Why do "expectations" always hurt Democrats?

Before the spin, we thought high expectations were a good thing. When did the entire punditocracy decide that high expectations were terrible and contempt was a blessing in disguise? In the world of debate spin, everyone agrees that the slightest misstep could devastate Kerry. It's an article of faith that any minimally credible performance from Bush is a win because nobody expects anything from him anyway.

Remember the "soft bigotry of low expectations"? Low expectations are supposed to be a bad thing for inner city kids. We don't say that low expectations help black children get ahead. Imagine someone claiming that it's good have people expect nothing of you because they'll be floored by any little thing you do well. The truth is that if people assume that you are stupid, lazy, rude, or incompetent, they'll interpret everything you do in light of those preconceptions. On the other hand, if people believe that you're competent and successful they'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

In the political horse race, the counterintuitive "low expectations" meme has been repeated so many times that it sounds both plausible and politically neutral. It is neither. This paradoxical exultation of low expectations excuses Bush and diminishes Kerry. I don't understand why so many liberal pundits repeat this paradoxical cliche as fact.

Maybe the paradoxical "low expectations" meme is already sufficiently ingrained to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nevertheless, Democrats shouldn't just acquiesce to it. We should be challenging this facile and counterintuitive piece of folk psychology. Moreover, we should be actively promoting the opposite interpretation, namely that high expectations are exactly the boon we always thought they were. Our meme has the added advantage of being intuitively plausible.

Matt Yglesias writes:

Expectations are so heavily leaning toward John Edwards that the slightest failings could generate positive coverage for Cheney.

Why should we believe that? Moreover, why should we allow this kind of inverted logic to insinuate itself into our political discourse unchallenged? (Of course, it may be that the inverted expectations meme has already become a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which case, Matt's giving exactly the right advice. The logic I'm complaining about is the defective meme that has somehow become common knowledge.)

Let's frame this another way: If everyone expects John Edwards to wipe the floor with Dick Cheney (including Cheney and Edwards), then Cheney's at a huge disadvantage. The public will see him as an outclassed bumbler because that's exactly what they expect to see. They're tuning in to see the Golden Boy slay the atherosclerotic dinosaur. If that's what they want to see, that's what they'll see. Cheney is fighting against low expectations, not benefiting from them.

Comments

[david]

This is a good point, but I think that low expectations *can* under some circumstances be a benefit. Sometimes people judge you in light of your improvement over past performance, not in light of any absolute standard of minimally adequate performance. In such cases, I think low expectations *are* likely to benefit you, since the lower the expectations, the easier it is for you to appear to have improved. Low expectations can be a benefit or a hindrance; it just depends on the context.

I think Kerry may actually have benefitted from low expectations in this debate. Just before the debate, I recall a fair number of pundits expressing the worry/hope that Bush has a clear advantage, in virtue of his folksy everyman quality (or whatever), over Kerry in the debate format. I think this may have magnified the impression that Kerry mopped the floor with Bush. Of course, Kerry did mop the floor with him and didn't need low expectations in order to appear to have done that. But if we'd all gone in expecting Kerry to do nothing less, I don't think he would have appeared to have done quite as well as he did.

[Joseph Marshall]

What is so peculiar is that both VP Candidates are equally strong, for reasons which are so dissimilar, that the "expectations" game reaches the point of sheer lunacy. For a sample, check out the comments section on the Yeglesias article our hostess has posted.

Chaney's strengths are those of "non-rhetorical" style and a firm grip on his emotions. We saw them at their best in his speech at the Republican Convention where he filleted John Kerry masterfully. He is the quintessence of the Thickly Stuffed Beltway Shirt from the tight-lipped heartland.

Edwards, on the other hand, has all the unashamed rhetoric and emotionality of a southern gentleman in a novel by Mark Twain! Plus the skills of an ace trial lawyer in controlling the rhetoric and emotion so they do not turn, as they can so easily, into charicature.

The partisans for either are not sensibly handicapping a contest, but engaging in mere gush over the style they like best.

I think the odds are dead even and it should be one of the best fights since the Thrillah In Manilla between Ali and Joe Franzier.

[Joseph Marshall]

My apologies for the extra "n" in Joe Frazier. Age just puts extra letters in (or takes vital letters away) when your fingers hit the keys or your eyes scan the screen. One has to get used to it, like bi-focal glasses.

[Josh Narins]

Are you trying to confirm my belief that Matt Yglesias is a neo-con stalking horse? He parroted the Saddam-has-WMD line, he parrots the Iran-has-a-program line. Now he is parroting the expectations line.

Anywho, the low expectations strategy in politics comes straight from the Tyrant's Handbook, also known as Machiavell's "The Prince."

Want a nice bedtime story? It lasts about an hour...

Darn, well, when the booknotes.org site comes back up, you can stream/watch this conversation about the real Machiavelli...
http://www.booknotes.org/Program/?ProgramID=1601

Why anyone would believe his political theories is beyond me. Of course, my conclusion is that he misinterpreted the way the Medici wielded power (instilling fear, a dumb plan) with how they achieved power (never mentioned by Machiavelli).

[Josh Narins]

Anyway, I don't even see how anyone would know if it is true, whether or not Edwards is a great debater. He is, to some, an inspiring public speaker, but that's not the same thing.

Cheney, in person, would probably be slightly intimidating, if only because of the stories _I_ have heard. Perhaps the truth is that he is an off-balanced teddy bear, but I doubt it.

[bicyclemark]

Maybe its wrong but Im gonna tune in just to see how many heart attacks Cheney has on stage.