Mixing
Why does partisanship trump concerns about hypocrisy with voters?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Politicians are routinely hypocritical in support of partisan ends.
Politicians are routinely hypocritical in support of partisan ends.
I'll provide a few examples to demonstrate what I mean:
When their party's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is facing confirmation, they insist that every candidate should receive a fair hearing and an up or down vote. When an opposing party's nominee is in the same shoes, they claim to be proud to play hardball to keep that person off the bench.
When their partisans are accused of personal misconduct, they downplay or deny that there was wrongdoing, while they push for harsh accountability when their opponents are accused.
When the other party runs up huge deficits they decry that party's gross irresponsibility, and then run up huge deficits themselves without a peep of complaint about their own party's actions.
When they other party secures a diplomatic agreement they complain about being too soft on the nation's adversaries, and then when they are in power coo over the positive aspects of the nation's adversaries, presumably in the interests of diplomacy.
Politicians who decry government regulation when another party is in power often actively support a great deal of government regulation when they are power.
The rare politicians who take long term positions on a bipartisan basis, while hailed as statesmen by some observers are frequently decried as traitors by their fellow partisans.
Politicians do not behave this way, because voters don't care, not by mistake, or because their hypocrisy is unlikely to be observed.
While an occasional politician may indeed be dumb, as an occupational class, overall and on average, they aren't stupid.
Politicians act this way, in part, because they know that they won't pay a political price with voters for taking inconsistent positions or acting hypocritically in pursuit of partisan advantage.
And, this isn't because their hypocritical conduct is unlikely to be discovered. The portion of the voting public that is paying attention is routinely made aware of hypocrisy on the part of politicians when in occurs in news reporting, in published opinion pieces, on social media, in discussions with other people about politics, and in attack ads when election season rolls around.
It seems to follow logically, that politicians aren't concerned about acting hypocritically because voters and other people whose support they need don't really care about this conduct.
Whatever causes this behavior, moreover, has to be pretty fundamental, because this conclusion holds true robustly. While I drew my examples of hypocrisy above mostly from U.S. politics, the observation that politicians aren't worried about hypocrisy and taking inconsistent political positions over time, seems to be fairly universal. The same conduct is routinely seen in every other country with democratic elections of which I am aware.
Even politicians in totalitarian regimes act this way, leading to sudden about faces on what is good and bad in regimes like China that sound like they come right out of George Orwell's "1984", and while totalitarian politicians don't have to campaign in democratic election, they too should care somewhat what people think about their actions, because still need public support to be legitimate and need support from leadership group elites.
Political theory naively suggests that voters should care about hypocrisy
Median voters tend to have fairly stable interests.
For example, the extent to which U.S. counties are liberal v. conservative in their electoral behavior in the U.S. on relative basis has been largely unchanged for at least a century and a half. For example, rural Indian and Arkansas have leaned conservative, while New England and major U.S. cities has leaned liberal since before the mid-19th century, even as the liberal and conservative political parties in the U.S. have flipped.
The median voter theorem, which has considerable empirical support, argues that politicians pursue policies that favor the median voter.
So, it would naively seem that voters should favor politicians who can make credible long term commitments to policies and political norms that advance their interests, over those who demonstrate hypocrisy who will betray their constituents from time to time.
And, as I noted above, information about hypocrisy by politicians is one of the more widely disseminated kinds of information about politicians in our political system and most democratic systems. So, if any information about the conduct of politicians is available and influences voter conduct, information about hypocrisy on the part of politicians should be a powerful force influencing voter behavior.
But, empirically, it also seems clear that voters don't care in a way that influences how they vote. There is no evidence that politicians who act or in a hypocritical manner have a harder time getting re-elected. If anything, the reverse is true.
More generally, it seems that the public isn't very concerned about hypocrisy by politicians when their concerns are evaluated on the basis of their revealed preferences (i.e. by what they do rather than by what they say), even though many people in the abstract would say that politicians shouldn't be hypocritical.
Why?
My question is, why don't voters care when politicians are hypocritical in support of partisan ends? Is there any political theory literature that explains this phenomena?
election political-theory parties
edited 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
asked 4 hours ago
ohwilleke
18.3k34278
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Politicians are routinely hypocritical in support of partisan ends.
Politicians are routinely hypocritical in support of partisan ends.
I'll provide a few examples to demonstrate what I mean:
When their party's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is facing confirmation, they insist that every candidate should receive a fair hearing and an up or down vote. When an opposing party's nominee is in the same shoes, they claim to be proud to play hardball to keep that person off the bench.
When their partisans are accused of personal misconduct, they downplay or deny that there was wrongdoing, while they push for harsh accountability when their opponents are accused.
When the other party runs up huge deficits they decry that party's gross irresponsibility, and then run up huge deficits themselves without a peep of complaint about their own party's actions.
When they other party secures a diplomatic agreement they complain about being too soft on the nation's adversaries, and then when they are in power coo over the positive aspects of the nation's adversaries, presumably in the interests of diplomacy.
Politicians who decry government regulation when another party is in power often actively support a great deal of government regulation when they are power.
The rare politicians who take long term positions on a bipartisan basis, while hailed as statesmen by some observers are frequently decried as traitors by their fellow partisans.
Politicians do not behave this way, because voters don't care, not by mistake, or because their hypocrisy is unlikely to be observed.
While an occasional politician may indeed be dumb, as an occupational class, overall and on average, they aren't stupid.
Politicians act this way, in part, because they know that they won't pay a political price with voters for taking inconsistent positions or acting hypocritically in pursuit of partisan advantage.
And, this isn't because their hypocritical conduct is unlikely to be discovered. The portion of the voting public that is paying attention is routinely made aware of hypocrisy on the part of politicians when in occurs in news reporting, in published opinion pieces, on social media, in discussions with other people about politics, and in attack ads when election season rolls around.
It seems to follow logically, that politicians aren't concerned about acting hypocritically because voters and other people whose support they need don't really care about this conduct.
Whatever causes this behavior, moreover, has to be pretty fundamental, because this conclusion holds true robustly. While I drew my examples of hypocrisy above mostly from U.S. politics, the observation that politicians aren't worried about hypocrisy and taking inconsistent political positions over time, seems to be fairly universal. The same conduct is routinely seen in every other country with democratic elections of which I am aware.
Even politicians in totalitarian regimes act this way, leading to sudden about faces on what is good and bad in regimes like China that sound like they come right out of George Orwell's "1984", and while totalitarian politicians don't have to campaign in democratic election, they too should care somewhat what people think about their actions, because still need public support to be legitimate and need support from leadership group elites.
Political theory naively suggests that voters should care about hypocrisy
Median voters tend to have fairly stable interests.
For example, the extent to which U.S. counties are liberal v. conservative in their electoral behavior in the U.S. on relative basis has been largely unchanged for at least a century and a half. For example, rural Indian and Arkansas have leaned conservative, while New England and major U.S. cities has leaned liberal since before the mid-19th century, even as the liberal and conservative political parties in the U.S. have flipped.
The median voter theorem, which has considerable empirical support, argues that politicians pursue policies that favor the median voter.
So, it would naively seem that voters should favor politicians who can make credible long term commitments to policies and political norms that advance their interests, over those who demonstrate hypocrisy who will betray their constituents from time to time.
And, as I noted above, information about hypocrisy by politicians is one of the more widely disseminated kinds of information about politicians in our political system and most democratic systems. So, if any information about the conduct of politicians is available and influences voter conduct, information about hypocrisy on the part of politicians should be a powerful force influencing voter behavior.
But, empirically, it also seems clear that voters don't care in a way that influences how they vote. There is no evidence that politicians who act or in a hypocritical manner have a harder time getting re-elected. If anything, the reverse is true.
