Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Balkinization

Legal Commentary

: Balkinization

Who Won that Masked Election?

By Jack M. Balkin

NPR and other news sources are reporting a roiling debate in the Democratic party about what the election meant. As I understand it, there are at least two debates, although they intersect. One might be called "person vs. policy." Did voters select Obama primarily for his leadership qualities or for his policies? And if policy, which policies were crucial? Getting us out of a severe recession or longstanding problems like health care? The other debate is about ideology, one we often have after elections. Did voters shift left or does the country remain, as so many seem to think, "center-right?"

In addition, there are arguments about what might be called the preconditions for successfully advancing new domestic policy initiatives. Clinton adviser Elaine Kamarck has been arguing that rebuilding trust in government is one these preconditions. The political science evidence I'm familiar with suggests Kamarck is right. Marc Hetherington's 2005 book, Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism is very convincing on this point. You might think of increasing political trust as the way to boost the signal of new policies that require cutting through the interference thrown up by opposing interest groups. And how to increase trust? Here's where the analogy to 1933 is on target -- by restoring basic confidence in the economy and the government's ability to handle the recession. But this also means complex domestic initiatives will have to wait.

As for ideology, there is a strange asymmetry operating somewhere. Apparently, elections aren't about ideology except when Republicans win. The empirical evidence I'm familiar with shows elections can't be ideological in the way the term is normally meant because voters don't think of themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" in the first place. If this is a relatively stable truth, however, then it applied with equal force to the 1980 election, the so-called "Reagan revolution." There was plenty of evidence in the 1980s that despite Reagan's political dominance voters hadn't changed their adherence to policies normally referred to as liberal. Whole books were written about this such as Right Turn, a 1986 effort by Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers.

But Republicans didn't see it that way. They set the terms of a debate among elites which they won, claiming the 1980 election had vindicated their principles. They acted as if they had faith, and policies were granted to them. So why don't Democrats today emulate the Republicans of 1980? Instead of negotiating with themselves and debating what the election meant, they should seize the high ground and simply claim their principles have been vindicated. And if Obama is as adept as Reagan in picking the few right principles to turn into policy, it all works. Unfortunately, Democrats tend to define themselves by adherence to pragmatism rather than principle. Pragmatism seems to mean carving the election into thin slices and studying them at a microscopic level to see what policies might be acceptable rather than seizing the opportunity for a chance to lead the U.S. to a new place. It's a difference not only with respect to how the parties define themselves, but also about what political leadership means.

To get to the bottom line: of course the election was not about a dramatic shift in ideology. No evidence supports that this ever happens, at least in the way elites define the term. Effective leaders treat electoral success as an opportunity to advance new principles and ideas that will be confirmed by policy success. That's how a "revolution" can get off the uncertain ground provided by a close scrutiny of public opinion and into the history books as a truly new deal.

Full post as published by Balkinization on November 20, 2008 (boomark / email).