Electability, Electability, Electability
I have some issues with this post on the Slog (the Stranger's daily blog). While I thought portions of this argument were well and passionately stated I don't think that they are especially well thought out.
My first problem is that when you talk about and think about politics as a fight and the desire to win that fight you're really talking about, and should be thinking about two different issues, two different fights. There's the fight to win elections and then there is the fight to get things done (to pass legislation). When Mr. Nelson says, "shouldn't we want a fight", he's talking about the election exclusively and maybe it's at least partially true with regard to an election but he's only partially right in that case and completely wrong in the case of the fight that starts when the election is over.
In an election, who cares how much republicans hate Clinton...well except that republicans hating her would likely bring more of them out to the polls which, yes, would make her less electable and I really can't comprehend why he doesn't think electability is legitimate concern. What does it matter how well a candidate can "carry the news about democratic values" if they can't get elected. If they can't get elected that's a loss not just for that candidate, but also for those values. So, yes we should be concerned about which candidate is more electable, though I agree that we shouldn't use polling data as the exclusive indicator of it nor should we use how much republicans appear to hate one candidate or the other as the exclusive indicator.
Putting aside the issue of Clinton being unelectable because republicans hate her (and it's not just republicans by the way, its many swing voters as well, in fact I've even been known to say that I might seriously consider voting for McCain if Clinton ends up winning the nomination and I'm solidly a democrat), she would also be ineffective as President because she's polarizing. She's alienated a lot of people who's support she would need to get things accomplished (again, not just republicans, David Brooks wrote an interesting op-ed piece about how badly she's alienated Jim Cooper, a Democratic congressman). Electability is the first fight, effectiveness is the second and encouraging the other side to fight your agenda is the last thing you want if you want to get anything done. You most certainly don't want someone in the top office of the country who's going to inspire people to try to block his or her legislation just because they don't like him/her.
I know that Sean Nelson wasn't actually advocating for Clinton in his Slog post, in fact he's doing somewhat the opposite, but to advocate ignoring electability is irresponsible (unless you wouldn't mind another republican administration).
My second qualm is this,
"Let’s just say hypothetically: if there were a democratic candidate with an authentically liberal agenda, who spoke to us in language that stirred our souls (not just comparatively), and who was honest the way even forthright-seeming politicians simply can’t be, would it not be worth getting behind him or her not only if but because it made the other side—which, as you rightly say, really is the other side because they want truly different things—upset"
My problem with it is that I don't think anyone, including Mr. Nelson, would vote for this hypothetical candidate because a candidate with an "authentically liberal agenda", if they are "honest the way even forthright-seeming politicians simply can't be" would have to admit publicly that they weren't going to be able to get that authentically liberal agenda put into practice no matter how hard they fought for it and that, therefore, they would have to compromise once elected. The reason politicians can't just be honest is that no one would vote for them if they said, "I'd like to do all these things, but it depends on the House and the Senate and I have little to no control over those things so it might not happen and when push comes to shove, if I have to compromise some of these things to get others done I'm going to do that because the alternative is getting nothing at all done simply because I stuck to my ideals too closely"
At the caucus I attended on Saturday a woman argued passionately for Clinton because she'd attended both rallies and Clinton laid out a timeline for when she was going to accomplish each of her campaign promises where as Obama simply said he would like to accomplish certain things. I think the certainty Clinton offered, while it may be comforting to some, is wildly dishonest. She can't possibly know that she will be able to accomplish those things at all much less within a certain time period. She can say she wants to, and that she'll fight for the things that matter to her (and to us), but she can't say that within 30 days, or 6 months, or a year, she'll have passed any legislation because that's not up to her exclusively and (as previously noted) she may be less able to deliver on those promises because there are more people in Congress and the Senate who might vote against her legislation just because they don't like her (or because she alienated them when she was First Lady). I get the impression that Clinton thinks she, through sheer force of will, can get whatever she wants accomplished, but that's unrealistic. She needs other people to work with her, but working across party lines to get things done is, if anything, a peripheral part of her rhetoric. Where as it is a, if not the, central component of Obama's rhetoric. He talks about getting both sides together to get things done, there's still a possibility that he won't be able to do that but at least he wants to try.
