My blogger friend, Allan Bevere, asked me to write a post for his blog regarding what motivates voters. Specifically, do voters vote for self-interest or the common good? I'm posting it here a day later.
************
Nearly a century ago, a young boy named Ezekiel Bulver overheard his parents arguing. It seems Mr. Bulver was trying to convince Mrs. Bulver that any two sides of a triangle are longer than the third. Finally, in exasperation, Mrs. Bulver exclaimed, "You just say that because you are a man!" That was the end of the argument. Ezekiel had an epiphany.
Traditionally you were required to demonstrate that your opponent is actually wrong in a dialog before explaining what led to his erroneous conclusion. What young Ezekiel discovered is that you can bypass that demonstration and fixate on how your opponent became so silly (or evil), thus diverting all attention from the substance of the issue. C. S. Lewis claimed that the mythical Ezekiel Bulver is the founder of modern day political discourse.* And if you've been paying any attention to politics lately, you see Bulverism is alive and well.
Conservatives can't understand how anyone would vote for Barack Obama and the Democrat's agenda. Surely liberals are soft in the head. Maybe they are greedy. They don't care about anyone else, they just want government to provide for their every need. Or maybe it is more sinister. The Democrats, at least many among the leadership, are closet communists waiting for their opportunity to take over and rule against the will of the people.
Similarly, liberals can't understand those Republicans. Only heartless people would be so greedy as to oppose taxes for programs that promote the common good. Conservatives are selfish. Many conservatives protect their own economic status as they side with big corporations that inflict all manner of suffering on society.
And thus the world is neatly carved into two worlds: One where people are knowledgeable and civic minded like me, and the other populated by silly and selfish people who put only themselves first.
Unfortunately, the world is a bit more complex than this. For instance, six years ago Thomas Frank wrote a book, What's the matter with Kansas? He makes the case that many people from lower-income status vote against their economic interests because of peripheral issues like abortion and gay marriage. These issues are used as wedge issues by conservatives to trick these folks into voting against their own interests.
Of course, Frank does not suggest that liberals change their views on abortion and gay marriage. If they would, then surely this wedge tactic would fail and people would vote in the desired economic reforms. Why don't liberals change? Because these are hardly secondary issues to them … any more than they are secondary issues to the people who supposedly vote against their economic interests to protect their views.
And this raises a critical point. Studies of voting show that, generally speaking, most people of all political stripes vote for the candidates and issues that they believe are in the common good, even at personal expense. What varies is how people perceive what is the common good. People may indeed vote against a candidate who champions programs that would benefit them if they believe that the candidate will also support policies that are, in their estimation, destructive to the foundations of the community. Meanwhile, others will vote for the same candidate even though it will raise their taxes.
Also feeding into this is the tendency to think "most folks are a lot like me" and then inductively reason to the common good. Say there is ballot for a new light rail system. One voter may think, "I can really see how this would benefit me. Just think of how many others will benefit too. This is in the common good." Another voter may think, "This would significantly raise my taxes and be an extra burden to me. I don't want to put this burden on others. This isn't in the common good." But in our caustic Bulveristic environment each voter condemns the other for selfishness. The particularly cynical will claim that most people simply vote their pocketbooks. (It is particularly interesting coming from those who dismiss economics for its assumption that human beings are driven purely by calculating economic benefit.) In fact, what most voters seem to do is to vote what they see as the community's pocketbook, aiming for the common good as they see it.
Most political choices we make are about weighing competing values and concerns. For instance, in America, there has been a general belief that government has a responsibility for a basic social safety net. But this responsibility is a supportive one, not one of controlling citizens' lives. If politicians err too far toward weakening what is considered fair, they lose elections. Similarly, if they err too far toward an imperial model, they also get the boot. Reasonable compassionate people weighing the variables can come to differing conclusions. But the thrust of our age is to deny this reality in favor satisfying Bulveristic hunger.
I think the challenge for Christians in our polarized political environment is to begin a resistance movement against Bulverism. It is appropriate to occasionally have strong convictions about a particular issue or candidate. But as we talk with others, is it necessary to assume the worst about our opponents? Instead of beginning discussions by asserting how silly and/or evil our opponent is, is it possible to begin with assuming positive intent from our opponent, believing our opponent is seeking the common good, and searching for the value we can affirm in what our opponent wants to achieve? We may still come to conclusions that some are indeed silly or malicious, but just maybe by resisting Bulverism we will find that the great majority of us really have something in common: we are seeking the common good.
What do you think?
*(The Bulver story comes from an essay, "Bulverism," in a collection of essays by C. S. Lewis called God in the Dock: Essays on Ethics and Theology.)
Leave a Reply