I was reading the comments over at Taking Down Words and noticed RiShawn Biddle’s observations on the state of political discourse in the state and in the country. I’m paraphrasing, so my apologies if I miss some nuance, but essentially he is troubled by the fact that Republicans and Democrats are constantly at each others throats. Each side exaggerates the faults of others out of all proportion and rarely, if ever, credits the other side for a good idea.
I think that’s a fairly accurate statement for national politics. I’m not certain whether it’s entirely accurate at the state level as a whole, but, certainly there is enough of it generally, and in the blogosphere
the knives are always drawn.
It seems to me that we have something of a prisoner’s dilemma, particularly at the federal level and, to the extent the same things are happening in Indiana, at the state level as well. I’m sure mathematicians and game theorists will howl in agony at my inadequate explanation — and go to the linked site for a fuller explanation — but essentially it is this. In the prisoner’s dilemma, two prisoners both have an opportunity to squeal to the warden. If both stay silent, both benefit a little bit. If one squeals and the other stays silent, the squealer wins big and the silent one loses big. If both squeal then both lose quite a bit, but not quite as much as the loser when one is silent and the other is a squealer. Overall, the best thing for everyone is if both keep silent.
Something similar is going on with Republicans and Democrats. Overall, society wins if they both play nice. But, the rewards are pretty big for the bad actor if one side decides to be bad while the other is playing nice. And, the downside is pretty significant if you try to play nice and the other side screws you.
I tend to think the current iteration stems from the ’94 Gingrich/Republican revolution where the Republicans upped the negativity in sliming their opponents while the Democrats were playing by the older (comparatively nicer) rules. But, I’m sure others perceive some older transgression by the Democrats as having “started it.” For this post, I’m not all that interested in that point.
I think our current political climate is such that one party cannot unilaterally disarm and become polite and give credit where credit is due. The other side would steamroll them into political irrelevance.
Take this as a thought experiment. Nationally, what do you think the public perception would be of the Democrats if they let up on the Republicans and tried being nice? It would be like HANNITY & colmes on Capitol Hill. It would be as if every Democrat was Tom Daschle or Joe Lieberman. In short, the Democrats would come off even wimpier and rudderless than they do now.
What’s the solution? Beats me. In the prisoner’s dilemma, the best response tends to be “tit for tat with forgiveness”. In other words, you do to the other guy what he just did to you, but about 1 – 5% of the time, even when he did bad to you, you go ahead and respond with good anyway. So maybe the parties should try being nice to each other just once in a great while, and if the other party responds in kind, you escalate the niceness.
(Just a footnote — I’m hesitant to attribute a completely poisoned atmosphere to the General Assembly and the parties at the state level because if you look through the bills, there are a significant number that did not split on a party line vote. So there is cooperation to be had even if the parties and the campaigns don’t necessarily trumpet the collaborative effort and the collaboration doesn’t make the front page.)
To paraphrase John Kerry’s debate line, getting a lecture from RiShawn Biddle about the tone of political discourse is like getting a lecture from Tony Soprano about law and order.
It seems in past politicians tried to to come up with a workable compromise to get things done and everyone was served. Now in these times of blogs and instant communication ,the new tack is rather to re-package the message( re-spin it ) and ALWAYS please the base.Compromise and getting things done just doesnt pay back the donors as they demand and assume.And issues are prersented in moral absolute terms often,which makes any compromise hint at ‘sell-out’.And who ever heard of ‘a moral politician’? Maybe when he’s on vacation or at home.
I understand the Prisoner’s dilemma to be based on each of the two prisoners not knowing what the other is saying to the Warden (I believe in some variations of the game the “Warden” may even lie to one or the other prisoner about what is being said), but the Warden’s reaction to statements is known. I think that is assumed in your comments, but not explicitly stated. But the political parties know what the other is saying to the Warden (voters), but cannot be sure as to how the “warden” (read voters) will react to their moves. Hence I suppose the constant polling and focus group studies.
Some other econ games might be interesting try out, for example, do the two big parties simply act like duopolies in a zero sum game?
Each candidate does have the dilemma of having to make the best rational choices that will lead to, in their mind, the best possible outcome. But the prisoner’s dilemma dictates that the decision to be a rat is the best choice.
My opponent in the Secretary of State race, Todd Rokita, is a good example of a candidate not playing dirty, even though given plenty of chances, by his own party in their 2002 convention, and by his Democratic opponent in the General Election. His victories on each of those stages gives me hope that Hoosier voters reject negativity and opt for candidates who differentiate themselves without dirty play.
I think national politics is worse, only because Senators especially are essentially national candidates, and not representatives of their states. Think of the biggest names, and you will find that the lion’s share of their financial support comes from outside their states, which makes them less inclined to show restraint. Dirty is what the most partisan national support often wants, especially if in defense of their single issue.
At any rate, if Hoosiers vote for dirty campaigners, you can expect more dirty campaigning. That risk/reward thing never goes away!