Demobots and Republibots (and Liberbots?)
I have been trying to formulate a theory about the behavior of political partisans. It is normal to say that they espouse a bundle of beliefs and elect politicians whose own stated beliefs most closely match their own, but that doesn't explain a lot of the other behavior, such as when they defend things which are either clearly not true, or against what you would think were their normal interests, or policies which are clearly working in the direction opposite of that intended.
The high school civics version is that Democrats and Republicans push for policies they want. But when Democrats owned the White House and Congress in 1993-4, we didn't get a minimum wage raise, we didn't get national health care, we didn't get strengthened NLRA, we didn't get moderation in the War On (some people who use some) Drugs, etc. Then, when the Republicans owned Congress and the White House in 2001-present, we didn't get free trade (Doha) or a national anti-abortion law. It is as if both parties lose their voice when they obtain the free and unobstructed control of the podiums of power. Instead, we get inexplicable policy shifts, like NAFTA from Clinton, a prescription drug law from Bush, and other bizarre posturing.
Another aspect of this is that the supporters of the main politicos will defend the indefensible, and blindly attack the other side even when it is not to their advantage. Carter deregulated, Reagan didn't. Clinton didn't spend or request money for education, the two Georges Bush did (charted here). Ted Kennedy wrote No Child Left Behind, but Bush is blamed for its failures and especially failing to fund it even though he is outspending every previous administration by a mile (and even though Congress appropriates, not the President). Clinton vetoed welfare reform five times, finally signed it when it was apparent Congress would override, the Democratic base resisted the idea beforehand, claimed credit afterwards, and the Republican Congress gets no credit at all.
I am considering the possibility that the high school civics version is nearly correct, but has one key thing backwards. Demobots and Republibots don't have an agenda they prefer, the real bots have an agenda they hate. They don't act in their own interests, they react negatively to the other party.
I wish further to distinguish among several groups. There are first of all the masses who just drift. Most of them don't vote, or when they do they vote out of a sense of duty rather than conviction. Then there are the issue voters who care about little else than their one or two issues (gun control, abortion, death penalty, retirement, etc.). The most important groups, however, are the bots, the ambitious politicians, and the wildcards.
The ambitious politicians are people like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W. Bush, and most other heavyweight politicians. They have some convictions, mainly to obtain power. They blow whichever way the winds of popularity blow. If it is good to be pro-death penalty, Bill Clinton will abandon the campaign trail to kill a retarded kid, otherwise he embraces the persona of the compassionate gentleman. If it is good to be a tobacco farmer, Al Gore will tell you how he grew up on a farm, but if tobacco is bad, Al Gore will tell you about his dying sister and anti-tobacco crusades. If it is good to be compassionate, George Bush will speak at length about religion and charity; if it is good to be ruthless, George Bush reserves the "right" to torture and kill even religious people.
The bots thrive on reacting to the politicians of the opposite party. If George Bush says it's good to be compassionate, the Demobots ridicule him. If Bill Clinton decides to bomb terrorist sites in Afghanistan, Republibots ridicule him. But the nature of the politicians is to avoid getting backed into those corners where they have to take a stand, so it would seem that there was a permanent standoff where none will take an action so there is nothing to react to. So how does the system operate?
The wildcards are the catalysts for the interaction of the bots and the politicians. After 9/11, George Bush seemed to have no plan for securing ports and borders and coordinating anti-terrorist agencies. The Demobots went into opposition mode and demanded that he do something. They criticized him for failing to connect the dots. Enter wildcard Joe Lieberman, who suggested that the Homeland Defense Department be created. Immediately, the Republibots opposed this, but Bush decided it was an idea with little downside (though it didn't really accomplish anything, the cost of moving bubbles around on org charts was "the cost of protecting America", and nothing popular got eliminated) and proceeded with it. That prompted the Demobots to ridicule him for doing something, completely opposite what they had said before. The Republibots then also switched positions and supported it. Then, further connecting the dots, and on the advice of wildcard Paul Wolfowitz, he decided to invade Iraq, which the Demobots also opposed, and the Republibots therefore supported. The Republibots, as you may recall, were the same people who ridiculed Gore for nation-building and Clinton for his Serbian adventure, which the Demobots supported, which is to say, they opposed the Republibots opposition to it.
