Why Democracies Give Us Unwanted Policies: The Voters

This is the second of a multipart series providing insight into government operations from a former staffer.

Everyone in the United States can name at least one policy (probably more) that makes them wonder who supports and votes for these bills? But the reasons this happens are legion “for they are many” (Mark 5:9). So why do we get policies few want and many think are awful? Is it because Congress people are stupid? Are they evil? Are they ignorant? Maybe some are (a Georgia Congressman once worried about the island of Guam tipping over), but it’s not the reason we get bad policies. In this essay and the next, I will look at a few reasons: two on the voter side, which this essay focuses on, and two on the politician side, which I will cover in the next essay.  The voter issues are poor training and unrealistic expectations.

In a previous essay, I discussed the need for training politicians. Here, we will see the consequences of poor training. Voters do not train politicians very well. As I said in my first essay, the place to teach federal Representatives and Senators how to behave is when they are in state government. Voters need to hold them accountable, screen them, test them, and make sure they know who they represent before they get a promotion. The reason for this is because the federal government is much harder to monitor; the issues are more complex and the districts are much larger. So, if they are not well trained before they get to Congress, they will get thoroughly and quickly “house broken” and become part of the problem. Even some who are well trained will fall as well, which is a reason we should change them frequently. The longer they are in federal office the more likely it is their training will fade. Since 1958, public confidence and faith in the federal government has fallen fairly consistently from 73% (1958) to 22% (2024)[1]. During this same period, we have re-elected at least 85% of our Congressmen every election.[2] And, as the graph below shows, voters are keeping them in office longer.

A second reason is unrealistic voter expectations. Many people think of the federal government as the entity that should and can solve all of society’s problems. But in reality, the federal government should be the last resort for trying to solve problems. It is the entity most distant from any problem (other than international issues) and least knowledgeable, yet many voters look to the federal government to solve a whole host of issues best left to the private sector or local governments. As the late David Boaz of the Cato Institute said, “Voters would have to believe that every politician is some combination of Superman, Santa Clause and Mother Theresa.”[3] Notice two of those are fictional characters.

The shift in voter attitudes on the role of the federal government over the past hundred years may be best captured in comments by Baltimore City Mayor in the aftermath of the Great Fire of 1904. In February 1904, Baltimore caught fire, leveling 1,500 buildings. Another 1,000 were damaged, and it took more than 1,200 firefighters and volunteers two days to put it out. In modern terms is cost over $3 billion in damage but, miraculously, few deaths. At the time, the official count was zero, but subsequent research has shown there were a few. It changed the city forever; its effects are still felt to this day in the city, and some of the older buildings still bear visible scars. It was a big disaster, and private and governmental aid was offered to help rebuild the city. Mayor Robert McLane refused these offers, saying:

To suppose that the spirit of our people will not rise to the occasion is to suppose that our people are not genuine Americans. We shall make the fire of 1904 a landmark not of decline but of progress. As head of this municipality, I cannot help but feel gratified by the sympathy and the offers of practical assistance which have been tendered to us. To them I have in general terms replied, “Baltimore will take care of its own, thank you.”

Notice the assumption that to accept government aid was not just bad but un-American. Times have changed.

A corollary of unrealistic expectations is the very real fact that American voters like getting government on the cheap. Everyone likes a bargain, but since World War II ended and the implementation of (a mutated version of) Keynesian economics, Americans and much of the Western world has “enjoyed” — and come to expect — to get their government by only paying for 80% of its full cost and then pushing the balance off onto future generations. Anytime the true cost of something is hidden, there will be abuses and problems, and this debt will have to be paid someday.

In a representative government, it may not be popular to say, but the truth is bad policies, unlikable politicians, and government overreach lies at least partially at the feet of the voters. It is the electorate that elects, re-elects, promotes, and rewards the politicians who vote for this stuff. In my next essay, we will explore why this happens from the other side of the ballot box.


[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/

[2] https://www.thoughtco.com/do-congressmen-ever-lose-re-election-3367511

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAxXL8TQLZE&t=331s

Similar Posts