Jonathon Chiatt’s New Idea: “New Ideas Don’t Matter.”

One of the bigwigs over at The New Republic has a new essay up arguing against the power of new ideas in driving the political forces. And yes, I know this is ostensibly supposed to be a blog about movies, but you forget three important factors. The first being those two little words “and culture” that I cleverly appended to the title as something of a loophole/catchall for whatever the hell else I feel like talking about. The second is that this is my blog, dammit, mine, mine, mine, (mine!) and I will use it for anything and everything that I please, letting it follow my interests like a confused little puppy in a blizzard. If my interests suddenly shift to expensive wine or Turkish Salami (if there even is such a thing), then so be it – though the most likely alternate topic would be Goldfish Crackers, since I am completely and irrationally obsessed with them and their 150 calorie/50 piece servings. The third thing, I forgot, and at this point it’s easier to keep typing rather than go back and fix it. I say “Pish!” to this whole non-linear editing business and type valiantly forth.

But I was saying something. The new TNR essay about the Future of Liberalism (TM).

Chiatt’s article is one of those grumpy little liberal cynic pieces that you want to like at first, but then find out that, like most things grumpy, cynical, liberal – and yes, little – it’s not really something that holds up. Chiatt’s best points come from the middle portions, which don’t just say that new ideas don’t matter, but ideas, period, don’t matter, as voters are morons and just pick the suave looking guy who looks like the Hollywood version of a good guy legislator anyway.

Polls consistently show that large swaths of the voting public know very little about the positions taken by candidates. In 2000, the National Annenberg Election Survey found that just 57 percent of voters knew Al Gore was more liberal than Bush, 51 percent knew he was more supportive of gun control, and a mere 46 percent understood that he was more supportive of abortion rights. "The voting behavior literature, which is massive, shows that people are not particularly idea-driven," explains Berkeley political scientist Nelson Polsby. "They don't know what the fashions are, with respect to what ideas go with other ideas."

Political scientists have shown how factors like economic performance and the rally-around-the-flag effect can exert enormous influence over voting behavior. A recent study in Science magazine was even more disturbing to those who believe in the power of ideas. Scientists showed the subjects pairs of photographs, which turned out to be matched candidates in Senate and House races. The subjects had to judge within one second which candidate looked more competent, on the basis of appearance alone. Their choice matched the candidate who won an astounding 71.6 percent of the time in Senate races. If you consider that a decent share of Senate races pit unknown, underfunded challengers against popular incumbents in highly partisan states, that is a remarkably high percentage. Faith in the discernment of the public is not based on proof, it's premised on, well, faith.

So, people don’t vote based on policy, because they don’t care or know. People watch bad television and show up at the polls drunk, vote on the one issue they heard something about from an equally drunk buddy after work one day and afterwards go back to their bad television and cans Busch Light. And they say liberals don’t know how to communicate with rural voters.

Look, I’m as inclined as anyone to be a cultural elitist, but despite the research, this sort of thinking is defeatist and self-fulfilling. Giving up on ideas because people aren’t listening to them allows the complacency of the masses to kill the power of a good idea. The research shows that people don’t know tort reform from campaign finance reform – but that’s not a reason to discount the necessity and power of ideas; it’s a reason to work that much harder at spreading the message.

Just as bad, it doesn't give the voter any responsibility for becoming informed. Chiatt turns this into evidence by relying on the idea (which doesn't matter anyway, right?) that if the voters don't know policy, it's someone else's fault. Don't voters bare a large part of the responsibility for becoming informed about candidates and their platforms? This sort of soft parenting approach to the masses is equivalent to a parent deciding that, "Well, he's never going to learn to dress himself. Look at how little he's done for the last three years." Mom and Dad need to keep working - maybe even work harder - but it's not reason to throw in the towel (or perpetually layout the clothes).

Chiatt’s liberal pessimism appeals to my inner elitist, the part of me that listens to NPR, wants a Volvo and just had 10 lbs of organic coffee shipped to his home, but allowing that sort of statistics-based negativity to rule results in a politics of elite paternalism, where the few at the top baby the masses through life, never expecting them to take responsibility for understanding their world.