One of my favorite SNL laugh lines is "Ah...I was told there would be no math..." This Chevy Chase line was delivered while impersonating President Ford. In my ongoing study of and frustration with the over-personalization of American politics, I am starting to see a link between this tendency to avoid policy issues and the significance of ideology with a fear of complex math.
Math anxiety is quite common in America and this fear may lead people to see political questions as having only two sides. The notion that political outcomes, arguments, or behavior may be based on multiple factors seems beyond many of us. If people's actions, positions, and arguments cannot be neatly arranged into one of two categories; right or wrong; good or bad; this or that; then they are considered squishy, vague, confusing, etc... These characterizations allow complex arguments to be categorized is simply negative. In other words, anything not easily explained is to be rejected as duplicitous (i.e. intentionally deceptive). From this perspective all truth can be simply and clearly explained. This is the principle intellectual element of efforts to downplay the significance of scientific findings that do not reinforce particular political perspectives.
Why has this "dumbing down" been so pervasive? One reason may be its acceptance as at least a necessary evil by participants across the political spectrum. It is not the result of a "vast right wing conspiracy" or an attempt by liberal educators to brain wash America's youth. Its popularity among those left, right, and center means that the problem is much bigger.
Recently, I have been reading stories and columns about Obama's shifting comments on various issues. Particularly interesting is the work of liberal pundits like Bob Hebert and David Broder on the question of where Obama really stands on issues. Both Hebert and Broder write about this question without questioning the appropriateness and utility of the question itself to voters. They might argue that appropriateness or utility are beside the point because regardless, the question is important to voters. Indeed, they appear to assume that voters "should" care about the general election candidates' specific positions in great detail, rather than relying on a broad understanding of their ideological perspective. They further leave un-questioned the notion that voters should judge a general election candidate's integrity by measuring his consistency (very specifically) in his policy position comments and statements.
What's wrong with all this? CONTEXT!!! Making political judgments based solely on personal behavioral/ psychological criteria means utilizing an inappropriate context. Someone running for president must possess skills appropriate for the presidency. Politicians should be capable of effectiveness within our political system, right? Well, unfortunately, far too few Americans understand the political system. Very few Americans appreciate the degree to which our system's design encourages and even requires what has come to be seen as corruption, dishonesty, or disreputable character. Ours is a competitive political system by design. Competitors utilize tactics and strategies designed to achieve victory, not mass enlightenment. Equating these tactics and strategies with corruption, dishonesty, and disreputable character is a SERIOUS mistake for both the individual voter, and the systematic analyst. Political strategy and tactics are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for those who hope to be effective in our constitutional democracy. Unfortunately, the combination of civic ignorance and the temptation to take tactical advantage of that ignorance has brought us to a very dangerous (or at least frustrating) place.
In American politics, you are right or wrong; good or bad. Ironically, this intellectually problematic dualism need not have as deleterious an impact on our politics as it does. A two party system in which the two parties are solidly grounded in what Americans see as liberal and conservative philosophies can reduce the counter-productivity of over-simplified "this or that" political choices. Vital parties require a clear comprehension by the electorate that each party is grounded in, and will pursue, a policy agenda that is (broadly) consistent with its philosophy of governance. This consistency must be measured appropriately. Citizens in a competitive democracy need to appreciate what Emerson meant when he condemned a "foolish consistency" calling it "the hobgoblin of little minds." Citizens must be sophisticated enough to appreciate the need for partisan politicians to balance the goals of electoral victory with those of principled policy advocacy. This balancing act is as important as it is hard to pull off. It is very much like tight rope walking, in which small missteps can produce big consequences.
Because our politics is competitive and because all the players are dealing with this same internal dilemma, it should not be a surprise that politicians have always presented themselves as accomplished high wire artists, while trying to convince voters that their opponents have fallen. If you stop and think about the ways in which political opponents are characterized, you will recognize that the criticisms fit neatly into one or both of the aforementioned categories (radical ideologue or personally ambitious power monger). Either they have chosen winning over principle and self interest over the public interest(unprincipled, flip flopping, careerist, special interest loving, power mongers) or they have gone off the deep end ideologically (zealots, radicals, extremists, right wingers, left wingers, etc...).
A well informed voter who is in touch with her own philosophy of governance, as well as her practical interests, will NEVER have to rely on political campaigns to chose wisely in a presidential general election. Thanks to the fact that the two parties actually do represent different policy agendas based on different philosophies of governance, and the fact that our constitutional design prevents presidents from escaping the broad contours of their party's policy preferences, smart voters can assess their present ideological preferences and vote accordingly. In other words, they can decide which broad direction would best serve the country over the next four years and vote that way without fear that more precise factors, like the personal characteristics of the occupant of the Oval Office, will have a greater influence than broad party philosophy.
No matter how often I talk about survey research findings showing a clear and pervasive correlation between political/civic knowledge and ideological politics, particularly partisanship, there are always folks who simply will not accept that their eyes may be deceiving them. Everything they see tells them that parties and ideologues are what is wrong with American politics, and they simply cannot get past that. Unfortunately, the big league competitors in our system do not have enough incentive to assist these voters. Doing so would require surrendering short term tactical position in order to pursue a long term public interest goal. This is often discussed in the language of unilateral disarmament. It would be like asking someone to invest their live savings in a project that will not produce a positive return until after their death. Sure, politicians, investors, and everyone else is attracted to the notion of making the world better for our grandkids, but who's willing to sacrifice their own careers and happiness for "the possibility" of making that notion a reality?