Democracy in America | The presidential election

The big choice

The party in power serves its coalition of supporters, not the ideas it pretends to uphold

By W.W. | HOUSTON

WRITING at the New York Times' philosophy blog, Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at Notre Dame, tries his best to carefully and fairly characterise the choice facing American voters in their upcoming presidential election. Mr Gutting maintains, plausibly enough, that the choice amounts to a referendum on how best to realise the aims of the post-New Deal welfare state. He writes:

A vote for Obama endorses what has been the governing structure of our society since the New Deal: a free-market system balanced with government regulations, tax-funded social programs and legislative and judicial guarantees of civil rights—all to protect citizens from the excesses of the private sphere.

The current Republican Party is committed to replacing this structure with one that seriously reduces the role of government. The idea is to rely primarily on the private sphere to regulate itself and to solve social problems through increased production and wealth. Although a President Romney might resist his party’s base, there is a good chance that, willingly or not, he would mostly follow the official party commitments. Therefore, a vote for Romney may well be a vote for a major change in the longstanding role of government in our society. This is the new American revolution urged by the Tea Party.

Mr Gutting's attempt to describe the choice is valiantly even-handed, but it falls short nevertheless. His account of the significance of a vote for Mr Obama is too general; the same could be truly said of a vote for Mr Romney. And Mr Gutting's main claim about the commitments of the current Republican Party rings false. The GOP is not, in fact, committed to replacing "a free-market system balanced with government regulations, tax-funded social programs and legislative and judicial guarantees of civil rights" with "one that seriously reduces the role of government". It would be better to say that the Republican Party is committed to a handful of mostly empty rhetorical tropes about reducing the role of government, much as the Democratic Party is committed to a handful of mostly empty rhetorical tropes about greater socio-economic equality.

Nor am I aware of a tendency among Republicans to "rely primarily on the private sphere to regulate itself" when they actually govern. The greatest pro-market deregulator of my lifetime is Jimmy Carter, and the most controversial deregulatory move in recent memory may be Bill Clinton's support for repeal of those elements of the Glass-Steagall Act limiting the participation of commercial banks in securities markets. Meanwhile, neither voucherising Medicare nor recasting Social Security as a forced savings programme, as many Republicans are wont to do, is a way of reducing the role of government. There are some real differences between Democrats and Republicans over the best means of managing America's social-insurance state, and these differences have something to do with varying opinions about the merits of central administration versus private property and consumer choice as organising principles. Still, it's important to keep in mind that, in advanced economies, markets generally are creatures of legislation and regulation, and that the planned markets around voucherised transfers and mandated investments are doubly so. The virtues of these schemes, such as they are, are the virtues of a certain style of big-government administration, not the virtues of markets operating in anarchy.

It's an occupational hazard of philosophy to see significant philosophical differences behind partisan rivalries. Luckily, America's two mainstream political parties are not actually very ideological. They continue to exist as competitive parties because they are doggedly devoted to the service of their constitutive jumble of interest groups. Philosophy in mature party democracy serves a mainly rhetorical, public-relations role. If you wish to understand the real choice between Mr Obama and Mr Romney, try to look past their parties' branding campaigns and look instead to history and the make-up of each party's coalition. For example, if Mr Romney manages to win, he'll have older white Americans to thank. Thus, if you want to know what Mr Romney is likely to do with respect to Medicare, ask yourself how older white Americans feel about Medicare reform.

What most of us think we're endorsing at the polls is mainly a function of partisan branding. Admittedly, it's rather more fun to vote expressively—to make a statement to oneself about the kind of person one likes to imagine oneself to be—than to vote based on a realistic appraisal of the actual difference between the candidates' approaches to governance. So I suppose it's not really surprising that political commentators offer us almost no help at all in making such appraisals. There's no demand! Unionised teachers don't want to think of themselves as voting Democratic because Democrats protect the interests of unionised teachers, just as rich people don't want to think of themselves as voting Republican because Republicans protect the interests of rich people. We like to see ourselves as voting according to conscience. The branding function of philosophy in politics is to give individual conscience a form congruent with group interest, to transform the mathematical necessities of coalitional partisan politics into many millions of separate acts of self-congratulating private virtue. It's a neat trick. It would be neater still if fewer pundits played along.

Discover more

The fifth Democratic primary debate showed that a cull is overdue

Thinning out the field of Democrats could focus minds on the way to Iowa’s caucuses

The election for Kentucky’s governor will be a referendum on Donald Trump

Matt Bevin, the unpopular incumbent, hopes to survive a formidable challenge by aligning himself with the president


A state court blocks North Carolina’s Republican-friendly map

The gerrymandering fix could help Democrats keep the House in 2020