2.1 “Reducing complexity”: GDP and the debate between Clinton &
Dole
On October 6, 1996, the “First Presidential
Debate” between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, candidates for the vacant post
of the United States’ president, took place in Hartford, Connecticut. For
about two hours, millions of U.S. citizens watched in television how the two
distinguished gentlemen fought for their respective “democratic” and
“republican” visions of America’s future. Of course, they
covered a broad range of political themes, such as
- the performance of the American
economy,
- the future of the welfare
state,
- how the quality of the health care system
could be improved,
- why (and which) taxes should
be reduced,
- whether the U.S. should intervene in
international conflicts or not,
- how drug abuse
and crime could be reduced,
- how the education
system should be made fit for the information age,
and
other issues that were important for the American voter.
The day after, a German TV station reported the event as
follows: “Clinton and Dole had a debate in television. Clinton said
that Americans are now better off than four years ago”.
It is remarkable how a complex debate of two hours, 7200
seconds, can be “compressed” into a 10 seconds statement.
Fortunately, most of Clinton’s and Dole’s potential voters had
access to the broader coverage of the debate in U.S. newspapers and TV specials.
But only a small minority had actually watched the whole debate - the vast
majority of voters had to rely on second-hand summaries and interpretations,
many of which centered around Clinton’s statement “We are better
off than we were four years ago”.
When a president (or a government) is being elected, the
voter becomes decision-maker. She or he must decide whom to give the
power to steer the country for the next four years.
Of course, this important decision could be based on a wealth
of information - we live in a media society, we all have access to TV and
newspapers, and the full text of the Clinton-Dole debate is available on
Internet. The sad reality of our democracies is, however, that many people stay
at home on the day of the elections, and that those who go to vote are not as
well informed as they could, for two main reasons:
- voters have neither the time nor the energy to
consume the full wealth of information;
- most of
that information is more or less biased propaganda by the interested
parties.
As a result, the lazy and confused voter is
forced to “reduce the complexity” of the decision whom to give
power, by judging the performance of the current government on the basis of a
handful of objective indicators, the most prominent of them being GDP.
Clinton’s statement “we are better off than we were four years
ago” surely was propaganda, but journalists and their clients, voters,
had the chance to verify the truth of Clinton’s propaganda by looking at
an indicator, GDP. To cut a long argument short: the United
States’ GDP had indeed increased compared to four years ago. And, as
we all know, Clinton was re-elected...
Conclusion No. 1: GDP has an overwhelming influence on the
decision-making of voters.
Conclusion No. 2: a politician who wants to be re-elected
must increase GDP.
A politician or a party might start their government programme
with good intentions and lots of bright ideas how to increase a nation’s
overall welfare; but four years later, the government wants to be re-elected,
and then only the visible, measurable performance counts. Therefore,
any
decision that increases GDP is a “good” decision – even if
that decision destroys the environment or increases the gap between the rich and
the poor.
