The political science of 2016

Anything can happen in politics. Hillary Clinton thought she would coast to an easy Democratic presidential nomination while flicking away token competition from the ridiculous candidacies of people like Bernie Sanders. Then the 74-year-old democratic-socialist from Vermont began filling stadiums. As Jeb Bush was rolling confidently into campaign season, no one thought a New York developer and TV entertainer—as Teflon as he is blustery—would tap so powerfully into such anti-government rage among Republicans.

But a scientific people have a hard time with surprises like these. The promise of modern science is that it makes our lives not only comfortable, efficient, and secure but also predictable. But political science fails to live up to its promise as a science: Make political life peaceful and predictable.

Predictability brings security. An unknown future is a scary prospect, so Jesus exhorts His people, “Do not be anxious about your life. … Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:25, 33). We moderns forsake this peace, preferring instead the hope of science: an ever-increasing control over our lives. The sense of omniscience we get from the internet and smartphone apps leaves us wondering why political outcomes still remain such a mystery.

As with any science, political forecasts start with observable data. Some of this is easy to measure, like party affiliation, the state of the economy, and shifting demographics. Public opinion polling is a less-precise measurement, more like a weather forecast. It attempts to discover what everyone is thinking and feeling, and thus what they will do in the future, by asking a few people: Whom do they support at the moment and why? Is the country is moving in the right direction? Are people confident in the economy? Do voters have an overall negative impression of a candidate’s abilities or trustworthiness?

Turnout on Election Day is notoriously unpredictable. Opinions do not translate directly into political outcomes. People must leave their homes and workplaces and vote, especially the specific constituencies that are important to a particular political party: African-Americans, union members, young people, evangelicals, suburban moms, etc. That depends on anger, fear, excitement, and organization.

But the predictive science of politics meets its match in the immeasurables. Polling numbers change over the course of an election. Campaigns matter! In 1988, Republican George H.W. Bush used the “liberal” tag so effectively against Democrat Michael Dukakis that in six months he turned a 10-point deficit into an 8-point victory. International events disrupt our predictions. Osama bin Laden’s criticism of President George W. Bush on eve of the 2004 election moved numbers on voting day. Even weather can have a say. Superstorm Sandy helped keep President Obama in office in 2012.

“Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand” (Proverbs 19:21).

A free people should labor politically to elect the best government their judgment and circumstances will allow. But we should never imagine that we simply control the outcome. And so humbling, repenting, and praying continue to have their place in politics.