… but your concerns have been noted.
Sorry: I’m making a joke about this Signifying Nothing post title (The Center Will Not Hold), which links to this Peaktalk article (The Disappearing Center). Generally speaking, the latter talks about Canadian and Dutch politics, noting that the latter has recently exhibited a polarization of its political parties and claiming that the former is about to. The implication is that we’re going to see something like this happen in the USA, with the further implication that this is somehow a good thing:
With the disappearance of the center that terrible enemy of democracy – voter apathy – may now disappear, together with that very unsatisfying and unclear political center.
Well, speaking from somebody who lives in that unsatisfying and unclear locale – and I mean this in the nicest possible way – Go n-aora maorlathaí míthrócaireach do chuid infheistíochtaí, buddy.
Can voter apathy be a problem? Sure – but there are two kinds of voter apathy: the kind that happens when you realize that there’s nothing you can do about a problem, and the kind that happens when by and large there aren’t that many problems that would motivate you to vote. “I don’t care: whichever is fine” is, in point of fact, a legitimate choice to make (you shouldn’t feel entitled to complain about conditions afterwards if you choose it, though), so if voting percentages are down the first step is to discover why they’re down rather than immediately assume that there’s a problem.
I’m sure that the less centrist types reading this are scratching their heads. I had a long and complicated analogy (which I deleted), but it boiled down to this: while I agree with Chris Lawrence that American political scientists should study more foreign politics, the fact that the Dutch political scene (which is suffering from quite a lot of pressure and hostilities that simply don’t have analogues to our system) are polarizing doesn’t mean that the center here is going to collapse. And the center is only ‘unsatisfying’ to people who aren’t already comfortable with the way things are operating right now. If Bush gets re-elected, I’ll be fine; if the Ninja gets the election, likewise. Should Dean pull it off… well, the likely foreign policy will worry me severely but domestically there’ll be less difference than you’d think, and a lot less difference than these commenters think, too.
People who don’t like it are just going to have to learn to deal.
Moe
So would the summary here be:
Apathy indicates a more stable society?
“Apathy indicates a more stable society?”
Only if you’ve incorrectly defined ‘happy with the status quo’ as ‘apathy’ – a mistake that the original author of the article seems to have made himself. 🙂
“I don’t care: whichever is fine” is, in point of fact, a legitimate choice to make (you shouldn’t feel entitled to complain about conditions afterwards if you choose it, though)
See, here I disagree with you. I think it’s fine to complain about conditions, but you have to include the disclaimer, “I was wrong about (thing X), and the consequences suck.”
Given that people in general have strong allergic reactions to ever admitting they were wrong, though, I fear the point is moot.
For example, you’ll never see Ralph Nader going on TV saying, “When I said there wasn’t any difference between Republicans and Democrats, couldn’t you see my eyes turning brown? I am so going to Hell for lying like that. I want you to vote for me anyway…”
It seems to me that we’ve endured moments where the political center has been completely absorbed by one political party, only to emerge at a later date. The New Deal coalition was an example of this.
That said, I have to disagree with Chris about whether America is moving towards two polarized blocs. A few months ago I decided the system of the near-future will be tripartite: a strongly partisan Republican base, a strongly partisan Democratic base, and a swing middle comprised of (1) minimally informed voters who respond to whatever candidate the strongest appeals (think soccer moms) and (2)information-broker moderates who have strong opinions on all political issues and can influence a large number of swing voters in one direction or another.
Like you, Moe, I’m not worried about non-participation. Many voters simply think the two candidates running are candidates of the status quo and so they choose not to vote. At the same time, saying you dislike all of the candidates isn’t apathy, especially if you make a habit of voting in other elections. I didn’t vote in 2000 because I was unimpressed with Bush’s minimalist foreign policy (he was sounding quasi-isolationist back then) and I had many disagreements with Gore. I wasn’t apathetic; on the contrary, I was very interested in the issues. I just didn’t like the candidates.
