Post Mortem on the 1998 U.S. Elections
***
Bill Clinton emerged from one more difficult challenge, with his political career alive and well. Republicans, who hoped to reap significant benefits from the Monica Lewinski affair were gravely disappointed in the mid-term elections. Why did the American voter not punish Bill Clinton?
The roots of this result lie in the sociological structure underlying the US political system. In Europe, where governments exercise direct control over almost 50% of GDP and regulate to some degree almost every aspect of life, elections are a matter of utmost importance. Every individual can find plenty of issues within the power of government that can directly affect his own welfare. In the US, where the role of government is more limited, elections have a personal significance only for a relatively small portion of society. As a result, in Europe, the silent majority turns out for elections, while in the US it usually does not. In the US, elections are decided not only by the ability of parties to sway more swing voters their way but also by the ability of parties to get a higher turnout from their die hard constituency.
At a turnout of 37%, Americans who vote Democrat are not at the polls due to their personal like or dislike of President Clinton. They are the trade union members, civil servants, teachers and lawyers. They are the women, blacks and hispanics which have personal issues at stake. Bill Clinton sleeping with Monica Lewinski is not the main concern of a black youth not being able to go to the University of California due to the abolishing of affirmative action. Whether Bill Clinton slept with Monica Lewinski or not, a woman in favor of abortion rights will not vote for a Republican who is against abortion rights. Most women will concentrate not on whether Bill Clinton’s actions with Monica Lewinski is demeaning to all women, but rather on what will happen to her life if Republicans outlaw abortion.
The swing voters generally do not participate in size in US elections. However there is undoubtedly a certain percentage that do, and it may also be useful to analyze their motivation in this particular election. Even if most of the Democratic support in this election comes from a higher turnout among die hard supporters, there may have been some help from swing voters. Let’s concentrate on three kinds of swing voters: The socially liberal, economically libertarian group, the socially conservative supporters of the welfare state and the true centrists.
Bill Clinton in some ways exemplifies the American dream. He comes from a disadvantaged background. He was a poor but talented youth gradually climbing the steps leading to power. The lower and lower middle class white population, which is socially conservative but at the same time benefits from the welfare state is where Clinton came from. They may identify with him much more than any other social group. They were not pleased with the intensity of the attack against him.
The people out there who are social liberals and economic libertarians often have a difficult choice between the two parties. This group includes, among others, the well-to-do black or hispanic professionals, the suburban intellectuals, the well-to-do gay professionals, the upper-middle class single mothers and the housewives who were students in the 1960s. The aggressive campaign to oust President Clinton may have significantly affected the voting pattern of this group. The Republicans, focusing on President Clinton’s shortcomings more than cutting taxes, may have led this group to believe that their social conservatism is much more deep-rooted than their economic libertarianism.
Finally, the true centrists. These are often the people who don’t have strong ideological convictions but vote exclusively on issues. They jumped on the Republican bandwagon in 1994 because of their clear commitment to issues. Now they leave the bandwagon as the commitment to concrete issues on the Republican side has withered away.
Republicans rose to power on the promise of lower taxes and freedom of choice in schools. Republican governors who implemented these promises won hands down in this election. However, the Republican Congress of 1996 got their priorities mixed up just like the 1992 Democratic Congress. In the face of strong support from the public, politicians sometimes assume that the public agrees with their convictions. More often than not, the public actually agrees with their agenda. After 1992, Democrats who promised a better future for the middle class decided to put more priority on providing healthcare for the poor. They got punished immediately. After 1996, Republicans who promised lower taxes and school choice decided to put more priority on the integrity of President Clinton. This issue was already “priced in” by people who voted President Clinton into office in 1996. As a result, the Republicans got punished unexpectedly.
Politics and political philosophy are different disciplines. Philosophical stance is a complex concept. Even simple words can be defined quite differently by different people. It is very hard to be sure whether the public is in tune with a politician’s philosophy. It is much easier to check whether they agree with his agenda. Confronted with the question whether an electorate which has voted him agrees with his philosophical stance or his agenda, a politician is almost always better off choosing his agenda. Making concrete promises and sticking to them wins votes. Rediscovering ideological zeal right after an election loses votes.
The extensive coverage given to the Monica Lewinski affair in the media led many people to despair about the state of the American society. The elections of 1998 can be considered a relief from this perspective. The clear lack of interest of voters on the affair and the clear focus on issues may indicate that it is the media and not the voters at large who are unnecessarily preoccupied with scandals. Let us hope that both political parties get the message.
