Ideology in Japan, and Professor Munger's Fabulous Hair

In a book by Hinich and Munger (pictured), the median voter theorem is challenged by the political constraints ideology places on politicians and the advantages that same ideology can provide.  This concept explains elections and partisanship much more efficiently than the median voter theorem.  Ideology may be defined as a combination of a system of morality, opinion on where power should reside, and opinion on the role of the state in maintaining society.  Ideologies place value judgments on things; they label things 'good' and 'bad.'  This naturally makes it difficult for politicians of diametrically opposed ideologies to compromise on issues, because it looks to voters as if their representative is making a deal with the devil.  Politicians use ideology as a means to gain voters trust, and that the politicians' ability to act within ideological constraints is indicative of how trustworthy they are.  Because politicians gain reliability by their actions in office, it is difficult for a challenger to prove her commitment to an ideology if she has never been in office, or has been out of power.

Based on what I've just summarized, it seems difficult for a politician to hop parties.  For example, a neo-conservative would have a hard time jumping into the Democratic Party.  And then telling Debbie Wasserman Schultz to go find a new job, because he just took hers.  But that is more or less what Ozawa Ichiro did.  He left the LDP in the early 90s and became the head of the (opposition party) DPJ 13 years later.  Nor was Ozawa the only politician to defect from the LDP and emerge in another party.



(Imagine Sarah Palin running as a Democrat.)


There are some ways in which Japanese politicians do follow Hinich and Munger's theories.  Compromise is still difficult.  The Japanese Constitution has never been amended, although several politicians (including Ozawa) have submitted amendments so that the Constitution explicitly allows for a military force.  Japanese politicians are split because of differences in opinion; should Japan continue to rely on American military force? or should Japan take increased responsibility and become liable to assist America in potential future military conflict?

Such issues divide Japanese politics and Japanese political parties in particular.  One of the reasons why some of Hinich and Munger's theories do not appear to apply to Japan on the surface is that Japan's parties are highly factionalized.  Within the LDP are three major factions, one of which favors continued dependence on American military force and opposes rewarding white collar workers' overtime pay, while another favors domestic defense industry and the other supports white collar workers.  Naturally, the ideology within the party as a whole is not as well-defined as it is in a political party in America.



Hinich, Melvin J. and Michael C. Munger. 1994. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Krauss, Ellis S. and Robert J. Pekkanen. 2010. The Rise and Fall of Japan's LDP: political party organizations as historical institutions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Is Mitt Romney Conservative?

There have been many claiming that Mitt Romney is not a true conservative. Although he has remained a frontrunner for the majority of the race, there have been continual waves of popularity from his opponents, pitting themselves as the more conservative alternative. This has raised some question of Romney’s ideological stance. However, when looking at the personality profile of Romney, he scores higher on the conservative scale than even the nation’s last republican president, George W. Bush.

In a study[1] of personality verses party organization Dana Carney, John Jost , Samuel Gosling, and Jeff Potter tested recent and past theories of personality traits of liberals and conservatives. Their findings built upon these theories which suggested that there is a direct correlation between personality and party preference. Their findings show that conservatives tend to score very high in conscientiousness and organization, while liberals score higher in regards to openness to new experiences. In 2008 the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University performed a study[2] on the personality profile of all the potential presidential candidates, which included Mitt Romney. Romney’s profile showed that his personality was very conscientious, closed-minded, dignified, dependable, and organized. According to Carney et al, these traits suggest that Romney has a conservative personality. Another study[3] in 2000 showed that George W. Bush, in comparison to Romney, was more adventurous, open-minded, and risk-taking; contrasting with Al Gore who was more conscientious, and closed-minded. Bush had a more liberal personality, yet he took the party nomination and later the presidency.

Doubts that Romney is conservative have come from his being governor of a liberal leaning state, as well as his change in stance on various issues. This could be explained by his strong drive to lead. Eric Marchant (2008) suggests that Mitt Romney is an ENTJ brain type in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. This brain type is known as “the commander”. The personality is very organized, success driven, and strong in leadership. Marchant suggests that “they cannot, not lead”[4]. This could suggest why Romney has flip-flopped on certain issues, because the different situations in which he was leading could have caused him to shift his views in order to better gain support from those he was leading or attempting to lead. After reviewing the evidence, however, when it comes to personality, Romney lies with conservatives.

---

[1] Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J (2008). The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807-840.

[2] http://www1.csbsju.edu/uspp/Romney/Romney_Lundstrum_1-11-2008.html

[3] http://www1.csbsju.edu/uspp/Bush/Political-Personality.html

[4] http://www.mlm.com/articles/view/personality-styles-of-the-presidential-candidates-2-of-series/print

How to please a happy people

The Swedish Government has little changed over the past 65-70 years. Its people enjoy a luxury that very few other countries enjoy: satisfaction. Minor changes have been made here and there to accommodate new voices, and only recently has a major opponent provided a staunch contrast to the status quo. In the case of Sweden, we see that ideology theory proposed by political theorists Hinich and Munger work both ways in an election: preserve incumbents and establish a presence for a challenger.

