Skip to content

Details

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

Click on the Zoom link below on the appropriate day/time...

***

***

IS AMERICA'S POLITICAL LEADERSHIP DECLINING - AND IF SO, WHY?

INTRODUCTION:

In this meetup, we'll discuss a variety of theories about if & why the quality of America's political leadership has been declining over time, as well as what sort of reforms might be enacted to reverse this trend.

In the 1st section, we'll address the claim that our politicians are becoming dumber and/or less educated over time and that this is hampering their ability to solve complex problems. The satirist Andy Borowitz recently made this argument in his book Profiles in Ignorance: How America's Politicians Got Dumb and Dumber (2022), although it was based more on anecdotes about gaffes & some policy mistakes than a formal analysis of the IQs or educational attainment of U.S. politicians. However, there have been several statistical analyses of presidential & congressional speeches that have shown a downward trend in their effective reading level since the 1920s, suggesting politicians may be "dumbing down" their rhetoric to appeal to less educated voters. A contradictory claim that we'll also discuss is that the problem may be that our politicians are fairly smart but their specialization is too narrow (e.g. a little over third are lawyers) and/or that they're prone to technocratic hubris that causes them to underestimate the unintended consequences of their policies. This sort of argument was made famous by David Halberstam's book The Best and the Brightest (1972) about how JFK & LBJ's "whiz kids" —leaders of industry and academia brought into the administration— bungled the Vietnam War.

In the 2nd section, we'll discuss the perennial debate over congressional term limits, as well as the more recent debates over why the average age of congressional representatives have risen sharply since 1980, so that we now have almost a quarter that are over 70 years old. This debate has also involved our last 2 presidents who were the oldest to ever hold office (Trump was 70 and Biden 78 at their inauguration). Critics allege that this makes many of our representatives too complacent, out-of-touch with younger voters, less socially aware, less tech savvy, and in some cases senile. However, as we'll see, defenders of older politicians say this is just ageism and argue that older politicians are typically more experienced, less reliant on lobbyists to craft legislation, and more accustomed to striking bipartisan deals to get their agenda passed.

In the 3rd section, we'll look at arguments that our politicians have become too wealthy (more than half of Congressional representatives are millionaires), which could make them aloof from the economic concerns of ordinary citizens, but also may suggest they're engaging in insider trading or other forms of corruption, some legal like giving overpriced speeches or rotating into lobbying once they're out of office. While this was traditional more a concern among Democratic pundits & activists who saw themselves as representatives of the working class, some conservative pundits associated with the GOP's populist wing have recently voiced similar concerns, for example, the conservative columnist Matt Lewis made these sorts of arguments in his book Filthy Rich Politicians: The Swamp Creatures, Latte Liberals, and Ruling-Class Elites Cashing in on America (2023). This charge of personal enrichment is somewhat related to the concerns about the influence of major donors & special interest groups through campaign contributions & lobbying. However, as we'll see, many political scientists are skeptical of simple correlations between money donated and election outcomes or changes in a legislator's support for a bill.

In the 4th section, we'll discuss the charge that America's politicians are becoming more extreme and more polarized than the electorate at large. Various causes for this "elite polarization" have been suggested - a "Big Sort" of liberals & conservative voters moving to solid red & solid blue districts - which gets worsened through gerrymandering, closed primaries that put forward more partisan candidates, legislators spending more time back home & less time in D.C. which leads to less cross-partisan friendships, a tendency of party leaders to target moderates for primary challenges, etc. This also ties into the debate over whether America is suffering from "asymmetric polarization" due to an increase in right-wing views in the Republican Party since the Reagan era & Gingrich revolution of the 1980s-90s, or whether this polarization is merely an artifact of Republicans more-or-less keeping the same views or shifting slightly while more Democrats have embraced radical identity politics since Obama's second term.

RELEVANT MATERIALS FROM PAST MEETUPS:

Back in Feb. 2018, we had a meetup entitled "Political Science & Political Myths". One of the points that most political scientists agree upon (addressed in the 2nd section) is that elections tend to be determined by "the fundamentals" (i.e. how the economy is doing, and how long the incumbent party has been in power) and that campaign ads have an indiscernible effect. Note, however, that this may be due to the fact that both major parties are spending a lot of money, so what we're really seeing is that money matters to build name recognition but attempts at persuading swing voters run into diminishing returns

Back in December of 2019, we had a meetup entitled "Can We Depolarize Politics?" and in the 2nd section we looked at the debate over the effects of Nixon's "Southern strategy" on the G.O.P. and why the Republicans in Congress have voted more consistently conservative & been less amenable to bipartisan compromise since the 1980s & '90s.
.