More generally, it seems that the public isn't very concerned about hypocrisy by politicians when their concerns are evaluated on the basis of their revealed preferences (i.e. by what they do rather than by what they say), even though many people in the abstract would say that politicians shouldn't be hypocritical.
Why?
My question is, why don't voters care when politicians are hypocritical in support of partisan ends? Is there any political theory literature that explains this phenomena?
election political-theory parties
edited 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
asked 4 hours ago
ohwilleke
18.3k34278
Probably because they care more about tangible policy than political games.
– David Rice
3 hours ago
@DavidRice If so, why is this the case, for example, for positions on budget deficits or regulation which a policy outcomes rather than process matters. This issue, while it overlaps with the principle that policy trumps process, isn't the same thing.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
You seem to base most of your question on the US. Have you seen the same pattern in countries with multiple large political parties? In the US, most elections are a choice between a democrat or a republican. If you really dislike one, you're likely to vote for the others regardless of some lies or hypocrisy.
– JJJ
3 hours ago
@JJJ Yes. I can think of examples in the U.K. and France and Italy, for example, which have more than two viable political parties, where this also happens. Also, even in multi-party systems there is ultimately a ruling coalition and opposition politicians even though in those systems the final coalitions are put into place after the election rather than in advance of the election in the continually evolving party formation process. I acknowledge, however, that the amount of hypocrisy that the political culture in each country or system tolerates might not be uniform.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
@ohwilleke in those countries you actually see those fed up with establishment politics (which some of the public perceive to be hypocrites) opting for more extreme candidates or parties. In the UK, neo-liberal Labour made a swing to the left under Corbyn (effectively taking over the party). President Macron in France started a new movement and won bigly ;). In Italy the 5 star movement, anti-establishment won a lot of ground. So I don't think they are good examples of countries in which the electorate stick to 'their party' like they do (for lack of a viable alternative) in the US.
– JJJ
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Politicians are routinely hypocritical in support of partisan ends.
Politicians are routinely hypocritical in support of partisan ends.
I'll provide a few examples to demonstrate what I mean:
When their party's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is facing confirmation, they insist that every candidate should receive a fair hearing and an up or down vote. When an opposing party's nominee is in the same shoes, they claim to be proud to play hardball to keep that person off the bench.
When their partisans are accused of personal misconduct, they downplay or deny that there was wrongdoing, while they push for harsh accountability when their opponents are accused.
When the other party runs up huge deficits they decry that party's gross irresponsibility, and then run up huge deficits themselves without a peep of complaint about their own party's actions.
When they other party secures a diplomatic agreement they complain about being too soft on the nation's adversaries, and then when they are in power coo over the positive aspects of the nation's adversaries, presumably in the interests of diplomacy.
Politicians who decry government regulation when another party is in power often actively support a great deal of government regulation when they are power.
The rare politicians who take long term positions on a bipartisan basis, while hailed as statesmen by some observers are frequently decried as traitors by their fellow partisans.
Politicians do not behave this way, because voters don't care, not by mistake, or because their hypocrisy is unlikely to be observed.
While an occasional politician may indeed be dumb, as an occupational class, overall and on average, they aren't stupid.
Politicians act this way, in part, because they know that they won't pay a political price with voters for taking inconsistent positions or acting hypocritically in pursuit of partisan advantage.
And, this isn't because their hypocritical conduct is unlikely to be discovered. The portion of the voting public that is paying attention is routinely made aware of hypocrisy on the part of politicians when in occurs in news reporting, in published opinion pieces, on social media, in discussions with other people about politics, and in attack ads when election season rolls around.
It seems to follow logically, that politicians aren't concerned about acting hypocritically because voters and other people whose support they need don't really care about this conduct.
Whatever causes this behavior, moreover, has to be pretty fundamental, because this conclusion holds true robustly. While I drew my examples of hypocrisy above mostly from U.S. politics, the observation that politicians aren't worried about hypocrisy and taking inconsistent political positions over time, seems to be fairly universal. The same conduct is routinely seen in every other country with democratic elections of which I am aware.
Even politicians in totalitarian regimes act this way, leading to sudden about faces on what is good and bad in regimes like China that sound like they come right out of George Orwell's "1984", and while totalitarian politicians don't have to campaign in democratic election, they too should care somewhat what people think about their actions, because still need public support to be legitimate and need support from leadership group elites.
Political theory naively suggests that voters should care about hypocrisy
Median voters tend to have fairly stable interests.
For example, the extent to which U.S. counties are liberal v. conservative in their electoral behavior in the U.S. on relative basis has been largely unchanged for at least a century and a half. For example, rural Indian and Arkansas have leaned conservative, while New England and major U.S. cities has leaned liberal since before the mid-19th century, even as the liberal and conservative political parties in the U.S. have flipped.
The median voter theorem, which has considerable empirical support, argues that politicians pursue policies that favor the median voter.
So, it would naively seem that voters should favor politicians who can make credible long term commitments to policies and political norms that advance their interests, over those who demonstrate hypocrisy who will betray their constituents from time to time.
And, as I noted above, information about hypocrisy by politicians is one of the more widely disseminated kinds of information about politicians in our political system and most democratic systems. So, if any information about the conduct of politicians is available and influences voter conduct, information about hypocrisy on the part of politicians should be a powerful force influencing voter behavior.
But, empirically, it also seems clear that voters don't care in a way that influences how they vote. There is no evidence that politicians who act or in a hypocritical manner have a harder time getting re-elected. If anything, the reverse is true.
More generally, it seems that the public isn't very concerned about hypocrisy by politicians when their concerns are evaluated on the basis of their revealed preferences (i.e. by what they do rather than by what they say), even though many people in the abstract would say that politicians shouldn't be hypocritical.
Why?
My question is, why don't voters care when politicians are hypocritical in support of partisan ends? Is there any political theory literature that explains this phenomena?
election political-theory parties
edited 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
asked 4 hours ago
ohwilleke
18.3k34278
Politicians are routinely hypocritical in support of partisan ends.
Politicians are routinely hypocritical in support of partisan ends.
I'll provide a few examples to demonstrate what I mean:
When their party's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is facing confirmation, they insist that every candidate should receive a fair hearing and an up or down vote. When an opposing party's nominee is in the same shoes, they claim to be proud to play hardball to keep that person off the bench.
When their partisans are accused of personal misconduct, they downplay or deny that there was wrongdoing, while they push for harsh accountability when their opponents are accused.
When the other party runs up huge deficits they decry that party's gross irresponsibility, and then run up huge deficits themselves without a peep of complaint about their own party's actions.
When they other party secures a diplomatic agreement they complain about being too soft on the nation's adversaries, and then when they are in power coo over the positive aspects of the nation's adversaries, presumably in the interests of diplomacy.
Politicians who decry government regulation when another party is in power often actively support a great deal of government regulation when they are power.
The rare politicians who take long term positions on a bipartisan basis, while hailed as statesmen by some observers are frequently decried as traitors by their fellow partisans.
Politicians do not behave this way, because voters don't care, not by mistake, or because their hypocrisy is unlikely to be observed.
While an occasional politician may indeed be dumb, as an occupational class, overall and on average, they aren't stupid.
Politicians act this way, in part, because they know that they won't pay a political price with voters for taking inconsistent positions or acting hypocritically in pursuit of partisan advantage.
And, this isn't because their hypocritical conduct is unlikely to be discovered. The portion of the voting public that is paying attention is routinely made aware of hypocrisy on the part of politicians when in occurs in news reporting, in published opinion pieces, on social media, in discussions with other people about politics, and in attack ads when election season rolls around.
It seems to follow logically, that politicians aren't concerned about acting hypocritically because voters and other people whose support they need don't really care about this conduct.
