So we had this big ol' election yesterday to mandate the future of the world. Or maybe it was the usual events on the first Tuesday in November. Whatever the case, the news is big all over—new legislators, interesting voter opinions being expressed and all that. While I muse over a California issue, please weigh in on issues from your home.
There are two old maxims that contradict one another, which means they're both right. "The tyranny of the majority" (Tocqueville 
, Mill ) suggests the mass of folks will get it wrong every time. The other conclusion is that American voters express common sense (Jefferson ), that people set an agenda that makes government respond.
Take your pick, but let's look at California's Proposition 87 in either light.
Proposition 87 was an ambitious piece of legislation that was designed to tax energy companies to fund new sources of energy. Environmental groups were really, really optimistic about 87's chances, while energy companies emptied their wallets to combat it. The campaigns were not nasty. Proponents trumpeted the future, the first move away from our society's dependence on oil, foreign oil in particular. This capitalized on Americans' discomfort with situations in the Middle East, a major theme in this election. Opponents keyed on the practical aspects of the proposition, which created a large bureaucracy with little or no accountability.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle , Proposition 87 was defeated, 56% to 44%. Americans voted for big changes, but not for this change. Why?
- Are we wedded to our cars, past the point of responsibility?
- What's with the market out there for hybrid cars?
- So why change government so dramatically, only to "stay the course" with energy?
- How does this jive with the defeat of an anti-environmentalist candidate from central California?
- Why vote away a bureaucracy but pass expensive bond measures for improvements by grand margins?
- How could environmentalists have miscalculated by 10%?
- Do people actually vote for oil companies? (Ask all your friends this question and watch their faces!)
- And how do you reconcile people voting "for" smoking?
Obviously, people didn't vote for Big Oil and Big Tobacco. They voted against things they felt were not proper responses to the issues. Even if they voted "wrong," that's all analysis after the fact. You know—history. And propositions will come up again as they seem to, every June and November.
Never mind politics and issues. Sure, they are exciting and it's a lot like sports. ("Will my side win? I just hate the other guy!") But thinking about how and why the chips fall where they do is what really excites. And the implications.
So I'm inclined to agree with the conclusion that voters express common sense. Which is why you put something up for a vote in the first place—to get the, uh, common sense of the issue. Even if the common sense makes no sense now, it probably will soon enough.
It's great to hear about an ad campaign in which neither side resorted to 'nasty' tactics. Here in Arizona we had a number of battles in which both sides were willing to do anything to discredit the other. While they may mean well, this 'ends justify the means' policy just distracts us from the true issues.
The problem is, of course, that right now the proponents of Prop 87 are probably wishing they'd been more agressive in their campaigning. Groups will continue slanderous campaign practices as long as they produce results.
Ristol, I think you're totally correct. When it comes to the voice of the people I think "common sense" is a better point of view than "voters are dumb." Most people have opinions on things -- some are brilliant, some aren't. It levels out pretty well, generally speaking.
Now, people like scandal. Shows like "ET" have been on for years; "Cops" still packs 'em in, "Desperate Housewives" is a top-rated show. You can't fuss when people respond to it. You have to accept that people respond to it. Most baseball fans like homers better than pitching duels. Are THEY all dumb?
The "common sense" among political pros is that negative campaigns are effective. So an opponent has to be negative in return to keep things level. In my lifetime, only JFK and Ronald Reagan had positive messages above the fray. Everybody else was all about mud.
Viva politics, eh?
This is a great article. I am new to your blog and i like what I see. I look forward to your future work.