***
Bill Clinton emerged from one more difficult challenge, with his political career alive and well. Republicans, who hoped to reap significant benefits from the Monica Lewinski affair were gravely disappointed in the mid-term elections. Why did the American voter not punish Bill Clinton?
The roots of this result lie in the sociological structure underlying the US political system. In Europe, where governments exercise direct control over almost 50% of GDP and regulate to some degree almost every aspect of life, elections are a matter of utmost importance. Every individual can find plenty of issues within the power of government that can directly affect his own welfare. In the US, where the role of government is more limited, elections have a personal significance only for a relatively small portion of society. As a result, in Europe, the silent majority turns out for elections, while in the US it usually does not. In the US, elections are decided not only by the ability of parties to sway more swing voters their way but also by the ability of parties to get a higher turnout from their die hard constituency.
At a turnout of 37%, Americans who vote Democrat are not at the polls due to their personal like or dislike of President Clinton. They are the trade union members, civil servants, teachers and lawyers. They are the women, blacks and hispanics which have personal issues at stake. Bill Clinton sleeping with Monica Lewinski is not the main concern of a black youth not being able to go to the University of California due to the abolishing of affirmative action. Whether Bill Clinton slept with Monica Lewinski or not, a woman in favor of abortion rights will not vote for a Republican who is against abortion rights. Most women will concentrate not on whether Bill Clinton’s actions with Monica Lewinski is demeaning to all women, but rather on what will happen to her life if Republicans outlaw abortion.
The swing voters generally do not participate in size in US elections. However there is undoubtedly a certain percentage that do, and it may also be useful to analyze their motivation in this particular election. Even if most of the Democratic support in this election comes from a higher turnout among die hard supporters, there may have been some help from swing voters. Let’s concentrate on three kinds of swing voters: The socially liberal, economically libertarian group, the socially conservative supporters of the welfare state and the true centrists.
Bill Clinton in some ways exemplifies the American dream. He comes from a disadvantaged background. He was a poor but talented youth gradually climbing the steps leading to power. The lower and lower middle class white population, which is socially conservative but at the same time benefits from the welfare state is where Clinton came from. They may identify with him much more than any other social group. They were not pleased with the intensity of the attack against him.
The people out there who are social liberals and economic libertarians often have a difficult choice between the two parties. This group includes, among others, the well-to-do black or hispanic professionals, the suburban intellectuals, the well-to-do gay professionals, the upper-middle class single mothers and the housewives who were students in the 1960s. The aggressive campaign to oust President Clinton may have significantly affected the voting pattern of this group. The Republicans, focusing on President Clinton’s shortcomings more than cutting taxes, may have led this group to believe that their social conservatism is much more deep-rooted than their economic libertarianism.
Finally, the true centrists. These are often the people who don’t have strong ideological convictions but vote exclusively on issues. They jumped on the Republican bandwagon in 1994 because of their clear commitment to issues. Now they leave the bandwagon as the commitment to concrete issues on the Republican side has withered away.
Republicans rose to power on the promise of lower taxes and freedom of choice in schools. Republican governors who implemented these promises won hands down in this election. However, the Republican Congress of 1996 got their priorities mixed up just like the 1992 Democratic Congress. In the face of strong support from the public, politicians sometimes assume that the public agrees with their convictions. More often than not, the public actually agrees with their agenda. After 1992, Democrats who promised a better future for the middle class decided to put more priority on providing healthcare for the poor. They got punished immediately. After 1996, Republicans who promised lower taxes and school choice decided to put more priority on the integrity of President Clinton. This issue was already “priced in” by people who voted President Clinton into office in 1996. As a result, the Republicans got punished unexpectedly.
Politics and political philosophy are different disciplines. Philosophical stance is a complex concept. Even simple words can be defined quite differently by different people. It is very hard to be sure whether the public is in tune with a politician’s philosophy. It is much easier to check whether they agree with his agenda. Confronted with the question whether an electorate which has voted him agrees with his philosophical stance or his agenda, a politician is almost always better off choosing his agenda. Making concrete promises and sticking to them wins votes. Rediscovering ideological zeal right after an election loses votes.
The extensive coverage given to the Monica Lewinski affair in the media led many people to despair about the state of the American society. The elections of 1998 can be considered a relief from this perspective. The clear lack of interest of voters on the affair and the clear focus on issues may indicate that it is the media and not the voters at large who are unnecessarily preoccupied with scandals. Let us hope that both political parties get the message.
posted by Ümit Kumcuoğlu at 11:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home