Another scenario: Democrats have not suggested any immigration reform, though they should favor it and eliminate the problems of illegal immigration. Republicans would normally oppose immigration reform because aliens are un-American and not traditional, but didn't propose anything even after 9/11. In this case, the President acted as the wildcard (believing that he had extraordinary insight as a former Governor of Texas and as someone who might be able to persuade marginal Hispanic voters to come to his party because of his ability to speak Spanish as well as he speaks English) and proposed a guest worker program. Boom! -- the Demobots opposed it on the principle that if Bush proposed it, it must be bad, but offered nothing else. Boom! -- the Republibots opposed what they perceived as the Demobot position, for which, since there wasn't one, they substituted the traditional one, which is liberal immigration (liberal in the broad sense of "no restriction"). Therefore, the Republibots introduced harsh, restrictive measures. Boom! -- the Demobots opposed this, opting for the status quo in which dozens suffer from exploitation, exposure, and probably violence as they cross the Arizona desert.
It isn't a well-worked out theory, but I think it has more explanatory power than the generally accepted one. The concept is simple: the bots aren't programmed with a positive program (support X), but rather with a negative program (oppose Y). The opposite bot will also only react (oppose X), so the two should normally be in a mutual standoff until someone drops a disturbance into the arena. Politicians won't do so until they know which way the general mass of people will go, so there must also be a wildcard element.
Note: It could be that this is not generally recognized because of a matter of word choices that mislead us into believing that the most vocal stand for rather than against. For example, why is it called a "pro test"? They are rarely formed to advocate for something, more often against. They should be called "con tests".
There is, by the way, a Liberbot. Usually newbies, they have accepted some of the watered down ideas such as Natural Rights theory, and they know that you can usually find something to react to no matter which flavor the other bots are or what they do. Bush proposes s...-- Boom! It must be wrong. Clinton proposes th...-- Boom! It must be wrong. Which is unfortunate, since welfare reform was probably right (it was better than the old system, and the Demobots would never have allowed a Republican president to do it. Only Nixon could have gone to China, as they say.). I'm having a hard time thinking of something Bush has done right -- perhaps the immigration proposal, but that seems a dead issue for now.
The high school civics version is that Democrats and Republicans push for policies they want. But when Democrats owned the White House and Congress in 1993-4, we didn't get a minimum wage raise, we didn't get national health care, we didn't get strengthened NLRA, we didn't get moderation in the War On (some people who use some) Drugs, etc. Then, when the Republicans owned Congress and the White House in 2001-present, we didn't get free trade (Doha) or a national anti-abortion law. It is as if both parties lose their voice when they obtain the free and unobstructed control of the podiums of power. Instead, we get inexplicable policy shifts, like NAFTA from Clinton, a prescription drug law from Bush, and other bizarre posturing.
Another aspect of this is that the supporters of the main politicos will defend the indefensible, and blindly attack the other side even when it is not to their advantage. Carter deregulated, Reagan didn't. Clinton didn't spend or request money for education, the two Georges Bush did (charted here). Ted Kennedy wrote No Child Left Behind, but Bush is blamed for its failures and especially failing to fund it even though he is outspending every previous administration by a mile (and even though Congress appropriates, not the President). Clinton vetoed welfare reform five times, finally signed it when it was apparent Congress would override, the Democratic base resisted the idea beforehand, claimed credit afterwards, and the Republican Congress gets no credit at all.
I am considering the possibility that the high school civics version is nearly correct, but has one key thing backwards. Demobots and Republibots don't have an agenda they prefer, the real bots have an agenda they hate. They don't act in their own interests, they react negatively to the other party.
I wish further to distinguish among several groups. There are first of all the masses who just drift. Most of them don't vote, or when they do they vote out of a sense of duty rather than conviction. Then there are the issue voters who care about little else than their one or two issues (gun control, abortion, death penalty, retirement, etc.). The most important groups, however, are the bots, the ambitious politicians, and the wildcards.
