By Dessa Bayrock, Nick Ubels (The Cascade) – Email
Print Edition: February 29, 2012
Have a hard time following conversations about the American primaries? Have no fear. Dessa and Nick discuss and debate American politics for the everyman, so even your cat can follow along! Soon you, too, will be able to name-drop in drunken conversations with PoliSci students. Stay smart, stay informed. It might be States politics but it affects us Canadian kids too.
Dessa: Although Canada is bigger geographically, the States is almost astronomically larger population-wise.
Nick: Ten times bigger from what I understand.
Dessa: Right. Maybe it’s because there are so many more people per state than province that we can see some clear pandering when it comes to campaign promises; from state to state, candidates clearly alter the focus of their campaign in order to appeal to the average voter. As a candidate, you’re promising fifty different things in fifty different states. Obviously not all of them are going to be dear to your heart and not all of them are necessarily going to get a lot of focus should the candidate get elected into office.
This is just normal politics and I’m sure it happens everywhere, to some degree. But what with the USA being so far-flung and yet so well populated, it’s easier to see in this kind of election. But whether or not it IS just normal politics, should it be? Is it reasonable for politicians to try and appeal to these different state demographics, or is it immoral? They are, after all, making a lot of promises, some of which they HAVE to know they’ll be unable to keep.
Nick: I really noticed this kind of voter pandering in the recent Arizona Republican debates. A big issue for a fairly conservative border state like Arizona is immigration. Many of the questions posed to the candidates concerned whether they would support a controversial Arizona state bill from 2010 that required police officers to detain anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. Arizona SB 1070 essentially would mean that everyone would have to carry proof of citizenship or their passport with them at all times to avoid being arrested. There was a lot of concern that this law would lead to racial profiling of Latino populations. A lawsuit launched by the Obama administration against the state of Arizona in the Supreme Court caused celebration among more liberal and moderate states and irked the ire of many Arizonans, who felt their state rights were being violated. This is a case where Arizona Republicans and the national electorate likely have different views, yet candidate after candidate affirmed their support for the Arizona law. Do you think this move will damage some of the candidates as they move into more moderate states? Will their words come back to haunt them?
Dessa: I want to say they’ll get called on these kind of techniques, but unfortunately I’m not sure how that would happen. Taking Arizona SB 1070 as an example, I imagine it would be fairly easy for candidates, once in power, to half-heartedly pursue the cause. Then, especially with something so Big Brother-ish, there should be enough opposition to shut the bill down before it really even gets going.
The Arizona people who want this bill put through are basically looking for a champion for the cause that feels as strongly about it as they do – and although I doubt any of the candidates would be willing to really push it through, they’re all kind of willing to step into the champion cut-out they’re supplied with, if only for the moment.
I’m almost inclined to say the voters are as much at fault as the candidates. It’s a skill, I guess – being able to parse legit campaign promises from heat-of-the-moment, I’ll-be-your-hero-if-you-vote-for-me claims.
How does this compare to Gingrich’s claim to start a moon colony – is that any more ridiculous? At least he promised the moon colony to the whole nation and not an individual state.
Nick: Pledging support for the Arizona bill presents an interesting problem for the candidates in two respects, I think. First, there is the problem of inconsistency between states throughout the election cycle (as we’ve already mentioned), and then the problem of fulfilling such a promise once they enter office. Such a specific measure can be incredibly difficult to follow through on once in office, and it may be politically unwise to pursue later on. The problem is that hard-core supporters will call them out on their unfulfilled promise, and opponents will point to the promise as evidence of the politician’s underlying policies.
Dessa: It’s kind of a double-bind, really.
Nick: Exactly. And you bring up an interesting point about whether this is the candidates’ or voters’ fault. Maybe voters expect their political representatives to perfectly cater to their own personal ideas more than that of the nation.
Dessa: I would say they’re both kind of at fault. I would say it’s unreasonable for either candidates or voters to believe that extreme promises will be followed through on unless that candidate is championing the cause in every state – which is unlikely in cases like Arizona SB 1070, and might very well have been the final nail in Gingrich’s coffin when it came to his moon promise.
Nick: Gingrich’s ludicrous moon base pledge may have been such a regionally-targeted gamble, as he proposed this project while campaigning in Florida, home of NASA’s main launch site at Cape Canaveral. At least this promise was something that seemed to be more than just a response to a debate question. Many of the candidates seem to alter their platforms on a whim to best fit what they think the audience wants to hear as a response. Do you think this is a necessary skill in running for office? Or should hopeful politicians focus on maintaining a certain consistency?
Dessa: It’s a balancing beam act, for sure. I don’t want to excuse this behavior, but candidates are between a rock and a hard place – if you were campaigning in Arizona, would you be willing to tell your audience of tax-payers and voters that their dream bill is stupid? I wouldn’t. It might be another thing we hate politicians for, but they have slick ways of sliding out of questions they don’t want to answer for a reason; there are ways to respond that don’t put you on either side of the issue. But then again, being too slick is a quick way to alienate voters. As a candidate, you have to have a vanilla, national appeal, but still be willing to push some issues – preferably issues you actually believe in. Some of these might do more harm than help—see Santorum’s proposal to ban birth control—but at least they’re being honest, and voters have a clear idea of who they’re voting for. Maybe that’s too idealistic – like I said, it’s a balancing act for sure.
Stay tuned next week, when Sean (or maybe Dessa) and Nick tackle more American politics and issues that you don’t understand! (But don’t worry – you will. And so will your cat.)
