The Barking Rino #10
Why do
Candidates say the things they say?
In
a recent statewide campaign a viable candidate for governor chose to modify his
position on immigration away from an honest assessment to a position which
aligned with the partisans and activists who promulgate out-of-the-mainstream
ideas. In this situation, Gubernatorial candidate Pete Rickets was accused of
being a “convenient conservative” for properly commenting in his 2006 failed
Senatorial bid that “no one was being sent home” in reference to illegal
immigration. In his 2014 campaign to become the Governor of Nebraska, Ricketts
adopted a more palatable position to most conservative primary voters. Similar
drastic changes in policy positions were seen in Presidential campaigns by
Senator John McCain and Governor Mitt Romney (healthcare).
Why?
Change is a natural by-product of aging. Winston Churchill is quoted as saying, “Show me a young Conservative and I'll
show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you
someone with no brains.” In the game of life these changes which are based
upon life experiences are called, ‘wisdom.’ But in politics we call this ‘flip-flopping.’
Extreme examples of this including Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning’s comments
as a second-year law
student at the University of Nebraska in an Op-Ed for the November 13, 1992
edition of the Daily Nebraskan, when he wrote,
“I think a woman should have a right to choose.”
“I believe in gun control.”
“I believe homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else.”
“I believe in affirmative action. If a woman or a black person takes the place of a white male in a law school entering class, we’re better off.”
“I would love to persuade you that trickle-down economics was a farce or that Ronald Reagan was incapable of understanding complex policy arguments.”
These
are hardly the comments of a “real conservative.” None-the-less, Bruning’s resilience
demonstrates that, in the end, winning the campaign is the only true test that
matters in politics.
A second reason why
candidates say the things they say is that primary campaign rhetoric is not
intended to resonate with the entire voting bloc. Research indicates that in
a primary, due to the traditional low voter turnout, party partisans and
activist make-up a higher percentage of the voting pool than they do in the
larger General Elections. In other words, candidates must make a play for the
fringes of their political spectrum in order to pass on to the General
Election. Said slightly differently, in the primary Republicans will run to the
right while in the General Election candidates run to the middle.
Applying
this logic, if ‘you’ are neither a partisan or an activist, or perhaps even a
party member, then the campaign rhetoric of a primary is not designed to appeal
to you. Consequently, it often doesn’t.
A definition
of political rhetoric is, “Rhetoric
is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers
or speakers that attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences
in specific situations.” Rhetoric and dogma carry a subtle connotation of
dishonesty. Astute political observers will know that campaign rhetoric
tolerates a ‘fast and loose’ use of the facts and a necessity to appeal to the
voters that are most likely to vote. Voters need to remember that the single
goal of candidates is to be elected (Fenno, 2003) . The single purpose
of a political party is to elect members of the party (Growth &
Opportunity Project, 2013) . In other words, basically
any commentary is ‘fair game’ if the result is an Election Day victory.
One need not wonder too hard why, if voter
toleration of empty campaign rhetoric, served up to them because it works by
securing votes, realize that when the candidate is unable to fulfill campaign
promises, they [voters] have the sense that the candidate lied to them.
Obviously the candidate and the polity colluded in a convenient mischaracterization
of the truth based upon the premise that voters want candidates to tell them
what they already believe to be true.
Additionally, if one is unwilling to fully
examine the issue beyond the rhetoric, one settles for undefined campaign
rhetoric. I was read an insightful comment which I am unable to source, “For
every complicated solution there are easy answers: and all of them are wrong.” In
1964 political scientist Phillip Converse suggested that 95% of Americans are
politically ignorant (Converse, 1964). One wonders if he was being generous in
his estimation.
Noted University of Nebraska political
scientist Elizabeth Theiss-Morse theories on ‘in-group rhetoric’ in her book, ‘Who
Counts as an American?’ Her theory suggests that groups are formed based upon
common beliefs and mores. As a member of the group, individuals reiterate
closely held group mantras in order to signify their allegiance as loyal group
members. A component of the group is the sense that “we believe this” and those
that disagree are not group members or, worse yet, disloyal group members. The power
structure of the group is threatened by ideas that challenge the accepted ‘truths’
established and reinforced by the membership (Theiss-Morse, 2009) . We see rhetoric from this echo chamber of
group think with the accepted usage of terms like RINO and “he’s not a real
conservative.”