The ambitious politicians are people like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W. Bush, and most other heavyweight politicians. They have some convictions, mainly to obtain power. They blow whichever way the winds of popularity blow. If it is good to be pro-death penalty, Bill Clinton will abandon the campaign trail to kill a retarded kid, otherwise he embraces the persona of the compassionate gentleman. If it is good to be a tobacco farmer, Al Gore will tell you how he grew up on a farm, but if tobacco is bad, Al Gore will tell you about his dying sister and anti-tobacco crusades. If it is good to be compassionate, George Bush will speak at length about religion and charity; if it is good to be ruthless, George Bush reserves the "right" to torture and kill even religious people.
The bots thrive on reacting to the politicians of the opposite party. If George Bush says it's good to be compassionate, the Demobots ridicule him. If Bill Clinton decides to bomb terrorist sites in Afghanistan, Republibots ridicule him. But the nature of the politicians is to avoid getting backed into those corners where they have to take a stand, so it would seem that there was a permanent standoff where none will take an action so there is nothing to react to. So how does the system operate?
The wildcards are the catalysts for the interaction of the bots and the politicians. After 9/11, George Bush seemed to have no plan for securing ports and borders and coordinating anti-terrorist agencies. The Demobots went into opposition mode and demanded that he do something. They criticized him for failing to connect the dots. Enter wildcard Joe Lieberman, who suggested that the Homeland Defense Department be created. Immediately, the Republibots opposed this, but Bush decided it was an idea with little downside (though it didn't really accomplish anything, the cost of moving bubbles around on org charts was "the cost of protecting America", and nothing popular got eliminated) and proceeded with it. That prompted the Demobots to ridicule him for doing something, completely opposite what they had said before. The Republibots then also switched positions and supported it. Then, further connecting the dots, and on the advice of wildcard Paul Wolfowitz, he decided to invade Iraq, which the Demobots also opposed, and the Republibots therefore supported. The Republibots, as you may recall, were the same people who ridiculed Gore for nation-building and Clinton for his Serbian adventure, which the Demobots supported, which is to say, they opposed the Republibots opposition to it.
Another scenario: Democrats have not suggested any immigration reform, though they should favor it and eliminate the problems of illegal immigration. Republicans would normally oppose immigration reform because aliens are un-American and not traditional, but didn't propose anything even after 9/11. In this case, the President acted as the wildcard (believing that he had extraordinary insight as a former Governor of Texas and as someone who might be able to persuade marginal Hispanic voters to come to his party because of his ability to speak Spanish as well as he speaks English) and proposed a guest worker program. Boom! -- the Demobots opposed it on the principle that if Bush proposed it, it must be bad, but offered nothing else. Boom! -- the Republibots opposed what they perceived as the Demobot position, for which, since there wasn't one, they substituted the traditional one, which is liberal immigration (liberal in the broad sense of "no restriction"). Therefore, the Republibots introduced harsh, restrictive measures. Boom! -- the Demobots opposed this, opting for the status quo in which dozens suffer from exploitation, exposure, and probably violence as they cross the Arizona desert.
It isn't a well-worked out theory, but I think it has more explanatory power than the generally accepted one. The concept is simple: the bots aren't programmed with a positive program (support X), but rather with a negative program (oppose Y). The opposite bot will also only react (oppose X), so the two should normally be in a mutual standoff until someone drops a disturbance into the arena. Politicians won't do so until they know which way the general mass of people will go, so there must also be a wildcard element.
Note: It could be that this is not generally recognized because of a matter of word choices that mislead us into believing that the most vocal stand for rather than against. For example, why is it called a "pro test"? They are rarely formed to advocate for something, more often against. They should be called "con tests".
There is, by the way, a Liberbot. Usually newbies, they have accepted some of the watered down ideas such as Natural Rights theory, and they know that you can usually find something to react to no matter which flavor the other bots are or what they do. Bush proposes s...-- Boom! It must be wrong. Clinton proposes th...-- Boom! It must be wrong. Which is unfortunate, since welfare reform was probably right (it was better than the old system, and the Demobots would never have allowed a Republican president to do it. Only Nixon could have gone to China, as they say.). I'm having a hard time thinking of something Bush has done right -- perhaps the immigration proposal, but that seems a dead issue for now.
Labels: philosophy, politics
<< Home