Public Policy Priority Polls and Machiavellian Politicians

In a FiveThirtyEight article titled “What Issues Should Democrats Ignore in 2018”, Micah Cohen attempts to bring into reality the tweeted statement of Nate Silver, ”Everybody always writes columns about why Democrats or Republicans should pay more attention to issue X. It would be actually way more useful if people wrote columns about what they should pay *less* attention to” by combining data from the Pew Research Center and a Gallup poll. His results are of no worth towards a discussion, as they are merely opinions. However, this topic of federal candidates picking and choosing issues in a political landscape based on statistically based priorities leads me to ask, how does releasing this poll data affect the election outcomes? Preying upon public priorities is a harrowing tactic that reinforces politics as a game in which winning is the sole prerogative (i.e. in which the end justifies the means of acquiring the end). We need not look any farther than the House of Cards character, Frank Underwood (or Donald Trump) to understand what this kind of systematic republican campaigning technique will invoke. Or, take Machiavelli’s advice to the princes of Italy, “Appear as you may wish to be”. In the same manner that Machiavelli advised the prices to prey off the idealized virtues of the masses, so too are we encouraging politicians to prey off what’s important to us, and informing them of what to avoid in order to win without giving up their authentic self, character, or topics of expertise or passion.

An example of public polls on priorities is from the Pew Research Center, one of the largest and most influential research institutions in the US.

I may be in a minority, but I was not polled. The methodology of this survey does not include how many people

I will concede that it appears beneficial to inform our elected or campaigning body on what we as a people prioritize. However, we must consider who is represented in these polls and how the demographics who vote may misrepresent the priorities of minority groups. It is better to hear someone speak and make a decision on whether or not they are the right vote for you, than to tell someone what you want to hear, have hem say it, and then vote for them because they said what you wanted them to say. Using Trump as a convenient example, Politifact revealed that as of now Trump has only kept 16.7% of his campaign promises, as compared to 17.6% of his campaign promises that have been broken. Empty promises for which align a candidate with your values that never come to fruition.

We as a people must learn to subvert the advice Machiavelli gives. For, as he advises the prince to appear virtuous (generous, compassionate, etc) but not be virtuous, we should watch out for those who seem without flaws, or are perfect in everyway and yet never fulfill their promises. We must examine the unexamined.

All we get from encouraging politicians to speak to us on what we want to hear is a vacuum. The person elected is a complete stranger who’s power is derived from their popularity, and no other metric. When our political offices are filled with those appealing to our priorities while in reality pursuing their own, we end up with our current executive administration. In no occasion do I see it fit for the prey to provide the predator with the tools to exert as little effort as possible in advancing.