Voting By The Seat Of Your Pants

It’s been commonly thought that many Americans vote along their ideological lines. Conservatives vote Republican and liberals vote Democrat. While this is true for some Americans, I submit that the most sought after votes, the moderate vote, is won not by appealing to political convictions, but by a “the seat of their pants” consideration – their wallets. These moderate voters choose candidates based on their own prosperity (and expected prosperity), and their support can often lead to political victories. Examples of this theory can be seen throughout presidential campaigns. In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated George Bush in part because of a recession. Also, in 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter because of high unemployment and inflation.  In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt won against Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression.  Ronald Reagan’s question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” continues to be the succinct criterion which determines the moderate vote. 

In the book Do the Right Thing Mike Huckabee echoes, from his experience, the idea that people are less concerned with left or right and more concerned with up and down. The implication of this theory is a reduction of the principle-agency problem in politics. During the non-election years, many Americans become frustrated with their lack of influence; consequently, in election years voters demand accountability of their elected officials. If elected officials begin to realize that they will be judged by their results, not voting records, there will be a paradigm shift in American politics. 

Granted, the President and Congress are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Even good policies can fail; however, our representatives can practice transparency and make a good faith effort to improve the policies that influence the economy. Americans can tell the difference between political pandering a month before the election and a consistent effort to represent the people’s interest.

During the past year, Democrats have had unfettered power to influence public policy. They have squandered this time by worrying about climate change and healthcare rather than jobs and the economy. The latest reaction of voters to this mismanagement was in the Massachusetts Senate race. The victory of Scott Brown, a Republican, against a liberal Democrat represents the extent to which voters will abandon their ideological politics in favor of results.  In one of the most liberal states in the Union, voters surprised the political establishment by choosing the conservative candidate. A year ago, no one could have expected a Republican to occupy the seat of the late Senator Kennedy. The people of Massachusetts have had another political tea party – this time at the expense of Democrats.    

If my theory of Americans voting by “the seat of their pants” is correct, I’m also confident that political establishments like Pelosi and Reid will lose their political shirts this November.