***

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the major debates over deleterious trends among our political leaders. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 53 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. I've listed some questions under each section to stimulate discussion. We'll do our best to address most of them, as well as whatever other questions our members raise. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

***

I. ARE AMERICA'S LEADERS GETTING DUMBER - OR ARE THEY GENERALLY SMART BUT TOO PRONE TO "DUMBING DOWN" THEIR RHETORIC OR TOO NARROWLY SPECIALIZED (E.G. TOO MANY LAWYERS)?

  • HOW ACCURATELY CAN PSYCHOMETRICIANS ESTIMATE THE IQ FOR PAST PRESIDENTS WHERE WE HAVE NO STANDARDIZED TEST RESULTS? ASSUMING ITS SOMEWHAT ACCURATE, IS THERE EVIDENCE OF A RECENT DECLINE IN PRESIDENTIAL IQ SCORES?
  • CONSIDERING THAT OVER 90% OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TODAY HAVE AT LEAST A BACHELOR'S DEGREE & OVER TWO-THIRDS HAVE A GRADUATE DEGREE COMPARED TO ONLY ABOUT HALF IN THE 1940s, IS THIS A SIGN OF PROGRESS OR JUST "DEGREE INFLATION"?
  • IS THE DECLINE IN READING LEVEL OF POLITICAL SPEECHES IN THE U.S. SINCE THE 1920s A SIGN OF "DUMBING DOWN" POLITICAL ISSUES TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR, OR MERELY BEING MORE CONCISE?
  • IS THE FACT THAT ABOUT 1/3 OF CONGRESS HAVE LAW DEGREES A SIGN OF LEGAL COMPETENCE OR MERELY THE PROFESSIONAL NETWORKS THAT ENABLE THEM TO RAISE CAMPAIGN FUNDING?
  • WOULD GETTING MORE PEOPLE WITH SCIENCE DEGREES INTO CONGRESS HELP SOLVE ISSUES LIKE PASSING CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION OR REGULATING BIG TECH, OR IS GRIDLOCK MORE A MATTER OF VESTED INTERESTS THAN A LACK OF KNOW-HOW?

1a) Walter Isaacson w/ Andy Borowitz, "How American Politicians Got Dumb and Dumber" (video - 18:05 min, listen to 6:07)
.
1b) Cheddar, "Why Presidential Speeches Are Getting 'Dumber'" (video - 7:26 min.)
.
1c) VICE, "These Scientists Just Got Sworn Into Congress And They're Ready For A Fight" (video - 4:10 min, start at 1:55)
.

.
II. ARE AMERICA'S LEADERS BECOMING TOO OLD & HOLDING POWER FOR TOO LONG THAT THEY BECOME COMPLACENT, OUT-OF-TOUCH WITH YOUNGER VOTERS, AND (IN SOME CASES) SENILE?

  • DOES COGNITIVE DECLINE AFTER AGE 65 HAMPER A PERSON'S ABILITY TO PERFORM THEIR JOB? IF SO, DOES THIS IMPLY WE SHOULD HAVE AGE LIMITS FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, OR WOULD INDIVIDUALIZED FITNESS ASSESSMENT BE MORE FAIR?
  • DO LEGISLATORS BECOME MORE COMPLACENT & LESS EFFECTIVE AT PASSING LEGISLATION AS THEY HOLD OFFICE LONGER, OR IS THE BIGGER CONCERN CAPTURE BY SPECIAL INTERESTS?
  • ARE MORE EXPERIENCED LEGISLATORS BETTER AT THE HORSE-TRADING THAT ENABLES BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE?
  • COULD CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS HELP REDUCE CORRUPTION & POLARIZATION, OR WOULD THEY JUST DECREASE ACCOUNTABILITY & INCREASE THE RELIANCE OF INEXPERIENCED LEGISLATORS ON LOBBYISTS & BUREAUCRATS?

2a) NBC w/ Laurel Harbridge-Yong, "Term Limits On Member Of Congress: Popular In Theory And Ineffective In Practice" (video - 2:56 min.)
.
2b) Stay Tuned, "Why is the U.S. Government so old? Examining gerontocracy in politics" (video - 8:40 min.)
.

III. ARE AMERICA'S LEADERS TOO RICH & ALOOF FROM THE AVERAGE PERSON - OR ARE THEY TOO DEPENDENT ON CAMPAIGN DONORS & LOBBYISTS, SO THEY NO LONGER SERVE THEIR CONSTITUENTS?