Whatever causes this behavior, moreover, has to be pretty fundamental, because this conclusion holds true robustly. While I drew my examples of hypocrisy above mostly from U.S. politics, the observation that politicians aren't worried about hypocrisy and taking inconsistent political positions over time, seems to be fairly universal. The same conduct is routinely seen in every other country with democratic elections of which I am aware.
Even politicians in totalitarian regimes act this way, leading to sudden about faces on what is good and bad in regimes like China that sound like they come right out of George Orwell's "1984", and while totalitarian politicians don't have to campaign in democratic election, they too should care somewhat what people think about their actions, because still need public support to be legitimate and need support from leadership group elites.
Political theory naively suggests that voters should care about hypocrisy
Median voters tend to have fairly stable interests.
For example, the extent to which U.S. counties are liberal v. conservative in their electoral behavior in the U.S. on relative basis has been largely unchanged for at least a century and a half. For example, rural Indian and Arkansas have leaned conservative, while New England and major U.S. cities has leaned liberal since before the mid-19th century, even as the liberal and conservative political parties in the U.S. have flipped.
The median voter theorem, which has considerable empirical support, argues that politicians pursue policies that favor the median voter.
So, it would naively seem that voters should favor politicians who can make credible long term commitments to policies and political norms that advance their interests, over those who demonstrate hypocrisy who will betray their constituents from time to time.
And, as I noted above, information about hypocrisy by politicians is one of the more widely disseminated kinds of information about politicians in our political system and most democratic systems. So, if any information about the conduct of politicians is available and influences voter conduct, information about hypocrisy on the part of politicians should be a powerful force influencing voter behavior.
But, empirically, it also seems clear that voters don't care in a way that influences how they vote. There is no evidence that politicians who act or in a hypocritical manner have a harder time getting re-elected. If anything, the reverse is true.
More generally, it seems that the public isn't very concerned about hypocrisy by politicians when their concerns are evaluated on the basis of their revealed preferences (i.e. by what they do rather than by what they say), even though many people in the abstract would say that politicians shouldn't be hypocritical.
Why?
My question is, why don't voters care when politicians are hypocritical in support of partisan ends? Is there any political theory literature that explains this phenomena?
election political-theory parties
election political-theory parties
edited 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
asked 4 hours ago
ohwilleke
18.3k34278
edited 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
asked 4 hours ago
ohwilleke
18.3k34278
edited 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
edited 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
edited 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
1,924830
asked 4 hours ago
ohwilleke
18.3k34278
asked 4 hours ago
ohwilleke
18.3k34278
asked 4 hours ago
ohwilleke
18.3k34278
18.3k34278
Probably because they care more about tangible policy than political games.
– David Rice
3 hours ago
@DavidRice If so, why is this the case, for example, for positions on budget deficits or regulation which a policy outcomes rather than process matters. This issue, while it overlaps with the principle that policy trumps process, isn't the same thing.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
You seem to base most of your question on the US. Have you seen the same pattern in countries with multiple large political parties? In the US, most elections are a choice between a democrat or a republican. If you really dislike one, you're likely to vote for the others regardless of some lies or hypocrisy.
– JJJ
3 hours ago
@JJJ Yes. I can think of examples in the U.K. and France and Italy, for example, which have more than two viable political parties, where this also happens. Also, even in multi-party systems there is ultimately a ruling coalition and opposition politicians even though in those systems the final coalitions are put into place after the election rather than in advance of the election in the continually evolving party formation process. I acknowledge, however, that the amount of hypocrisy that the political culture in each country or system tolerates might not be uniform.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
@ohwilleke in those countries you actually see those fed up with establishment politics (which some of the public perceive to be hypocrites) opting for more extreme candidates or parties. In the UK, neo-liberal Labour made a swing to the left under Corbyn (effectively taking over the party). President Macron in France started a new movement and won bigly ;). In Italy the 5 star movement, anti-establishment won a lot of ground. So I don't think they are good examples of countries in which the electorate stick to 'their party' like they do (for lack of a viable alternative) in the US.
– JJJ
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
Probably because they care more about tangible policy than political games.
– David Rice
3 hours ago
@DavidRice If so, why is this the case, for example, for positions on budget deficits or regulation which a policy outcomes rather than process matters. This issue, while it overlaps with the principle that policy trumps process, isn't the same thing.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
You seem to base most of your question on the US. Have you seen the same pattern in countries with multiple large political parties? In the US, most elections are a choice between a democrat or a republican. If you really dislike one, you're likely to vote for the others regardless of some lies or hypocrisy.
– JJJ
3 hours ago
@JJJ Yes. I can think of examples in the U.K. and France and Italy, for example, which have more than two viable political parties, where this also happens. Also, even in multi-party systems there is ultimately a ruling coalition and opposition politicians even though in those systems the final coalitions are put into place after the election rather than in advance of the election in the continually evolving party formation process. I acknowledge, however, that the amount of hypocrisy that the political culture in each country or system tolerates might not be uniform.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
@ohwilleke in those countries you actually see those fed up with establishment politics (which some of the public perceive to be hypocrites) opting for more extreme candidates or parties. In the UK, neo-liberal Labour made a swing to the left under Corbyn (effectively taking over the party). President Macron in France started a new movement and won bigly ;). In Italy the 5 star movement, anti-establishment won a lot of ground. So I don't think they are good examples of countries in which the electorate stick to 'their party' like they do (for lack of a viable alternative) in the US.
– JJJ
2 hours ago
Probably because they care more about tangible policy than political games.
– David Rice
3 hours ago
Probably because they care more about tangible policy than political games.
– David Rice
3 hours ago
@DavidRice If so, why is this the case, for example, for positions on budget deficits or regulation which a policy outcomes rather than process matters. This issue, while it overlaps with the principle that policy trumps process, isn't the same thing.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
@DavidRice If so, why is this the case, for example, for positions on budget deficits or regulation which a policy outcomes rather than process matters. This issue, while it overlaps with the principle that policy trumps process, isn't the same thing.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
You seem to base most of your question on the US. Have you seen the same pattern in countries with multiple large political parties? In the US, most elections are a choice between a democrat or a republican. If you really dislike one, you're likely to vote for the others regardless of some lies or hypocrisy.
– JJJ
3 hours ago
You seem to base most of your question on the US. Have you seen the same pattern in countries with multiple large political parties? In the US, most elections are a choice between a democrat or a republican. If you really dislike one, you're likely to vote for the others regardless of some lies or hypocrisy.
– JJJ
3 hours ago
@JJJ Yes. I can think of examples in the U.K. and France and Italy, for example, which have more than two viable political parties, where this also happens. Also, even in multi-party systems there is ultimately a ruling coalition and opposition politicians even though in those systems the final coalitions are put into place after the election rather than in advance of the election in the continually evolving party formation process. I acknowledge, however, that the amount of hypocrisy that the political culture in each country or system tolerates might not be uniform.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
@JJJ Yes. I can think of examples in the U.K. and France and Italy, for example, which have more than two viable political parties, where this also happens. Also, even in multi-party systems there is ultimately a ruling coalition and opposition politicians even though in those systems the final coalitions are put into place after the election rather than in advance of the election in the continually evolving party formation process. I acknowledge, however, that the amount of hypocrisy that the political culture in each country or system tolerates might not be uniform.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
@ohwilleke in those countries you actually see those fed up with establishment politics (which some of the public perceive to be hypocrites) opting for more extreme candidates or parties. In the UK, neo-liberal Labour made a swing to the left under Corbyn (effectively taking over the party). President Macron in France started a new movement and won bigly ;). In Italy the 5 star movement, anti-establishment won a lot of ground. So I don't think they are good examples of countries in which the electorate stick to 'their party' like they do (for lack of a viable alternative) in the US.
