King Sol

After the 2006 midterm elections yielded no tangible change in US foreign policy despite some shift in power, I promised myself that never again would I become so emotionally involved in American politics. It’s partly why I went on blog hiatus for the past year. Alas, another year, more false hope, and I now confess – I have Primary Season fever.

This in itself would be bad enough, but today I read a David Brooks column where I didn’t want to throw heavy inanimate objects afterwards. (!?!?) Surely, this is the end of days.

Mr. Brooks’ column argues that voters choose their candidates irrationally/emotionally instead of on their politically valid merits. He’s absolutely right. Voting is gut thing (for those who actually vote). People don’t choose candidates who are most qualified or the best fit based on their own personal social paradigms – people choose candidates they like the best, candidates who look the best, candidates who crack the best jokes, or candidates they’d most like to have a beer with (see: George W. Bush). We all know this. We don’t talk about it too publicly though because voting, as far as perceptions are concerned, is still considered a quasi-intellectual exercise in civic responsibility (for those who actually vote). No one wants to say they voted for the candidate they’d like to shotgun beers with (for me, it’s Huckabee), or for the candidate with the best haircut (Romney, hands down).

So why is this a problem? Two reasons.

One: Elections can’t be popularity contests. These people are not elected to be on the cover of GQ or Vogue, nor are they your prom king/queen, they are individuals vested with enormous responsibilities that require a standard of inherent skill and relevant experience. Ronald Reagan was immensely popular and decidedly voted in twice. Ronald Reagan also thought the commies were coming to get him and so decided to “build” an intergalactic nuclear missile system that would save the day. And Reaganomics, unless you’re mildly retardly or a devout Republican, is actually a fancy word for “re-distribution of wealth to the upper classes under the guide of populist public policy while eroding the social security net.” (Economists call it supply-side economics.) The point is, being popular, or being politically likable, does not equate to political acuity.

Two: This one is more personal. I’ve been working recently on a potential research topic for when academia is the in the cards again in the area of public participation. We all know voter participation is on a general decline in the last three decades in Western democracies. Public participation processes like townhalls and large-scale consultations (think: The Romonow Commission) are also on the decline and seem to have less effect on public policy decisions. These direct participatory processes are essential for an active and legitimate democracy. I’d like to examine the institutional causes and challenges for this disconnect. But today I’ve been wondering… if we’re just brokering our democratic capital with our gut, what does it matter?