Those of us who are inclined not to vote are sometimes accused of apathy. But what’s wrong with apathy? There’s much to be said for it. I mean this in four ways:
1. Contentment. There are as many expenses-fiddling MPs living in Rutland as there are muggers, which suggests that Britain is not “broken.” Indeed, by international standards we are a prosperous, well-educated and healthy society. Things are not too bad. Politics is not a matter of life and death.
2. Invariance. At our level of development, there might be little that government can do to significantly improve things. There’s evidence that long-run economic growth is invariant to policy, at least within certain limits*. It might be that governments make little difference to the composition of government spending. And it’s unlikely - given the crooked timber of humanity - that any likely policies will make us vastly nicer, healthier or better educated people.
3. Habituation and counterfactuals. One established finding of well-being research is that people adapt, so good or bad things have only temporary effects upon our happiness. We get used to them. This suggests that good or bad government - within the range that’s available to us - mightn’t much affect our well-being.
There is, though, an exception to this; people don’t seem to fully adapt to unemployment. But this raises another problem, that of counterfactuals. Let’s say we get a Tory government and unemployment subsequently rises. Does follow that the Tories have created unemployment, or could it be that it would have risen anyway under any government? It’ll be very hard to say.
4. Bounded knowledge. This difficulty of establishing a counterfactual is part of a broader problem - that, given bounded knowledge and the complexity of society, it’s very hard to say how much impact policies actually have. Take, for example, the Tories “free schools” policy. The evidence (pdf) from Sweden suggests such a policy will have mixed effects. Would the effect be greater in the UK, or less if resources are diverted away from existing schools to fund free schools? With what degree of confidence can we say?
These are, I reckon, respectable reasons for not worrying much about the choice between political parties.
Now, you might have a screaming objection here. These are the words of a wealthy man in a pleasant part of the country whose fate doesn’t depend much upon the government. If I were poor, things might be different.
Very true. Which raises the question: why is it that people in my privileged circumstances are more likely to vote than are those who are more vulnerable?
* Of course, governments can ruin an economy, as Mugabe has shown. But, thankfully, this option is not available to us.
1. Contentment. There are as many expenses-fiddling MPs living in Rutland as there are muggers, which suggests that Britain is not “broken.” Indeed, by international standards we are a prosperous, well-educated and healthy society. Things are not too bad. Politics is not a matter of life and death.
2. Invariance. At our level of development, there might be little that government can do to significantly improve things. There’s evidence that long-run economic growth is invariant to policy, at least within certain limits*. It might be that governments make little difference to the composition of government spending. And it’s unlikely - given the crooked timber of humanity - that any likely policies will make us vastly nicer, healthier or better educated people.
3. Habituation and counterfactuals. One established finding of well-being research is that people adapt, so good or bad things have only temporary effects upon our happiness. We get used to them. This suggests that good or bad government - within the range that’s available to us - mightn’t much affect our well-being.
There is, though, an exception to this; people don’t seem to fully adapt to unemployment. But this raises another problem, that of counterfactuals. Let’s say we get a Tory government and unemployment subsequently rises. Does follow that the Tories have created unemployment, or could it be that it would have risen anyway under any government? It’ll be very hard to say.
4. Bounded knowledge. This difficulty of establishing a counterfactual is part of a broader problem - that, given bounded knowledge and the complexity of society, it’s very hard to say how much impact policies actually have. Take, for example, the Tories “free schools” policy. The evidence (pdf) from Sweden suggests such a policy will have mixed effects. Would the effect be greater in the UK, or less if resources are diverted away from existing schools to fund free schools? With what degree of confidence can we say?
These are, I reckon, respectable reasons for not worrying much about the choice between political parties.
Now, you might have a screaming objection here. These are the words of a wealthy man in a pleasant part of the country whose fate doesn’t depend much upon the government. If I were poor, things might be different.
Very true. Which raises the question: why is it that people in my privileged circumstances are more likely to vote than are those who are more vulnerable?
* Of course, governments can ruin an economy, as Mugabe has shown. But, thankfully, this option is not available to us.
The wealthy are not only more likely to vote, but they are going to be political campaigners. They are biased by proximity to candidates -- Jo Soap is a good councillor and will make a good MP -- and to the political process -- quangos, advisors, local government. This is fuelled by confirmation -- Jo backed the campaign against X and they won! Jo's other failures become meta victories because the argument was so eloquent.
Wealthy people are more likely to back successful causes (or perhaps they decide not to back losers), so the political process rewards them. Not necessarily in increased wealth, but in social recognition. Perhaps they have too much dignity and not enough dosh to buy a football club.
Poorer people do not know what will help them and they expect a political brush off. Hello, Mrs Duffy.
Posted by: charlieman | May 03, 2010 at 05:37 PM
"Poorer people do not know what will help them and they expect a political brush off."
Wow. I've been working for many years in 'under privelaged' sectors of society and during each political campaign the fact is that the questions from those sectors are left unanswered. They worry about unemployment and housing, crime rates, nhs, education. Many (most?) voice concerns about our immigration policies...not because they are biggoted/racists/fascists but because they see a weak economy weakened by their perceptions of a 'free-for-all'. When Gordon Brown is confronted with the question? He skirts and avoids and later calls the journalist posing the much mumbled about question a biggot? If this is the response a huge majority in so called 'poorer' classes of society can expect how is it possible to 'engage' with the political leaders and campaigners? Apathy? I'm not sure if it isnt 'silenced'.
Posted by: Apathetic | May 03, 2010 at 05:54 PM
"Which raises the question: why is it that people in my privileged circumstances are more likely to vote than are those who are more vulnerable? "
Because the luxury of spare-time gifts the capacity for engagement, and because education, earning and political-awareness tend to be causally related as well as correlated?
Posted by: Paul Sagar | May 03, 2010 at 07:28 PM
Chris knows the answer to his question.
In Marxist terms-
your class position in society makes you feel causative in society. And objectively you are more causative from the effect of your education, income and status.
You thus also feel causative in your life.
While poor uneducated people feel much less causative and powerful. So they fear immigrants and unfamiliar cultures as threats.
Easy
Posted by: Keith | May 05, 2010 at 05:02 PM