– JJJ
2 hours ago
@ohwilleke in those countries you actually see those fed up with establishment politics (which some of the public perceive to be hypocrites) opting for more extreme candidates or parties. In the UK, neo-liberal Labour made a swing to the left under Corbyn (effectively taking over the party). President Macron in France started a new movement and won bigly ;). In Italy the 5 star movement, anti-establishment won a lot of ground. So I don't think they are good examples of countries in which the electorate stick to 'their party' like they do (for lack of a viable alternative) in the US.
– JJJ
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Short answer: everybody hates somebody, and by extension that person/group's cherised pet cause.
Seriously. Consider the following conversation:
- Person A: Hey there gun owner, did you know that you support school vouchers?
- Person B: I do? Why?
- Person A: Because the people trying to take your guns away hate them.
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe:
- Person A: Hey there pro-choice person, did you know you hate school vouchers?
- Person B: I do? Why?
- Person A: Because right-to-lifers love them.
This dialog rarely if ever is spoken aloud, but occurs internally as part of some calculus of politics. And of course, once sides are taken, politics is the mind killer: arguments (and scandals) are soldiers, any concession means aiding the enemy. Hence "hypocrisy". Note that the above narratives are perfectly comprehensible (from a US perspective) regardless of how you feel about any of the issues mentioned.
This also explains the otherwise hard-to-explain juxtaposition of certain elements of party platforms like attitudes about economic liberty vs. social liberty.
Indeed, a common trope of both history and fiction is that when one is involved in a sufficiently intense conflict, one is faced with the quandry of sacrificing principles in pursuit of one's goals or staying the true path possibly at the cost of victory.
Even median voters have hot button issues, and while party platforms enforce a certain amount of adherence any given candidate will be hotter or colder on the radar of any given voter. So the median voter may very will flit back and forth between parties, but the x issue for their particular value of x is the driving force.
answered 2 hours ago
Jared Smith
2,0491710
"politics is the mind killer" Lovely, and probably more true than the original.
– ohwilleke
55 mins ago
This could benefit from decent citations from psychology and poly sci; but in essense is the correct answer.
– user4012
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
What you call "partisanship" goes by a different name within a party. Maybe it's "values", or maybe "the most important thing", or "what we're trying to accomplish", or things like "progress", "growth", and "prosperity".
Since politics is a matter of power rather than truth, politicians need to do whatever is necessary to apply power toward "the most important thing".
An example would be the idea that conservative politicians favor less government spending: I don't believe that any Republican today would deny this. Why, then, has government spending not been reduced more-than-it-has through Republican control of the Federal government?
The only possible answer is that the politicians are confident that their voters will forgive them for doing less on the budget as long as they accomplish something that's more important.
One thing about hypocrisy is that it is an accusation that the politician must face: he (or she) is the one who made the claims, and we can all see that those claims are fake. It doesn't cause confusion on our part but for a moment; other kinds of lying are more damaging, I suppose.
answered 2 hours ago
elliot svensson
4479
I'm assuming here politicians under US-style representative democracy, who don't serve life terms.
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Interestingly, bona fide monarchs rather than mere one party state dictators, who serve for life tend to be less hypocritical and less partisan.
– ohwilleke
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
People simply want to win, regardless of the size of the prize. People who make $35k in a office where the average is $30k are happier than those making $40k in an office where the average is $45k. Voting is not a logical behavior, it's an emotional one. It's silly to try to imagine someone tallying up some score card in the fall and picking a party, yet we often pretend that some egregious act will be a "disqualifier" once such a calculus is made.
This moves political beliefs more into the realm of religious beliefs. Nobody faults god for murdering villagers while commanding "thou shalt not kill"; he's god, and who's side are you on, anyway? As long as "the good side" wins, (almost) nobody who cares will care how.
answered 1 hour ago
dandavis
1655
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
why don't voters care when politicians are hypocritical in support of partisan ends?
I will limit my answer to one argument. It's not the only argument, but I think it's a good one. My answer is: lack of alternatives given a voter's preference.
I start with a general comparison of two-party versus multi-party systems. Then I give an example of how people do care about actions and how that affects the polls.
Two or more parties
In a two-party system, many people lean towards one of the parties. In multi-party systems, the same may hold for a larger subset of parties. For example, there could be multiple progressive parties like En Marche and MoDem in France. In that case, a liberal leaning voter may lean towards both and away from the others.
In a two-party system a person leaning towards one party is unlikely to vote for the other. Their preferred party would have to do relatively (depending on how strong the voter feels) bad things to have the voter opt for the other party.
Dutch example
If there are multiple parties in the voter's sphere of preference then it's easier for the voter to opt for another party. A good example of that can be found in the Netherlands, with two large progressive parties Democrats 66 (D66) and Green Left (GL). The first is part of the national government coalition and the second isn't. On a local level, they are said to target the same type of voter.
In the 2017 national election, D66 won 19 seats as opposed to GL which won only 14. A more recent poll (June 2018) suggests the roles are roughly reversed now. Tom Louwerse, a political scientist, is quoted explaining this swap (in Dutch):
"Regeren kost tegenwoordig steun van de kiezer. Niet alleen in Nederland, je ziet dat breed internationaal. Dat geldt met name voor de kleinere partijen binnen een coalitie, de zogenoemde junior partners. Niet voor niets verliezen ook CDA en D66 in de Peilingwijzer zetels, nog meer dan de VVD. Alleen de ChristenUnie, een partij met een relatief trouwe achterban, boekt een heel klein plusje."
In essence, he is saying that parties in government generally lose votes and that this phenomenon is not limited to the Netherlands, but that it is also observed internationally. He does note that one of the smaller christian parties in government does rise in the polls, which he explains by saying they have a loyal following.
answered 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
Partisanship happens when population of said country splits in two (or more) irreconcilable groups
Current situation in US is good example and illustration for such two groups. On one side we have White working and middle class, with their mostly traditional and Christian values. On other side we have so called minorities and liberals (White and non-White) pushing for so called multicultural and multiracial society, homosexual agenda etc ... First group wants to keep White majority in US, second group pushes for White minority and demographics comparable to modern Brazil. First group wants to preserve US culture based on traditions hailing from independence till modern days, second group pushes for mixture of various new customs. First groups cherishes traditional values, especially considering family and marriage, second group pushes for homosexual rights, open relationships etc ...
It is becoming clearer every day that divisions between these two groups are becoming larger and irreconcilable, almost like those two groups want to live in separate states. It is not uncommon these days that people from one group do not know personally anyone from other group .
Of course, both sides seek some political party or movement to represent their interest. In this case first group is more and more identified with GOP (especially conservative Republicans) and second with Democrats (especially left-leaning Democrats) . With ideological differences growing, those in the middle (independents, so called moderate Republicans and Democrats) are losing ground. Any sort of compromise is sen by both sides as weakness.
In such situation, bi-partisanship is slowly dying and people tend to root for their side. It is almost like in war - even if our side makes some dirty trick, it is excused because it harms enemy. Any personal flaws of politicians, or even direct breaking of law is viewed trough partisan glasses, and if said politician is good party solider, his side would forgive him his transgressions. In such state, law is getting sidelined anyway, because it is fruit of political compromise, and as mentioned before, compromise is more and more a dirty word.
answered 2 hours ago
rs.29
1,947110
In other words, if voters are governed by tribal membership rather than policy, then hypocrisy doesn't matter, but partisanship which may align with tribal loyalty, does matter.
– ohwilleke
55 secs ago
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Short answer: everybody hates somebody, and by extension that person/group's cherised pet cause.
Seriously. Consider the following conversation:
- Person A: Hey there gun owner, did you know that you support school vouchers?
- Person B: I do? Why?
- Person A: Because the people trying to take your guns away hate them.
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe:
- Person A: Hey there pro-choice person, did you know you hate school vouchers?
- Person B: I do? Why?
