We the Sheeple

I found it fascinating how Caplan immediately adopted a rather pessimistic outlook regarding the political system in America, declaring how politicians focus solely on telling voters what they want to hear, even when such things are not logically sound or feasible. I agree with his analysis, however, because it is completely true that politicians strive to appeal to voters in order to win elections. The problem arises, as Caplan points out, when politicians or political parties fail to focus on actually running the country and implementing their policies effectively when in office in favor of winning elections in the short-term. Such a situation is inevitable and natural, however, considering that a politician must win the election first before he/she can actually implement policies, and thus appealing to voters must be the primary focus. Additionally, politicians must simplify down their policies into layman's terms when addressing voters: reciting the technicalities of their plans to address each campaign issue would be a turn-off to voters, most of whom would be uninterested or unable to understand the nuances of such a plan and focus more on the end-result than the actual process of how it can be achieved. As such, the problem is that it is nearly impossible to determine how effective a presidential candidate will be based on their words alone, as virtually every single candidate will attempt to say what the voters want to hear yet there is no guarantee they will follow through with what they promised when elected. I do agree with Caplan’s argument that politicians are extremely competent when it comes to their primary goal, which is to win elections. I believe that to say a president would be incompetent based on their words alone therefore is a huge mistake--plenty of presidents have won their way to the presidency through eloquent speeches and grandiose promises, only to be a disappointment when in office due to their lack of ability to translate their words into actions and follow through with their promises. It’s all part of the game which comes with running for office, and it is extremely difficult if not impossible to tell which candidate will actually do what they say or which one is simply throwing out empty promises to garner support. Either way, this strategy often works and voters will vote for the candidate they believe to be the best for the country based on what they hear on television; however, as Caplan points out, the voters often don’t know what’s best for the country. Once again, I agree with Caplan’s conclusion that voter participation should in fact be limited to those who are experienced and invested in the campaigns rather than encouraged to all citizens, many of whom are uninterested in politics. I do disagree with Caplan’s argument that voters are shockingly unselfish, however. Most voters, especially the most invested ones, are at least to some extent influenced by their own backgrounds and circumstances in terms of determining what is best for the country. Therefore, their own biases and interests have a definite effect on their political preferences even if they do not realize it: oftentimes, what people deem to be best for the country is based on their experiences with the people and places they encounter, rather than the country as a whole. I’m interested to know the voter satisfaction level in Australia, where compulsory voting exists, as well as the level of political activism. Are citizens more politically active in Australia, considering the fact that all citizens are forced to vote? Or does the same level of apathy exist and negatively affect the election outcomes?