There is a general sentiment that following the competitive, horserace aspect of elections is a lesser, lower form of political engagement, especially when compared to ideological, policy and issue coverage. There have been numerous times during this, and past, elections where people have written me asking for more coverage of issues and policies, rather than "just the horserace." It is an understandable sentiment, since really, isn't the entire reason we get involved in politics because we care about how ideas, policies and legislation can impact people, our country, and our world? We all want to make a difference, and making a difference means changing the sort of laws that are passed, changing the way that the government is administered, and changing the way that powerful institutions operate. One example of this would be that we don't want to just elect more Democrats, we want to pass universal health care. We don't want to just follow elections, we want to end the war, or improve education, or act in a sustainable manner with the environment, and so on.
I admit that this is a perception I labor under myself. Generally speaking, I think of the content I write about the quantitative side of elections to be of a lower order of importance than, say, the residual forces campaign, the Responsible Plan to end the war, the Iraq supplemental fights, or other Iraq-centric policy that we have discussed here on Open Left over the last nine months. Surely, Iraq, health care, or global warming is more important than the latest poll numbers of out Pennsylvania. When I list moments that I think Open Left has made a difference, I cite things like the SChip fight where we flipped votes, the Responsible Plan to end the war that dozens of challengers have signed onto, or when we helped push the issue of residual forces into the public consciousness. That is when we made a difference rather than, you know, just followed the horserace.
However, the more I think about it, this strikes me as basically internalizing a form of Washington, D.C. elitism. For several reasons, horeserace coverage is an extremely important, and populist, contribution to political activism around the country. First, when someone is not a political professional, his or her options to "make a difference" in politics are pretty limited. Apart from contacting local elected representatives, there are virtually no options to make a difference in legislative battles. Apart from attending political rallies, there are virtually no ways to raise awareness for a given issue. When you don't have many political contacts, the one constant and immediately available way to make an impact on the political discourse and institutions in America is to engage in electoral activism. There are always elections, whether primaries or generals, and whether they are at the local, statewide, or national level. You can participate in these elections just by talking to friends and family, or by voting, by making small donations or by volunteering on the weekend. For someone who does not work in politics, that sort of activism is a lot easier, and has more of an impact, than a nebulous attempt to change the way lobbyists and staffers write obscure legislation.
This is where horserace coverage comes in, and why it is so important for grassroots political activism. Since elections are one of the few regularly available means for almost anyone to participate in politics, providing accurate information on which elections are coming up next, where those elections are taking place, and where those elections currently stand is immediately actionable information for virtually the that entire country. That is the sort of knowledge that facilitates the most common and readily available forms of political activism in which most Americans engage. By comparison, going into the details of health care policy, energy and global warming policy, telecom policy, or Iraq withdrawal policy just is not as useful. If anything, information on those policies is actually most useful to the general public by giving them more information and context for their electoral activism.
Elections are an immediate, more effective, and near constant means of engaging in political activism for a much wider range of people than are discussions on the intricacies of policy. Every American can make a quantifiable impact on an election in a way that they cannot make a quantifiable impact on almost any other area of politics. This is also why clear differences between parties and cnadidates are important and useful for the general population, even though such partisanship is looked down on by elites. When there are clearly defined differences between Democrats and Republicans, then people have an easier time understanding what they are voting for, and a greater belief that the outcome of the election matters (this is one of the key reasons why voter turnout has increased from 2002 forward, after years of a long, slow decline). When there are no clearly defined differences, then only insiders who really understand and work in the system know where the power centers are, and also how to get things done. Bi-partisanship is actually quite elitist in this sense, because it obscures the process from the general public, and makes the easiest way to get involved in politics--elections--seem less important.
When there are clear differences between candidates in an election, and when there is clear, easy to understand information on when and where elections are taking place, not to mention the current state of those elections, involvement in the political process will increase nationwide. It is in this sense that clear and accurate horserace coverage, just like clear and thoroughgoing partisanship, are actually huge positives in our political system. Simply put, they both increase transparency in the political process, and make it easier for people to get involved.
.Now, this isn't to say that policy discussions are not important, since I believe they are. Rather, I've just decided to stop internalizing the notion that horserace political coverage is somehow of lower value than issue-based political discussion. Hell, the entire reason I first started reading political blogs six years ago is because I found the electoral information on places like CNN and MSNBC for the 2002 midterms to be woefully inadequate and lacking in specifics. Eventually, providing that service myself was a natural fit.
|
STATE BLOGS
