Shaping the Electorate vs. Responding to the Electorate Posted by Shadi Hamid

Hepzeeba at Infotainment Rules argues that, contrary to what me, Mike, and Matt Yglesias think, Rudy Giuiliani is not totally off-his-rocker, but is actually quite smartly positioning himself to win over "Middle America," i.e. the kind of people who in Gabor Steingart's words "want a strong leader, a tough decision maker, not an adventurer. The worst charge one could hurl at a presidential candidate these days is that he or she is soft on terrorism." Hepzeeba calls Giuiliani's foreign policy team "brilliant if hawkish."

I'm not going to pretend I know what "Middle America" thinks. Whatever the case is, I think the problem is that too many Democrats asume that a large swath of Americans want a bellicose, war-ready foreign policy. Because of this assumption, liberals/Democrats are in perpetual fear of not appearing "tough" enough on national security. So they overcompensate for their perceived sissiness by being hawkish, xenophobic, and by not talking about the things liberals should be trumpeting with a blowhorn - our opposition to warrant-less wiretapping, the Patriot Act, Republican anti-Muslim mongering, torture...the list goes on (for more on this point, see this op-ed I co-wrote with Marc Grinberg).

A friend of mine (who happens to be Ohioan) was saying last night that the average Ohioan isn't particularly bothered by the fact that we're torturing people in Iraq, Gitmo, and shady Eastern European dungeons. I don't care how bellicose the American public is or might be. Why are we liberals always trying to respond to and accomodate the electorate's worst instincts? Instead, let's take our case against torture and warant-less wiretapping straight to the American people and explain, by way of reference to our Constitution and founding ideals, that eroding our civil liberties is not a sign of "toughness," but rather of stupidity. Why can't we adopt the long-term perspective of shaping - rather than responding to - the electorate, and moving the electorate to the Left on the issues that we hold dear and that define us as Liberals? 

Comments

[Chris]

So, is the analysis of Edwards' piece coming tomorrow?

[Don Bacon]

Shadi, you know better than to blindly trust someone from Ohio, the state of confused elections. Seriously, I think that your friend Obama, once he gets over talking about attacking Pakistan, can appeal to an inherent sense of morality of American citizens in all fifty states. He's shown signs of being able to re-shape public opinion. Americans, many of them, will respond to a strong preacher in preference to a blatant warmonger, don't you think?

I'm no political consultant, but Obama might be better off taking on Giuliani rather than Clinton, when he can. Regarding what American people think, there are plenty of polls around and I believe that they would show that Americans would rather not buy what Giuliani is selling, especially if they knew that it means only more death and taxes, and fewer of the government programs that people want and need.

[David]

"Why can't we adopt the long-term perspective of shaping - rather than responding to - the electorate, and moving the electorate to the Left on the issues that we hold dear and that define us as Liberals?"

Well, remember what Keynes said about the long run? When political folk start talking about educating the public, it's usually a sign that they're not particularly interested in, like, winning elections. Voters don't vote for the here's-what's-good-for-you candidate; they're consumers buying a product, and the product needs to promise to do what *they* want it to do, not what *you* want it to do.

That said, the real question in my mind is, do they want it to do what Rudy says in this piece? I agree that typical American voters don't care squat about torture, because they're convinced that the victims deserve it, and in any case they don't know them. What they do care about is what's happening to their neighbors who are getting shipped out, and what the implications of Iraq are for the future capacity of this country to adequately protect them. Bellicosity per se isn't all that widespread, except in the Republican base, which is what Rudi needs to appeal to right now; it's a response to fear, conditioned by certain cultural influences and [in half the population] testosterone. But as the 9/11 trauma subsides [and assuming it doesn't get goosed again], the cost at home of terror obsession will become more evident to people, as indeed it already has to some degree.

[SteveB]

Good point, Shadi. I like to ask this question: What do Republicans do? Do they look at the polls and say, "Gee, looks like most Americans aren't against the inheritance tax, so let's just drop that issue!" Of course not. First, they reframe the question ("death tax") and then embark on a long-term campaign to move the public in their direction. Maybe they don't win this year, but they're more likely to win down the road.

Same with "tort reform", "sound science", "teach the controversy", etc. If you show me an issue where the Republican view is the minority view (and there are lots) I can find you a well-funded long-term campaign to reframe the issue and move the public towards their view. How many such efforts are being undertaken by liberals?

