Why I love dirty elections
3 November 2008
In the last week a number of bright-eyed ladies and men have knocked on the door of our family home, encouraging us to vote. This evening my wife and kids brought a plate of cookies to a group of students working to get out the vote in a similar way. What a wonderful sight to see diverse people working together for a broad political purpose!
I am not the first professor to say that elections are good for democracy. That is a cliche point, but it is true. Elections raffirm that the people control their government. More important, elections bring people together in discussion, debate, and joint endeavor. Elections are about community-building; they are a time for us to talk to one another as citizens. We might often yell and shout dirty names at one another, but at least we are talking.
There is a tendency among many observers to lament the negativity of many political campaigns. The implication is that government would function better if it were run by "experts." Committee deliberations among technocrats and bureaucrats seem so much more rational than public campaigns.
I do not share this view. "Expert" decisions do not build community, they do not engage the public, and they do not produce better outcomes. There is no historical evidence that I can find to affirm the superiority of experts over the public at large when it comes to big policy decisions. The people do not always know best. The process of engaging them in discussion and debate, however, encourages real thinking, as well as a lot of nonsense. We need more real thinking and we need more lively, heated campaigns. Bring it on! Dirty campaigns are good for democracy.
I am not the first professor to say that elections are good for democracy. That is a cliche point, but it is true. Elections raffirm that the people control their government. More important, elections bring people together in discussion, debate, and joint endeavor. Elections are about community-building; they are a time for us to talk to one another as citizens. We might often yell and shout dirty names at one another, but at least we are talking.
There is a tendency among many observers to lament the negativity of many political campaigns. The implication is that government would function better if it were run by "experts." Committee deliberations among technocrats and bureaucrats seem so much more rational than public campaigns.
I do not share this view. "Expert" decisions do not build community, they do not engage the public, and they do not produce better outcomes. There is no historical evidence that I can find to affirm the superiority of experts over the public at large when it comes to big policy decisions. The people do not always know best. The process of engaging them in discussion and debate, however, encourages real thinking, as well as a lot of nonsense. We need more real thinking and we need more lively, heated campaigns. Bring it on! Dirty campaigns are good for democracy.
| 1. November 04 2008 10:31 AM | Indeed. Who are these "experts" anyway?
In the case of the sub-prime mess, were they the mortgage industry lobbyists and politicians who, working in concert, made easy money available to unqualified borrowers (enriching themselves or their campaign coffers in the process.) Were those experts the CEO's of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who, by successfully promoting mortgage deregulation, grew their toxic business model to absurd proportions, enriching themselves at taxpayer expense? There is plenty of blame to be shared by all these so called experts in this, Republicans and Democrats alike.
What struck me as different about this election was not that the election was dirty...it surely was. The difference lay in the willingness of average voters to look beyond the "talking heads" on both sides of the political fence, those who promote populist narrative, fear and character assasination in place of a deeper substantive discussion of the considerable issues facing our nation.
Perhaps it was the financial crisis that got everyones attention? I'm sure it help us all focus. But perhaps it was more than that. Perhaps all this negative campaigning has ultimately desensitized us to the personal attacks and we voters are demanding more substance from the political process.
I agree Jeremi...bring on the dirty campaigns. In this instance, they seemed to have led us to a deeper understanding of the issues. --Posted by Alan Greene | |
| 2. November 05 2008 08:14 AM | I think you are absolutely correct, Alan. This election manifested a widespread public recognition that the "experts" were not managing our society effectively. President-elect Obama connected with people and empowered them to think about they could help to improve our society and our world. This was definitely an election about substance, and I expect substantive changes in policy during Obama's first 100 Days. See more of my thoughts about this in my posting today on the "Promise of America." Alan and others -- please chime in with your thoughts, reflections, and reactions. --Posted by Jeremi Suri | |
