Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Anticipating the Politically Unanticipated

In 1936, during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s activist New Deal days, sociologist Robert K. Merton, then 26 years old but later a world-renown social science figure (and my teacher), published a heavily theoretical essay entitled “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action.” That unheeded warning highlights many of the political difficulties encountered by today’s Democratic Party, liberals, and progressives as they seek to improve the American economy and society. Legislative and implementation changes alter how we live, how we conduct our lives and how we think about those outcomes. Even politically innocent political bystanders are people with reactions, views, even convictions, that have impact. Therefore, broader attention to perceptions of unintended consequences is key to the effectiveness of political action.  (Not all the unanticipated are undesirables.)

Some significant achievements of the Democratic Party of recent years produced reactions that are politically and often economically disturbing—and predictable—but largely ignored or underestimated in the pursuit of the liberal agenda. Economic and social changes shape how we live, how we conduct our lives, and how we think about those actions. This broadened perspective is key to anticipating and dealing with responses to legislative or administrative changes aimed at producing economic and political transformations.

Policies that the Democratic Party sought and wrought have encountered the loss of support of many of “the white working class,” once a crucial component of the party’s political effectiveness, as well of other once-dedicated Democratic voters. Many such unintended effects are foreseeable and ignored: do once-supporters see themselves as hurt economically or socially by the action or its ramifications? Do some feel ideologically undermined by the policy—their core beliefs ignored or trammeled? Who will be affected by pursued liberal goals—not only changes that directly affect them but those critical of extending the reach of (usually federal) “government.” Why this view? Not a few regard “Government” as forcing people to think and live differently, not minor shifts.

Many reactions, objections, issues, effects are predictable. Deep economic and social changes, planned or not, are disruptive, reshaping how we live, how we conduct our lives and how we think about those decisions for everyone has “principles.”  This outlook is key to political outcomes. Consequences of policies can be viewed from an economic outlook (“what will it cost me to meet the policy requirements”) and/or a value, principled or ideological perspective (e.g., that government is best which governs least—one that does not interfere with “our” way of life.) Which reactions, objections, issues are predictable and most likely to be stressed by which voters? Who is hurt, economically or ideologically; which values or practices are trod on, disquieting more than a few voters?

What then, so late in the political game, to do? Policies aimed at pursuing an intended outcome seldom anticipate and deal with the reactions of those affected by the change (which may be material or ideological.) Change, planned or unplanned, is disruptive, especially of usual ways of living. Some or much of unintended but foreseeable results could have been avoided or lessened. Actions have ramifications beyond those intended by their advocates. That warning is not an argument against political activism but a call for recognizing and confronting their unintended negative effects.

Policies aimed at pursuing an intended outcome seldom anticipate and deal with the reactions of those affected or disturbed by the change (which may be ideological and/or material.) Democratic Party concerns such as environmentalism and racial-ethnic inequalities have contributed to reducing the ranks of its traditional voters.

Many regard environmentalism as the killer of jobs, not only in coal mining.  Environmental policies that led to the closure of coal mines and unemployment of many miners could have/should have been accompanied by policies to promote local employment, free training for other jobs that were available, funding for moving to new job areas. Unfortunately, no visible effort occurred to deal with the broad economic and personal consequences of the environmental decision. The result: strong support for conservative anti-government policies among many of “the white working class.”

Nor did it require super-sensitive political foresight to expect difficult reactions to laws and regulations to undermine racial-ethnic discriminations. Anti-racist legislation and actions are regarded by some as promoting laziness among people of color and penalizing whites for being “white.” Some or much of these unintended but foreseeable results could have been avoided or lessened. Actions have ramifications beyond those intended by their advocates.

Overcoming racial-ethnic segregation in employment, housing and schools has often resulted in strong negative reactions by white residents (and by many other whites who were not affected by the legislative and implementation pressures). That reaction should not have been an “unanticipated consequence” for racial division has been strong in this nation. One way of avoiding or at least mitigating that reaction would have been to improve the localities that are being pushed to include excluded people of color; racial-ethnic integration efforts would encounter less opposition if they are accompanied by efforts to enhance the neighborhoods that are racially changing. New or improved parks and recreational areas, improved schools, more frequent garbage collection are some of the efforts that might ease the resistance to a more varied racial-ethnic neighborhood and school. Bringing together people of different backgrounds in positive activities can make a difference. Strong resistance to racial integration can be avoided or reduced. Can the popularity of Black professional athletes in baseball, basketball, tennis and male and female actors and comedians in films and television be deployed to soften resistance to racial desegregation? At least, that possibility should receive some attention in liberal circles that pursue overcoming barriers to racial integration.

Anticipating consequences is not an argument against trying to improve situations. Rather, it is to recognize and effectively implement the changes that are sought without incurring great resistances. Many unanticipated reactions are foreseeable but ignored consequences. The undesired impacts of positive policy changes should not be unattended.  Actions have effects—not only those that are intended.

 S. M. (Mike) Miller, an economic-political sociologist and activist, has been a senior fellow of the Commonwealth Institute; former chair of Boston University’s Sociology Department; cofounder and board member of United for a Fair Economy; recipient of the 2009 American Sociological Association’s Award for the Practice of Sociology; a former member of the staff of the Ford Foundation and board member of the Poverty and Race Research Action Council.

More articles by:
October 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Middle East, Not Russia, Will Prove Trump’s Downfall
Ipek S. Burnett
The Assault on The New Colossus: Trump’s Threat to Close the U.S.-Mexican Border
Mary Troy Johnston
The War on Terror is the Reign of Terror
Maximilian Werner
The Rhetoric and Reality of Death by Grizzly
David Macaray
Teamsters, Hells Angels, and Self-Determination
Jeffrey Sommers
“No People, Big Problem”: Democracy and Its Discontents In Latvia
Dean Baker
Looking for the Next Crisis: the Not Very Scary World of CLOs
Binoy Kampmark
Leaking for Change: ASIO, Jakarta, and Australia’s Jerusalem Problem
Chris Wright
The Necessity of “Lesser-Evil” Voting
Muhammad Othman
Daunting Challenge for Activists: The Cook Customer “Connection”
Don Fitz
A Debate for Auditor: What the Papers Wouldn’t Say
October 22, 2018
Henry Giroux
Neoliberalism in the Age of Pedagogical Terrorism
Melvin Goodman
Washington’s Latest Cold War Maneuver: Pulling Out of the INF
David Mattson
Basket of Deplorables Revisited: Grizzly Bears at the Mercy of Wyoming
Michelle Renee Matisons
Hurricane War Zone Further Immiserates Florida Panhandle, Panama City
Tom Gill
A Storm is Brewing in Europe: Italy and Its Public Finances Are at the Center of It
Suyapa Portillo Villeda
An Illegitimate, US-Backed Regime is Fueling the Honduran Refugee Crisis
Christopher Brauchli
The Liars’ Bench
Gary Leupp
Will Trump Split the World by Endorsing a Bold-Faced Lie?
Michael Howard
The New York Times’ Animal Cruelty Fetish
Alice Slater
Time Out for Nukes!
Geoff Dutton
Yes, Virginia, There are Conspiracies—I Think
Daniel Warner
Davos in the Desert: To Attend or Not, That is Not the Question
Priti Gulati Cox – Stan Cox
Mothers of Exiles: For Many, the Child-Separation Ordeal May Never End
Manuel E. Yepe
Pence v. China: Cold War 2.0 May Have Just Begun
Raouf Halaby
Of Pith Helmets and Sartorial Colonialism
Dan Carey
Aspirational Goals  
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail