There is an idea popular in conservative circles that businessmen make good political leaders. After all, if he knows how to run a company, meet a payroll and balance the books, he should be pretty good at running a country.
And I would like to agree with that sentiment. Or rather, if we were in normal times, I would agree with it. Unfortunately, businessmen-as-politicians are not what game theorists would call an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy. Allow me to explain: if every party is electorally represented by businessmen, then businessmen can do well as electoral candidates. And if this were the case, it would be the sign of a sane body politic as well as a quiet, competent government.
Unfortunately, there is a type of politician that can eat the businessman-politician for lunch; he is the ideologue. Recently, the word ‘ideologue’ has developed a negative connotation, basically turning it into a synonym for an ivory-tower fanatic, unmoored by common sense. But the original meaning of the word is somebody motivated principally by abstract political principles, irrespective of whether they are good or bad, or whether he is a bloodthirsty fanatic or a serene Solon. In this article, I employ the original meaning of the term. Thus Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are ideologues, as well as Barack Obama and Leon Trotsky.
Why are ideologues often superior to businessmen in politics?
Largely because, in politics, choice is driven by political principles. Having different political principles means favouring different solutions to practical problems. There is nothing wrong with this. It simply reflects the fact that governing principles at this level of governance are not settled yet. Ideologues thrive in politics because ideology is the métier of the ideologue. They live and breathe this stuff. In contrast, the governing principles of business are relatively straightforward: maximize profits, avoid losses, increase shareholder value, follow accepted accounting principles and deal with the laws. It doesn’t matter if you are Wal-Mart or the local dry cleaners, the same principles and goals apply.
To take a real-world example from politics, consider Barack Obama - perhaps the most pure example of an ideologue to ever inhabit the White House. I read somewhere that he is acquainted with such philosophers of the right as Hayek, von Mises and Freidman. It goes without saying that he knows the philosophers of the left inside and out. While Romney might have encountered Freidman’s name in his briefing memos, I doubt he knows whom Hayek, nor, let alone, von Mises are. And I would almost be willing to bet my house that he has no clue about Derrida, Marcuse or Engels. Businessmen are too sane and unimaginative to think about such things.
OK, but why is an understanding of political principles important for, say, a presidential candidate?
Fair question. Consider the political principle, ‘he who frames the debate, wins the debate.’ If you know the political theory behind your platform as well as your opponents’ platform – and I mean really know it, inside out, backwards and forwards – you are in a much better position to frame the issues in favourable terms than your opponent. Back when I took physics in university, the we were tested to make sure we understood the theories was to be given questions that tackled aspects of the theory being tested, but from unfamiliar directions. If you could answer such questions, it showed that you understood the theory in depth. Just being able to do the same kind of questions that you saw in problem sets doesn’t prove anything. You might have just memorized the steps required to deriving the solution. Getting political theory is similar to Getting a physical theory. If you can approach it from multiple directions, it shows that you understand it. In contrast, you can be sure that the politician who recycles the old slogan, “spending like a drunken sailor” doesn’t Get why government deficits are bad.
In many ways, a businessman like Mitt Romney is like the physics student who has memorized the steps to solving his problem sets but who doesn’t really understand the underlying theory. I think this is why Mitt Romney “spoke conservatism like a second language”. This also explains why Ronald Reagan was the Great Communicator. He was a conservative ideologue who lived and breathed the principles underlying freedom. Because of this, he could explain issues originally, in such a way that Joe Sixpack could understand them and – more importantly – explain to him why they are important to him. All too often, you hear a conservative politician castigate his opponent for being ‘a liberal’, or defend his own policy by saying that ‘it is conservative’. OK, but why is the ‘conservative’ policy better than the ‘liberal’ policy?
The sound you then hear is the car dealer-turned-gold-watch-politician trying to suck and breathe at the same time.
I think Mitt Romney's loss comes down to a few issues.
1. Obama had a better ground game and in the key swing states, Obama was good a finding issues to tip the scales in his favour whereas Romney wasn't able to.
2. Romney was too much of a flip flopper. A moderate governor, but a hardline candidate in the primaries so it probably scared some moderates over to Obama while caused some conservatives to stay home.
3. Demographics, demographics. Romney won the white vote by almost 20% which is the same as what Bush sr. got in 1988 and not far behind what Reagan got in 1984. The problem is America is much less white than it was then and you need to be competitive amongst minorities to win. Bush in 2004 got 44% of the Latino vote while Romney only got 27% and likewise both Reagan and Bush Sr. won the Asian vote while Romney only got 27%. Even amongst African-Americans, most Republicans prior to 2008 almost always got in the teens not single digits. Had Romney gotten 40% of the Latino vote, 40% of the Asian vote and 10% of the African-American vote he would be president. At least the Conservatives in Canada realized you cannot win by just appealing to the white voters.
4. Rather than making sure they were ahead, many in the Romney camp went on the dubious assumption that the young and minority voters would have a lower turnout due to less excitement than 2008 whereas theirs would show up in record numbers. You never assume your opponents base won't show up, rather than you get your base out and focus on winning the undecided voters.
Posted by: monkey | December 17, 2012 at 10:41 PM
An ideologue believes what he believes though the heavens fall, which is why BO is an ideologue, better described as an educated airhead.
Posted by: FMMachold | December 30, 2012 at 04:58 PM