Ideology, as Hinich and Munger explain, ultimately paves the path of a candidate. An ideology will make or break a candidate based on the doctrines they proclaim and their ability and willingness to follow through on their ideology. Sweden provides an interesting dilemma though and even brings some range of disagreement with Hinich and Munger.

The Social Democratic Party, after decades in power has held firm to its ideals; by so doing, this party has proven its reliability, giving a populous no reason to deny them power. The Moderate party, the Social Democrats major competitor, holds very different views on numerous topics compared to their counterpart. And though they challenge a system that seems to be working, they are gaining legitimacy. But why is this so?

If you look at the current state of affairs of Sweden, the economy is suffering, and the EU has to seriously intervene. The people need a new approach to overcome their plight. One problem is that the most conventional means of accomplishing economic stability are out of the question. The welfare state MUST stay. According to the New York Times, there even “…used to be a maxim in Swedish politics that you never won elections by offering to lower taxes…that was because people would suspect that you were going to cut the welfare state. There has been a change, but people still believe in the welfare system.” The Moderate party has taken an ideological stance that adopts approaches seen across the world as more free-market, internationally friendly, and so forth. This has been seen as a more reliable means of success. So even though the ideology has remained the same for decades and proven to be very good for the people, as soon as its reliability falters, new, credible options do become available. This proves Hinich and Munger’s principles that ideology is everything, even if the Moderate party has to compromise to preserve the welfare state.

Old PUP...New PUP...Same PUP!

The Peoples United Party (PUP) are talking about big additions to Belize in the coming years: a new cruise port, a new hotel, a new conference center. With a population of only 260,000 these certainly are big, and expensive, additions. The problem is, these things were also being talked about 10 years ago after the PUP had already been in power for 4 years. So why hasn’t Belize seen them yet? The buildings may not be there but the debt for them most certainly is. In 2007 the PUP defaulted on its $3 billion dollar debt (up from $500 million in ’98 when they took power) to its foreign debt services. Oppositionists believe the bulk of their investments went to PUP cronies whose businesses later failed leaving projects unfinished and the government with the debt. Now the PUP wants to build a Convention Center that the brother of an ex PUP leader just happens to be heavily invested in after his previous government funded ventures failed. In his book Why Parties James Aldrich discusses the many reasons why political parties are thought to exist; is it for the voter’s benefit, for the government system to work smoothly, for the sake of gaining real power. In the end Aldrich argues that political parties are purely for the benefit of the candidates themselves. Thinking about if there were no political parties every candidate would have to spell out his stance on every issue for voters to know how he thought and how he would govern. Candidates would have to raise their own funds and get their own exposure with no help from the resources of a party. It also eases mobilizing voters as they will be wiling to vote for a candidate whose positions they can assume by party logo. But is the lack of familiarity with lawmakers and the ease of candidate campaigning and reelection which comes from parties really good governing. The failed ventures and lack of responsibility demonstrated by the PUP would suggest otherwise.

Australia's Green Party - "Growing Pains?"

The Australian Green Party has seen significant growth recently. In the past election alone, they’ve increased their seats in Congress from 6 to 9. They now have the support of almost 12 percent of the population, and have now emerged as the third largest party in Australia. With Australia operating under a proportional election system, this means something.

However, the Green Party’s success is not without its “growing pains.” In an effort to grow the party, the Greens have expanded their platform from its original stance on protecting the environment, to incorporating other issues of interest among the Australian electorate. In this effort to grow the party, a growing rift is forming from within. The leftist Greens remain staunch on the party’s original value of environmental protection, but the moderate Greens are moving toward the center, compromising on less than ideal policies to get something rather than nothing.

It can be thought that this movement to the center is an attempt by Green party members to get the swing vote on the party lines between the Green party and the Labor party in an effort to grow the party. Refer to the following graph:

If the electoral distribution is like that of a bell curve, it can be argued that growth in the Green party is primarily along the line between the Green Party and Labor party. The recent growth within the party is due to the willingness of party members to shift ideology further right, appealing to more voters. Party leaders have admitted they are pursuing a course toward replacing the current major parties in office. They want to see their party become the dominant party in Australia. However, critics of the party claim that party support is nearing its peak. According to the bell curve distribution of the electorate, the critics may be right. No one knows how much more support the Green Party may gain, but it is no doubt limited. There is no way the Green party can acquire its goal of obtaining a majority without shifting its ideology further right. However, doing this risks further separation within the party. A continual shift may then mean more than just growing pains, it could be the beginnings of an eventual split.