- Person A: Because right-to-lifers love them.
This dialog rarely if ever is spoken aloud, but occurs internally as part of some calculus of politics. And of course, once sides are taken, politics is the mind killer: arguments (and scandals) are soldiers, any concession means aiding the enemy. Hence "hypocrisy". Note that the above narratives are perfectly comprehensible (from a US perspective) regardless of how you feel about any of the issues mentioned.
This also explains the otherwise hard-to-explain juxtaposition of certain elements of party platforms like attitudes about economic liberty vs. social liberty.
Indeed, a common trope of both history and fiction is that when one is involved in a sufficiently intense conflict, one is faced with the quandry of sacrificing principles in pursuit of one's goals or staying the true path possibly at the cost of victory.
Even median voters have hot button issues, and while party platforms enforce a certain amount of adherence any given candidate will be hotter or colder on the radar of any given voter. So the median voter may very will flit back and forth between parties, but the x issue for their particular value of x is the driving force.
answered 2 hours ago
Jared Smith
2,0491710
"politics is the mind killer" Lovely, and probably more true than the original.
– ohwilleke
55 mins ago
This could benefit from decent citations from psychology and poly sci; but in essense is the correct answer.
– user4012
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Short answer: everybody hates somebody, and by extension that person/group's cherised pet cause.
Seriously. Consider the following conversation:
- Person A: Hey there gun owner, did you know that you support school vouchers?
- Person B: I do? Why?
- Person A: Because the people trying to take your guns away hate them.
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe:
- Person A: Hey there pro-choice person, did you know you hate school vouchers?
- Person B: I do? Why?
- Person A: Because right-to-lifers love them.
This dialog rarely if ever is spoken aloud, but occurs internally as part of some calculus of politics. And of course, once sides are taken, politics is the mind killer: arguments (and scandals) are soldiers, any concession means aiding the enemy. Hence "hypocrisy". Note that the above narratives are perfectly comprehensible (from a US perspective) regardless of how you feel about any of the issues mentioned.
This also explains the otherwise hard-to-explain juxtaposition of certain elements of party platforms like attitudes about economic liberty vs. social liberty.
Indeed, a common trope of both history and fiction is that when one is involved in a sufficiently intense conflict, one is faced with the quandry of sacrificing principles in pursuit of one's goals or staying the true path possibly at the cost of victory.
Even median voters have hot button issues, and while party platforms enforce a certain amount of adherence any given candidate will be hotter or colder on the radar of any given voter. So the median voter may very will flit back and forth between parties, but the x issue for their particular value of x is the driving force.
answered 2 hours ago
Jared Smith
2,0491710
"politics is the mind killer" Lovely, and probably more true than the original.
– ohwilleke
55 mins ago
This could benefit from decent citations from psychology and poly sci; but in essense is the correct answer.
– user4012
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Short answer: everybody hates somebody, and by extension that person/group's cherised pet cause.
Seriously. Consider the following conversation:
- Person A: Hey there gun owner, did you know that you support school vouchers?
- Person B: I do? Why?
- Person A: Because the people trying to take your guns away hate them.
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe:
- Person A: Hey there pro-choice person, did you know you hate school vouchers?
- Person B: I do? Why?
- Person A: Because right-to-lifers love them.
This dialog rarely if ever is spoken aloud, but occurs internally as part of some calculus of politics. And of course, once sides are taken, politics is the mind killer: arguments (and scandals) are soldiers, any concession means aiding the enemy. Hence "hypocrisy". Note that the above narratives are perfectly comprehensible (from a US perspective) regardless of how you feel about any of the issues mentioned.
This also explains the otherwise hard-to-explain juxtaposition of certain elements of party platforms like attitudes about economic liberty vs. social liberty.
Indeed, a common trope of both history and fiction is that when one is involved in a sufficiently intense conflict, one is faced with the quandry of sacrificing principles in pursuit of one's goals or staying the true path possibly at the cost of victory.
Even median voters have hot button issues, and while party platforms enforce a certain amount of adherence any given candidate will be hotter or colder on the radar of any given voter. So the median voter may very will flit back and forth between parties, but the x issue for their particular value of x is the driving force.
answered 2 hours ago
Jared Smith
2,0491710
Short answer: everybody hates somebody, and by extension that person/group's cherised pet cause.
Seriously. Consider the following conversation:
- Person A: Hey there gun owner, did you know that you support school vouchers?
- Person B: I do? Why?
- Person A: Because the people trying to take your guns away hate them.
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe:
- Person A: Hey there pro-choice person, did you know you hate school vouchers?
- Person B: I do? Why?
- Person A: Because right-to-lifers love them.
This dialog rarely if ever is spoken aloud, but occurs internally as part of some calculus of politics. And of course, once sides are taken, politics is the mind killer: arguments (and scandals) are soldiers, any concession means aiding the enemy. Hence "hypocrisy". Note that the above narratives are perfectly comprehensible (from a US perspective) regardless of how you feel about any of the issues mentioned.
This also explains the otherwise hard-to-explain juxtaposition of certain elements of party platforms like attitudes about economic liberty vs. social liberty.
Indeed, a common trope of both history and fiction is that when one is involved in a sufficiently intense conflict, one is faced with the quandry of sacrificing principles in pursuit of one's goals or staying the true path possibly at the cost of victory.
Even median voters have hot button issues, and while party platforms enforce a certain amount of adherence any given candidate will be hotter or colder on the radar of any given voter. So the median voter may very will flit back and forth between parties, but the x issue for their particular value of x is the driving force.
answered 2 hours ago
Jared Smith
2,0491710
answered 2 hours ago
Jared Smith
2,0491710
answered 2 hours ago
Jared Smith
2,0491710
answered 2 hours ago
Jared Smith
2,0491710
2,0491710
"politics is the mind killer" Lovely, and probably more true than the original.
– ohwilleke
55 mins ago
This could benefit from decent citations from psychology and poly sci; but in essense is the correct answer.
– user4012
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
"politics is the mind killer" Lovely, and probably more true than the original.
– ohwilleke
55 mins ago
This could benefit from decent citations from psychology and poly sci; but in essense is the correct answer.
– user4012
15 mins ago
"politics is the mind killer" Lovely, and probably more true than the original.
– ohwilleke
55 mins ago
"politics is the mind killer" Lovely, and probably more true than the original.
– ohwilleke
55 mins ago
This could benefit from decent citations from psychology and poly sci; but in essense is the correct answer.
– user4012
15 mins ago
This could benefit from decent citations from psychology and poly sci; but in essense is the correct answer.
– user4012
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
What you call "partisanship" goes by a different name within a party. Maybe it's "values", or maybe "the most important thing", or "what we're trying to accomplish", or things like "progress", "growth", and "prosperity".
Since politics is a matter of power rather than truth, politicians need to do whatever is necessary to apply power toward "the most important thing".
An example would be the idea that conservative politicians favor less government spending: I don't believe that any Republican today would deny this. Why, then, has government spending not been reduced more-than-it-has through Republican control of the Federal government?
The only possible answer is that the politicians are confident that their voters will forgive them for doing less on the budget as long as they accomplish something that's more important.
One thing about hypocrisy is that it is an accusation that the politician must face: he (or she) is the one who made the claims, and we can all see that those claims are fake. It doesn't cause confusion on our part but for a moment; other kinds of lying are more damaging, I suppose.
answered 2 hours ago
elliot svensson
4479
I'm assuming here politicians under US-style representative democracy, who don't serve life terms.
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Interestingly, bona fide monarchs rather than mere one party state dictators, who serve for life tend to be less hypocritical and less partisan.
– ohwilleke
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
What you call "partisanship" goes by a different name within a party. Maybe it's "values", or maybe "the most important thing", or "what we're trying to accomplish", or things like "progress", "growth", and "prosperity".
