Is it better for politicians to be popular or principled? This is an age-old dilemma, tested, for example, in England in 1774. That year, Edmund Burke declared to the electors of Bristol that “Parliament is not a parliament of ambassadors representing different and hostile interests.” Instead, legislators must meet, deliberate, and confirm matters of the “general interest.” In that spirit, Burke vowed to be a “loyal friend” but not a “flatter.”
After being elected president, Burke found himself caught between high loyalty and low flattery. A key issue for his voters was restricting the trading rights of rival ports in Ireland. When it came to this important subject, Bristol shipping officials certainly wanted someone who would flatter them. Burke, he was a man of principle (and a son of Ireland), but he would have none of that. In 1778 he declared: “If by this act I disenfranchise them at the next election, it will be on record… that at least one man dared to resist the desires of the voters.” Bristol, 1780 Desire proved irresistible. Mr. Burke lost re-election.
In modern times, the story of Democratic data official David Scholl has become another example of the conflict between popularity and principle. On May 28, 2020, just three days after George Floyd’s death, Schorr, who is in his 20s, tweeted a note warning his fellow progressives, drawing attention to the growing unrest across the United States. The share in the surrounding counties, where “race riots after MLK’s assassination reduced Democratic votes,” was 2 percent, but this was enough to tip the 1968 election in favor of Nixon. ” Mr. Scholl’s message to his colleagues was blunt but well-intentioned. The riots, no matter how righteous their views, will be just as bad for voters in 2020 as the “law and order” election 52 years ago. If you think about it this way, perhaps the principle of insurrection was okay. The problem was that it was unpopular with floating voters.
Still, this wasn’t what angry prog rockers wanted to hear. Mr. Scholl was fired from his Democratic political firm. But he stood up, especially as his November election results vindicated his findings. Republicans gained 16 House seats, mostly in areas hit by unrest. In fact, in the midst of ongoing controversy, Scholl introduced the concept of “popularism.” This is exactly what it sounds like: pick a popular issue and focus on that. Some might say it’s pandering to voters.
This is a difficult point in electoral politics. It is true that politicians instinctively want to do everything in their power to get elected, but their actual freedom is limited by their political party. A quarter century ago, University of Minnesota scholars Lawrence Jacobs and Columbia University’s Robert Shapiro addressed this in “Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness.” An insightful thesis of their book: Contrary to the common impression that politicians are panderers, and whatever their own personal feelings on the issues, politicians are usually fixed in policy positions dictated by the party and its legitimacy.
For example, most Republican politicians have no choice but to oppose pro-life and gun control policies, keeping in mind the base-expanding zealots. And most Democrats feel compelled to take the opposite position. The result, of course, is polarization, with candidates on both sides of the divide drawn to their polarities. So they miss the opportunity to occupy the middle political sweet spot, even if that is their inclination. Like it or not, they end up becoming principled.
Now in 2024, Democrats are still struggling with law and order issues. Their base will not tolerate harsh measures either on crime or on borders. This is hitting them hard, especially when it comes to immigration, which Gallup considers to be the hottest topic in the country. A recent NBC News poll found that Americans support the Republican Party’s hawkish positions by a 30-point margin. There’s no doubt that many electorally-minded Democrats want to challenge the center-right majority on immigration — and some have succeeded — but many Democrats don’t. Instead, they feel supported by their own leftists.
However, the Republican Party is also in a difficult situation. A flashpoint is the possibility of impeaching President Joe Biden, which the House Republican majority is mulling. Actual impeachment would be great for Trump’s supporters, but it would certainly have a negative impact on much of the country, including the 18 Republican-held seats in districts won by Biden in 2020. As the Politico Playbook Newsletter reported on March 13, House Republicans, with their slim majority, are “working on a brutal mathematical problem. Republicans in battleground states are balking at an impeachment vote. There is.”
Sensible Republicans recall the attempt to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998, which proved unpopular and threw the party into turmoil in that year’s midterm elections. In a typical midterm election, the average opposition party wins 24 seats in the House and several seats in the Senate. But Republicans ended up losing the seat amid a national boomerang against impeachment. This was the first time this had happened to an “out” party in a midterm election since 1934.
With this history in mind, today’s House Republican leadership is seeking populist finesse. The same edition of the playbook explains: They realize that doing so would be tantamount to exonerating Biden in an election year, but it’s not a wise political strategy and would likely infuriate the Republican base. ” So what should I do? Possible face-saving “off-ramps” include a criminal referral to the Department of Justice (which, of course, would result in an immediate circular) or the proposal of some kind of anti-corruption law (perhaps some action would be taken). ) is included. A signaling acronym (such as “HUNTER”). Will it satisfy believers without antagonizing centrists? Let’s take a look.
Meanwhile, another problem looms for both populists and principledists. That name is TikTok, a social media app made in China. On March 13, the House of Representatives voted 352-65 to force the sale of the app from its China-based parent company amid growing concerns about data tracking, social division, and even outright espionage. As the lopsided numbers show, both parties voted in favor, with Republicans voting against China by a 197-15 margin and Democrats 155-50.
Some members of Congress, such as Kentucky Republican Rep. Tom Massey, took principled positions here. As a hardcore liberal, Massey was unbending. He believed that the state should not push out companies, even Chinese companies. As for the others, well, they were more flexible. Biden and Harris’ re-election campaign joined TikTok on February 12th. Less than a month later, on March 8, Biden himself said he would sign the divestment bill once it reached his desk.
But will this bill be popular? Would populists agree? It’s not very clear. TikTok has reportedly built a user base of 107 million people in the United States. Young politicians, especially on the left, see the app as key to coalition government, which explains why Democrats have been relatively supportive of TikTok’s status quo. The company says the sale is unacceptable and is fighting hard. So now, as the House bill heads to the Senate, the outlook is uncertain and likely bearish.
Of course, even the most calculating person can miscalculate in this popular game. Meanwhile, a strange “horseshoe” coalition of compatriots uniting the left and the right has announced their support for TikTok: AOC and MTG, Washington Post’s digital mob agitator Taylor Lorenz, and Donald Trump. .
Trump’s change of heart on the topic of TikTok (as president in 2020, he called for a divestment by executive order) has come under a lot of scrutiny, but despite his personal intensity, he’s seen a kind of populism. It is noteworthy that he is a For example, Trump attacked the maximalist Republican position on abortion, saying vaguely that “we’re going to get something done that’s going to make everybody very happy” on this hottest topic.
Additionally, President Trump last month criticized the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling on in vitro fertilization. But other Republicans representing moderate districts are also struggling with the same problem. A cheery Washington Post headline fueled the party’s woes: “Republicans want to distance themselves from IVF Inbroglio. Abortion opponents won’t let it.”
The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is practicing populism as much as possible. Another POLITICO article lists Congress’ priorities for the rest of the year. Railroad safety bill in response to East Palestine, Ohio disaster. Cannabis banking law, new farm bill, package of measures to fund community health centers and lower drug prices. And then there’s the FAA’s new bill. ” You can immediately notice what is missing. Namely, the big issues Biden mentioned in his State of the Union address on March 7: Ukraine, Gaza, tax increases, and climate change. Of course, these Biden priorities remain priorities. But Democrats in the House and Senate simply want to discuss other smaller issues they think will get more votes.
Yes, this is a paradox. The country remains polarized, but in contrast to political style, when it comes to policy issues, the gap between parties is narrowing as November approaches. As much as possible, the game played by both sides, whether they use the word or not, is popularity.
