One of the Allan Lichtman's favourite claims about his 13 Keys to the White House system is that it's robust and time-tested, developed from looking at 165 years of presidential elections, he claims, 'since the days of the buggy whip.' He uses 'the buggy-whip' phrase in response to critics who ask if it's possible whether technology will force him to change the system, for example, because of the way information is conveyed today compared to earlier years. Lichtman has argued that the Keys cannot be changed on the fly. He says, 'the Keys worked before there was radio, before there was television, before there were computers and the internet.' Actually no it didn't.
The Keys have actually only worked since 1984, Reagan's reelection, the first election he predicted correctly. Exactly forty years later, with the unexpected result of the 2024 election which the Keys (or more accurately Allan using the Keys) got wrong, he is forced to reconsider his position and claims. And I began to think about what he missed and why.
Lichtman has come to the conclusion that the main reason the Keys failed this time was because of the impact of disinformation, which he calls 'unprecedented'. His reasoning is that the Keys are based on the performance of the incumbent government not the campaign. But that basis gets called into question when voters are unable to accurately assess the performance of the governing party. If they are besieged by misinformation and disinformation it makes a fair assessment impossible. The speed and pervasiveness of disinformation is why he believes we are living through 'unprecedented' times.
But are we?
If disinformation is the problem, then first off, he'd have to admit that his correct predictions going back to at least 2016 were just lucky. Disinformation was certainly prevalent back then. Lichtman has argued that it wasn't as prevalent as it is today, which may or may not be true. But then he'd have to explain exactly when the disinformation tipping point occurred and why.
I began to think that Lichtman actually has it backward. He's wrong today because he is right, in a way. He's right to diagnose the problem of the Keys as being the disinformation environment. But he's wrong to say that it's unprecedented. In fact, disinformation and bias was much worse a hundred years ago, and even worse at the time of 'the buggy-whip'. My guess is that the Keys would not have worked as a predictive system back then. I'd argue that the only reason why his system has worked at all since the early 80s is because most information was consumed in a centralized and more or less homogenous way since the advent of television. The era of mass-media through television was the first time that most Americans got their information in the same way and through only a handful of trusted sources that adhered to journalistic standards. The 'Walter Cronkite' era of news and information has not been the rule in American history, it's actually been more the exception.
There have been several distinctive eras when Americans have lived with pervasive disinformation and inside information silos, and they were associated with political and social upheaval:
1. The Era of Radio (1914 - 1945)
The first massive technological shift in the widespread dissemination of information. With the rise of radio, governments and media outlets heavily regulated and censored news to rally public support and maintain morale during the two wars. News outlets leaned into nationalistic and, at times, propagandistic tones. War-time propaganda often left out nuanced perspectives, leaning heavily toward the government’s stance on both domestic and international issues. During World War II, news coverage was patriotic and promoted the Allies’ goals, with critical information about the war effort or allied mistakes often downplayed or omitted.
2. The Era of "Yellow Journalism" (1890s - early 1920s)
Yellow journalism was characterized by sensationalized stories, exaggerated headlines, and little regard for factual accuracy, with newspapers competing for readership, especially in rapidly growing cities. This era’s reporting often shaped public opinion through dramatic and often misleading coverage. For instance, yellow journalism played a significant role in stirring public support for the Spanish-American War in 1898.
3. The Partisan Press of the Early Republic (1780s - 1860s)
Newspapers during the early years of the United States were explicitly partisan. Papers were often funded by political parties or prominent politicians, and their primary role was to advocate for a particular political viewpoint rather than objective news reporting. Partisan newspapers played an essential role in political mobilization, with many acting as mouthpieces for emerging political parties (e.g., Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists, then later Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans).
Many argue that today’s era represents a peak in news bias due to the sheer speed, reach, and personalization of information through social media and digital platforms. It's perhaps more accurate to say that information bias has ebbed and flowed throughout history. Rather than thinking our time is 'unprecendented', perhaps it's more instructive to take a deep dive into the preceding eras to explore how they have been impacted by information bias, and how they have responded to it.
2 comments:
Wow! What a turning-ideas-upside-down article. You put so much deep thought into this article, Glen, turning our long-held ideas about media and how it operates and has operated on its head. Information in the past took a log time to
arrive; by the time some news arrived at its destination it could have been replaced by fresher news. Today’s news, in fact, is more evenly distributed than in the past. Thought-provoking concepts. 1) Lichtman stating that the system was worked for 100+ years. It’s easy enough to apply “keys” to the past and come out w/the actual candidate. 2) Blaming the effect of disinformation for his very off prediction is in effect taking no responsibility for his prediction. If he is in the business of politically scientific prediction, then he was completely wrong. Complete sweep for trump. Not even close.
Well said. Yes, early American politics was hampered by information not arriving for weeks in some areas. There's the famous story how it took more than a year before the slaves of Louisiana learned that Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation. And then of course there is the matter of literacy. I didn't even research what percentage of the electorate was literate 100 years ago compared to today. So we may say that a dearth of information is as harmful as a flood of information. My argument about Lichtman's system is that it may have only worked precisely because, in a sense, during our lifetime, the television generation, information source and confidence was probably at its high point in American history.
Post a Comment