Altes Elliott-Wellen-Forum - Why Politics Divides People / Artikel, engl.

Why Politics Divides People / Artikel, engl.

verfasst von JüKü, 01.05.2002, 21:33

<div>
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=945
</div>

 
<div>
Why Politics Divides People
</div>

 

by Gary Galles

[Posted May 1, 2002]



[img][/img] We
are in the post-primary lull, before the campaign mud-slinging starts in earnest
(California's governor's race being an exception, with Governor Gray Davis
spending millions to defeat Richard Riordan in the Republican primary). But
as November draws nearer, we will enter a storm of negative attack advertising,
by politicians who all claim to detest it.

That impending storm does raise a question,
however. Why is politics so negative compared to marketing--its analog in the
private sector--even though virtually every candidate echoes the desire to
"just get along"? The explanation revolves around two important ways
political competition differs >from market competition: higher payoffs to
negative attacks, and rationally ignorant"customers."

Selling your product in the private sector
requires a customer to cast an affirmative vote to buy it. Just convincing a
potential customer that a rival product should not be purchased does not mean a
sale for you.

This is because a sales prospect can choose from
among several sellers, or he can choose to not buy at all. But those options are
unavailable in an election with only two major parties, where customers are
effectively forced to"buy" from one of them.

In an essentially two-party election, convincing
an uncommitted voter to vote against the"other guy" by tearing the
opponent's position down is as valuable to a candidate as convincing that voter
of positive reasons to vote for him; either brings him a vote closer to a
majority. That is not true in the private sector, as only votes for
you--purchases--help you.

Similarly, talking a voter committed to a rival
to switch to your side is worth two votes, since it adds one to your vote column
and subtracts one from your rival's. But you would only benefit from the
single additional purchase/vote for you in the private sector. Further, in an
election, finding a way to get someone who would have voted for your rival to
not vote at all is as valuable as getting one more voter to vote for you.

This is why negative campaigns that turn voters
off from political participation altogether are acceptable in politics, as long
as a candidate thinks he will keep more of his competitor's voters away from the
polls than he will his own. In the private sector, such an approach would
not be taken, as it would reduce, rather than increase, sales.

So despite ongoing pleas to"change the
tone" in politics, political competition is far more negative than market
competition, primarily because negative attacks have a greater payoff in
politics (witness the growth of opposition research). But that incentive is
intensified by the fact that voters are far less informed about what they are
being sold than private-sector customers.

People acquire information to make decisions only
so long as they expect the added benefits they receive from a better choice to
exceed the added costs of obtaining the information necessary to make it. This
benefit is substantial in market decisions, since your vote changes your result.

In the political arena, however, your vote is but
one among many, giving you only a minute chance of influencing the outcome, and
yielding you virtually no benefits from casting a better vote. Further, the cost
of acquiring the information necessary for public-sector decisions tends to be
much higher, because a great deal more information is required than simply
knowing how a choice will directly affect you.

The higher costs and lower benefits to becoming
informed lead most voters to have less information about political decisions
than about their market decisions, particularly crucial swing voters, who are
often among the least informed in the electorate. That further raises the payoff
to negative campaigning, especially the use of misleading part-truths. They are
simple, but reality is complex and therefore is much harder to"sell"
to voters paying limited attention.

Any public policy has many effects, some of which
will be adverse, and those can be easily separated out and packaged to inflame
rationally ignorant voters. Politics also involves compromises, and, taken out
of context, any compromise can provide fodder for attacks that a candidate has
abandoned principle. The result, according to Barbara O'Connor, director of Cal
State Sacramento's Institute for the Study of Politics and Media, is the
widespread use of"facts taken out of context or misleading facts where you
know that including the truth would negate the point you're making."

As electoral competition heats up this year, we
will see politicians decrying opponents' negative attacks at the same time they
are launching their own negative attacks. That inconsistency will madden many of
us.

But negativity is built into the incentive
structure of modern politics. So despite continuing pleas for honesty and
civility, it will only get worse as long as the government continues to expand
its control over Americans' lives, increasing the payoff from controlling the
political process.

In fact, the only real solution to negative
attack politics is to reduce the power and scope of government over our lives,
returning that control to the voluntary arrangements we make for ourselves.
However, that solution is unlikely to come from those so busily abusing the
truth to become or remain a part of government.


<div>
<hr align="left" width="33%" SIZE="1">
</div>

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. Send him
MAIL, and see his Mises.org
Articles
Archive.



<center>

<HR>

</center>

Thread gesperrt

gesamter Thread:

Why Politics Divides People / Artikel, engl. - JüKü, 01.05.2002, 21:33
- To Hell with 'Democrazy' - silvereagle, 01.05.2002, 22:49
  - Vielleicht sollten wir symbolisch alle mal - Turon, 01.05.2002, 22:58
    - Re: Vielleicht sollten wir symbolisch alle mal - Euklid, 02.05.2002, 12:31
  - Da gibt es eine einfache Lösung - Diogenes, 02.05.2002, 09:24