Since politics is a matter of power rather than truth, politicians need to do whatever is necessary to apply power toward "the most important thing".
An example would be the idea that conservative politicians favor less government spending: I don't believe that any Republican today would deny this. Why, then, has government spending not been reduced more-than-it-has through Republican control of the Federal government?
The only possible answer is that the politicians are confident that their voters will forgive them for doing less on the budget as long as they accomplish something that's more important.
One thing about hypocrisy is that it is an accusation that the politician must face: he (or she) is the one who made the claims, and we can all see that those claims are fake. It doesn't cause confusion on our part but for a moment; other kinds of lying are more damaging, I suppose.
answered 2 hours ago
elliot svensson
4479
I'm assuming here politicians under US-style representative democracy, who don't serve life terms.
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Interestingly, bona fide monarchs rather than mere one party state dictators, who serve for life tend to be less hypocritical and less partisan.
– ohwilleke
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
What you call "partisanship" goes by a different name within a party. Maybe it's "values", or maybe "the most important thing", or "what we're trying to accomplish", or things like "progress", "growth", and "prosperity".
Since politics is a matter of power rather than truth, politicians need to do whatever is necessary to apply power toward "the most important thing".
An example would be the idea that conservative politicians favor less government spending: I don't believe that any Republican today would deny this. Why, then, has government spending not been reduced more-than-it-has through Republican control of the Federal government?
The only possible answer is that the politicians are confident that their voters will forgive them for doing less on the budget as long as they accomplish something that's more important.
One thing about hypocrisy is that it is an accusation that the politician must face: he (or she) is the one who made the claims, and we can all see that those claims are fake. It doesn't cause confusion on our part but for a moment; other kinds of lying are more damaging, I suppose.
answered 2 hours ago
elliot svensson
4479
What you call "partisanship" goes by a different name within a party. Maybe it's "values", or maybe "the most important thing", or "what we're trying to accomplish", or things like "progress", "growth", and "prosperity".
Since politics is a matter of power rather than truth, politicians need to do whatever is necessary to apply power toward "the most important thing".
An example would be the idea that conservative politicians favor less government spending: I don't believe that any Republican today would deny this. Why, then, has government spending not been reduced more-than-it-has through Republican control of the Federal government?
The only possible answer is that the politicians are confident that their voters will forgive them for doing less on the budget as long as they accomplish something that's more important.
One thing about hypocrisy is that it is an accusation that the politician must face: he (or she) is the one who made the claims, and we can all see that those claims are fake. It doesn't cause confusion on our part but for a moment; other kinds of lying are more damaging, I suppose.
answered 2 hours ago
elliot svensson
4479
answered 2 hours ago
elliot svensson
4479
answered 2 hours ago
elliot svensson
4479
answered 2 hours ago
elliot svensson
4479
4479
I'm assuming here politicians under US-style representative democracy, who don't serve life terms.
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Interestingly, bona fide monarchs rather than mere one party state dictators, who serve for life tend to be less hypocritical and less partisan.
– ohwilleke
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I'm assuming here politicians under US-style representative democracy, who don't serve life terms.
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Interestingly, bona fide monarchs rather than mere one party state dictators, who serve for life tend to be less hypocritical and less partisan.
– ohwilleke
2 mins ago
I'm assuming here politicians under US-style representative democracy, who don't serve life terms.
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
I'm assuming here politicians under US-style representative democracy, who don't serve life terms.
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Interestingly, bona fide monarchs rather than mere one party state dictators, who serve for life tend to be less hypocritical and less partisan.
– ohwilleke
2 mins ago
Interestingly, bona fide monarchs rather than mere one party state dictators, who serve for life tend to be less hypocritical and less partisan.
– ohwilleke
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
People simply want to win, regardless of the size of the prize. People who make $35k in a office where the average is $30k are happier than those making $40k in an office where the average is $45k. Voting is not a logical behavior, it's an emotional one. It's silly to try to imagine someone tallying up some score card in the fall and picking a party, yet we often pretend that some egregious act will be a "disqualifier" once such a calculus is made.
This moves political beliefs more into the realm of religious beliefs. Nobody faults god for murdering villagers while commanding "thou shalt not kill"; he's god, and who's side are you on, anyway? As long as "the good side" wins, (almost) nobody who cares will care how.
answered 1 hour ago
dandavis
1655
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
People simply want to win, regardless of the size of the prize. People who make $35k in a office where the average is $30k are happier than those making $40k in an office where the average is $45k. Voting is not a logical behavior, it's an emotional one. It's silly to try to imagine someone tallying up some score card in the fall and picking a party, yet we often pretend that some egregious act will be a "disqualifier" once such a calculus is made.
This moves political beliefs more into the realm of religious beliefs. Nobody faults god for murdering villagers while commanding "thou shalt not kill"; he's god, and who's side are you on, anyway? As long as "the good side" wins, (almost) nobody who cares will care how.
answered 1 hour ago
dandavis
1655
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
People simply want to win, regardless of the size of the prize. People who make $35k in a office where the average is $30k are happier than those making $40k in an office where the average is $45k. Voting is not a logical behavior, it's an emotional one. It's silly to try to imagine someone tallying up some score card in the fall and picking a party, yet we often pretend that some egregious act will be a "disqualifier" once such a calculus is made.
This moves political beliefs more into the realm of religious beliefs. Nobody faults god for murdering villagers while commanding "thou shalt not kill"; he's god, and who's side are you on, anyway? As long as "the good side" wins, (almost) nobody who cares will care how.
answered 1 hour ago
dandavis
1655
People simply want to win, regardless of the size of the prize. People who make $35k in a office where the average is $30k are happier than those making $40k in an office where the average is $45k. Voting is not a logical behavior, it's an emotional one. It's silly to try to imagine someone tallying up some score card in the fall and picking a party, yet we often pretend that some egregious act will be a "disqualifier" once such a calculus is made.
This moves political beliefs more into the realm of religious beliefs. Nobody faults god for murdering villagers while commanding "thou shalt not kill"; he's god, and who's side are you on, anyway? As long as "the good side" wins, (almost) nobody who cares will care how.
answered 1 hour ago
dandavis
1655
answered 1 hour ago
dandavis
1655
answered 1 hour ago
dandavis
1655
answered 1 hour ago
dandavis
1655
1655
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
why don't voters care when politicians are hypocritical in support of partisan ends?
I will limit my answer to one argument. It's not the only argument, but I think it's a good one. My answer is: lack of alternatives given a voter's preference.
I start with a general comparison of two-party versus multi-party systems. Then I give an example of how people do care about actions and how that affects the polls.
Two or more parties
In a two-party system, many people lean towards one of the parties. In multi-party systems, the same may hold for a larger subset of parties. For example, there could be multiple progressive parties like En Marche and MoDem in France. In that case, a liberal leaning voter may lean towards both and away from the others.
In a two-party system a person leaning towards one party is unlikely to vote for the other. Their preferred party would have to do relatively (depending on how strong the voter feels) bad things to have the voter opt for the other party.
Dutch example
If there are multiple parties in the voter's sphere of preference then it's easier for the voter to opt for another party. A good example of that can be found in the Netherlands, with two large progressive parties Democrats 66 (D66) and Green Left (GL). The first is part of the national government coalition and the second isn't. On a local level, they are said to target the same type of voter.
In the 2017 national election, D66 won 19 seats as opposed to GL which won only 14. A more recent poll (June 2018) suggests the roles are roughly reversed now. Tom Louwerse, a political scientist, is quoted explaining this swap (in Dutch):
"Regeren kost tegenwoordig steun van de kiezer. Niet alleen in Nederland, je ziet dat breed internationaal. Dat geldt met name voor de kleinere partijen binnen een coalitie, de zogenoemde junior partners. Niet voor niets verliezen ook CDA en D66 in de Peilingwijzer zetels, nog meer dan de VVD. Alleen de ChristenUnie, een partij met een relatief trouwe achterban, boekt een heel klein plusje."
