November 3, 2007
View Comments | Post CommentCandidates' Public Views vs. Private Views
Jeff wrote the following comment on my previous post about the apparent close clustering of major political candidates around a narrow range of views:
I have to doubt the methods the Political Compass people are using here. Do they try to infer the positions of candidates from their public statements? If so, how? And how do they add a "strongly" to a particular issue stance?I definitely wonder because I don't think I'm more of a social libertarian than Rep. Paul. Or at least not that much more. The economic thing seems pretty spot-on... just not sure about the up-down scale here.
Oh yeah, and how the heck is Rudolph the Red-Faced Mayor (one of the most strident authoritarians out there) near the "libertarian" end of the Republican spectrum?
Jeff, you're right. There is absolutely no way for them to grade the candidates without the candidates themselves taking the quiz (or at least someone from their campaigns who can authoritatively say whether Barack Obama merely agrees, or strongly agrees that "There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment"). And we can easily quibble about where they've put each candidate on the Compass. But in general, I think they're right. At least according to the candidates public, election-time personae. All the candidates ARE authoritarian right, as long as there is a camera around.
As I said above, candidates stated positions and views don't necessarily reflect their actual, personal beliefs. But--here's the interesting thing--we as a nation are actually very good at seeing through candidates' position statements to intuit what kind of people they really are. We may not be a nation of thinkers, but we are a nation of intuiters, and as Colbert might accurately point out, our gut instincts and hunches about people define our views about them. It's why everyone still thinks Hillary Clinton is really liberal even though her positions are mostly fairly conservative. She probably is actually very liberal, but the political expediencies of the last ten years have driven her public positions far rightward, in order to "overcome" the political liability that is her actual mindset.
Consider this question from the Political Compass quiz, for instance: "Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified." Do you really believe for a second that Barack Obama wants to answer anything but "Strongly Disagree?" I don't. But he has to seem "tough" and assure the nation that he would protect us, even if France or whatever says we can't. Because even though we are good at reading people, we are idiots. So if the candidates were publicly taking the Political Compass exam, as opposed to their private answers for what they really believe, every single one of the Democrats except maybe Kucinich and Gravel would put "Agree," and every single one of the Republicans would put "Strongly Agree." Privately, I'm sure their views span the whole spectrum.
We have a political culture of disingenuity, and we have good enough intuition that we all know it. But no one knows what to do about it, because they're all afraid that the next President might confiscate all their Bibles, or might institute a draft for a war against doctors who perform abortions. Nearly everyone in this country can plainly see that every major candidate is being disingenuous at least 95% of the time. But what can we do?
Anyone Type A enough to have the sort of political career that puts them in contention for the Presidency is just not the type of person to have moderate views on everything. But no one with immoderate views on even a single issue can even dream of getting elected in this country. Privately, we all have somewhat "extreme" views on some issues. But politicians can't afford non-homogeneity. If an honest politician actually came along and tried to run for President, giving real answers to all the questions he gets asked, he would instantly be labeled as crazy and extreme on most issues. We want honesty, but we want a "normal" candidate even more. America fetishizes normalcy. And I have no idea how the situation can ever get any better.
Posted at November 3, 2007 1:00 AM | Comments (5)
Comments
Post a new comment
It's why everyone still thinks Hillary Clinton is really liberal even though her positions are mostly fairly conservative. She probably is actually very liberal, but the political expediencies of the last ten years have driven her public positions far rightward, in order to "overcome" the political liability that is her actual mindset.
But if her public positions are the ones that she will enact into policy, it's pretty much irrelevant what her personal political views are, no? I doubt that Hillary, after spending twenty years as a DLC loyal, is just aching for the chance to get into office and enact universal health care coverage and raise the capital gains tax. And I can't think of a president off the top of my head who didn't govern with the same tone and political philosophy that they campaigned on.
Posted by: Zhubin at November 5, 2007 3:34 PM
But if her public positions are the ones that she will enact into policy, it's pretty much irrelevant what her personal political views are, no?
Yes. I didn't mean that it's a good thing that we vote based on what candidates' personal beliefs are. The winning candidates continue being disingenuous right on through their terms. Like I said, I think it's a huge problem, but I have no solution to propose.
Posted by: Barzelay at November 5, 2007 3:48 PM
And I can't think of a president off the top of my head who didn't govern with the same tone and political philosophy that they campaigned on.
I think our current president falls into this category.
Posted by: lsmsrbls at November 6, 2007 10:44 AM
I dunno. I haven't seen all that much difference in Bush's governing style from what I would have predicted during the 2000 elections. Admittedly, Bush did campaign on the whole "compassionate conservative" thing, but who didn't see right through that?
Posted by: Mike at November 6, 2007 12:28 PM
He also ran on a policy of having a "humble foreign policy." Oops.
Posted by: Jacob at November 6, 2007 4:14 PM
