Democrats, please forget about “electability”
“She’s electable if you f&^%*(g vote for her.” — a drawing featuring Senator Elizabeth Warren
I’m going to take a moment to publicly rant, but I hope with some cool, collected reason. There’s a force that I feel has come to dominate the American political landscape — “electability”. Media reporting, accounts from organizers, and everyday conversations have revealed that many Americans like a certain candidate (often a Progressive candidate and/or a woman and/or a person of color) but are afraid to vote for them out of fear that they’re not “electable”. While this attitude is understandable, it’s ultimately flawed — in effect, in principle, and morally.
A focus on “electability” is indeed understandable because of the nature of the current occupant of the Whitehouse, and the events in 2016 that put him there — rather than an undeniably more qualified woman who got three million more votes than him winning the office. In “A Nation of Pundits” (The Atlantic, 18 August 2019), Russel Berman confirms that these fears of repeating 2016 are a powerful driver of the Democratic electorate in; “ask [a crowd of voters] what factor is most important in their choice…and the response is instantaneous and nearly universal, right down to the words they use: ‘Who can beat Trump’….these are the electability voters, and they are now driving the Democratic primary.”
2016 emotional baggage is very, very real. I remember the despondency of the day after the election, thick in the air in Boston, MA (where I lived at the time). I was fortunate to be able to go to two yoga classes that day, and all attending created (and needed for themselves) an atmosphere of support and solidarity. Make no mistake, four more years of a Trump administration is a terrifying proposition — we could kiss goodbye impartial rule of law and protections for the most marginalized and vulnerable among us, and say hello to courts filled with right-wing idealogues for a generation and constant attacks on truth itself. So, the driving force behind “electability” is fear of all of that (and more) coming to be in this country.
Fear, in its evolutionary roots, is a natural human emotion meant to keep us alive. Yet it cannot acknowledge the comprehensive, nuanced picture of a certain situation. Here’s the flip side of the coin: we also cannot rightly elect a leader who is not Trump, yet who will recreate the conditions that will lead to another right-wing populist demagogue like him rising to the highest office in this country, at some future point.
Trump knew how to stir up a virulent mix of racial and economic grievance, to convince certain people that people not like them were the cause of their daily struggles and lack of hope in their lives. In a completely objective lens of pure political calculus, if we have a leader who brings us to economic and social progress — for all people — there is little grievance to capitalize on.
“Electability” is also indefinable; no one can empirically prove who is electable and who is not. Polls are snapshots, not fortune tellers. Maggie Koerth puts this well in “You’ll Never Know Who’s Electable” (FiveThirtyEight, 7 February 2020):
“Political scientists study electability, but electability ain’t no science. Instead, researchers say, it’s basically a layer of ex post facto rationalization that we slather over a stack of psychological biases, media influence and self-fulfilling poll prophecies. It’s not bullshit, exactly; some people really are more likely to be elected than others. But the reasons behind it, and the ability to make assumptions based on it, well …
‘[Electability] is this vague, floppy concept,’ said Nichole Bauer, a professor of political communication at Louisiana State University. ‘We don’t know who is electable until someone is elected.’,”
We also need to keep in mind corporate profit incentives for the media. They know that electability sells, so they report on it more. People then think about it more, create and spread their own blends of opinion and fact, and it’s off to the races in a feedback loop. Social media only increases this amateur punditry effect.
Another motivating point for some Democratic elites is to protect the moderate status-quo that keep them in positions of comfort and influence. Yet action on this motivation may backfire, simply because of the layout of the American electorate. Democrats desperately need support from people of color and younger voters to win — and, by and large, they are less likely to turn out to vote for candidates who don’t excite and inspire them with the possibility for real change in their lives. Putting forth a moderate Democratic candidate in hopes of defeating Donald Trump (or any other Republican) could thus defeat that very purpose.
More than dubious in terms of empiricism, motivation, and efficacy, “electability” narratives are dangerous for democratic principles. Democracy holds that each vote counts the same as each other. “Electability”, as it acts in twenty-first century America, gives moderate voters in swing and red states with high electoral college counts more political influence than other voters. Does that sound democratic to you? It doesn’t to me.
“Electability” also ends up defying the logical framework behind democracy, as well. How so? It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you don’t vote for a candidate because you don’t think they’re electable, you’re part of many people doing the same, and electable they won’t be. Ella Nilsen of Vox also describes how “electability” also puts people unlike those who’ve traditionally held power (read: older, wealthy white men) in a Catch 22: they have to prove to the electorate that they can lead, but have a harder time having a chance to do so.
That’s one element of moral hazard in a concept that’s full of it. If we fail to nominate a progressive candidate who can make change in the lives of the most vulnerable and marginalized amongst us, out of base fear and dubious beliefs, I’m not sure what else to call it. Let’s instead be motivated by a set of principles from Senator Elizabeth Warren — “hope over fear, courage over cynicism.” Acting on those values can be a first step to making real change in this country, rather than going back to a status-quo that leaves too many of us behind.
I acknowledge that some people feel hopeless in the face of what they are convinced are other, more moderate voters’ steadfast beliefs (and therefore voting patterns) — but they are indeed not helpless. They can make a difference. Changing the Conversation, Swing Left, Indivisible, and similar organizations are doing great work engaging with moderate Republican and swing voters in order to move the dial on the national narrative. I don’t know your life, and the ability to engage in activism is often a sign of privilege — but, dare I say: you can make phone calls. You can text. You can knock on doors. Are you on board? I urge you to step away from the punditry for a moment and reflect. I hope you’ll join us in the fight for a better tomorrow.