In essence, he is saying that parties in government generally lose votes and that this phenomenon is not limited to the Netherlands, but that it is also observed internationally. He does note that one of the smaller christian parties in government does rise in the polls, which he explains by saying they have a loyal following.
answered 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
why don't voters care when politicians are hypocritical in support of partisan ends?
I will limit my answer to one argument. It's not the only argument, but I think it's a good one. My answer is: lack of alternatives given a voter's preference.
I start with a general comparison of two-party versus multi-party systems. Then I give an example of how people do care about actions and how that affects the polls.
Two or more parties
In a two-party system, many people lean towards one of the parties. In multi-party systems, the same may hold for a larger subset of parties. For example, there could be multiple progressive parties like En Marche and MoDem in France. In that case, a liberal leaning voter may lean towards both and away from the others.
In a two-party system a person leaning towards one party is unlikely to vote for the other. Their preferred party would have to do relatively (depending on how strong the voter feels) bad things to have the voter opt for the other party.
Dutch example
If there are multiple parties in the voter's sphere of preference then it's easier for the voter to opt for another party. A good example of that can be found in the Netherlands, with two large progressive parties Democrats 66 (D66) and Green Left (GL). The first is part of the national government coalition and the second isn't. On a local level, they are said to target the same type of voter.
In the 2017 national election, D66 won 19 seats as opposed to GL which won only 14. A more recent poll (June 2018) suggests the roles are roughly reversed now. Tom Louwerse, a political scientist, is quoted explaining this swap (in Dutch):
"Regeren kost tegenwoordig steun van de kiezer. Niet alleen in Nederland, je ziet dat breed internationaal. Dat geldt met name voor de kleinere partijen binnen een coalitie, de zogenoemde junior partners. Niet voor niets verliezen ook CDA en D66 in de Peilingwijzer zetels, nog meer dan de VVD. Alleen de ChristenUnie, een partij met een relatief trouwe achterban, boekt een heel klein plusje."
In essence, he is saying that parties in government generally lose votes and that this phenomenon is not limited to the Netherlands, but that it is also observed internationally. He does note that one of the smaller christian parties in government does rise in the polls, which he explains by saying they have a loyal following.
answered 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
why don't voters care when politicians are hypocritical in support of partisan ends?
I will limit my answer to one argument. It's not the only argument, but I think it's a good one. My answer is: lack of alternatives given a voter's preference.
I start with a general comparison of two-party versus multi-party systems. Then I give an example of how people do care about actions and how that affects the polls.
Two or more parties
In a two-party system, many people lean towards one of the parties. In multi-party systems, the same may hold for a larger subset of parties. For example, there could be multiple progressive parties like En Marche and MoDem in France. In that case, a liberal leaning voter may lean towards both and away from the others.
In a two-party system a person leaning towards one party is unlikely to vote for the other. Their preferred party would have to do relatively (depending on how strong the voter feels) bad things to have the voter opt for the other party.
Dutch example
If there are multiple parties in the voter's sphere of preference then it's easier for the voter to opt for another party. A good example of that can be found in the Netherlands, with two large progressive parties Democrats 66 (D66) and Green Left (GL). The first is part of the national government coalition and the second isn't. On a local level, they are said to target the same type of voter.
In the 2017 national election, D66 won 19 seats as opposed to GL which won only 14. A more recent poll (June 2018) suggests the roles are roughly reversed now. Tom Louwerse, a political scientist, is quoted explaining this swap (in Dutch):
"Regeren kost tegenwoordig steun van de kiezer. Niet alleen in Nederland, je ziet dat breed internationaal. Dat geldt met name voor de kleinere partijen binnen een coalitie, de zogenoemde junior partners. Niet voor niets verliezen ook CDA en D66 in de Peilingwijzer zetels, nog meer dan de VVD. Alleen de ChristenUnie, een partij met een relatief trouwe achterban, boekt een heel klein plusje."
In essence, he is saying that parties in government generally lose votes and that this phenomenon is not limited to the Netherlands, but that it is also observed internationally. He does note that one of the smaller christian parties in government does rise in the polls, which he explains by saying they have a loyal following.
answered 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
why don't voters care when politicians are hypocritical in support of partisan ends?
I will limit my answer to one argument. It's not the only argument, but I think it's a good one. My answer is: lack of alternatives given a voter's preference.
I start with a general comparison of two-party versus multi-party systems. Then I give an example of how people do care about actions and how that affects the polls.
Two or more parties
In a two-party system, many people lean towards one of the parties. In multi-party systems, the same may hold for a larger subset of parties. For example, there could be multiple progressive parties like En Marche and MoDem in France. In that case, a liberal leaning voter may lean towards both and away from the others.
In a two-party system a person leaning towards one party is unlikely to vote for the other. Their preferred party would have to do relatively (depending on how strong the voter feels) bad things to have the voter opt for the other party.
Dutch example
If there are multiple parties in the voter's sphere of preference then it's easier for the voter to opt for another party. A good example of that can be found in the Netherlands, with two large progressive parties Democrats 66 (D66) and Green Left (GL). The first is part of the national government coalition and the second isn't. On a local level, they are said to target the same type of voter.
In the 2017 national election, D66 won 19 seats as opposed to GL which won only 14. A more recent poll (June 2018) suggests the roles are roughly reversed now. Tom Louwerse, a political scientist, is quoted explaining this swap (in Dutch):
"Regeren kost tegenwoordig steun van de kiezer. Niet alleen in Nederland, je ziet dat breed internationaal. Dat geldt met name voor de kleinere partijen binnen een coalitie, de zogenoemde junior partners. Niet voor niets verliezen ook CDA en D66 in de Peilingwijzer zetels, nog meer dan de VVD. Alleen de ChristenUnie, een partij met een relatief trouwe achterban, boekt een heel klein plusje."
In essence, he is saying that parties in government generally lose votes and that this phenomenon is not limited to the Netherlands, but that it is also observed internationally. He does note that one of the smaller christian parties in government does rise in the polls, which he explains by saying they have a loyal following.
answered 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
answered 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
answered 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
answered 1 hour ago
JJJ
1,924830
1,924830
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
Partisanship happens when population of said country splits in two (or more) irreconcilable groups
Current situation in US is good example and illustration for such two groups. On one side we have White working and middle class, with their mostly traditional and Christian values. On other side we have so called minorities and liberals (White and non-White) pushing for so called multicultural and multiracial society, homosexual agenda etc ... First group wants to keep White majority in US, second group pushes for White minority and demographics comparable to modern Brazil. First group wants to preserve US culture based on traditions hailing from independence till modern days, second group pushes for mixture of various new customs. First groups cherishes traditional values, especially considering family and marriage, second group pushes for homosexual rights, open relationships etc ...
It is becoming clearer every day that divisions between these two groups are becoming larger and irreconcilable, almost like those two groups want to live in separate states. It is not uncommon these days that people from one group do not know personally anyone from other group .
Of course, both sides seek some political party or movement to represent their interest. In this case first group is more and more identified with GOP (especially conservative Republicans) and second with Democrats (especially left-leaning Democrats) . With ideological differences growing, those in the middle (independents, so called moderate Republicans and Democrats) are losing ground. Any sort of compromise is sen by both sides as weakness.
