10 Big Myths about US Politics You Probably Believe
10.
The US Electorate is Angrier than Ever
The US electorate is angry.
Really angry.
Fed up with depressed wages, vanishing prosperity and a divided government, they’re angry
enough to want to tear the whole system down.
How else do you explain the rise of Trump, or the unexpected insurgency of Bernie Sanders?
Know what percentage of the US electorate identifies itself as ‘angry’ at the way
the government works?
24%.
That sure sounds like a lot, until you start to look at the historic trends.
Turns out this isn’t the angriest the electorate has been.
In fact, it’s not even close.
That honor goes to 2013, and the height of the government shutdown.
At that time, 35% of Americans claimed they were angry with the federal government.
But that yuge number didn’t appear from nowhere.
From the end of 2011, all through 2012 and 2013 and even into 2014, the electorate was
generally angrier than it is now.
9.
Politicians are All Liars
Why are the public supposedly angry?
Jeez, just look at the politicians!
Lying, self-serving, money-grabbers who will say anything to get into power.
George HW Bush raising taxes, Obama failing to close Guantanamo… show us a politician
and we’ll show you a liar.
Those examples up there?
Those are the exceptions that prove the rule.
A 1984 Princeton study of all past presidents found that candidates usually keep 75 percent
of promises made on the campaign trail.
That includes guys from Jimmy Carter to FDR to Richard Nixon.
A further follow-up study then found that broken promises are usually down to a disobliging
Congress, rather than a lying president.
In other words, politicians generally try to keep their promises nearly 100% of the
time.
8.
It’s Rare for a Party to Have More than 2 Terms in Power
We hear it time and again after 8 years of either the Republicans or Democrats.
Change is certain because we almost never have 12+ years of one party.
As political scientists like to remind us, since 1945 this has only happened once: when
George HW Bush took over from Ronnie Reagan.
There’s a good reason political writers use that “since 1945” bit.
Remove it and you realize we’re actually living in an exceptional time.
For the vast majority of American history, long periods of one party rule has been the
norm rather than the exception.
Of the 220 years of the Republic from 1789 to 2009, 132 were spent under periods of prolonged
one party rule.
Occasionally, these periods lasted for insane lengths of time.
Between 1801-1825, the Democratic Republicans were the only guys in the White House.
From 1861-1913 the Republicans were out of it for only 8 years.
That’s essentially over 40 years of living in a one-party state, with only Grover Cleveland
to provide some balance.
7.
Independents Could Set Up a 3rd Party and Win
More Americans currently identify as Independents than at any point in US history.
As Republican and Democrat membership falls, more and more are pivoting to the center.
This has led some to argue that a truly centrist candidate could easily take the White House
and establish a viable 3rd party.
There’s just one problem: Most Independents can’t agree on anything.
Studies have shown that 47% of self-proclaimed Independents always vote Democrat, while 41%
always vote Republican.
In other words, the vast, vast majority of Independents behave in exactly the same way
as declared partisans do.
6.
Terrorism is a Big Issue for Voters
9/11, the San Bernardino attack, and now the Orlando nightclub massacre have shown Americans
how vulnerable they really are to terror attacks.
Unsurprisingly, many think now think terrorism is a big issue for voters.
There’s some evidence that fears of terrorism can sway elections, and many think offering
a hard line against jihad may be Trump’s best path to the White House.
The trouble with this is that terrorism really isn’t on voters’ radars.
Since January 2001, polling firm Gallup has been tracking what voters identify as the
single biggest issue facing the country.
At time of writing in June 2016, the number of voters who consider terrorism and terror
attacks a critical issue stands at a miniscule 4%.
The reason terrorism is so low on people’s lists may be because they’re more-worried
about the economy.
Since 2008, over 30% of voters have consistently identified the economy as their number one
concern.
5.
Immigration is a Uniquely Important Issue in America
In 2009, the US Census Bureau estimated immigrants made up 12.5 percent of the US population.
Coupled with figures that show white children will soon no longer be the majority of new
babies, immigration has become a hot topic in America.
The 2016 election is heavily influenced by it, politicians duke it out on border-crossings
and the public frequently names it as one of their top 4 worries.
American worries about immigration now seem almost uniquely urgent.
Look across the Atlantic, though, and it becomes clear immigration really isn’t such a major
issue.
Compared to their counterparts in the UK, Americans are so relaxed about immigration
they’re practically horizontal.
In the US, fewer than one-in-ten voters consider immigration the most-important issue facing
the country.
In the UK, a staggering one-in-four do, almost double the number who name the economy as
their top issue.
4.
Republicans are Red, Democrats are Blue
The whole ‘Republicans = red, Dems = blue’ thing is a bit more recent than you probably
think.
How recent?
So recent that the system wasn’t officially put in place until the 2000 election.
Honestly: this political shorthand literally everyone in the US knows has been around barely
longer than Facebook or YouTube.
Before that, television stations broadcasting elections would basically make it up as they
went along.
If you went back to 1980 and turned on CBS, you’d see a big map of America showing the
few states Jimmy Carter carried as bright red against Reagan’s collection of deep
blue.
3.
The Party Decides the Nominee, Not the People
We all know the primary process, whereby each party’s voters picks a candidate, is far
from democratic.
Since the popularly-elected George McGovern crashed and burned the Democratic Party in
1972, party elites have kept a firm grasp on the nomination process.
That’s why Bernie Sanders failed to unseat Hillary Clinton.
If there’s one thing the 2016 election has achieved, it’s to blow this myth wide open.
Whether you’re watching this at time of press, or a decade in the future while browsing
the TopTenz channel (in which case: hi from the past!), you’ll probably know what we
mean when we say a single name now refutes this idea: Donald Trump.
In 2016, the Republican Party tried its best to decide the nomination.
They really, really wanted Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio to be in the top spot.
They really, really didn’t want Trump there.
The party threw everything it had into influencing the voters, and yet it all came to nothing.
Trump clinched the nomination with astonishing ease.
If the party really wanted to ignore the will of the voters, they’d dump him.
2.
Republicans are Fiscal Constraint, Dems Spend on Social Programs
At their heart, Republicans and Democrats are separated by economic ideology.
Republicans think government should waste less money and urge fiscal restraint, while
Dems think it’s government’s duty to care for the poor by spending on welfare programs.
This difference shapes the two parties’ images.
You’d be hard put, for example, to find someone who claimed the Republicans were spendthrift
while the Dems were miserly with social programs.
Only that’s exactly what research says.
Since 1977, deficits have consistently been a higher percentage of GDP under Republican
presidents than under Democrats – a good indication of unrestrained spending.
The deficit rose sharply under Reagan, fell sharply under Clinton, climbed again under
George W Bush, and then dropped under Obama.
While there are many good reasons for this extra spending (the 2008 crash under Bush
II, for example), it doesn’t change the fact that Dems have consistently driven the
deficit down for over 35 years.
1.
Big Money is Corrupting Politics and Elections
For decades, people have been complaining that the two parties are in the pockets of
Wall St. Candidates are forced to shill in exchange for fundraising capital, and becoming
president simply requires throwing money around until you win.
The whole system is a sham.
You know what doesn’t happen in a system rigged by big money interests?
A businessman with zero Wall St. backers trouncing a candidate whose super PAC is throwing millions
and millions at the electorate.
By early February 2016, it was clear that Jeb Bush was outspending Donald Trump to a
ridiculous degree.
The Washington Post estimated his super PAC spent a shocking $5,000 dollars in Iowa for
every vote.
By contrast, Trump spent a comparatively small $300.
Yet Jeb’s campaign is the one that crashed and burned.
The money in politics myth is exactly that: a myth.