Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, November 8, 1994 TAG: 9411080083
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ROBERT A. MARANTO
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Myth: Americans used to believe in their political system, but have grown cynical.
Fact: Public-opinion polling suggests that Americans are more cynical about their institutions than in the 1950s and early '60s, but less so than in the 1930s (and possibly 1940s) and the Nixon-Ford-Carter period of the recent past.
Since we have no polling data from our distant past, we simply do not know how much confidence our forefathers had in American institutions. Impressionistic data suggests that leaders used to have more faith in ``the system'' than they do now, but the common man may well have had less.
Myth: Voting turnout was higher back in the good old days.
Fact: Turnout was higher in the old days, but not because people used to believe in the system more than now. Before the political system was reformed in the mid-20th century, it was far easier to vote than it is now. This had its good side, but it also meant that political machines could pay people to vote early and often. In some places suffrage was extended even to the dead (as still happens in Chicago and Philadelphia).
Today, most European nations have higher turnouts than the United States, but this is because registration is automatic, elections are held on weekends, and there are fewer and less confusing elections and elected offices. In addition, some nations have penalties for not voting.
Interestingly, even though fewer Americans vote, comparative studies show that Americans have more faith in their political system than most Europeans do, and are more likely to lobby, write elected officials, and otherwise participate in government.
Myth: Higher voter turnout helps the Democrats.
Fact: In most races, those who don't vote would have voted about the same as those who do. This myth is a holdover from when poor and working-class people (who are less likely to vote) voted Democratic, while middle- and upper-middle-class folks voted Republican. This has not been true for a long time. Instead, the Republicans represent the military, cultural conservatives and business. The Democrats represent unions, lawyers, government employees and cultural elites. Since each set of constituencies includes many upper- and lower-income individuals, such differences are sector-based rather than class-based.
Myth: Elections are rarely decided on the basis of ideology, since most citizens have no ideology.
Fact: If this were true, then why do so many candidates spend so much time and energy telling people where they stand on the issues? In fact, most Americans do have an ideology, and it does influence how they vote. Liberals vote Democratic while conservatives vote Republican. The problem, though, is that candidates are not always honest about where they stand, so voters may have a tough time voting their ideals.
A related problem is that only about half of voters are conservative or liberal. Many blue-collar people are populists, liberal on economic issues and conservative on social issues. Similarly, many yuppies are libertarian, liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues.
Myth: Political-action committees have made it impossible to defeat congressional incumbents.
Fact: It is very difficult to defeat a congressional incumbent, with more than 95 percent winning re-election in four of the past five election years. The exception was 93 percent on 1992, the ``year of the outsider.'' However, PACs are not the culprit. Most incumbent House members get far more from the taxpayers: free mailing privileges, a congressional TV studio to tape messages for constituencies, two to four district offices, and an average of nearly 20 staff members.
Most incumbents are Democrats, but this is not why Republicans have not controlled Congress since 1954. After all, in many elections the incumbent has retired or died, and Republicans don't do very well in those elections, either.
Republicans haven't gained more House seats, to reflect their gains in party identification and in presidential elections since 1968, mainly because elections are won by candidates, not parties - and year after year, the Democrats have smarter, harder-working candidates.
This is because Democrats like government; Republicans hate it. Smart, capable young Republicans go into business and make millions of dollars; smart; capable young Democrats go into politics and make millions of laws.
Myth: Negative ads are misleading and turn people off to politics.
Fact: Actually, negative ads are usually more honest than positive ads. Positive ads talk about a candidate's ``caring'' about people, or ``working'' to solve problems, perhaps by making a speech (or inserting one into the Congressional Record). Negative ads often, though not always, involve specific actions taken by incumbents and specific issues embraced by challengers.
There is no empirical evidence that negative ads decrease electoral turnout; indeed, they may give people a reason for going to the polls. Further, negative advertising is nothing new in American politics. It dates back at least to the presidential election of 1800, in which Jeffersonians called John Adams a monarchist, while Adams supporters called Thomas Jefferson an atheist.
The real truth is: Voters effect change. Nonvoters don't. And no amount of mythical baggage is an excuse to stay home on Election Day.
Robert A. Maranto is a professor of government and law at Lafayette College in Easton, Pa.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB