As the health reform debate continues, the pundits are again throwing out a tired cliché. The left is saying that Obama squandered his "political capital" by not acting decisively on progressive issues. The right props up grassroots campaigns using corperate money and then says that Obama's has less "political capital" because his is further left than a few angry government skeptics.
Where the hell did this expression come from?
Well, Bush used it after the 2004 election to derscribe the strength of his mandate. "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style." he said after beating Kerry. But that was not the first time Bush used the term. As
Chris Suellentrop points out in his excellent article on Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2110256), Bush was more than a little obsessed with the term all throughout his political career.
In Bush's mind, it probably meant simply political goodwill, generally and for particular initiative as well. Although I disagree with Bush's math (he only won in 2004 by less than 2 percent in the popular vote
), an election does probably give you a window of opportunity to layout priorities and achieve accomplishments. Perhaps it could be described as political momentum or support.
Etymologically, the word "capital" comes from the latin
capitalis which means "of the head." In that sense, the political capital is the "seat of goverment." In another way, the political capital can be ascertained by an actual counting of heads, by means of an election or a census. This meaning is where the expressions "capital goods" and "capital gains" come from, because capital is the actual count of animal stock. Historically, "head" has also become synonymous with "life" thus giving way to such terms as "capital punishment".
What is surprising about how Bush entertains the idea is his emphasis on spending political capital.
"He probably likes the way it paints him as a CEO-president
" says Suellentrop. True, but there is also something downright cynical about how Bush sees his role as lead representative of our country if his executive authority is thought of as an investment. There is a sense that his political captial bank account has only so many funds and that once used up, there is nothing left. Isn't authority given by way of elections because of shared values? I imgaine that he got used to receiving a weekly allowance from his family to pay for expenses at Yale, but that's no excuse. It's as if he already knew his policies would be unpopular.
Although Bush was probably not aware of the connection, sociology for many years has talked about the concept of social capital. This term means a whole lot more to the workings of democracy than Bush's pet term. It refers to connections within and
between social networks and the potential of these connections to effect and eventually improve the lives of people (create value for them). These connections are not simply goodwill but fundamental building blocks to civic institutions: characteristics such trust, reciprocity, information, and cooperation
.
The decay in social capital in recent American history history is seen by some as the reason for a decline in civil engagement, including decreased voter turnout, lower public meeting attendance, less involvement in political parties and social committees.
Robert Putnam used the example of of bowling to illustrate what problems arise from this increased isolation. Apparently, over the last 20 years, although the number of people who bowl has increased, bowling leagues have seen a substantial decrease in participation. According to Putnam, "bowling alone" decreases the opportunity to partake in social interaction and thus civic discussion about daily life. I, for one, am definitively guilty of bowling alone.
Putnam's ideas are actually much larger than bowling and provide insight into today' political landscape. They provide a roadmap for understanding how diversity and civics intertwine and perhaps help us understand a little better the ebb and flow of political engagement. A recent
article by Thomas B. Edsall in the New Republic suggests that the Tea Party Movement is actually an example of an organization founded on some of the more negative characteristics of social capital such as protective exclusivity, distrust in institutions, and decreased altruism. Very interesting shit if you ask me.
Obama, with history as a community organizer, is probably quite sensitive to how social capital can effect political momentum. Whether he has "political capital" he can spend makes no difference at all in my mind. However, whether or not he can garner and harness social capital to improve the living conditions of Americans as a whole is what matters. And health care is a perfect opportunity. Let's act now.
