A recently published book, Democracy For Realists: Why Elections Do not Produce Responsive
Governments (Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels (“A&B”),
Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, April 2016) analyzes data on the
nature of voting and democracy in America and other countries from the early
1900’s through 2012. Much of they find isn’t anywhere close to what people believe
about the elements of democracy under the folk theory, e.g., where sovereignty
resides, “the will of the people”, or the true nature of voters’ role in democracy.
A&B, both social scientists, have found that most American's vision of what democracy is has little to do with the reality of democracy. Instead of ideology and logic defining voter's political beliefs, party affiliation and voting preferences, the evidence points instead to people's social identities. Due to their misunderstanding, frustrated voters try to “fix” certain aspects of democracy by, e.g., imposing term limits or resorting to state level ballot measures. Analysis of the data suggests that those measures mostly backfire and tend to shift power from voters to special interests. The key lesson this book has to teach is that fixing democracy requires understanding it first.
The folk theory of democracy
The common perception holds that the people elect their
leaders at the polls and then hold them accountable for representing their
will. The folk theory is appealing because it puts the will of the people and
their interests at the heart of government. Sovereignty resides with the people
who control the agenda. Voters act as government watchdogs to enforce shared
values and curb abuses. Voters correct their mistakes or punish failure at the
polls by changing governments, while rewarding competence with continued time
in power.
My guess is that many readers would at least suspect that
the there’s something not quite right with the folk theory. For example, many people
believe that one or both parties and the will of the people are often or
usually co-opted by special interests backed by money in politics. That’s out
of synch with the common perception of democracy. Those people would be correct
in their suspicions.
If the current election season is any indication, most
Americans are pretty unhappy with the state of affairs in their democracy. They
see something wrong. So do A&B:
“One consequence of our reliance on old definitions is that
the modern American does not look at democracy before he defines it; he defines
it first and then is confused by what he sees. We become cynical about
democracy because the public does not act the way the simplistic definition of
democracy says it should act, or we try to whip the public into doing things it
does not want to do, is unable to do, and has too much sense to do. The crisis
here is not a crisis in democracy but a crisis in theory.”
Give that observation a moment to sink in. Don’t overlook
the phrase “is unable to do.” That reflects the reality that most people (>
90% ?) don’t pay attention to politics, often can’t pay attention and are
biologically too limited to understand what’s going on even if they tried:
“. . . . the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of
mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and
analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the
sphere of his real interests. . . . cherished ideas and judgments we bring to
politics are stereotypes and simplifications with little room for adjustment as
the facts change. . . . . the real environment is altogether too big, too
complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal
with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations.
Although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a
simpler model before we can manage it.”
From the biological point of view, that’s reality, not a
criticism of people or their limitations. Almost everything in politics, if not
everything, is more complex than people give it credit for. And, most if it is
either at least partially hidden from the public, distorted in the name of “free
speech”, or both.
It is hard to understate the role of cognitive biology and
associated human behavior in politics. A&B point out that “a democratic
theory worthy of serious social influence must
engage with the findings of modern social science.” Although A&B’s book
dissects democratic theory and analyzes mountains of science and history data
from the last hundred years or so, the exercise is really about analyzing the
role of human cognitive biology as it pertains to how democracy works. Our
beliefs about democracy are shaped much more by human biology than political
theory.
In Democracy for
Realists, A&B assert that democratic theory has to adapt to the reality
of what democracy is. That directly reflects the necessity of understanding
human biology by analyzing the data.
Two points exemplify the case that this is about human
biology first and what political theory needs to do to be helpful. The first
point is that the “will of the people” that’s so central to the folk theory is
a myth. There is no such thing as the will of the people. The people are divided
on most everything and they usually don’t know what they want.
For example, voter opinions can be very sensitive to
variation how questions are worded. This reflects a powerful cognitive bias
called framing effects. Marketers and politicians are acutely aware of
unconscious biases and they
use them with a vengeance to get what they want.
For example in one 1980’s survey, about 64% said there was
too little federal spending on “assistance to the poor” but only about 23% said that there was too little
spending on “welfare.” The 1980s was the decade when vilification of “welfare”
was common from the political right. Before the 1991 Gulf War, about 63% said
they were willing to “use military force”, but less than 50% were willing to
“engage in combat”, while less than 30% were willing to “go to war.” Again, the
overwhelmingly subjective nature of political concepts is obvious, i.e.,
assistance vs. welfare and military force vs. combat vs. war. Where is the will
of the people in any of this? If it is there, what is it?
Serving the will of the people under the folk theory of
democracy is often hard or impossible because there’s often no way to know what
it is.
The second point is that voters usually don’t rationally
hold politicians accountable for failure or reward them for success. People don’t
logically distinguish success from failure. A&B point out that politicians
are routinely voted out of office for things they cannot logically be held
accountable for. For example, droughts, floods and an increase in shark attacks
(yes, shark attacks) routinely cost incumbent presidents significant numbers of
votes.
On economic issues, voters only consider a few months
leading up to an election to decide if a president or party has done well. Data
analysis suggests that if the 1938 recession had occurred two years earlier,
FDR would not have been reelected and the New Deal would have ended. Similar
“myopic” voting in the 1930s occurred in other countries and ideology had
nothing to do with it. Perceptions of success and failure dominated voting in
response to the Great Depression, not anything else.
That voting behavior contradicts the notion that voters rationally
reward success and punish failure. In other words, politicians have little
incentive to adhere to the folk theory. They know that their own success and
failure can easily depend on things outside their control. That’s another key
aspect of the folk theory that the data blows to smithereens.
If democracy is so strange, then what’s the point of doing
more research? A&B give compelling reasons. They argue that “the mental
frameworks” that both liberals and conservatives employ can be defended “only
by willful denial of a great deal of credible evidence . . . . intellectual
honesty requires all of us to grapple with the corrosive implications of that
evidence for our understanding of democracy.”
Social identity & flawed fixes
Collectively, A&B see the data as showing that most
voters vote less on policy preferences or ideology, and more on who they are or
their social identities. For most voters, social identity shapes most thinking
and voting behavior. That largely “reflects and reinforces social loyalties.”
A&B observe that our flawed perception of democracy led to failed remedies to reform it. Such fixes, including term limits and state level ballot initiatives, often undercut what people want from their democracy. Instead of acting to make democracy fit the theory, “more democracy” fixes that voters keep trying usually shift power to organized special interests. That outcome is precisely what voters did not want.
Why understanding democracy is critical
The point is clear. If you don’t understand how and why
democracy works, you can’t change what you don’t like about it. Therefore, go
figure out what democracy really is, not what one thinks it is or should be.
A&B have gone a long way toward pointing out how and why it works. However,
solutions to democracy issues are not clear. It may require years of empirical
trial and error. Despite the surprising nature of democracy, A&B point to a
more rational understanding of how things work. That is encouraging. The
disappointment is that solutions are not obvious.
DP repost: 4/1/20
DP repost: 4/1/20
No comments:
Post a Comment