April 12, 2017
Democracy for Realists
Christopher Achen
Roger Williams Straus Professor of Social Sciences, Professor of Politics,
Princeton University
Christopher Achen and Ralph Widner
Minutes of the 28th Meeting of the 75th Year
On April 12, 2017, at 10:15 a.m., President Jock McFarlane called the meeting to order. Julie Denny lead the invocation and Jotham Johnson read the minutes of the meeting of April 5. There were two guests: David Vilkomerson, introduced by Robert Gittleman, and Audrey Egger, the wife and guest of David Egger. There were 123 members in attendance.
Ralph Widner introduced the speaker, Christopher Achen, the Roger Williams Straus Professor of Social Sciences and Professor of Politics at Princeton University. Dr. Achen is a frequent political commentator on television and an award winner for excellence in teaching, an attribute confirmed by his talk to the Old Guard.
The title of his talk was “Democracy for Realists,” also the title of one of his books, co-authored with Larry Bartels of Vanderbilt University, who formerly taught at Princeton.
The purpose of the talk was to explain how political scientists think about the system of democracy and suggest how we should also think about it.
He began by taking us 300 years back in history, when the dominant theory of government, the one held by every smart person of the time, was the divine right of kings – or, in the case of China, the divine right of emperors. The best government had absolute rule by one person chosen by God. After all, there was no better, wiser or just electorate than God! The problem was that if the king really screwed up you couldn’t very well claim that he was ill-advised by God.
In more modern times, the speaker suggested, two theories emerged about how a democratic government works. The first one Dr. Achen labeled the “folk theory of democracy,” a construct developed by Robert Dahl.
In this construct, the people elect candidates to office who most closely reflect their views. The elected officials then go off to govern and cast votes based on those views. Thus, it is government by the people – and for the people. This is the theory that finds prominence every Fourth of July.
But this theory raises the question of how thoughtful and well informed the people’s beliefs are, or how selfish those beliefs are. Rousseau was useful in addressing this. He felt that the default way of government is democracy. People make some mistakes but nevertheless can’t be corrupted. The flaw in this thinking is that people don’t have the basic foundational knowledge to make democracy work this way.
Those theories are what the speaker labeled “flat earth social science.” He pointed out several studies over the last two decades about how ill informed voters are and how closely their opinions were affected by actual facts on economic issues. Studies of the presidential elections of 1996 and 2016 showed that voter beliefs were not based on facts but instead on the political party to which each belonged and whether that party was in power. Facts did not inform the vote, the vote gave definition to the facts! It’s as if the members of the two parties lived in two different worlds defined by different and contradictory facts.
An alternative hypothesis for explaining how democracy works is the “retrospective theory.” It’s not a candidate’s beliefs that influence voter choice; it’s the government’s record on economic issues. As Reagan said: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” It’s like finding a new dentist. The dentist’s ads don’t shape our opinion but if the dentist’s treatment works we are sold.
The success of this theory is, however, very limited. Again turning to research, the speaker pointed out that voter behavior is only influenced by what has happened economically during the last year.
Yes, in James Carville’s words, “It’s the economy, stupid.” This is the dominant factor although identification with other groups based on religion or race, for example, does rarely take precedence over political party. Ideology, sex scandal or being a little crazy, etc. don’t seem to affect the vote.
But is it fair to blame the government for economic phenomena over which it has no control? The speaker cited shark attacks at the Jersey shore and a drought in agricultural regions, both of which had severely negative affects on local economies, as reasons why presidential candidates for the party in power lost the popular vote in those areas.
Thus the retrospective theory fails on two counts. First, the voters don’t look back at results beyond the last year and they blame the government for things that are clearly not the government’s fault.
The speaker conceded that he had no totally satisfactory replacement theory about how democracy works but suggested that thinking in the field is focusing on three things:
The speaker suggested that few of us are able to see ourselves objectively in this construct – to see how our biases are shaped. He added that even our source for news tends to reinforce our biases, not challenge them. What cable news program do you watch? Fox News or MSNBC?
Finally, the speaker explained the success of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the last election cycle. Both were seen as anti-establishment heroes, and heroes are always given a pass regarding beliefs and past behavior.