In such situation, bi-partisanship is slowly dying and people tend to root for their side. It is almost like in war - even if our side makes some dirty trick, it is excused because it harms enemy. Any personal flaws of politicians, or even direct breaking of law is viewed trough partisan glasses, and if said politician is good party solider, his side would forgive him his transgressions. In such state, law is getting sidelined anyway, because it is fruit of political compromise, and as mentioned before, compromise is more and more a dirty word.
answered 2 hours ago
rs.29
1,947110
In other words, if voters are governed by tribal membership rather than policy, then hypocrisy doesn't matter, but partisanship which may align with tribal loyalty, does matter.
– ohwilleke
55 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
Partisanship happens when population of said country splits in two (or more) irreconcilable groups
Current situation in US is good example and illustration for such two groups. On one side we have White working and middle class, with their mostly traditional and Christian values. On other side we have so called minorities and liberals (White and non-White) pushing for so called multicultural and multiracial society, homosexual agenda etc ... First group wants to keep White majority in US, second group pushes for White minority and demographics comparable to modern Brazil. First group wants to preserve US culture based on traditions hailing from independence till modern days, second group pushes for mixture of various new customs. First groups cherishes traditional values, especially considering family and marriage, second group pushes for homosexual rights, open relationships etc ...
It is becoming clearer every day that divisions between these two groups are becoming larger and irreconcilable, almost like those two groups want to live in separate states. It is not uncommon these days that people from one group do not know personally anyone from other group .
Of course, both sides seek some political party or movement to represent their interest. In this case first group is more and more identified with GOP (especially conservative Republicans) and second with Democrats (especially left-leaning Democrats) . With ideological differences growing, those in the middle (independents, so called moderate Republicans and Democrats) are losing ground. Any sort of compromise is sen by both sides as weakness.
In such situation, bi-partisanship is slowly dying and people tend to root for their side. It is almost like in war - even if our side makes some dirty trick, it is excused because it harms enemy. Any personal flaws of politicians, or even direct breaking of law is viewed trough partisan glasses, and if said politician is good party solider, his side would forgive him his transgressions. In such state, law is getting sidelined anyway, because it is fruit of political compromise, and as mentioned before, compromise is more and more a dirty word.
answered 2 hours ago
rs.29
1,947110
In other words, if voters are governed by tribal membership rather than policy, then hypocrisy doesn't matter, but partisanship which may align with tribal loyalty, does matter.
– ohwilleke
55 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
Partisanship happens when population of said country splits in two (or more) irreconcilable groups
Current situation in US is good example and illustration for such two groups. On one side we have White working and middle class, with their mostly traditional and Christian values. On other side we have so called minorities and liberals (White and non-White) pushing for so called multicultural and multiracial society, homosexual agenda etc ... First group wants to keep White majority in US, second group pushes for White minority and demographics comparable to modern Brazil. First group wants to preserve US culture based on traditions hailing from independence till modern days, second group pushes for mixture of various new customs. First groups cherishes traditional values, especially considering family and marriage, second group pushes for homosexual rights, open relationships etc ...
It is becoming clearer every day that divisions between these two groups are becoming larger and irreconcilable, almost like those two groups want to live in separate states. It is not uncommon these days that people from one group do not know personally anyone from other group .
Of course, both sides seek some political party or movement to represent their interest. In this case first group is more and more identified with GOP (especially conservative Republicans) and second with Democrats (especially left-leaning Democrats) . With ideological differences growing, those in the middle (independents, so called moderate Republicans and Democrats) are losing ground. Any sort of compromise is sen by both sides as weakness.
In such situation, bi-partisanship is slowly dying and people tend to root for their side. It is almost like in war - even if our side makes some dirty trick, it is excused because it harms enemy. Any personal flaws of politicians, or even direct breaking of law is viewed trough partisan glasses, and if said politician is good party solider, his side would forgive him his transgressions. In such state, law is getting sidelined anyway, because it is fruit of political compromise, and as mentioned before, compromise is more and more a dirty word.
answered 2 hours ago
rs.29
1,947110
Partisanship happens when population of said country splits in two (or more) irreconcilable groups
Current situation in US is good example and illustration for such two groups. On one side we have White working and middle class, with their mostly traditional and Christian values. On other side we have so called minorities and liberals (White and non-White) pushing for so called multicultural and multiracial society, homosexual agenda etc ... First group wants to keep White majority in US, second group pushes for White minority and demographics comparable to modern Brazil. First group wants to preserve US culture based on traditions hailing from independence till modern days, second group pushes for mixture of various new customs. First groups cherishes traditional values, especially considering family and marriage, second group pushes for homosexual rights, open relationships etc ...
It is becoming clearer every day that divisions between these two groups are becoming larger and irreconcilable, almost like those two groups want to live in separate states. It is not uncommon these days that people from one group do not know personally anyone from other group .
Of course, both sides seek some political party or movement to represent their interest. In this case first group is more and more identified with GOP (especially conservative Republicans) and second with Democrats (especially left-leaning Democrats) . With ideological differences growing, those in the middle (independents, so called moderate Republicans and Democrats) are losing ground. Any sort of compromise is sen by both sides as weakness.
In such situation, bi-partisanship is slowly dying and people tend to root for their side. It is almost like in war - even if our side makes some dirty trick, it is excused because it harms enemy. Any personal flaws of politicians, or even direct breaking of law is viewed trough partisan glasses, and if said politician is good party solider, his side would forgive him his transgressions. In such state, law is getting sidelined anyway, because it is fruit of political compromise, and as mentioned before, compromise is more and more a dirty word.
answered 2 hours ago
rs.29
1,947110
answered 2 hours ago
rs.29
1,947110
answered 2 hours ago
rs.29
1,947110
answered 2 hours ago
rs.29
1,947110
1,947110
In other words, if voters are governed by tribal membership rather than policy, then hypocrisy doesn't matter, but partisanship which may align with tribal loyalty, does matter.
– ohwilleke
55 secs ago
add a comment |Â
In other words, if voters are governed by tribal membership rather than policy, then hypocrisy doesn't matter, but partisanship which may align with tribal loyalty, does matter.
– ohwilleke
55 secs ago
In other words, if voters are governed by tribal membership rather than policy, then hypocrisy doesn't matter, but partisanship which may align with tribal loyalty, does matter.
– ohwilleke
55 secs ago
In other words, if voters are governed by tribal membership rather than policy, then hypocrisy doesn't matter, but partisanship which may align with tribal loyalty, does matter.
– ohwilleke
55 secs ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34010%2fwhy-does-partisanship-trump-concerns-about-hypocrisy-with-voters%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Probably because they care more about tangible policy than political games.
– David Rice
3 hours ago
@DavidRice If so, why is this the case, for example, for positions on budget deficits or regulation which a policy outcomes rather than process matters. This issue, while it overlaps with the principle that policy trumps process, isn't the same thing.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
You seem to base most of your question on the US. Have you seen the same pattern in countries with multiple large political parties? In the US, most elections are a choice between a democrat or a republican. If you really dislike one, you're likely to vote for the others regardless of some lies or hypocrisy.
– JJJ
3 hours ago
@JJJ Yes. I can think of examples in the U.K. and France and Italy, for example, which have more than two viable political parties, where this also happens. Also, even in multi-party systems there is ultimately a ruling coalition and opposition politicians even though in those systems the final coalitions are put into place after the election rather than in advance of the election in the continually evolving party formation process. I acknowledge, however, that the amount of hypocrisy that the political culture in each country or system tolerates might not be uniform.
– ohwilleke
3 hours ago
@ohwilleke in those countries you actually see those fed up with establishment politics (which some of the public perceive to be hypocrites) opting for more extreme candidates or parties. In the UK, neo-liberal Labour made a swing to the left under Corbyn (effectively taking over the party). President Macron in France started a new movement and won bigly ;). In Italy the 5 star movement, anti-establishment won a lot of ground. So I don't think they are good examples of countries in which the electorate stick to 'their party' like they do (for lack of a viable alternative) in the US.
– JJJ
2 hours ago