While groups must have members, and that
membership is glued together by common goals and mission, which is reinforced
by institutional story-telling and shared rhetoric, the danger of course is that
eventually the allure of power demands stricter control of group ideas. An
examination of historical despots demonstrates that as group rhetoric
incrementally evolves, members of the group are willing to accept patently bad
ideas from arguably bad leaders. For example, Iowa Congressman Steve King’s
defense of the right flank of his political campaign with overtly racist
comments.[1]
Another example of bad leadership within the
GOP is Voter ID laws. While the empirical evidence demonstrates that this, at
best, an issue with infinitesimal impact, the larger concern is that to date,
however the rhetoric of the issue is applied, it culminates in an intense alienation
of significant voter blocs. Because this law addresses no demonstrable problem,
and because of the GOP’s sixty-year schism with Black voters, this issue is a
painful reminder of America’s history of Jim Crowe laws. Again, the point is
that seemingly ‘good rhetoric’ that is anchored in past arguments is bad
politics in a modern pluralistic world.
Since in-group criticism results in being
ostracized, one wonders what the value of fair criticism might be. I would
argue that it is an effective methodology to hone campaign rhetoric into viable
political solutions. In Federalist Paper Number Ten, American founder James Madison,
writing under the non deplume Publius, warns readers that factions have the
ability to destroy liberty (Madison, 2010) . I would ask the
reader to question what the function of politics and government is. If
government exists to provider for our wants – then our national, as we know it,
is doomed. If government exists merely to protect our rights and provide for
our needs[2]
then we need to demand that it do so. As ‘conservatives’ venture across our
door-stops and into our bedrooms with their misguided desire to dictate
morality, we may realize that what appeals to social conservatives during
election cycles is in fact striking at the heart of Jefferson’s ideas embodies
in the Declaration of Independence and in the First Amendment, the right of
dissent (Jefferson, 1776) , (Madison, 1791).
Discerning voters will strive to recognize the tension
between the necessity to win elections and the inherent American ideal of
pursuing the truth (An idea I suggest could be arguably equated to “the pursuit
of happiness.”) Elections must be won and it has always been a nasty business.
But when winning elections come at the cost of the pursuit of truth, then what
is the value of supporting ideas that lead us into disharmony and discourse
with foundational American ideals? Seemingly it is now okay to lie as long as
your lies agree with the ones I have chosen to accept.
It is incumbent upon a Lockean Liberal Democracy[3]
(in the classic definition rather than the contemporary definition) to pursue
the truth by challenging bad ideas. Jefferson prescribes revolution when
government pursues unjust actions (Jefferson, 1776). It is no mistake that
Jefferson empowerment of government comes from, “the consent of the governed.”
Our system of governance is dependent upon
debate. Debate not only creates inclusion for a wide variety of voices (which
is especially important is a rapidly changing pluralistic society) but, if
properly respected, intra-party debate can sculpt ideas into winnable solutions
that enhance the individual liberty of all Americans.
In the end, if it is about winning elections, I
would rather see the GOP win because it offers better ideas which have been
vetted and proven. In the party today the current mode is to ostracize the
challenging voices. As party membership declines at a precipitous rate, and
proposed party solutions are ignored[4],
one can recognized that short term political wins are coming at the expense of
long-term viability.
Either we pursue the truth or we abdicate any semblance
of a true Liberal Democracy.
Adler, M. (1981). Six Great Ideas. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The Nature of Belief Systems
in Mass Publics. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 206
- 261.
Fenno, R. F. (2003). Home Style - House Members in
Their Districts. New York: Longman.
Fiorina, M. P. (1989). Congress,Keystone to the
Washington Establishment, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
(2013). Growth & Opportunity Project.
Washington D.C. : The Republican National Committee.
Jefferson, T. (1776, July 4). Declaration of
Independence. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: National Archives .
Locke, J. (2002). The Second Treatise on
Government. Mineola: Dover Thrift Editions.
Madison, J. (1791). The Constitution of the United
States of America. Philadelphia: U.S. Archive.
Madison, J. (2010). Federalist Paper No. 10 . In J.
Madison, A. Hamilton, & J. Jay, The Federalist Papers. New York:
Tribeca Books.
Theiss-Morse, E. (2009). Who Counts as an American?
New York: Cambridge University Press.
[1]
"For every one who's a valedictorian, there's another
hundred out there who weigh 130 pounds and they've got calves the size of
cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.
Those people would be legalized with this same act."
[2]
(Adler, 1981) Tells us that a need
is something that is necessary for survival such as food, water, healthcare,
love, shelter – specifically, if one is deprived of a need, that person will
die.
[3]
(Locke, 2002)
[4]
(Growth & Opportunity Project, 2013)
