Skip to main content

On the Cost of Voting for the Lesser Evil, Addendum

After Lisa's brief  (and accurate!) summary of my post, I realized that there are a few broader issues that I'd like to make clear, too.

First of all, this applies to all political participation regardless of the election or party affiliation. All of us are subject to the "follow the leader" effect, and there is evidence that those who are best informed regarding politics are the most susceptible to it. Those who voted for Clinton (or anyone else in the last election) would be subject to the same tendencies to have their views shaped by that person. As I understand Achen and Bartels, however, the much lower visibility of losing candidates gives them much less ability to shape their supporters. So, ironically, voting for the lesser evil is less dangerous if one votes for a losing candidate.

So why does this matter?

I take from it that the old conservative argument that character matters for holding office is meaningfully vindicated in practice. Which brings me to the second point...

The tension and frustration felt by many evangelicals (among others!) in the 2016 election was the result of candidates that were widely perceived as morally deficient. I do not see this as a passing problem, however, as the party primary system does not select for virtue. In fact, the growth of negative partisanship means that parties do not need to prevent the selection of unqualified or morally suspect candidates. So, if being unscrupulous can get a candidate through the primary system, then they are in the clear and basically have a fifty-fifty chance of winning the general election (again, following Achen and Bartels).

In other words, this issue isn't about Trump and Clinton, but rather seems like a structural problem that our political system as currently constructed through laws and political parties are unable to fend off. For those with a strong party affiliation (or antipathy toward either party), there is a good chance that they will face this kind of question again in some future election, which is why I think it is worth continued reflection.

I'm with Joseph--this is uncomfortable, but I'm persuaded that it is true and therefore committed to working through its implications.
Labels:

Comments

  1. DennyMay 16, 2018 at 4:43 PM

    The insight of Achen and Bartels is analogous to one of the observations of social psychology: we regularly behave ourselves into beliefs as well as behave because of beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PhillipMay 23, 2018 at 10:25 AM

      Definitely. I've read a little about some of that work, and it all seems to be pointing in the same direction.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and please remember to be charitable in your comments.

Popular posts from this blog

On the Cost of Voting for the Lesser Evil

Since Donald Trump became the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the summer of 2016, I have struggled to understand the way in which many evangelicals have responded to his nomination, both during the election and in its aftermath. I grew up among the “Theologically Orphaned Generation” that was steeped in a culture that emphasized the necessity of virtue and moral character for those who would serve the public, both in the church and in politics. That background left me bewildered by the willingness of so many evangelical leaders to support Trump despite acknowledging his lack of virtue. When I have asked evangelical friends and family about their choice to support Trump in the election, I have encountered a consistent response. That answer was summarized well by Os Guinness in an interview with Collin Hansen of Beeson Divinity School during the spring of 2017: Collin Hansen: …what would you say that you learned, perhaps about yourself or about evangelicals, in the ...
9 comments
Read more

Rediscovering the Scandal of Evangelical Scholarship

I have been thinking a lot about the divergence in the rhetoric and the reality around the evangelical church and had a recent breakthrough. I became a scholar because that was one of the highest callings according to the evangelical community of my youth. Para-church evangelical organizations such as Summit Ministries , the National Christian Forensic and Communications Association , and publisher of my primary high school curriculum all encouraged cultural engagement. I repeatedly heard that my generation, those of us at these events and reading these books, were called to be leaders who would reshape our world  in light of the Christian gospel. For example, during a Teen Pact weekend retreat in Alabama in 2001, I remember Tim Echols inviting those of us at the event to stand up if we felt God's calling to serve in elected office sometime in the future. I stood (along with around a dozen others), willing myself to believe that I would someday be a member of the Senate (the Pr...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does it mean to be conservative?

When asked recently by a few different people how I self-identify politically, I struggled. I have a visceral desire to identify as conservative, but I'm not sure that anyone would understand what I mean with the word. Thoughtful conversations and comments regarding my letter to Conor Friedersdorf and other posts have convinced me that trying to work out the meaning of conservative is necessary for effective dialogue. To begin this conversation,  I will consider the origins of the modern conservative movement and what light it sheds on politics in the era of Trump. The modern conservative movement began in reaction to the French Revolution of 1789. It was (and usually remains) reactive, opposing change rather than advocating for it. As such, it has tended to lack a normative description of how the world should be, and instead has generally opposed changes that threaten the order that is. This was the key idea that drove William F. Buckley, Jr. to found the National Review in 195...
2 comments
Read more