My third problem is that Nelson talks about race as a factor that makes Obama less electable without acknowledging that sex is a factor, in the same way, that makes Clinton less electable as well. Nicholas Kristof, in his editorial about electability, quotes Shirley Chisholm as saying that she's encountered more discrimination for being a woman than for being black and goes on to say that both polling data and psychological research support the fact that sexism is more prevalent than racism in America. Not that racism isn't also prevalent, but that sexism is more so.
If you're having a discussion about electability, the current polling data says Clinton can't beat McCain but Obama can, this country's sexism outpaces its racism, and Clinton's polarizing effect on both the general population and her fellow elected officials, all point to her being less electable than Obama and, unlike Mr. Nelson, I believe that it's a very important factor to consider, if not the most important one. We come to the same conclusion, he supports Obama and so do I, but I have to disagree when he says that electability isn't a stirring reason to back a candidate. It's not the only reason to back Obama, not nearly, but it is definitely a stirring one.
Like I said, the argument is well stated, but while it contains some logical components it is essentially an emotional argument based on a idealized political landscape that is far from reality. Would it be nice if there were political candidates who's ideology lined up precisely with your own? yes. Would it be just great if you could vote for them in a primary (or caucus) based solely on that ideological agreement without any regard to whether or not they could carry the general election? yes. Would it be wonderful if idealism were all it took to get things done once elected? yes. None of those things are true though. You have to think about which candidates are closest to your ideals, and of those candidates which one(s) stand a good chance of getting elected and of those which one(s) would be able to put more of those ideals into practice. In a primary (or caucus) it really comes down to the last two (electability and potential effectiveness) because the candidate's ideologies are very similar, where they primarily differ is in their ideas about how to go about achieving their ideological goals.
My first problem is that when you talk about and think about politics as a fight and the desire to win that fight you're really talking about, and should be thinking about two different issues, two different fights. There's the fight to win elections and then there is the fight to get things done (to pass legislation). When Mr. Nelson says, "shouldn't we want a fight", he's talking about the election exclusively and maybe it's at least partially true with regard to an election but he's only partially right in that case and completely wrong in the case of the fight that starts when the election is over.
In an election, who cares how much republicans hate Clinton...well except that republicans hating her would likely bring more of them out to the polls which, yes, would make her less electable and I really can't comprehend why he doesn't think electability is legitimate concern. What does it matter how well a candidate can "carry the news about democratic values" if they can't get elected. If they can't get elected that's a loss not just for that candidate, but also for those values. So, yes we should be concerned about which candidate is more electable, though I agree that we shouldn't use polling data as the exclusive indicator of it nor should we use how much republicans appear to hate one candidate or the other as the exclusive indicator.
Putting aside the issue of Clinton being unelectable because republicans hate her (and it's not just republicans by the way, its many swing voters as well, in fact I've even been known to say that I might seriously consider voting for McCain if Clinton ends up winning the nomination and I'm solidly a democrat), she would also be ineffective as President because she's polarizing. She's alienated a lot of people who's support she would need to get things accomplished (again, not just republicans, David Brooks wrote an interesting op-ed piece about how badly she's alienated Jim Cooper, a Democratic congressman). Electability is the first fight, effectiveness is the second and encouraging the other side to fight your agenda is the last thing you want if you want to get anything done. You most certainly don't want someone in the top office of the country who's going to inspire people to try to block his or her legislation just because they don't like him/her.
I know that Sean Nelson wasn't actually advocating for Clinton in his Slog post, in fact he's doing somewhat the opposite, but to advocate ignoring electability is irresponsible (unless you wouldn't mind another republican administration).