Why the difference? I think it mainly comes down to money. Republicans have wealthy corporate interests who can fund the think-tanks where this "work" is done. And all that money gives Republican think-tankers the job security needed to engage in long-term thinking. Left NGO's, on the other hand, are scraping by on short-term grant money, or constantly rising and falling levels of small donations, making long-term thinking difficult, if not impossible (it's hard to focus on a 10-year plan to move public opinion in your direction when you're not sure if you'll have a job next month).

And, David's comment notwithstanding, short-term electoral success and long-term shaping of public opinion are not mutually exclusive goals. Just ask the Republicans.

[Frederick Brown]

It's called leadership.
For the life of me I don't understand why the Democrats seem so averse to it.

[Dan Kervick]

Instead, let's take our case against torture and warrant-less wiretapping straight to the American people and explain, by way of reference to our Constitution and founding ideals, that eroding our civil liberties is not a sign of "toughness," but rather of stupidity.

What exactly is the liberal argument against torture?

There are two approaches to the issue that seem most prominent in public discourse on the left, neither of which has proved very successful.

One is the argument that torture simply doesn't work, and generates bad information. Whatever the merits of this argument from a strictly intellectual perspective, it is not very effective. You can present people with the evidence that torture produces a lot of bad information, but many people will still suspect that torture does elicit at least some good information some of the time. And if they don't really care much about the people being tortured, the fact that it is an imperfectly reliable interrogation technique is not going to carry much weight with them.

But another problem with this first argument is that the argument often seems to be given in bad faith. Unpersuaded listeners rightly intuit that the person giving the "doesn't work" argument is really motivated by a general revulsion toward torture. And that tends to undermine the arguers credibility as an objective presenter of evidence on the matter of the effectiveness of torture.

So that brings us to the other argument against torture. And it's not even really an argument, but just an assortment of evocative expressions of sentiment. One might assert, or imply or otherwise indicate that torture is horrifying, revolting and barbarous; or perhaps one simply expresses ones sentiment of horror, revulsion or contempt. Unfortunately, this style of argument is rather ineffective against people who don't share one's sentiments.

The problem with arguing from constitutional principles is that those principles are extraordinarily vague, abstract and lofty, and are only given real concrete content by the detailed history of case-by-case interpretation and precedent, and by their implementation in actual social and governmental practice. Everyone agrees that there are various "lines" that should not be crossed, but the constitution itself isn't going to tell you where those lines are. We make it up as we go along, and courts and governments tend to reflect contemporary popular or elite intuitions about where the lines should be drawn. When something happens to disrupt the social consensus, there is not much of concrete value one can lean on.

[hepzeeba]

Why are we liberals always trying to respond to and accomodate the electorate's worst instincts? Instead, let's take our case against torture and warant-less wiretapping straight to the American people and explain, by way of reference to our Constitution and founding ideals, that eroding our civil liberties is not a sign of "toughness," but rather of stupidity.

Go for it. But if you want to win elections, you have to respond to the electorate. There isn't a whole lot of time before the election to make your case, and make it stick---which is a whole other kettle of fish. And I gotta say that I think Americans are more concerned about the personal consequences of terrorism than the personal consequences of America's responses to terrorism, like, say, the Patriot Act. For what it's worth, I think they should be concerned about both.

Also: I don't agree that Americans want a bellicose foreign policy. Nor does Steingart. (It's late and I'm too tired to look up the quote right now.) But I think they want a war-ready one. No one wants his/her government to be unprepared for war when it comes a-calling, and some kind of war, uppercase or not, has come a-calling. Finally: I don't think anyone wants a candidate who sounds tough but isn't actually tough. People can tell the difference.

They vote their gut, not their head. Reach them viscerally and you've got 'em.

[Nathanael Nerode]

The usual response to those "not bothered" Ohioans is "Why are you so sure you won't be next?" That is, of course, the most fundamental, gut argument against torture. There are currently no restrictions preventing Bush from torturing *anyone*. Mention Jose Padilla (American citizen and mentally ill) and Maher Arar (Canadian citizen and computer programmer).

They may hem and haw, but the only response you can't demolish instantly with evidence will probably be "Because I'm white and Anglo". If you get them to the point of admitting that they don't mind if innocent people are tortured as long as they have funny names, then you know you have a hardcore racist and you should try elsewhere.