Archives
Palmer suggests a realistic view of politics and elections
By KEVIN FRYLING
Reporter Staff Writer
A UB political scientist kicked off this year’s UBThisSummer lecture series yesterday by debunking some of Americans’ most popular myths about their country’s political process and elections.
In a presentation entitled “What’s the Matter with American Elections?” Harvey Palmer, associate professor in the Department of Political Science, College of Arts and Sciences, told an audience estimated at 350 that the nation’s problem is not that the political system is broken, but that its citizens have developed a unrealistic expectation about the election process.
“The reason why we tend to view certain trends in a negative light—as flaws—is because of the myths we have about American politics,” Palmer said. “The problem is our perception and our expectations about politics and the electoral process.”
Palmer said such trends as increasing partisanship, declining presidential approval ratings and ideological news reporting are seen as negative by most Americans because they’ve been conditioned to see politics from an unrealistically ideological perspective. Under the so-called “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” view of politics, he said elections are seen as a process that builds consensus among the populace, political parties as springing from grassroots activism on the part of impassioned citizens in order to promote their ideals, the news media as an institution whose primary goal is to inform and bipartisanship as an achievable and desirable goal. But Palmer argued that, in fact, elections are a mechanism that provides citizens with the power to remove unpopular politicians from office, political parties are a tool created by political elites in order to create coalitions and remain in power, the news media is a business whose primary goal is to entertain and bipartisanship is an “empty” concept.
Although he said this view of politics might seem “cynical” to some, Palmer stressed that learning to see the process in a more realistic light helps citizens feel less concerned about—or at least understand—some of the “negative” trends in American politics. In terms of increased partisanship, for example, he noted that polls reveal that most Americans are actually not as divided on major issues as they seem based on the rhetoric of most politicians and news organizations. In fact, he said most Democrats and Republicans are only about one point apart in terms of their positions on a host of major issues, including government health insurance, government guaranteed jobs and income, government services versus government spending and defense spending. But since conflict and argument is more entertaining than consensus—and since partisan voters, who are more politically divided than the average citizen, generally support their party’s candidate more strongly—the media and politicians frequently exaggerate their positions in order to garner the highest ratings and most votes, respectively.
This point also touches on a widespread opinion that journalistic standards are on the decline, said Palmer, who maintained that a drop in objective reporting actually does not necessarily mean the media is failing to provide voters with adequate information on major issues. Liberal and conservative experts may not provide neutral perspectives, he said, but they’re still experts—and therefore able to provide strong, informative arguments, even if they’re in support of their viewers’ pre-existing left- or right-wing biases.
Regarding political parties and elections primarily as institutions to help politicians remain in power also helps explain the level of “double talk” that takes place on the campaign trail, he said, noting that politicians are constantly tailoring their speeches to different constituencies to earn the most votes and remain in power. In fact, he said, true consensus only occurs in rare situations in which politicians are best served by acting in agreement.
“Bipartisan situations are situations where the best position to get elected is one that’s the same as all other politicians,” Palmer said, pointing out that most elected officials voted to support the Iraq War at the start of the conflict because a major percentage of the U.S. public was in favor of ousting Saddam Hussein and spreading democracy in the Middle East. Only after certain facts about the conflict began to emerge—after people began learning about the true motivations, consequences and costs of the conflict—did disagreement break out about whether war was in the national interest.
“The reality, I would argue, is that there are different versions of the national interest that represent the interests of different majorities,” Palmer said. “So when you’re promoting the national interest, you’re ultimately promoting one group’s view of the national interest. This could easily be viewed in a negative light; however, there’s no partisanship in authoritarian regimes. Partisanship means competition—that the voter isn’t the primary person responsible for preventing politicians from seizing power and becoming authoritarian.
“If you view it that way,” he added, “partisanship isn’t necessarily a bad thing.”