Ideologies

Recent discussion of this article in one of my classes has led me to consider ideological application in elections.  It is interesting to watch where voters put their trust during each election.  Voters delegate the responsibility to run the country to agents, whom they trust will do well and make what they feel would be the best decisions for the nation as a whole.  Because of this, we often find voters following after a candidate who shares similar ideology to that voter.  Thus, politicians will do their best to be what the majority of voters would want them to be (or have the ideology that most people prefer).

An ideology is an internally consistent set of propositions that make both proscriptive and prescriptive demands on human behavior.  All ideologies have implications for (a) what is ethically good; (b) how society’s resources should be distributed; and (c) where power appropriately resides (drawn from Hinich and Munger’s article Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice).  Ideologies eventually become a political battle of good vs. evil.  Ideologies are ideas that people use to resolve disputes.  These ideas cannot imply that something is both right and wrong.  This leads to a question: what level of politician is ideal: the staunch and set in his ways politician, or an open-minded one.

Ideologies are an excellent way to hold politicians accountable to where they claim they stand on issues.  As voters, we need parties to help us get an idea of how a candidate will act and what his or her ideology is.  However, we need to be mindful of how effective a politician will be considering their ideology.  Imposing beliefs on others is a dangerous feat.  A president must interact with congress, a mass population within his own country, and leaders of other countries.  This concept of ideology should lead the public to consider how a president would interact with these different groups.  When we look for who want as our future president, voters should not only consider whose ideology is like their own, but whose ideology will succeed at accomplishing overall good for the country.

Special Interest Groups and South African Political Parties

Kathleen Bawn offers a theory that places special interest groups as the reason and proponents behind political parties. An example of how this applies in the history of South Africa is the transitioning from apartheid era to post-apartheid era politics. It can be argued that without the organizing influence of interest groups strengthening the ANC apartheid never would have ended. Ethnic interest groups focused on creating opportunities for blacks during the apartheid and achieved monumental victories, however as they have continued to seek redress South African politics have turned for the worse and cries of reverse discrimination have flown.

Apartheid would not have ended had it not been for courageous interest groups that pushed the ANC into power. The Afrikaner Broederbond (Brotherhood) was a white ethnic interest group that encouraged and enabled apartheid legislation and politics for decades though the National Party. As time passed it was eventually challenged by black ethnic interest groups such as the United Democratic Front and the Mass Democratic Movement that united resistance under the ANC. After years of struggle and support the ethnic interest groups succeeded in enabling a black man, Nelson Mandela, to be president of South Africa.

Since that time the struggle has continued though not always in positive ways. It is understandable that after decades of disenfranchisement black citizens of South Africa would need government assistance to open opportunities for them. However, black ethnic interest groups have pushed so far with Black Economic Empowerment that white citizens are exclaiming that they are exacting revenge by taking away opportunities for white people. The ANC, once a party of freedom for all, has become a party that bends to special interest efforts to over compensate for apartheid era events.

It can be seen that South African politics have been strongly influenced by ethnic interest groups over the years for good and bad. If it were not for the supporting and stabilizing influence these groups gave to their respective political parties the history of South Africa would likely have unfolded in another way. 

Kadima Can't Compromise

The Kadima Party in Israel holds 28 seats which is more than any other single Israeli party and almost a fourth of the total seats in the Knesset. However, the party has had almost zero influence on policy decisions in the last three years. Smaller parties were able to exert more influence on issues that Kadima cared about. Avi Dichter is running for Kadima Party Chairman on the platform that if he is elected, then he will make every effort to join Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition. Dichter argues that it is extremely important to join Netanyahu’s coalition so that Kadima can have at least some impact on central issues. (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=257490). Kadima’s primaries are scheduled to be held on March 27^th. Research implies that Kadima would lose half of its seats in the Knesset if the elections were to be held today. However, Dichter is the only candidate that proposes to compromise with the coalition. Tzipi Livni and Shaul Mofaz have both made it clear that they do not intend to compromise with Netanyahu but to confront it and beat it despite the fact that there is a good possibility that this will not happen. (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/livni-sets-kadima-primary-for-late-march-as-party-rivals-ramp-up-rhetoric-1.408060 )It seems that ,Dichter may be the only one that can guarantee voters at least some influence. However, Dichter has little support and the primary is seen mostly as a contest between Livni and Mofaz. This puzzling scenario makes more sense if you consider the theory of Hinich and Munger in “Ideaology , Candidate Strategy, and the Theory of Elections”. They claim that candidates need to do two things for voters. The first is provide promises of what they will do if elected. The second is to provide proof that they are committed to their vision. Members of the Kadima party are unwilling to support Dichter because they do not know what he will actually do if he is elected. The other two candidates propose an ideological alternative to the current government. Dichter on the other hand, promises to blend Kadima’s liberal views with the right wing coalition. Voters are uncomfortable supporting someone with a weak ideological tie.