The Nonsense About "Electability"

The progressive think tank, The Rockridge Institute, which unfortunately announced this week that it will close, has an excellent debunking of "electability" that we reproduce below in its entirety. (See also our Debunking the Big State Myth.)

Ask Rockridge: Who the Hell Knows Today Who Will Be Electable in November?
Created by bruce_at_rockridge (Rockridge Institute staff member) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 05:38 PM

The perception of electability rests on a witch's brew of fact, impression, media-promoted narratives, and stargazing.

We recently received this question:

"I would enjoy an in-depth discussion, but what I'm really looking for is an effective single sentence counterframe to: 'Candidate X is a great guy/gal but s/he is just not electable.'"

The suggestion that a particular candidate is not electable could mean several things. One meaning might be that the candidate is "too liberal" and that to be electable a candidate must be a moderate or centrist. We have written in Thinking Points about what we call the "label myth." This myth is based on the popular but mistaken metaphorical understanding of a linear order of political worldviews, about which we have also written here and here. It suggests that each of our sets of political views places us somewhere along this right-to-left linear scale. Further, politicians, pundits and the media have all contributed to the idea that the center, where the "moderates" lie, is the reasonable or balanced point of view and it is where a candidate's positions must fall in order to be electable. We reject this idea.

Without rehashing our discussion in Thinking Points, suffice it to say that a candidate who authentically holds progressive positions is absolutely electable. Like any candidate, a candidate with mostly progressive views on issues must understand the values from which his positions flow and be able to communicate them to the voters. Most voters are looking for authentic political leaders who are guided by a consistent set of core values. Voters are less focused on whether that candidate holds the same position they do on each discrete issue. George Bush proved in 2004 that a candidate need not "move to the center" to be electable.

Moreover, when a candidate "moves to the center" in order to be "electable," the candidate validates the opponent's values. To compound the problem, the candidate may even repeat the talking points that support those "centrist" values. In the short term, the candidate jeopardizes his or her authenticity. In the long term, this undermines the principles on which the progressive movement stands.

The question of electability may also refer to the more insidious problem that we call the horse race syndrome. This media-fed, if not media-created, phenomenon exalts a candidate's perceived chances of being elected over such factors as policy positions that reflect a consistent adherence to progressive values, leadership qualities, and so on.

In addition, divining who is most electable requires a crystal ball. We saw in 2004 that this guessing game can lead to poor results. Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in the primaries on the belief that he was the most electable candidate, failed to predict his poor performance in the general election campaign.

Why is this so? Perhaps our excessive emphasis on unhelpful poll results skews our perceptions. When a national poll conducted nearly a year before the general election reports that Democratic candidate x would beat Republican candidate y by 4%, we can take very little meaningful from this. These extremely early indicators turn on name ID, nomination preferences, and a host of other factors that will be of little or no import come the first Tuesday in November.

The media's role in this "electability" guessing game can't be ignored either. Popular narratives take hold and create a conventional wisdom, which may or may not bear a strong relationship to the truth. Clinton is experienced, but carries too much baggage; Obama is an agent for change, but his inexperience will sink him; Edwards stands for the people, but the people don't want someone who rants so much. We've heard these narratives for months. Whether they were true when they took hold, these narratives helped shape public attitudes, thus shaping their own reality. So the perception of electability rests on a witch's brew of fact, impression, media-promoted narratives, and stargazing.

If you want an imperfect, one-sentence retort, consider this: Who the hell knows today who will be electable in November?

Bruce Budner
The Rockridge Institute