Why "Politics" doesn't win elections: Team Canada edition

Electoral turnover is an important, yet poorly understood phenomenon in modern political democracy. In particular, pundits too often fret over "politics" when in the words of Bill Clinton, "It's the economy, stupid."

Some argue the voting public have specific "values" they hope are evinced by their leaders. In the US, conservatives point to "American values" of religion, self-reliance, patriotism, blah blah blah. In Canada the narrative is reversed, the public supposedly demanding tolerant, multi-culturalist politicians that will defend the welfare state.

From this line of reasoning, the myriad of complaints against 'Obama the socialist' and 'Harper the fascist' reflect a coming electoral backlash against both controversial leaders. But then why were they elected in the first place? Furthermore if political/econ/social "values" are instrumental in deciding elections, how likely is it that public opinion on such fundamental issues is going to oscillate to point where they are deciding electoral outcomes?

To put it another way, if Stephen Harper wins a majority government in the upcoming election, would this prove Canada was shifting towards a more Conservative culture? Did the election of Barack Obama after 8 years of GWB represent a major liberal-shift in American culture? While political pundits may provide breathless accounts such changes, the answer is a resounding NO!

The more moderate, yet still politically inclined will likely agree with my argument. They would note the public is inherently centrist in their values, and will vote out incumbents if they happen to stray too far to the left or right. Yet this conventional wisdom suffers from its own problems as the term "stray too far" is completely subjective and provides little in theorizing why elections are won or lost. Considering the 2 most recent former US Presidents, while pundits may cite Bill Clinton's willingness to work with Republicans as helping him win re-election in 1996, could the same be said about GWB and his successful 2004 re-election?

If such cited political factors can not actually explain the results of national elections what can? The answer, (formulated by Princeton Political scientist Larry Bartels) is simple: The political strength of an incumbent is essentially determined by the direction of the unemployment rate.

In reality only a small portion of the voting public in either the US or Canada is devoted to their ideology enough to vote for a candidate based on their "values" or even policies! For the majority of the population, their perception of those in power is dominated by their immediate perception of economic security. Rather than concern themselves with details over policy (eg abortion, foreign wars, etc) most voters only get angry at their leaders when they can't find a job, or fear loosing the one they have. Therefore at the national stage, given the natural electoral advantage of being in office (eg fund-raising, access to the media), a prosperous economy virtually guarantees the political power of incumbency.

While the overly-political focused media in both countries seem to ignore this major point, more likely to analyze  "who would you rather have a beer with", a cursory comparison between national electoral outcomes and the state of the economy is striking.

In the US:
1980- Carter looses to Reagan w/ weak econ
1984- Reagan re-elected w/ improving econ (unemployment is high, but is falling)
1988- George Bush Sr. and repubs re-elected w/ strong econ
1992- GB Sr. loose to Clinton Dems while econ is weak
1996- Clinton re-elected w/ strong econ
2000- Who knows who won!
2004- GWB re-elected during strong econ
2008- Repubs loose to Obama Dems- (Polls showed neck and neck race until financial crisis in September, don't blame Sarah Palin!)
2012- ???? (If employment still stagnant, could be a toss-up!)

In Canada the results are similar. Over the past 3 decades there have been 3 major transfers of political power at the national level. In early 80's to the Conservatives, early 90's to Liberals, and mid 2000's back to Conservatives. During the first two upheavals the Canadian economy was going through severe recession and rising unemployment, and both times the opposition managed to form a majority government. Only in the latter case were economic concerns not a primary issue in bringing down the incumbent, the result a minority government rather than a massive shift in political power.

What are the implications of the importance of the economy in determining incumbent power for the current Canadian election? While the Canadian economy is not exactly booming, the relatively short-lived down-turn following the Global recession of 2008-9 has awarded Harper enough political good-will that he is likely to retain power despite being hated by progressives. The timing of this election gives him a chance to cash-in on this good-will. Whether this will be enough to propel the Conservatives to a majority remains to be seen. However the opposition parties should not fret: once the Canadian economy slows (likely related to house-prices returning to their long-run averages), history shows the PM will be particularly politically vulnerable!