The New York Times article “Can Republicans Win by Just Saying No?” by Blake Hounshell and Leah Askarinam examines the strategies contemporary politicians act upon to effectively transmute their ideals and message to the public in a manner that raises the support of the politician and/or party. The notion is posed that, rather than traditional use of detailed policy planning to communicate the political agenda of the party, it is more useful to simply “point to voters’ frustrations with the high prices of gasoline and groceries,” in other words evoke emotion out of the citizens, in order for them to side with the agenda of the political party—more specifically, the Republican party. Because of this change in preference of tactic, Askarinam and Hounshell imply that “as a political strategy… no plan probably beats a plan” [1]. This exact conclusion poses a serious issue and leads to heavy inquiry about the state of political discussion and action within the United States. The key points and claims of this article highlight a critical component of ideological liberal democracy that is currently being—or, possibly, has been—lost in the United States, furthermore revealing the destructive democratic erosion occurring within contemporary United States politics: the ability to discuss political agenda without manipulative, corrupt rhetoric. This post will cover the inherent values and inner workings of pure democracy, why they are important for the political system, and how they have been lost in the realm of modern United States political affairs, especially through populist rhetoric.
As political scientist Robert Dahl has mentioned in his analyses of democracies and their true meaning and purpose, inherent in democracy is conflict [2]. A balanced democracy will, naturally, have opposing sides, but there will be healthy discourse of logic and reason in order for the public to discern what position is truly in the best interest for the common people. A thorough and true discourse of this matter must come from a place where there is detailed policy and reasoning as to why such policy exists, as well as why it is of more benefit to the public for such policy to be enacted instead of the agenda of the contrasting party (like Senator Rick Scott is originally planning on proposing [1]). When political affairs are treated as an intellectual matter that ought to have policies and thoughts dissected, the consensus from the public will most likely portray one of true general welfare, or common good, based on the valuable discourse provided.
However, when Republican strategists like Corry Bliss are exclaiming that the planning of policy and agenda, as well as its deliberation to citizens, as unnecessary [1], it is apparent how the values of United States democracy have been skewed to the point where emotional rhetoric is enough to mobilize the public into action, without them taking a step back to truly analyze the presented agenda with its future implications. This reality, where stark emotions such as rage and heavy dissatisfaction take control over the public in political affairs, unfortunately illustrates the erosion of democracy and its original purposes and systems within the United States.
Political parties—in this context, the Republican party—are violating the critical democratic norm of mutual tolerance, which grants the opposing party value, credibility, and the position of an equal in the political spectrum [3], through the invalidation of said party via rhetoric. There have been numerous times when former President Donald Trump has instigated within his audience a feeling of hatred and disgust towards the opposing party, with the belief that said party is working towards the detriment of that audience, therefore kicking the Democrats off any sort of valid platform. Even the New York Times articles illustrates the position (from a Republican historian) that the best option for Republican political figures is to “criticize rather than be specific about… remedies” [1]. These tactics can be defined as those of populist rhetoric, which redirect blame and responsibility from the populist, in addition to the delegitimization of the opposing party and use of pathos-oriented persuasion [4].
The extreme populist position held by the way certain Republican political figures handle their affairs in no way embodies a righteous and honest form of democratic norms. The inability all political positions to unanimously agree on the importance of logos-oriented discourse regarding the inherent, unstoppable conflict between the political parties clearly exhibits the erosion of, arguable, one of the most important components of what is to be considered a true democracy.
It is absolutely crucial for these realizations about the current state of the United States political sphere to be made, and for such realizations to be discussed between peers and citizens nationwide, for it is only the general public who can truly advocate and push for an actual consolidation of original, beneficial democratic norms in the country, positively impacting the generations (and future discourses on policies) to come.
Works Cited
[1] Hounshell, Blake, and Leah Askarinam. “Can Republicans Win by Just Saying No?” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 31, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/31/us/politics/republican-midterm-strategy.html. [2] Dahl, R. (1972). Polyarchy Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press. [3] Levitsky, S. & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown publishing. [4] Müller, Jan-Werner. 2016. What is populism?
