Voting for Hate

In theory, political parties try to win elections by listening to public sentiment and then offering to the voters candidates who represent popular points of view. Defenders of the American political process insist that politics serves the public good by giving voters what they want. When Lincoln spoke of, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” he had that sequence of actions in mind.

I have long felt the American political system falls short of that ideal. It doesn’t give the people exactly what they want. It doesn’t even give them as much of what they want as is practically possible. Instead, the system seems designed to give the people as little of what they want as is possible while keeping incumbent politicians in office. Smart politicians know if they make a show of keeping one or two promises, voters will forget all the unkept promises.

But more and more, I think the American political process does something altogether different and even worse.

Politics doesn’t listen to public sentiment and respond to it. The opposite happens. Political forces use the power of the media to shape public sentiment. It tells the people what to think. Citizens change their opinions and priorities to conform to those of the political party they identify with. And that makes them willing to sacrifice their genuine needs for the sake of side issues that the party has convinced them to care about.

There’s proof. At one end of the epistemological spectrum is the unscientific (but amusing) series of interviews by late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmell, showing that strong Democrats will agree with almost anything if you tell them their candidate supports it:

At the other end of the spectrum is scientific research. Academic studies usually conform to strict standards of practice and require strong evidence. So they represent serious information. In a study reported in the Quarterly Journal of Political Science, people with party loyalties preferred to give their own party credit for job growth, drops in crime, and other good results. But these individuals changed their answers when researchers offered to pay for true answers. The participants knew the correct answers all along and were willing to lie for their party.

Also, there is the research of Professor Kevin Mullinix. He surveyed a large sample of Americans, asking their opinions on several issues while telling some that their party supported one position and telling others the opposite. Members of both parties were swayed by the information about party preference. Many of them didn’t really know or care about the issue. But on being told their party supported or opposed it, they embraced their party’s position. Mullinix explains:

Most people do not have the time or motivation to research the intricacies of every issue domain, and as such, they often look to their party – a trusted source – for guidance. When people hear that officials from their party support a policy or when they see a “D” or an “R” next to a candidate’s name on a ballot, they can use the party endorsement as a cognitive shortcut or “cue.” Relying on such party endorsements reduces the time required to watch and read the news. However, such reliance also allows parties to shape people’s attitudes.

It is true that party identity serves the convenience and time-saving effect Mullinix writes about. And that is certainly beneficial. Few citizens want to concern themselves with all the details of social and economic policy.

Unfortunately, the parties don’t stop at, “We’ll keep the lights on, gas cheap, and the schools adequately funded.” Increasingly, it is the business of both political parties to tell people who to hate and who to shun. In February 2021, Michigan Congressman Adam Kinzinger, a Republican, received a hateful letter from his cousin, deploring his vote on a highly politicized issue. The letter is strident and filled with double- and triple-underlined words and bold declarations such as:

“Oh my, what a disappointment you are to us and to God!”

Normally, people are favorable toward their own close relatives. They tolerate and excuse — or at the very least downplay — actions of their relatives that they may not like. But this hyper-politicized cousin has allowed her political identity to rule over her role of a decent human being.