OPINION

BRADLEY R. GITZ: It's the behavior, stupid

Those who study politics for a living often assume that other people care about it as much as they do. But they don't; not nearly.

Barely half of eligible voters vote in presidential elections (the mean from the last 10 is 53 percent). Far fewer vote in other elections. In most cases even those doing the voting probably don't make much of an effort to learn about the records or positions on issues of those they are voting for.

Ask somebody whether they supported the Trump administration's tax plan and you might get a yes or no. Ask them what was actually in it and odds are they won't have a clue, even if it directly impacts their own finances.

Even in our supposedly highly politicized age, most people are essentially apolitical; which is actually just as it should be--contrary to widespread assumptions on the part of politics professors and pundits, a somewhat depoliticized population is less dangerous than, and therefore preferable to, an overly politicized one itching to storm the Bastille at the first opportunity.

All of which should also tell us something about the fate of the Trump presidency, or at least who controls it.

Many conservatives have adopted a "transactional" approach to Donald Trump, gritting their teeth and tolerating his outrageous behavior because of the generally conservative policy results (the "we got Gorsuch on the court" argument).

Many on the left have also joined the "resistance" primarily for policy reasons, angered by the way Trump has already dismantled much of the left-wing policy legacy flowing from eight years of Barack Obama.

This latter point should be instructive--that the public policy which political elites on left and right care and argue most about is now, in the age of executive orders and growing administrative state authority, much more fluid than it used to be. Just as Trump can use his pen and phone to overturn most of what Obama did (even eviscerating if not fully repealing Obamacare), a future Democratic president will be able to use the same means to restore it.

The broader point is that who wins the presidency in 2020, or any year, isn't determined by hardcore Democrats or Republicans; it is decided by the one-third or so of the electorate who are largely unfamiliar with and unconcerned about policy questions--"independent" voters who are generally non-ideological, only modestly attentive and whose votes are therefore (if they actually get around to voting at all) up for grabs.

Even though whoever occupies the Oval Office now has a greater capacity to influence public policy than ever before, it isn't policy that necessarily determines who that is. Rather, it is often character and behavior, especially in cases, like that of Trump, when the character is seen as lacking and the behavior violates well-entrenched norms.

Mainstream voters, defined as those who are neither firmly Democrat nor Republican, ultimately care a lot more about Trump's behavior and its implications for the dignity of the office he holds than they do about the energy or education policies coming out of his administration. They are also the voters who will be the ones who determine whether he is replaced by a Democratic president in 2021 who can then, likely working with a Democratic Congress, quickly undo what Trump has been doing on the policy front.

Such voters know all about Stormy Daniels, but have never heard of Scott Pruitt or Betsy DeVos.

Thus, the resistance that matters most won't be found in the identity politics fever swamps of the left, and certainly not with the dwindling band of "Never Trump" conservatives at the Weekly Standard or National Review, but with normal, generally apolitical Americans.

And the key point is that it is unclear how much longer normal, generally apolitical Americans can put up with a president who is so unpredictable and undisciplined and holds the office only because he had the good fortune to run against perhaps the most disliked public figure of the past century (and who, since her defeat, has given just about everyone further reasons to dislike her).

Most people I know are neither Trump supporters nor members of the resistance. Some voted for Trump, some for Clinton, most because they disliked the other one. But they are increasingly repulsed by the chaos and 24/7 melodrama coming out of the current administration; they long for "a return to normalcy" (to borrow a phrase from Warren Harding).

This is the mistake made by the transactional approach: Policy can't ultimately be delinked from behavior and character because in the end presidential misbehavior and dubious character mean the end of presidencies, and hence a reversal of policy.

If Trump's outrageous behavior tarnishes the GOP brand and leads to a Democratic takeover of Congress this November and of the presidency in 2020, the policy victories that currently console conservatives will be lost as well.

It is interesting to contemplate the possibility that Trump's victory in November 2016 hurt the long-term prospects of the GOP much more than losing would have; that getting Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and lowering the top tax rate by a couple of percentage points might come at a truly fearful price.

------------v------------

Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.

Editorial on 04/09/2018

Upcoming Events