More on why “all politics is local” is an outdated slogan

Yesterday I wrote that Mickey Kaus was right to point out that it’s time to retire Tip O’Neill’s famous dictum that “all politics are local.” As Kaus points out, all the congressional elections in recent decades have been nationalized. The slogan is particularly silly for Tip O’Neill himself. Sure, O’Neill had to have a firm grip on local politics to get his safe seat in the first place, but after that it was smooth sailing.

Jonathan Bernstein disagrees, writing:

Yes, but: don’t most Members of the House have ironclad partisan districts? And isn’t the most important single thing they can do to protect themselves involve having pull in state politics to avoid being gerrymandered? That is “all politics is local,” no?

There’s also a fair amount they can do to stay on the good side of their local party, thus avoiding a primary fight. And, even in an era of nationalized elections, there’s still plenty a Member of Congress can do to to influence elections on the margins, and that’s often what matters.

Sure, “all” politics isn’t that stuff, but it’s quite a bit. If I were a Member of Congress and had the choice between (A) controlling national tides, and (B) controlling my state’s redistricting, then I’m going to choose B every time — and that’s in O’Neill’s column.

Here’s my response:

Yes, the Tip O’Neills of the world need local skills to win the primary election that gets them into their safe seat, and they need backroom political skills in the state legislature to keep their safe seats every ten years.

But I don’t think this is what people are talking about when they say “all politics is local.” It usually is meant to refer to constituency service. All the constituency service in the world won’t stop you from getting gerrymandered.

A couple years ago, Zaiying and I estimated the incumbency advantage in congress and its variation. This was something new. Earlier estimates (including ours) assumed a constant incumbency effect. In our 2008 paper, Zaiying and I estimated an average incumbency advantage of about 8 percentage points, with the individual effect varying from about 0 to 15 percentage points. So, sure, the evidence is that some politicians are more popular than others (even after controlling for district) and, sure, some of that has gotta be constituency service.

But, “all politics is local”? No way. Again, I agree with Bernstein that if a congressman wants to stay around, he should remain on good terms with the powers in his state, but I don’t see this as the “local politics” that people are always talking about.

2 thoughts on “More on why “all politics is local” is an outdated slogan

  1. I've got to go with Berstein on this one. Between staying good with the state party, and making sure that your constituency likes you, there is an awful lot of local politics. The fact that most congressional seat are safe is a good indicator of that. Besides, "Politics is between 71% and 89% local" just doesn't have the same ring to it. That's why aphorisms shouldn't be coined by statisticians 97 percent of the time.

  2. Darf:

    I don't think that "staying good with the state party" is what people are usually talking about when they say, "All politics is local." From the Wikipedia entry (which I think we can take to represent the most common interpretation of the phrase:

    The former U.S. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill coined this phrase which encapsulates the principle that a politician's success is directly tied to his ability to understand and influence the issues of his constituents. Politicians must appeal to the simple, mundane and everyday concerns of those who elect them into office. Those personal issues, rather than big and intangible ideas, are often what voters care most about, according to this principle.

    So, yes, I think backroom maneuvering skills are important, but no, I don't think that's what people mean when they say that "all politics is local."

    Beyond this, I think the phrase deserves to be retired, given the increasing nationalization of U.S. elections. This was Kaus's point, and I think he's right.

Comments are closed.