My second qualm is this,
"Let’s just say hypothetically: if there were a democratic candidate with an authentically liberal agenda, who spoke to us in language that stirred our souls (not just comparatively), and who was honest the way even forthright-seeming politicians simply can’t be, would it not be worth getting behind him or her not only if but because it made the other side—which, as you rightly say, really is the other side because they want truly different things—upset"
My problem with it is that I don't think anyone, including Mr. Nelson, would vote for this hypothetical candidate because a candidate with an "authentically liberal agenda", if they are "honest the way even forthright-seeming politicians simply can't be" would have to admit publicly that they weren't going to be able to get that authentically liberal agenda put into practice no matter how hard they fought for it and that, therefore, they would have to compromise once elected. The reason politicians can't just be honest is that no one would vote for them if they said, "I'd like to do all these things, but it depends on the House and the Senate and I have little to no control over those things so it might not happen and when push comes to shove, if I have to compromise some of these things to get others done I'm going to do that because the alternative is getting nothing at all done simply because I stuck to my ideals too closely"
At the caucus I attended on Saturday a woman argued passionately for Clinton because she'd attended both rallies and Clinton laid out a timeline for when she was going to accomplish each of her campaign promises where as Obama simply said he would like to accomplish certain things. I think the certainty Clinton offered, while it may be comforting to some, is wildly dishonest. She can't possibly know that she will be able to accomplish those things at all much less within a certain time period. She can say she wants to, and that she'll fight for the things that matter to her (and to us), but she can't say that within 30 days, or 6 months, or a year, she'll have passed any legislation because that's not up to her exclusively and (as previously noted) she may be less able to deliver on those promises because there are more people in Congress and the Senate who might vote against her legislation just because they don't like her (or because she alienated them when she was First Lady). I get the impression that Clinton thinks she, through sheer force of will, can get whatever she wants accomplished, but that's unrealistic. She needs other people to work with her, but working across party lines to get things done is, if anything, a peripheral part of her rhetoric. Where as it is a, if not the, central component of Obama's rhetoric. He talks about getting both sides together to get things done, there's still a possibility that he won't be able to do that but at least he wants to try.
My third problem is that Nelson talks about race as a factor that makes Obama less electable without acknowledging that sex is a factor, in the same way, that makes Clinton less electable as well. Nicholas Kristof, in his editorial about electability, quotes Shirley Chisholm as saying that she's encountered more discrimination for being a woman than for being black and goes on to say that both polling data and psychological research support the fact that sexism is more prevalent than racism in America. Not that racism isn't also prevalent, but that sexism is more so.
If you're having a discussion about electability, the current polling data says Clinton can't beat McCain but Obama can, this country's sexism outpaces its racism, and Clinton's polarizing effect on both the general population and her fellow elected officials, all point to her being less electable than Obama and, unlike Mr. Nelson, I believe that it's a very important factor to consider, if not the most important one. We come to the same conclusion, he supports Obama and so do I, but I have to disagree when he says that electability isn't a stirring reason to back a candidate. It's not the only reason to back Obama, not nearly, but it is definitely a stirring one.
Like I said, the argument is well stated, but while it contains some logical components it is essentially an emotional argument based on a idealized political landscape that is far from reality. Would it be nice if there were political candidates who's ideology lined up precisely with your own? yes. Would it be just great if you could vote for them in a primary (or caucus) based solely on that ideological agreement without any regard to whether or not they could carry the general election? yes. Would it be wonderful if idealism were all it took to get things done once elected? yes. None of those things are true though. You have to think about which candidates are closest to your ideals, and of those candidates which one(s) stand a good chance of getting elected and of those which one(s) would be able to put more of those ideals into practice. In a primary (or caucus) it really comes down to the last two (electability and potential effectiveness) because the candidate's ideologies are very similar, where they primarily differ is in their ideas about how to go about achieving their ideological goals.
posted by Beth at
12:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home