** Make that “whatever candidate issues the strongest appeals” in my second paragraph.
Must . . . use . . . preview.
You cannot compare the Dutch situation with the situation in the States at all. We have a multiparty system with coalition governments. If you are too radical, you either have to have a hugh majority (which is very unlikely) or accept that you can will always be in the opposition. We had eight years of a govenment formed by a coalition between two extremes with a centrist third party as glue. The coalition was possible because the normally big Christian Democratic party lost big in the elections at the time due to internal struggles. In the coalition both right and leftwing got drawn to the middle. I am not sure wether people are interested in a long description of Dutch politics and the emotion driven rollercoaster that we had at the time. Short summary is that the Christion Democrats pulled themselves together, and in our latest elections struggled with our “labour” party for the position of largest party (which gives you the right to start formation talks with various parties and see wether you can form a majority). They won, but it was a close tie. They decided they wanted to govern with the right, thus putting our “labour” party in the opposition. If you are in the oppossition, you have to be visible and aiming for the centre is not going to do that.
I agree with you that voter apathy and the existens of a center are two different and IMHO unrelated things. I still want to read one of Robert Putnams books, since his theory of “civic community as an indicator for democratic involvement” sounds plausible to me – but I only briefly scanned through it.
dutchmarbel, I believe the reason why a comparative analysis of Dutch politics was interesting to American politics-watchers (can’t put words in Chris’ mouth) is the way all of the industrialized democracies (including the US) trended towards centrism during the 1990s, only to become more polarized since then. But as you rightfully point out, we can only generalize so far.
Putnam’s work is very interesting, so you should defintely check out a few of his books; 2000’s Bowling Alone (which concerns itself with the decline of American social capital) and 1993’s Making Democracy Work (which focuses on Italy’s political development) are worth reading.
Demographically, aren’t the people who tend not to vote the ones you’d think would be least satisfied with the status quo?
Thanks, Moe. I will now stop reading the news and worrying all the time.
“Thanks, Moe. I will now stop reading the news and worrying all the time.”
Someday I’m going to find the person who popularized the meme “Facile sarcasm is a great way to answer a honestly-written and thought-out post” and beat him or her with a wet halibut.
From where I’m sitting, it’s frustration with both parties that’s going up, not polarization. I hear a fair amount of grumbling about Bush, but I get the feeling that when most of the grumblers cast an eye on the Dems, they just shake their head and grumble some more. This seems to be borne out by those polls last fall, which seemed to suggest that although dissatisfaction with the Republicans was rising, this was not reflected in any benefits to the Democrats, which is usually the case.
I think the outliers of the parties may be moving further out, but this seems to be more causing frustration and confusion in the center than inspiring them to act the same.
(I was just going to post a sarcastic comment, but Moe has access to a lot of quality seafood markets, and I chickened out.)
Matthew Stinson, I just wanted to say that comparing with the Dutch is not the best thing; multiparty vs two-pary (in practise), representative democracy verses districts, coalition governments vs complete change per election, elections-invite for all citizens vs registred voters, etc.
There are so many differences that it is hard to draw any conclusion just because you see a possible movement in the same direction.
For the party-polarization I would be more inclined to look at explanations like outside threat (diminished after the fall of the USSR – less polarization. Increased after 9/11 – more polarization), or economical factors (high level & spread of wealth might lead to less polarization).
As I said, I would like to see wether voter apathy is indeed “measurable” by looking at total community involvement and level of general engagement. I plan on reading Robert Putnam, but the “to be read” pile is more than a crate allready 😉
Someday I’m going to find the person who popularized the meme “Facile sarcasm is a great way to answer a honestly-written and thought-out post” and beat him or her with a wet halibut.
Moe, I look at blogging like home maintenance–you just have to pick the right tool for the job!
“Moe, I look at blogging like home maintenance–you just have to pick the right tool for the job!”
LOL. 🙂