Frequently, after one side/party wins an election, they will express the sentiment of “Hopefully this defeat teaches the other side its lesson and makes them become more like us.” Or, even before the actual votes are cast, they will already speculate that a defeat will cause the other side to have to reform or change their views, or else risk being cast on the political wayside.
I have always been extremely skeptical of this notion, firstly because it almost never happens (Republicans certainly didn’t become more moderate as a result of Obama winning reelection in 2012, nor did Democrats after 2016;) secondly because it doesn’t make much sense. A principled stance is a principled stance. To use an extreme example, someone who opposes slavery isn’t going to - nor should they - change their stance just because the pro-slavery side keeps winning elections. Perhaps they could change their tactics, but their overall stance wouldn’t and shouldn’t change.
But anyhow - a poll for the thread: At what point - if any - would you change your political viewpoint? (not just merely tactics, but your whole philosophy)
I would change my views/stance after 1 electoral defeat
I would change my views/stance after 2 consecutive electoral defeats
I would change my views/stance after 3 consecutive electoral defeats
I would change my views/stance after 4 consecutive electoral defeats
I would change my views/stance after 5 or more consecutive electoral defeats
I would never change my views/stances regardless of electoral losses
The only reason I would change an opinion is if that opinion is about what other people think. For example, I never held the opinion “1/3rd of americans are sociopathic racist monsters” until recently.
But I don’t think that that was what you were talking about, so I said no, I am not subject to peer pressure in this regard. I can be surrounded by christians and that will not make me a believer - even if we formally state our opinions about it over and over and over.
Also, I think that the this argument is usually used when referring to the same side - ‘if 40% of voters vote for Sanders in the primary, Biden will take into account their views despite them having lost.’ The idea being that as a politician he can (and maybe will) change his political position for his own benefit - in this case, to secure a larger voter base next time.
It is very difficult in this day and age in the United States to try to answer this question. It is an unfortunate trend that we are seeing where elections are not being won based on the persuasion of a political argument, but rather due to other chicanery. At this present time, we have one of our two major political parties more or less admitting in public that they consider a key component of their future electoral success to be preventing a broad swath of the electorate from voting at all. That sort of thing, rather than the sway of a particular ideology, is really driving the outcomes of our elections.
Certainly, in the past, political parties have dropped platform planks based on changes in the public mood. After Barry Goldwater, I doubt any national Republican figure is going to oppose Social Security or Medicare. Likewise, the Democrats are not nearly as liberal as a whole as they have been in the past. I would say that it would take a sustained effort over the course of years to accomplish this.
I haven’t heard that before but it is a good point; underdogs who are running for the sake of primary-pulling their party’s standard-bearer to the desired right or left.
But in general, anytime I have heard the “defeat should teach the other side a lesson” line, it was always conservatives or liberals who thought that their victory would mean that the other side would be compelled to adopt positions closer to theirs - i.e., D’s would have to behave more like R’s or vice versa.
My strategies are highly adaptive. I’ll change plans, strategies, tactics, techniques, and practices swiftly and frequently.
My beliefs are pretty damn definite. I might be persuaded by a really good argument from someone I know personally and trust, whom I know already agrees with about 90% of what I believe. Political defeat doesn’t make the slightest dent in my core values and foundational beliefs. I know I’m in the minority!
I’ll change my beliefs when they’re proven wrong but not because they’re not widely shared.
And when Trumpism is finally defeated at the polls, we won’t see an end to Trumpist beliefs and grievances either. We’ll only put an end to them by proving them wrong when we get the opportunity. I hope the oncoming generations of liberals don’t blow their shot.
This. My politics are to the left of the mainstream Democrats. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden were my first choice, even among the seemingly viable candidates during the primaries. But I never once considered voting third party or writing in my first choice. And if the only electable person to the left of Trump were someone like, say, Bloomberg, I would hold my nose and pull the lever for him. That’s not changing my views; my views have always included the idea that politics is the art of the possible.
Losing elections doesn’t change my views. The thing that changed my views - I used to be a Republican - was watching what happened to the two parties after the 2008 financial crash. That crash, the ensuing recession really changed my views on economics, and the role of government in helping people. Prior to then, I was mostly a free-market guy. And even though I still consider myself a supporter of capitalism, I now realize it works better when accompanied by effective regulation, and social programs to help people who aren’t as lucky as I am…Once I went through that change, I’ll admit that even then, I kept voting Republican, hoping they would come around. But 2016 was the last straw.
My views won’t change as the result of an election. I don’t understand why they would. I vote for the best candidate running, not one that thinks exactly like I do on all or even any important issue.
I think this is more about the politicians than the voters. People aren’t saying “If Bob and June Trumplover lose this election, they’ll change their minds”, they’re saying “If Senator Redstate loses his election, the other senators might change how they vote or how much they support what Bob and June Trumplover’s pet issues”. The idea being that politicians on the losing side will be forced to moderate their platforms to get enough votes to stay relevant. But I doubt any average voter you ask would say that they’re going to shift political beliefs just because their guy lost.
This notion is thrown out of whack by the primary process though where Bob and June Trumplover and all their like-minded voting community decide who should be on the ballot and kick Senator Redstate off the ballot if he doesn’t pony up the votes for their causes.
Why, of course I expect people’s view to change if their favored politician loses… so long as that is a politician of the “other” party. If my candidate lost then all of us supporters should hold true to our beliefs and double down even harder next time.
At least that is how it seems to play out in American politics.
I think political parties have a reason for being. Usually this is to gain power to reward supporters and promote their view. Sometimes gaining power is unrealistic so the second half is emphasized via horse trading and hopes for the future.
So defeat, when close, might prompt a party that thinks it might win again to broaden their tent to try to win more support. This certainly was true of “compassionate conservatives” in some countries from (perhaps) 1990-2010. Social media and Tea Party bubbles have hardened views. Successful despots have hardened views, even in democracies. It’s too bad, since the best parts of Conservatism (smaller govt, personal freedoms, real business competition) would be more popular than its current foci.
