One of the challenging realities of American politics is that while vast numbers of Americans participate in presidential elections, only small minorities of voters actually stay engaged. And the priorities of the two groups are not the same, far from it.
The majority is focused on the things that directly affect their lives — prices, crime, peace. How much do concerns about democracy matter if people don’t feel safe on the streets? Or if they’re struggling to keep a roof over their heads? The minority, by contrast, follows politics closely and can focus on issues that can feel more abstract or niche to the majority.
Because the majority votes and then checks back out, politicians hear almost exclusively from the most engaged minority. My colleague Ezra Klein has written, for example, about the power that “the groups” — progressive activist organizations — exercise over Democratic policy. They demand that politicians focus on issues that might be important but that are often not matters of majority concern. Or even worse, they demand political fealty to positions that majorities reject.
In many administrations, this dynamic results in a kind of tug of war between the activists who demand attention to their pet causes and the political realists who grab the candidate’s arm and tap the sign that reads, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
And then, every few years, the majority steps back in, determines whether politicians have taken care of prices, crime and peace and then ruthlessly punishes failure — regardless of whether the activists got what they wanted and even if it might agree with the activists’ concerns.
Source: The New York Times
Subjects: America, International, Politics & Public Policy
Click to Add the First »