Identity and Ideology

I found a lot to agree with in Chris Bowers' post on identity and ideology in primary politics, but I do think he goes a bit astray in acting as if the "ideology" of a candidate is a simple, easy-to-determine thing. I have nothing better to do all day than to try to figure out which candidate I think would do the best job of handling Iran and . . . I really couldn't say.

I end up resorting to this kind of tea-reading that, ultimately, doesn't have a ton of probative value even if done right. It's perfectly plausible that a candidate with a more hawkish political persona would feel more able to take political risks and de-escalate tensions. It's perfectly plausible that the campaign rhetoric is totally meaningless -- George W. Bush didn't implement a "more humble" foreign policy and Bill Clinton didn't take on the "Butchers of Beijing."

Most people aren't going to take the time to figure out exactly where the candidates stand, and even people who do take the time to try to figure it out tend not to be all that successful. By contrast, it's easy to determine someone's basic socioeconomic background pretty easily with a great deal of accuracy. Identity also seems like a not-entirely-terrible proxy for a person's priorities. Politician behavior is kind of unpredictable, especially when you're talking about someone moving into a new office, so I think it's totally understandable that people don't put tons of weight on trying to scrutinize where people stand on the issues.

Comments

That's why when it comes to trying to guess as to what policies a candidate will actually pursue once elected by far the best indicator is what that candidate has in fact voted for in the past -- including all credible explanations for past positions.

It is certainly true that the circumstances and priorities for individual politicians change, but you still can't do any better at guessing their future then to look at their past.

Posted by Brian | July 20, 2007 3:01 PM

And of course it's also hard to tell what the key issue(s) of the person's presidency are going to be anyway - how much discussion of terrorism was there during the 2000 campaigns?

Posted by Ted | July 20, 2007 3:09 PM

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

1) It DOESN'T MATTER what a candidate SAYS during a campaign. They lie like dogs -- it's a job requirement.

For example, We've had almost $8 TRILLION in federal debt incurred by the personal signatures of Republicans Ronald Reagan, George H Bush, and George W Bush. All three self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" who told us during the campaign that they want to "balance the budget".

2) Instead, Look at who is FUNDING the candidate.

For example, Haim Saban did not become a billionaire by being a fool, by making bad investments, or by being a poor judge of people.

So when he works hard to make Hillary President --because he thinks she will deal with the threat a nuclear-armed Iran poses to Israel -- then he can be taken at his word. Look at his Haa'retz interview from a few months ago.

Don't just look at one donor, of course. But usually that are a cluster and a little study
gives you a pretty good idea of how the frog is going to jump if she gets elected.

3) Because these billionaires also don't throw several million dollars into a venture without also ensuring that they have some way to turn the screw if the frog is slow to jump.

Posted by Don Williams | July 20, 2007 3:09 PM

but I do think he goes a bit astray in acting as if the "ideology" of a candidate is a simple, easy-to-determine thing. I have nothing better to do all day than to try to figure out which candidate I think would do the best job of handling Iran and . . . I really couldn't say.

But on most issues it's actually not difficult at all to determine where most candidates stand. You just happen to have picked the one issue (Mideast policy) where the largest number of factors give Democratic candidates the greatest number of incentives to obscure their position throughout a presidential campaign. If you're going to base your entire assessment of a candidate's ideology on the deliberately opaque statements they release on Iran - statements generally calculated to appease the AIPAC crowd without alienating the anti-war base - then yes, you're going to end up throwing up your hands in a huff and declaring that it's impossible to determine anything about a candidate's ideology at all. But in doing so you'll be ignoring every other area of public policy where candidates have frequently staked out distinct and well-defined positions, from health care to education to fiscal policy to worker's rights to energy policy to the environment to Iraq. If you're frustrated that leading Democratic candidates have been intimidated into using muddled language to obscure foreign policy preferences, then I join you in that frustration, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to figure out a candidate's ideology, period. And it certainly doesn't mean that identity is preferable to ideology when judging what a politician is actually going to do in office. Politicians are just as likely to react against identity (e.g., Clinton's "abortion is bad" rhetoric) as they are to be swayed by it. I'd rather choose public officials based on what they say they intend to do in office.

Posted by Christmas | July 20, 2007 3:42 PM

It is certainly true that the circumstances and priorities for individual politicians change, but you still can't do any better at guessing their future then to look at their past.

Sure you can. You can look at what constituencies they need most for political power, what constituencies they tend to reach out to, who is on their staff, etc. That may be reflected in their past (and, I suppose, if we're to look at anything, everything available will be in the past), but it's the underlying stuff that matters.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 20, 2007 3:43 PM

I think that is basically correct. Someone in the comments of my post pointed out the same thing. In 2004, the ideological divide was a lot simpler, as it focused on a single issue: the war. Now, on a variety of issues, there is a general lack of clarity. Obama might have the most progressive past on Iraq, but Richardson might have the most progressive plan--and Edwards and Clinton both seem to be against the war too. On poverty, well, again, as Franke-Ruta noted, poverty and race are closely connected, and so it might not be as clear as people think. Global warming? I can't say off hand who is better on that.

So yes, it is indeed difficult for most, if not all, voters to make a clear ideological distinction, and thus cultural factors play a bigger role in making their choice. I'm not even sure if that is a bad thing. Policy positions always change once in office, and it is a good idea to determine which candidate you think shares a similar core to you in the fights that will come and we can't yet predict.

Posted by Chris Bowers | July 20, 2007 3:50 PM

You can look at what constituencies they need most for political power, what constituencies they tend to reach out to, who is on their staff, etc.

Eh . . . that is true to some extent. But for the most part that will tell you who they can't afford to screw over with their policies. Doesn't necessarily tell you what proactive policy positions they will take.

And as far as the constituencies go -- as a pol running for your parties nomination, your constituency can change dramatically from the primary to the general to the office itself.

Currying favor with the base might be a smart strategy in the primary. But just because your consitutency for a primary victory might be the parties' base it does not mean that that is the constituency you need for a general election victory or for popularity once in office.

My basic point is this -- especially at the primary stage, what the candidates are saying holds little predictive value in terms of what policies they would likely pursue and/or support in office when compared to the positions they've taken in the past.

Posted by Brian | July 20, 2007 4:10 PM

On poverty, well, again, as Franke-Ruta noted, poverty and race are closely connected, and so it might not be as clear as people think. Global warming? I can't say off hand who is better on that.

With all due respect, this is because you're either not paying attention or because you don't know the issues. On global warming, Richardson has by far the most ambitious policy; this is acknowledged by pretty much every eco-blogger and energy wonk. Obama and Clinton, by contrast, have relatively spotty records, with Obama's continued flirtation with liquid coal and Clinton's vote against higher fuel-economy standards making them look less like committed foes of climate change and more like shills for industry.

I don't even know what to make of your hand-waving on poverty. Because "poverty and race are related," Edwards's strong anti-poverty proposals might do less for the poor than Clinton's long record of economic conservatism? Am I really reading major, ostensibly liberal bloggers dismiss the entire notion of judging candidates by the positions they claim to take on the issues? How do you pick which candidate to vote for? A coin toss? A ouija board? Enlighten me, o progressive blogosphere!

Posted by Christmas | July 20, 2007 4:43 PM

Fortunately, Sen. Obama has published a well-written 442 page autobiography monomaniacally devoted to describing his identity in exhaustive detail. Perhaps Matt will read it someday.

Reading Sen. Obama's "Story of Race and Inheritance" would, among other benefits, help Matt avoid confusing Sen. Obama's group-based poverty program with Sen. Edwards' individual-based poverty program (as in the posting above).

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 20, 2007 8:42 PM

People don't have the time or really want to spend it all on dissecting all the proposals of candidates.
What is used is mostly people look for someone who is intelligent, capable and you gotta like because you are going to see that person on your tv everyday.
someone you feel a trust towards.
But, also someone who you can get the gist of what they want to do understood. Who they are and what they are like.
This is what people like Stoller and Bowers cannot understand. 95 percent of people are not wonky. They don't get the jollies from white papers.
they try to figure out who they feel would do best. Yes, they ended up picking Bush but, let's face it. the media plays a hand in shaping people's perceptions of the candidates so, if they decide to promote someone, it will be used to influence the people.
this is why I get impatient with people like Bowers. He doesn't see what people are like. he expects them all to being into wonky. And leaves what real people are like out of his thinking.

Posted by vwcat | July 20, 2007 9:47 PM