  • DO VOTERS PREFER WEALTHIER POLITICAL CANDIDATES BECAUSE THEY PERCEIVE THEM AS MORE "SUCCESSFUL", OR DO THESE CANDIDATES WIN MORE SIMPLY DUE TO THEIR BUSINESS NETWORKS ENABLING MORE CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING?
  • ARE WEALTHIER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS LESS LIKELY TO VOTE FOR LEGISLATION THAT INCREASES TAXES & SOCIAL SPENDING THAT BENEFITS THE MIDDLE & WORKING CLASSES?
  • WHY DO MANY POLITICAL SCIENTISTS SKEPTICAL THAT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BUY POLITICIANS' VOTES? IF THEY'RE RIGHT, WHY DO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS EVEN BOTHER DONATING?
  • DOES THE GREATER SUMS SPENT ON LOBBYING INDICATE THAT IT SWAYS MORE POLITICIANS' VOTES THAN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS? IF SO, WHY DO LOBBYISTS CONCENTRATE MORE ON POLITICIANS THAT ALREADY AGREE WITH THEM?
  • ARE MAJOR CAMPAIGN DONORS MORE OR LESS PARTISAN THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN? IF SO, DOES RELIANCE ON BIG DONORS CAUSE OR ALLEVIATE POLARIZATION?
  • HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN THE TENDENCY (NOTED BY MARTIN GILENS IN HIS BOOK "AFFLUENCE & INFLUENCE") FOR THE WEALTHY & WELL-CONNECTED TO GET THEIR WAY MORE OFTEN IN TERMS OF LEGISLATION, IF NOT THROUGH MONEY?

3a) MSNBC w/ Matt Lewis, "How the rich get elected and the elected get rich" (video - 8:04 min, start at 0:40)
.
3b) CNBC w/ Lawrence Lessig & Ilya Shapiro, "How much does money matter for political campaigns?" (video - 4:19 min.)
.
3c) NowThis, "What Is Lobbying and Can It Be Good?" (video - 3:00 min.)
.

.
IV. ARE AMERICA'S LEADERS BECOMING MORE EXTREME & LESS WILLING TO COMPROMISE - AND IS THIS POLARIZATION "ASYMMETRIC"?

  • DID THE END OF JIM CROW & NIXON'S "SOUTHERN STRATEGY" LEAD TO IDEOLOGICAL POLARIZATION BY SHIFTING RACIST DIXIECRATS TO THE G.O.P. & LIBERAL ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICANS TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY? OR WAS IT THE RISE OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT & THE REAGAN REVOLUTION'S IMPACT ON ECONOMIC VIEWS THAT CAUSED POLARIZATION?
  • HAS PARTY POLARIZATION BEEN ASYMMETRICAL? DO "DW-NOMINATE SCORES" SHOW THAT CONSERVATIVES HAVE MOVED FURTHER RIGHT THAN DEMOCRATS HAVE MOVED LEFT, OR DOES THIS MERELY MEAN REPUBLICAN VOTES ARE MORE IDEOLOGICALLY CONSISTENT? HOW COULD TODAY'S G.O.P. BE "THE MOST CONSERVATIVE THEY'VE BEEN IN 100 YEARS" IF MOST OF THEIR SOCIAL VIEWS ARE MORE LIBERAL THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN IN 1969, AND EVEN MORESO THAN IN 1919?
  • HAS GERRYMANDERING INCREASED POLARIZATION IN THE HOUSE BY DECREASING MODERATE "PURPLE" VOTING DISTRICTS? IF SO, HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN POLARIZATION IN THE SENATE?
  • HAVE THE ELECTIONS THAT DETERMINE THE HOUSE MAJORITY BECOME CLOSER SINCE THE 1990s? IF SO, HAS THAT INCREASED POLARIZATION AS REPRESENTATIVES HAD TO FIGHT HARDER?
  • IF PRIMARY VOTERS TEND TO ELECT MORE EXTREME CANDIDATES, COULD WE FIX THIS THROUGH OPEN PRIMARIES - OR COULD ABOLISHING PRIMARIES & ALLOWING PARTY CONVENTIONS TO PICK THEIR CANDIDATES WORK BETTER?
  • HAVE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FORCED LEGISLATORS TO SPEND MORE TIME IN THEIR HOME STATES & AWAY FROM D.C.? IF SO, HAS THIS HURT CROSS-PARTISAN FRIENDSHIPS THAT ONCE ENABLED COMPROMISES?

4a) Dan Zimmerman, "Why Extreme Politicians Make Office Explained: Closed, Open, and Nonpartisan Primaries Explained" (video - 3:22 min.)
.
4b) Sean Wilentz, Zena Hitz, Leon Wieseltier & Nicolas Baverez, "Who is to blame for the crisis of democracy in the United States?" (video - 7:49 min.)
.

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Related topics

Open Government
Election Reform
Moderate Politics
Political Science
Political Polarization

You may also like