Oh Those Wacky Voters

This election night tweet from Ben Casselman of 538 dot com is already famous:

So voters want a higher minimum wage, legal pot, abortion access and GOP representation. Ok then.

This sentiment is poignant and succinct. It gets to the heart of a conundrum about American politics that researchers have been asking for decades. "Why are American attitudes center-left, even social democratic, but they keep electing so-called conservatives?" Or why do the majority of Americans favor liberal policies but keep electing Republicans who do not? We could take one example, hunger, to illustrate the point on an issue that should not be partisan. The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) published a poll on attitudes towards hunger as a social problem in America.

The belief that the government needs to display leadership in the fight against hunger is very strong. More than 80 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Independents look to the federal and local government to lead, and 50 percent of Republicans believe that the federal government has responsibility.

61 percent agree that “we should support and improve government-sponsored food assistance programs so that more people who are struggling can get the help they need.” Eighty-one percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Independents, and 39 percent of Republicans agree with this statement.

People believe that the child nutrition programs – especially school meals and the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program – are leading to better outcomes for children by helping them learn and improving their overall health and well-being. By more than three to one, Americans believe that spending on such programs should increase (50 percent) rather than decrease (15 percent). (emphasis mine)

So a strong majority of Americans believe you should not be on your own in this most basic aspect of life, but nearly 100% of the Republicans sent to congress campaign and win on cutting these very programs with so much support. Ok then.

Sometimes the question is posed as such; why are Democrats so good at governing and so lousy at campaigning, while Republicans are so good at campaigning and lousy at governing? Before attempting to answer we should try to figure out what the two parties stand for and who supports them.

According to Drew Westen in his book The Political Brain, Republicans have a simple storyline about America that is constantly told and retold to the point where we all know it by heart. Government is the problem, free markets are the solution, religion in public life will prevent crime and maintain the traditional family, etc. What story do Democrats tell?

They don't have one. So each election season, Democrats come out of hibernation with consultants in tow to try and figure out what people want and how they should message what they plan to do about it. There is next to no storyline to transmit from one election to another, and the platform to tell that story is practically non-existent. Republicans have the (very profitable) fox news network to keep their story of hate and fear going, along with right-wing radio and publications that keep their "brand" in constant view. A big difference is who each party speaks to and how it is influenced by their governing style.

Republicans govern only those who vote for them, therefore they have a wide range of villains to attack on their way to power. Yoda understands how fear leads to anger and hate on to the dark side, it turns out this path activates authoritarianism as well. So create an enemy, promise to punish that enemy, scare the hell out of people, and present yourself as the only one strong enough to protect the fearful. Why are Republicans so bad at governing or even addressing the problems they manufacture? Because they don't give a shit about governing really, the state is just a giant pile of money to crack open and give to their financial backers. Ok then.

Democrats believe they actually have to govern, and govern the whole nation not only those who agree with or vote for them. Therefore Democrats also campaign in order to represent everyone. Consequently, they regularly throw their liberal base under the bus and cannot have villains in whatever story they come up with to tell voters, nothing is ever their fault the little dears. So if you cannot have bad guys in the story because it would alienate people (the ones who hate you and would never vote for you anyway) and you can't "pander" to the base because it might look like you are doing favors for special interests, what story can you tell? Something vague and pointless about being united, and what ever those expensive consultants can poll-test without alienating anyone. Ok then.

Is it any wonder why voters are schizophrenic?