❦
As an academic political scientist, Murray Edelman focused on insights that may vastly improve our understanding of politics. He argued, for example, by pointing at field research done by himself and others, that the conspiracy theories are largely urban myths, which tend to be constructed after the fact. In actual reality, most often one thing leads to another and in the end give a result that appears as if it must come from conscious plotting. (I mention this because it is relevant to our theme: The problem is not that this or that politician came into power, or that this or that bureaucrat or corporation is a ‘rotten apple,’ but in our social mechanisms or specifically in the way in which they evolve.).
But Edelman’s main claim to fame was the ‘symbolic’ view of politics, which he developed throughout his long career. Here is what he wrote about elections in his first book “Symbolic Uses of Politics,” which was published in 1967:
“Elections are an especially revealing example, for voting is the only form in which most citizens ever participate directly in government and is also the political behavior that has been most widely and most rigorously studied. School teachers, good government groups like the League of Women Voters, and candidates themselves never tire of repeating that voting gives the people control over their officials and policies, that the citizens who fail to volte should not complain if he gets poor government, and that elections are fundamental to democracy. But, rather paradoxically, the voting behavior studies have shown that issues are a minor determinant of how people cast their ballots, most voters being quite ignorant of what the issues are and of which party stands for which position.1 We also know from studies of legislative and administrative behavior that neither of these depends primarily upon election outcomes. So what people get does not depend mainly on their votes.
It does not follow that election campaigns are unimportant or serve no purpose. It is rather that the functions they serve are different and more varied from the ones we conventionally assume and teach. They give people a chance to express discontents and enthusiasms, to enjoy a sense of involvement.2 This is participation in a ritual act, however; only in a minor degree is it participation in policy formation. Like all rituals, whether in primitive or modern societies, elections draw attention to common social ties and to the importance and apparent reasonableness of accepting the public policies that are adopted.3 Without some such device no policy can survive and retain the support and acquiescence of its members."