As soon as I began reading the Bawn et. al article, I felt a keen similarity between the polarization and lack of voter education discussed in her evidence and the plights the United States faces today.
The political climate of today is highly divisive, and the research in her article well articulates the social science perpetuating these issues. The most common issue to be understood from both a sampling of today’s political climate and “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics” is that of extremism due to unawareness.
Both the authors (as well as post politically-savvy US citizens) defend the political science theory that parties exist to get candidates elected. They are not to be confused with interest groups, lobbyists, activists, or any kind of agenda-pushing group, but especially not the ideologically-sound and -bound policy advocators they often make themselves out to be. The notions of the accountability parties provide to their constituents, or a cohesive ideological rhetoric, or the steadfastness to certain morals are all part of a ruse to illicit voter support. American political parties, since their establishment, have grown as long coalitions and also proponents of specific voter preferences, certainly. Doing so was and is necessary in order to render the support needed for elections, the essence of hopeful party office-holders. Voter needs and support is therefore “catered to” — or at least appears to be. But the evidence in Bawn et al’s article serves to illustrate a great point: that voters who subscribe to this assumption are critically misinformed. The true fundamentals of parties lie elsewhere, and this lack of awareness is identified across the political board: low voter turnout, disinterest in political function, general confusion of political function and party stance, absence of moderates in nomination pools. The ensuing extremism of American politics, which has spiked considerably in the last few decades, can be directly linked to the deficiency in American awareness.
The examples found in Bawn’s article reify the accuracy and relevancy of their findings. In the case of the shepherds, coffee growers, saloon keepers, and clergymen, we can see how party name, coalitions between groups, and what they call “useful fiction” contribute to their electability, which is their ultimate goal. There is historical evidence to support this illustration, especially Van Buren’s influence on the formal formation of the Democratic Party in the 1820’s and FDR’s close association with organized labor leadership during his campaigns and terms in the 1930’s. Furthermore, their inquiry into California state legislators also confirms that office-seekers cater first and foremost to those influencers that can ensure their election, be they interest groups or legislative authorities. In sum, and contrary to public opinion, there is an inverse in candidates’ commitment to causes and subsequent support from that group. This fact completely under-rides what I would argue is the general understanding of parties to the average American voter, who consume the ideology-toting language of campaigns and politicos.
It is difficult for them to identify both the means and ends of politicians, especially considering there is minimal coverage or readily-available media to help voters understand the true nature of parties. Their electoral blindspots are widened even more, in fact, by how media in the United States currently operates. As supported by Bawn et al, news cycles are often misconstruing consumers, as they are overrun with stories featuring the hateful interactions of politicians, even if mixed in with decent coverage. However most citizens are wary of fully trusting news outlets to begin with: because of fear of partisan leanings and consequential inaccuracy, people are frequently slow to accept the reporting they hear. The constancy of the president’s insistance of the presence and horrors of fake news (all the while making plenty of his own inaccurate or falsified claims) doesn’t evoke any rise in public trust of the media. The extremism is a directly fostered detriment of the lack of education and awareness to parties and candidates’ true methods and practices.
In the 2016 presidential campaign, the American people faced a choice unlike any other previous elections, what many qualified as a situation in which they were left to decide on the lesser of two evils With hateful allegations, absurd social media presence, and deep partisanship, candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump fought tooth and nail to tear each other down. Polls show that voters were left either confused or frustrated and therefore apathetic on voting day, or strongly supportive of a certain candidate and reflecting the divisive nature of their nominees. If Americans could understand the political and social science (evidenced in Bawn and others’ studies) of parties, nominees, and the strategies they utilize, there would be an inevitable increase in true electoral accountability.
An important fact to identify with these studies is that methods employed by office-seekers and agenda-pushers are not always done with unethical intentions. There was no party seeking to gain power in order to create an oligarchy or otherwise rule and unfairly influence their fellow citizens in Bawn’s example and likely in many (though not all) cases in American history. Rather, it is paramount that we recognize that this method, according to Bawn’s ample evidence, is used by all parties, groups, or individuals motivated to win office. But voters’ electorate blindspot is perhaps most detrimental when it prevents them from recognizing the true nature of parties: the ultimate goal of self-preservation.
No comments:
Post a Comment