Most people with a passing interest in political science have heard of wedge issues. It's not essential to be familiar with the term to read this post, but I should note that the ideas here are in the same vein of thought but argue the case that all issues can be wedge issues when deployed appropriately. Like all systems of classification, this one tends to caricature and thus will certainly always be wrong in some details when applied. With that said, ALL relevant political issues fall into the following three categories:
Polarizing Issues
[SCISSORS]
These are issues that neatly divide the electorate along relatively clear lines. Often times this sort of issue is confounded with "wedge issues" in the media, but that is a huge mistake, which I hope should become clear down the line. Normally, polarizing issues divide the electorate into two major groups, but even here there will still be fence-sitters or people whose views confuse or undermine the debate. These issues tend to make large numbers of people very passionate. Politicians tend to be pressed by these passionate interest groups to take a firm stand on their positions. Doing so will tend to enhance turnout and donations from decided voters, and alienate undecided voters. At core, that's because being undecided is a habit, like picking your belly button or lying: it is self-perpetuating. This habit can be adaptive, and comes about as close as possible to the trait of "open-mindedness" that is possible without bias entering the picture.
Polarizing issues usually have extremely clear policy implications. For instance, the banning or allowing of a certain act or the granting or denial of a specific right. That is not to say that there are not incremental policy steps taken towards achieving the goal, but that tends to be a result of expediency rather than preference. While public opinion on a polarizing issue can shift, sometimes quite rapidly, there tend to be strong cultural institutions in place that prevent the debate from being radically reframed. That is largely because the issues involved are very simple and appeal to emotions: these issues are fundamentally charismatic from both angles. Lastly, a polarizing issue will tend to come closer than other issues of splitting voters 50/50.
Good examples: gay marriage, abortion, marijuana legalization, affirmative action
Splintering Issues
[ROCK]
These are issues that require constant consensus building and debate even within broadly supportive coalitions. One reason is because there are multiple policy approaches to achieve similar goals, but often the nature of the goals and the motivation of parties are also wildly divergent. The default position of most politicians is to try to be seen as "moderate", "pragmatic", or "nuanced" on these issues by taking an extremely status quo approach. If a politician is in a position to use these positions well, it is a "populist coup". This requires using the right rhetoric to take advantage of a fluctuation of public opinion. The complexity and vague boundaries of these issues means that they are littered with language traps (often sprung cleverly right next to the language gold bars) to gaffle and confabulate the out-of-touch, genuine, and untested alike.
Splintering issues might sometimes present superficially with a pro/con sheen, but any real examination of the issue on a policy level will cause it to evaporate into marshmallow-vapor. What does it mean to be pro-environment or in favor of immigration reform? A real answer requires a level of hair-splitting beyond the capabilities of a layman. Another sign of splintering issues is a kaleidoscope effect on perception: some facets of an issue will seem to be opposed to other facets, creating ridiculously ardent supporters or opponents of oddly specific policies that seem barely worth mentioning. If a candidate chooses to pursue a splintering issue, there will usually be a 60-70 percent support on one side of it, but if the question is changed slightly, that support might go the other way.
Good examples: immigration, environment, labor regulations, gun rights, taxes
Bewildering Issues
[PAPER]
These are often not real issues, but vague yearnings masquerading as choices. Sometimes this is the graveyard of polarizing or splintering issues where the illusion of cultural consensus has warped the debate into talking points. But even more often these issues are born when the public affixes itself on a goal without consideration of the causes of the problem. Other times, even experts cannot figure out how to solve the problem. Perhaps it is insoluble or outside of our control. Either way, because of the difficulty hashing out the underlying facts and emotional content, these issues tend to allow the public to be easily manipulated by politicians and interest groups that should be disturbing to supporters of representative government.
Bewildering issues are often nonsensical to poll, except by either breaking out specific sub-policies where coherent clash exists, or asking voters to prioritize different issues against one another, as these vague urges compete for people's awareness. The media will tell the public that a candidate is "not talking about [bewildering issues] enough" without ever saying wtf they should be saying or what exactly people would want to hear. The reason these issues are important is that they create a bond of understanding between the candidate and the public that is beyond reasoning, a deeply coded path to authentic human desire.
Good examples: the economy, crime, terrorism, public trust, global competitiveness
The reason I chose the rock-paper-scissor motif is because I believe that on average, each class of these issues is most effective in neutralizing another. I'll give some examples using concrete issues. My real goal here is not necessarily to correctly ID these relationships but to simply demonstrate how different issues interact in the public-opinionscape, in order to erode public trust in politicians and the political process.
Scissor Cuts Paper
A recent example of polarizing bewilderment is President Obama's announcement of his support for gay marriage after a long history of fence-riding and chrome-polishing. The reason this strategy was deployed is that polarizing issues are easy for people to understand and force a confused public to make rapid choices. This can help close people off to the subliminal persuasion of bewildering messages, in this case Romney's perceived advantage on "jobs" and "the economy". The Druidic murmurings of the corporate media were replaced by the gossipy squawk of half the people you know, at least for a few weeks. This helps reinforce party prejudices, which can cut both ways, but most importantly it cuts through clatter with a message people actually understand. This destroys the news cycle.
Paper Covers Rock
The environmental movement based around fear of global warming, and the closely aligned alternative energy and "green jobs" issues, peaked in 2007 before the economic crash but took some time to fade almost completely out of view. The recession pretty much broke the issue's spine, but it swayed and lurched around for another couple of years due to politician's past commitments and the genuine enthusiasm of a small group of intensely passionate activists. It usually takes more than one blow to take an issue down, even if it's a massive body blow like the 07 crash. But cheap gas officially pulled the plug on the climate party, taking a key ace out an already weakened hand: the "we're running out of oil anyways, so windmills will save industrial civilization, save you cash, and shame Arabs" card. Does it matter the gas price went back up? Hell no. Did you listen to the state of the union? Global warming as a general election issue is dead as disco. RIP. And/or expect a big comeback in 7-9 years.
Rock Breaks Scissors
Pulling this off takes some solid strategery. When politics become extremely polarized this leads to entrenchment and stagnation. The advantage of splintering issues in these situations is twofold. On the one hand, temporary fluctuations in voter opinion based on current events can be massaged into persuasion with the rhetorical contortions these limber issues allow. And the confusing nature of these issues means that micro-blocs of voters can be targeted with tailored messages. . .messages most voters won't even understand. "Tax fairness", "religious freedom", and immigration are all issues that could swing the upcoming election. ever. so. slightly.
Dear Ohio, please enjoy picking our next president.
Much love.
No comments:
Post a Comment