Into the Monkey Cage

Henry Farrell explains why I'm wrong about conservative activists and John McCain. What's more, he does so by quoting a George Tsebelis book:

Contra Matt, there’s a good case to be made that it would be rational under many circumstances for conservatives to oppose McCain. George Tsebelis, in his book Nested Games, makes just this argument about the internal dynamics of the UK Labour party in the 1980s. The relevant chapter is entitled “Why Do British Labour Party Activists Commit Political Suicide?” As Tsebelis discusses, left-wingers within the Labour party often opposed more moderate candidates, even when there was a real risk that this would lead to defeat for the party in the general election. This is because they were playing a nested game, in which they were concerned not only about a one shot electoral victory, but also in getting others to take them seriously over the longer term.

I sometimes tell people that Tsebelis' Veto Players is a book I always have mixed feelings about recommending. I think it's incredibly insightful and explains an enormous amount of very important things. But it's also a very long, hard, slog of a read and something you probably don't want to undertake. But very informative. So I guess I'd better pick up Nested Games, too.

Comments

Would we be happy with Joe Lieberman as our candidate? Of course not. It really isn't that hard to understand.

Posted by Mark | February 7, 2008 1:30 PM

I agree with what Mark says. However, you could see it from another perspective: the party apparatus tends to prefer losing with their guy to winning with a guy they didn't choose.

Posted by Freddie | February 7, 2008 1:38 PM

I think it is hilarious that the Conservative CPAC is instructing attendees to NOT BOO McCain when he speaks before them. ha ha

From http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0208/CPAC_to_all_CPACers_Dont_boo_McCain.html

"John McCain may have it easier than he expected today when he commandeers the podium at CPAC this afternoon. Conservatives from all over will predictably fill the room to the brim to listen to what the now GOP front-runner has to say, despite a hate/love relationship with the guy.

CPAC it seems, is directing its loyal goers to not boo McCain. They must be more excited that McCain has finally signed on to appear after years of snubs than they want to let on.

During registration last night at the Omni Shoreham a registrant was asking to upgrade his CPAC package and then proceeded to ask what time GOP front-runner John McCain was going to speak today. “Oh good,” he said to the response — answer: 3 p.m. today — “I hope they boo him out of the room.”

“No, no no no no” came the reply from the person registering him. “We’ve been instructed to tell participants not to boo McCain.”

“Are you kidding me?” the shocked CPAC-goer asked."
-------------
Still time to run over and see the circus, Matthew. The Elephant Walks across the tightrope at 3.

Posted by Don Williams | February 7, 2008 1:57 PM

The comments from conservatives at the above site (about the CPAC event) are hilarious. I liked this one:

"I WOULD RATHER WATER BOARD MYSELF THAN VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN "
--------
ha ha ha.

Posted by Don Williams | February 7, 2008 2:01 PM

I totally don't understand it. Mark, that's a good way to explain the dissonance and it helped, but it still seems to me that McCain is much closer to what the "conservatives" espouse than Lieberman is to liberals. Politico's thread about "Booing McCain" is a real eye opener. I pay no attention to the hate radio/tv punks, but the comments there are mind bending.

My only conclusion is that the "conservative" base is so dysfunctional when it comes to anything that looks like addressing an issue (like immigration) instead of demagoguing it, that they can't see straight. McCain is toeing Bush world completely at this point and getting clobbered doing it. Guess that Maverick tag has its downside.

Regarding the Left and Labour, that was heart and soul to those folks, and they took themselves seriously enough. Blair won because he rebranded Labour by co-opting the LibDems and benefiting from a massive fatigue of the Conservative Party.

Hopefully we can benefit from the same scale of backlash.

Posted by wilson | February 7, 2008 2:09 PM

It seems to me a bad idea to use the left of the British Labor Party in the 80s as a model for clever politics, & I don't think that this tactic worked for them in either the short or the long run.

Posted by james tussing | February 7, 2008 2:11 PM

So then would the Clinton camp play a nested game to block Obama if he gets the nomination.

And then would it come down to which party wants to lose more?

Posted by yep | February 7, 2008 2:13 PM

I agree that it makes some sense for conservatives to oppose McCain - more wars under a McCain presidency (which is what he promises) would mean that Republicans could be out of power for a generation afterwards. That said, it was an unbelievably bad example to use by Farrell. The Labour Party was out of office for 18 (!) years, and only got back into power when nominating a guy more Catholic than the Pope (or at least more of a neoliberal than Thatcher). It's not an example you want to follow.

Posted by Norway | February 7, 2008 2:15 PM

Actually, Lieberman is a solid liberal on virtually everything other than Iraq. Mostly we hate how he takes conservative talking points and criticizes his own party.

McCain votes as a conservative the same way Lieberman votes as a liberal, but they hate him for similar reasons. McCain often uses liberal talking points like calling out drug companies as a problem. To them, he does more damage than good. And they are probably correct, just as we are correct about Lieberman.

Assuming McCain loses the election, this is very good for the Democrats. It is going to be much easier to frame most everything from a liberal point of view.

Posted by Mark | February 7, 2008 2:22 PM

I have to agree about the Radical Right NOT rallying around McCain.

Anecdotally, the many rightwingers I know have stated in no uncertain terms that they will NOT vote for McCain and will either stay home or write-in/leave-blank the presidential slot.

Republicans in the Corporatist or Military Hawk factions will rally. The self-styled "Social Conservatives" and Religious Right will not.

As explained to me, it is not enough to get a "Republican" in office, it has to be a "true Conservative." Electing a "RINO" would be as bad or worse than electing a "Liberal Democrat" because it dilutes the "Republican = Conservative" brand they have worked so hard to establish.

Posted by Cathexis | February 7, 2008 2:26 PM

I seem to remember a couple of folks voting for a guy named Ralph Nader a few years ago. In the end, how was that different from staying home and withholding a vote from Gore?

Posted by Murphyb | February 7, 2008 2:40 PM

RINO = "Republican In Name Only"??

Posted by Don Williams | February 7, 2008 2:48 PM

I seem to remember a couple of folks voting for a guy named Ralph Nader a few years ago. In the end, how was that different from staying home and withholding a vote from Gore?

If you stay home, you hurt the other causes you care about that are downballot.

Posted by Mo | February 7, 2008 2:55 PM

George Tsebelis' books are, indeed, quite good. They are, however, academic in style and thus not easy reads, though by the low, low standards of academic writing they're not bad. As to the poster who noted that 80s Labour politicians not being a good model to follow, that's true in the sense of not winning elections, but Tsebelis' point is that if your goal is to prevent your own party from shifting its position, losing an election might be worth it. The logic is similar to a third party candidate in the US Pres election. Surely Ross Perot realized he had no chance of actually winning, at least as of the point of the general election. He was interested in putting his issue (controlling the deficit) on the table and felt that his party (Republican) had ignored it; he punished them for it. Ditto Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.

Posted by Jay Verkuilen | February 7, 2008 4:31 PM

The strategy of the Labour Party leftists (whom Neil Kinnock booted from the party, clearing the way for a long period of Labour ascendance) followed the same "we'll make them listen to us" approach to intra-party disputes followed by NARAL during the same period (and to the present) of defeating pro-choice candidates they don't like in favor of pro-choice candidates they like. It's proven mostly effective in primaries, and more often than not, is followed by a general election defeat.

Posted by Thom | February 8, 2008 10:13 PM