by Glenn Reynolds
Back during the Tennessee income tax controversy, I was fond of quoting what historians say about the English system of government in the 18th Century—that it was a system of "aristocracy, tempered by riot"—and suggesting that Tennessee was governed according to the standards of King George III.
But now, after the California recall election, I find myself thinking that maybe that isn't so unusual. And maybe it isn't so bad. In fact, I think that the biggest difference among political systems may be in how big a riot, and what kind of a riot, you need to temper the natural tendency toward aristocracy that develops everywhere, given time.
We say, of course, that politicians work for the voters, and do what voters want. But we know that's not really true. Many voters can't even name their elected representatives (a small, but still disturbingly high, number can't name the President). Few spend much time boning up on issues and positions before an election, and even fewer spend a lot of time paying attention to what officials do in between elections.
This phenomenon is called "rational ignorance." Keeping up with the issues is hard, and the amount of influence that any individual voter has is small. So voters conclude—rationally—that it's not worth the payoff to stay informed. Hence, "rational ignorance." Voters who are rationally ignorant don't pay attention unless something wakes them up; the rest of the time, they tune out on politics and tune in to Friends, or whatever.
Politicians decry voter ignorance and apathy occasionally, but they don't really mind. In fact, it's a phenomenon that they count on. Unfortunately, for them, it's not working as well as it used to.
The reason is that it's becoming easier for voters to pay attention, and easier for people to get the word out. With the work of becoming informed drastically reduced, it's no surprise that more voters keep track, at least on issues that they care about. Between the Internet and talk radio, that's become a lot easier. It has also become a lot easier for like-minded voters to organize.
People tend to think of this as a right wing phenomenon, but it really isn't. Democrat Howard Dean, for example, has made extensive use of the Internet (especially weblogs and services like MeetUp.com) to organize a campaign far more efficiently than old-time political methods would have permitted. He stole a march on the other Democratic candidates by doing so.
Democrats may even do better this election cycle, producing long-term Web dominance. New communications technologies seem to come in waves and to be dominated by whoever the insurgents are when they appear. The appearance of low-cost offset printing in the late 1960s and early 1970s led to the growth of the hippie underground newspapers that became today's alternative weeklies and that are still overwhelmingly left-leaning today. Talk radio came about when conservatives felt left out by mainstream media, and they still dominate that field. But the Bush campaign hasn't used the Web very effectively so far: They've got the incumbent's disadvantage, where the insiders fear trying something new. Outsiders like Dean can't afford to play it safe. Will the Republicans be able to play catch-up? So far their efforts haven't been impressive (and neither have the efforts of the "insider" Democrats), but that could change.
Meanwhile, other resources like OpenSecrets.org—which lets you see who politicians are getting money from—and ActivistCash.com—which does the same thing for interest groups—make it easy for people to find out all sorts of things that were previously unknowable, or at least very, very hard to find out, even as the other tools make it easy to spread the word once you've got it. (And don't underestimate the power of Google, a miraculous tool that's already taken for granted—but is still miraculous.)
Whichever party is able to get the most advantage out of it, the trend seems pretty clear: Where in the old days, only the insiders knew what was going on, and only the organized interests could do anything about it, now it will be easier for people to find out what's going on and to self-organize. That makes "riots" more likely, though it also means that they're likely to be rather mild as riots go. (Even the Tennessee anti-income tax protests were a far cry from the fall of the Bastille.)
Is that a good thing? Probably. Institutions tend to become corrupt in proportion to how little scrutiny they get. More "transparency"—more openness, more accountability—means more honesty, more responsiveness, and a greater ability to identify problems before they're big, and unavoidable.
On the other hand, transparency is bad for some people. Politicians don't generally like it, because it makes them more accountable, and less independent. And—like middlemen merchants losing business to the Internet—various intermediaries, like the traditional press, political party establishments, organized interest groups, and so on, are threatened by this trend.
But then, aristocrats of all kinds tend to dislike riots. m
Glenn Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee, and writes for InstaPundit.com, MSNBC.com, and TechCentralStation.com.
October 23, 2003 * Vol. 13, No. 43
© 2003 Metro Pulse
| 
