Mediaboss Marketing

This post is part of Mischiefs of Faction, an independent political science blog featuring reflections on the party system.

Weve heard a lot lately about the threats to democracy in the US and other Western countries where as recently as a year ago, we naively assumed certain truths to be self-evident, and certain structures and values to be in place. Attacks on a free press, scapegoating religious and ethnic minorities, and delegitimizing political opposition are all ways to contribute to a transition back to authoritarianism, if thats your goal. But there are other ways! You can also hasten the decline of democracy by supporting the rapid rise to power of a political amateur.

The latest round of this kind of thing is the story thats circulating about the WTF movement. This is the latest in a series of efforts to create web-based democracy that circumvents parties, this time led by tech company founders Mark Pincus and Reid Hoffman. From one of the more prominent pieces describing the movement: What WTF isnt: Pro-politician, Pincus said. So wed like to see either political outsiders or politicians who are ready to put the people ahead of their career.

That sentence should be pretty chilling if you think about it. The idea that politicians ambition is possibly no longer compatible with pursuing good public policy is disturbing and maybe at least partially true but if so, that is a bug and not a feature of robust democratic institutions. You can read an excellent defense of party politics here. Its the political outsider angle that I want to address, with specific attention to how amateur approaches to politics can undermine democracy.

Imagining a political outsider coming in and curing what ails politics is fun and romantic, and its not new. On its face, this idea seems very democratic what could be closer to the ideals of democracy than casting the bastards out and infusing political leadership with new blood, with people who know life outside of the profession of politics? Like many things, this is intuitive but incorrect. Political amateurism presents a threat to democracy.

Democracy is hard. Its not as simple as picking an election date and site and counting up the votes. It also requires thinking about how different perspectives and stakeholders will be integrated into a system, what to do with the losers of a particular process, and how to balance individual freedom with community concerns. The practice of democracy requires dealing with the reality that disagreement is bound to crop up anytime you get more than one human being in a discussion.

Movements like WTF embrace the pernicious myth of populism that beneath elite squabbles there exists widespread unity of principles. It is true that most people want broadly similar things: peace, safety, prosperity. But theres a lot of disagreement about how to achieve those things. Productive approaches to politics acknowledge this denying it wont make it go away.

Political science research has documented the challenge of embracing democratic values. In Stealth Democracy, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse and John Hibbing found that their respondents lacked understanding of the free speech and assembly, favoring outlawing political parties and interest groups, and had a generally low level of appreciation for their fellow citizens values and lifestyles.

In a classic study of political knowledge, Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter found that those who know more about politics are more likely to embrace democratic values like political tolerance. These differences are, of course, observed within the general population, not among people who are interested enough in politics to think about running for office. But its possible these differences would be present at that level. And we are not currently without evidence. What weve seen so far from an administration that lacks political experience is an accompanying lack of regard for democratic values, especially ones about legitimate opposition and criticism of the government.

Another seminal work in political science, Richard Neustadts Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, addresses the different tools presidents have to accomplish their goals. They can resort to unilateral tools executive orders and what Neustadt calls command over those who answer to them in the executive branch. Or they can work with others, usually Congress, to get things done. Neustadt argues that its when presidents are weaker less skilled that they go the command route.

Again, the Trump presidency bears this out. Working with Congress is difficult. Knowledge of policy, legislative procedure, and the political incentives of other politicians (who their constituents are, who their opponents are likely to be) helps build a coalition. Absent this knowledge, its easier to just govern through executive orders.

On a somewhat different note, the idea that the scientific community can come in and fix the problems of politics presents its own risks. Globally, technocratic approaches have a bad track record. Yet another classic work of political science makes this case. In Seeing Like a State, James Scott documented what happens when solutions are imposed from above without attention to the ways people live and make sense of their worlds. Scott treats authoritarian government as a distinct factor that can work in concert with what he calls high modernism a belief that rational and scientific principles can solve public policy problems.

These examples are particularly important to remember when people from the scientific community make claims about rational, science-based governance. Scientific research and knowledge obviously have a critical contribution to make when we are thinking about what policies actually solve problems, and have greatly improved the lives of many people. But one of the points in Seeing Like a State is that solutions that seem rational and obvious from one perspective are incompatible with local practices or the realities of implementation. This insight seems worth considering as we contemplate whether web-based centrist movements can address the diverse needs of American society. Who gets to define the mainstream America that Pincus describes? Who gets to identify and meet its policy needs? We need politics to help us answer those questions.

Recent revelations about Donald Trump Jr.s meeting with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign illustrate some of the pitfalls of being a political amateur. Trump Jr. apparently took this meeting despite its violation of both campaign finance law and norms about influence by foreign entities in political campaigns. A narrative has arisen in response suggesting that incompetence is at the root of these decisions. Similarly, Paul Ryan defended Trumps efforts to get James Comey to end the Russia investigation by saying, he [the president] is new at this. Its possible that lack of practice at this game and understanding of its rules is to blame for these events. It may also be the case that these are just excuses. Either way, its not much of a case for putting political amateurs in charge.

Its clear that American politics has some issues. Confidence in institutions is low. Economic inequality threatens the basis of the American dream. Our criminal justice system has problems. Congress seems stuck unable to address issues from the environment to the budget. Lots of people feel they dont have much of a political voice.

But the impulse to concentrate a lot of power in the hands of people who dont know what theyre doing isnt going to improve American democracy. These problems require expertise, appreciation for political nuance, and understanding of the tensions inherent in democratic governance. These alone probably arent enough to fix our system. But theres no substitute for the foundation they provide.

Read this article:
Political amateurs are a threat to democracy - Vox