The speaker then took several questions dealing with the role of money in elections, open primaries, the corporate model for government, the qualities of a good political candidate, the value of parties in governing and the role of the judiciary. The themes in his answers were balance, checks, political experience within parties and ambition.
President McFarlane thanked the speaker and adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Kline
Ralph Widner introduced the speaker, Christopher Achen, the Roger Williams Straus Professor of Social Sciences and Professor of Politics at Princeton University. Dr. Achen is a frequent political commentator on television and an award winner for excellence in teaching, an attribute confirmed by his talk to the Old Guard.
The title of his talk was “Democracy for Realists,” also the title of one of his books, co-authored with Larry Bartels of Vanderbilt University, who formerly taught at Princeton.
The purpose of the talk was to explain how political scientists think about the system of democracy and suggest how we should also think about it.
He began by taking us 300 years back in history, when the dominant theory of government, the one held by every smart person of the time, was the divine right of kings – or, in the case of China, the divine right of emperors. The best government had absolute rule by one person chosen by God. After all, there was no better, wiser or just electorate than God! The problem was that if the king really screwed up you couldn’t very well claim that he was ill-advised by God.
In more modern times, the speaker suggested, two theories emerged about how a democratic government works. The first one Dr. Achen labeled the “folk theory of democracy,” a construct developed by Robert Dahl.
In this construct, the people elect candidates to office who most closely reflect their views. The elected officials then go off to govern and cast votes based on those views. Thus, it is government by the people – and for the people. This is the theory that finds prominence every Fourth of July.
But this theory raises the question of how thoughtful and well informed the people’s beliefs are, or how selfish those beliefs are. Rousseau was useful in addressing this. He felt that the default way of government is democracy. People make some mistakes but nevertheless can’t be corrupted. The flaw in this thinking is that people don’t have the basic foundational knowledge to make democracy work this way.
Those theories are what the speaker labeled “flat earth social science.” He pointed out several studies over the last two decades about how ill informed voters are and how closely their opinions were affected by actual facts on economic issues. Studies of the presidential elections of 1996 and 2016 showed that voter beliefs were not based on facts but instead on the political party to which each belonged and whether that party was in power. Facts did not inform the vote, the vote gave definition to the facts! It’s as if the members of the two parties lived in two different worlds defined by different and contradictory facts.
An alternative hypothesis for explaining how democracy works is the “retrospective theory.” It’s not a candidate’s beliefs that influence voter choice; it’s the government’s record on economic issues. As Reagan said: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” It’s like finding a new dentist. The dentist’s ads don’t shape our opinion but if the dentist’s treatment works we are sold.
The success of this theory is, however, very limited. Again turning to research, the speaker pointed out that voter behavior is only influenced by what has happened economically during the last year.
Yes, in James Carville’s words, “It’s the economy, stupid.” This is the dominant factor although identification with other groups based on religion or race, for example, does rarely take precedence over political party. Ideology, sex scandal or being a little crazy, etc. don’t seem to affect the vote.
But is it fair to blame the government for economic phenomena over which it has no control? The speaker cited shark attacks at the Jersey shore and a drought in agricultural regions, both of which had severely negative affects on local economies, as reasons why presidential candidates for the party in power lost the popular vote in those areas.
Thus the retrospective theory fails on two counts. First, the voters don’t look back at results beyond the last year and they blame the government for things that are clearly not the government’s fault.
The speaker conceded that he had no totally satisfactory replacement theory about how democracy works but suggested that thinking in the field is focusing on three things:
- The power of groups in determining how a person votes – group membership is much more powerful than facts.
- The fact that the typical voter is ill informed regarding policy issues – believing things that are false.
- The fact that economic issues are consistently the most important issues in determining votes by members of a group.
The speaker suggested that few of us are able to see ourselves objectively in this construct – to see how our biases are shaped. He added that even our source for news tends to reinforce our biases, not challenge them. What cable news program do you watch? Fox News or MSNBC?
Finally, the speaker explained the success of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the last election cycle. Both were seen as anti-establishment heroes, and heroes are always given a pass regarding beliefs and past behavior.
The speaker then took several questions dealing with the role of money in elections, open primaries, the corporate model for government, the qualities of a good political candidate, the value of parties in governing and the role of the judiciary. The themes in his answers were balance, checks, political experience within parties and ambition.
President McFarlane thanked the speaker and adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Kline