Presidential Elections: A Look At The Process, Part Deux

If one would like an introduction to what all this is about I recommend reading Part One.  With that out of the way, let's jump back into Professor Polsby's book.

1)...why do the rich lean towards Republicans?  Undoubtedly, in part, this is a negative reaction to the redistributive aspirations of some New Deal programs and the inclination of some Democratic presidents to expand the role of government in the economy.  But in all probability it is also a positive response to the record of the congressional wing of the Republican Party, which so thoroughly dominated the post-Civil War era of industrial expansion in the 1890s and on up until the election of 1932.  In this era, Republican policies vigorously encouraged, and to a degree underwrote, risk taking by private businessmen, granted them federal aid in a variety of forms (notably tariffs), and withheld federal regulation from private enterprise.

Unlike some of my other commentaries on Professor Polsby's work, I list this excerpt here because I essentially agree with it (as well as his explanation of why African-Americans are more apt to be Democrats).  In particular I think the professor points out something that a lot of people leave out:  that rich people receive federal aid as well as the poor in the form of subsidies and tax breaks.  This is not to say that those are not needed, in some cases, to stimulate growth, but it does provide perspective to those who would argue that only the poor receive federal benefits.  Surely these people appreciate the things they receive from the federal government and they vote accordingly.

2).  Scholars have pointed out that in recent presidential elections even successful candidates carry a burden of negative evaluations.  This negativity may be a consequence of the rise to prominence in the nomination process since 1968 of primary elections--a strenuous gauntlet in which prospective candidates of the same party must run against each other in different states for many weeks during the early months of the election year.  These elections produce a lot of bad-mouthing.  As a result, the eventual nominees usually have no "coattails" in the general election helping candidates of their party for other offices further down the ballot.  High negative ratings for all surviving candidates also mean that they will be unable to lure voters for positive reasons away from the expression of their habitual party loyalties in the general election.  But negative ratings may push voters to desert their party because they have heard so much bad publicity.

I take issue with several of the good professors assessments here.  Although some people like to point to early American elections (and in particular the Adams-Jefferson election) as to the negativity of other campaigns I think one would be remiss not to point out the role mass media has played in disseminating these ideas in the latter half of this century and the affect this has had on people's view of political figures.  As far as the expansion of the role of primaries goes there is something much more important than the candidates having to go through primary battles, although that might contribute to negative feelings toward nominees, and that is the relative ideological feelings of primary voters.  Basically, primary voters tend to be much more ideologically "pure" and therefore nominate people that have been forced to espouse beliefs that are further from the "center" and also further apart from their opposition which inspires the candidates themselves, as well as motivated "fringe" groups to be more scathing in their attacks on these candidates.  I would argue that this has had an affect on candidates coattails as well, not the primary battles, which rarely get that negative.

3).  So while candidates matter sometimes, and issues matter sometimes, and both are capable of affecting who wins, for most voters party matters almost all the time.  Activating party loyalties is the most important electoral strategy at the disposal of candidates.

Here Professor Polsby makes a statement that we have seen played out in recent presidential politics, but I do take issue with it in part.  Yes, "activating party loyalties", which is more than just rallying your base, is important because you can't win without it, but I would argue that one needs to move towards the middle as soon as possible.  I believe that as the dissemination of political rhetoric throughout the media spectrum becomes more stratified (with the internet, talk radio, social networks, etc...) that people are less likely to cross party lines and this shrinks the number of voters that are true "independents".  With more voters less open to persuasion it makes it ever more important to appeal to the group of voters that decide elections and those voters tend to reside somewhere closer to the middle of the political spectrum.



For those interested in further reading on these topics here are some of the books that Polsby cited up to this point in the book:


George H. Mayer, The Republican Party, 1854-1966, 2nd ed.

Martin P. Wattenberg, The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics.

Martin P. Wattenberg, "The Regan Polarization Phenomenon and the Continuing Downward Slide in Presidential Candidate Popularity," American Politics Quarterly 14 (July 1986).

"Who Voted:  A Portrait of American Politics, 1976-2000," New York Times, 12 November 2000, sec. 4, p. 4.