The author argues that politicians political agenda to educate people about policies isn’t employed anymore. Rather, politicians draw the voters to where the problems lie and who is to blame, this evokes a more emotional response that gains votes. The author then describes the values and workings of pure democracy and explains how they have been lost, mainly through populist rhetoric. I agree with the author’s argument about the decline of political discourse and therefore, the decline in the quality of democracy. This post will look at why political discourse has declined and the role of information processing.
The first reason political discourse has decreased in quality is because of voter unsophistication. Voters susceptible to misinformation because finding good and truthful information is hard. Moreover, being a good democratic citizen has an expensive cost, therefore, it is only natural that citizens will use shortcuts. Some shortcuts are: to trust media coverage and to take the easy route and follow or retrieve information from only one source. One significant shortcut is to use networks. Achen and Bartels examined democratic accountability in the context of natural disasters [1]. They found that Woodrow Wilson lost votes after shark attacks which he couldn’t have been able to respond to or prevent. Because of the devastation of the attacks, nearby counties blamed Wilson for it and he suffered for it in the elections that came by shortly after. This is called retrospective voting, where recent events seem much louder, and this works for both the inappropriate attribution of blame as well as praise.
One important note that Achen and Bartels make is that networks play a big role in this attribution. The example that they make is when locusts infested crops in an agricultural area. The governor sent the national guard to disperse chemicals to help, so the crops wouldn’t be destroyed, however they were never dispersed. He was never punished for the catastrophe even though he could have done something to mitigate it. The authors explain this by saying it occurred in a rural area, where the houses and people are more dispersed, therefore, there wasn’t a narrative to replicate to others. Ultimately, shortcuts pose a threat to healthy political discourse because they present an opportunity for politicians to take advantage of it. One flaw of democracy is that it encourages a fragmented fiscal policy where politicians are just trying to appeal to voters rather than looking for long-term benefits.
A second reason explaining the decline of political discussion is polarization and partisan antipathy. Social and political identity affect how facts are understood or interpreted because people surround themselves with people they agree with. This creates an echo chamber effect where people hear facts that reinforce beliefs but are not necessarily factual. Moreover, social identity holds a lot of power in society. Social identity can be more powerful than objective information, such as credentials for a job [2]. The inherit trait of competition and conflict in democracy only intensify when social identity affects the way one interprets information, causing more resentment and polarization. If one is presented with information that agrees with the social and political identity, they will use it to reinforce their beliefs. However, if someone is given information that goes against their beliefs, even if it is factual, the backfire effect takes place. This means the person will actively reject that information and will more adamantly be committed to their beliefs. This effect is what makes correcting misinformation complicated and difficult.
Misinformation is dangerous because it is hard to prevent. It can be prevented if someone with credibility in the group holding that social identity goes against the misinformation. However, this is only allowed if we have professional and strong political parties who will not use the shortcuts citizens employ to their advantage [3]. Joanne Miller investigated motivated reasoning and conspiracy endorsement [4]. She argues that even though conspiracy theories are extreme, they extend to all people. Ultimately, Miller found the knowledge enhances endorsement of conspiracy theories among conservatives. Moreover, people who had high knowledge and low trust, presented the highest level of conservative conspiracy theories. These findings emphasize the difference between a person who is misinformed and one who is uninformed. A highly knowledgeable misinformed person is more active, especially acting on information that comes from conspiracy theories. Therefore, they will be more politically active than the uninformed. Moreover, a misinformed person will act on the false information and will be more susceptible to populist rhetoric that agrees with their social identity.
[1] Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M. Democracy For Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2017.
[2] Iyengar, Shanto, and Westwood, Sean J. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science, 2015.
[3] Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. London: Crown Books, 2018.
[4] Miller, Joanne M., Saunders, Kyle L., and Farhart, Christina E. “Conspiracy Endorsement as Motivated Reasoning: The Moderating Roles of Political Knowledge and Trust” American Journal of Political Science, 2016.