time.
Actually it’s more like 95% of the time. The fact that you’re off by such a wide degree tells me I’m arguing with someone without a particularly firm grasp of political science.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
“I wrote that specific constituencies are “vociferous”
Where? If you’re talking about congressional elections and the problematic influence of “vociferous constituencies” how else is one to interpret this to mean anything other than the actual Congressional constituency–the people who vote in a given Congressional election–you know, the population…
And it doesn’t help when you then write: “A legislator in Britain taking office can “relax” in the knowledge he may not need to face the electorate for another for or five years.” So the Congressman is afraid of his actual constituency? Or the NRA?
“The fact that you’re off by such a wide degree tells me I’m arguing with someone without a particularly firm grasp of political science.”
And this tells me you’re a silly pedant. Knowing a factoid is grasping political science?
Anyway Jasper you’ve moved the goalposts. “Public policy in democracies is comparable to bribery: elected officials attempt (almost always successfully in the US) to win reelection by giving voters in their districts what they want.” So the Congresspeople deliver pork to their districts. Yes that’s true. But I thought Jasper we were talking about the incapacity of our unruly democracy to deliver up just rules on issues pertaining to the common wheel–you know, health care, gas taxes, such and such. And you say: if only our Congressman were elected once every four years than the influence of “vociferous constituencies” would be abated and legislative righteousness would flow like a mighty stream.
But you haven’t really explained why this would be so. Factions are generally sectional, meaning that the major regions in this country are ideologically monistic: A congress elected every four years would end up behaving quite a bit like a Senate elected every six, which is to say, a lot like the current House behaves today. On so called national issues Representatives would vote consistently in rough accordance with the economic power and cultural sensibilities of their region. Why would a four year term make it otherwise? If incumbents are elected 90 percent of the time–if the actual constituency is depoliticized and ignorant–if the interest group structure remains wholly in place–if campaigns and parties remain the province of the wealthiest class–if the press and other ideological institutions in this country remain narrow and conservative–if the Congress itself remains a byzantine setting that privileges seniority and rewards conformity…If all these factors remain in place then what precisely changes if two years is added to a Congressional term? If the election itself is pro-forma–if voice is disproportionately in the hands of “an individual with money, or a person with 40 members of Congress in his Rolodex, or a person who interviews presidential candidates” then why with a mere two more years would a Congressperson’s daily calculus be any different than it is now? Why would our politics–”the shadow business casts upon society” (John Dewey)–be fundamentally any different?
And for laughs: “In the United States the political spectrum is wide.”
For instance McCain thinks we should double our forces in Afghanistan while Obama thinks perhaps we should invade Pakistan. Iran: McCain says threaten and cajole, Obama says threaten and cajole in person. Also one loves Israel while the other…does too. But on health care: one is for privatized care and…so is the other. Good thing the Presidency is a four year gig!
October 8th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Matt: A fascinating typo in your comment — or is it a typo? Everyone else will have to be the judge: “satisficing strategy”. You engage here two surprisingly apposite elements: satisfaction and sacrifice. Satisfaction feels good; sacrifice makes us feel like good people.
Missing here is the historical Chinese concept of li, the grace from the heavens that allows a leader to lead. The story goes that every bad last emperor in a dynasty was bad because he had lost his li, proving the heavens had joined the conspiracy to throw the bum out.
In our current state, the ancient Chinese could argue that the Republicans have lost their li. Events are now conspiring against them; McCain has no breaks, while Palin simply gives lines to Tina Fey.
Some may fear how much foam will come to the mouth of our prisoner-in-chief; others may worry that Palin may poke out an eye with those nails when she winks and pistol-shoots her adoring mob.
Between the pair of them, though, I like to think that every day they’re on the trail, they’re both bringing us one step closer to the revolution, when they will get to experience re-education in the bunkhouse where Bill Ayers is the camp counselor.
Now THAT would be awesome…
October 8th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
One other thing, Jasper and Mark: That whole “swing voter” thing. Jon Oliver was so all over that the other night on The Daily Show as senior poll watcher.
Think about it: It’s not like we can’t see a whole lot of light between McCain and Obama. Maybe that’s why so much of our population is so loopy they can’t decide: They’re actually bi-polar.
And whichever one of you said it: Don’t ever call anyone a “pedant”, unless you are entirely, absolutely sure of which you speak. Half the population will put you on the sex offense registration, and the other half — the thought is too ugly to contemplate.
I prefer to think of myself as “donnish”.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Who cares which party dominated for a decade after the mid-30s in various countries? By the late ’40s, every industrialized country in the world had governments that instituted national economic safety nets, national pension systems, and some kind of system of national government-promoted health insurance. To argue that this move towards government guarantees of basic social security was not driven by the Depression and WWII would require Jonah Goldberg-like levels of tortuousness.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:48 am
That said, there’s no question but that the history books will rightly hold Jimmy Carter’s presidency in high regard. To a great extent they already do.
Why?
October 9th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Burritoboy at 24: “there were no conservative Republican Presidents whatsoever from 1932 to 1968″
Couldn’t let this one stand; the figure is actually 1932 to 1980. Neither Nixon nor Ford can plausibly be described as conservative. On most domestic issues Nixon was somewhat to the left of Bill Clinton. He campaigned conservative, but he sure didn’t govern that way.
Jackson at 27: “Satisficing” is a real word. It means going for something adequate, rather than trying to come up with an optimal strategy. Throwing out the idiots who got you into the mess arguably offers better ROI than trying to work through the policy substance.
Odd that there’s so much in the comments about policy, when the whole point of Matt’s post is that people don’t decide on that basis.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
Rockwell Automation, Inc. this morning announced it has reached an agreement to acquire substantially all of the assets and business of Xi’An Hengsheng Science
March 1st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
cialis
I want to say - thank you for this!
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:55 am
levitraVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:11 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:52 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 26th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Nice Nice Nice! I like the drill and the adrenalin from rollercoasters. Please feel to visit my rollercoastersite too. I am also looking for linkexchange partner…
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:44 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Nice post! GA is also my biggest earning. However, it
April 9th, 2009 at 8:05 am
thanks !! very helpful post! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:38 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job!
viagra