I think it’s time to recognize that Ezra Klein has good policy proposals, but the same dogshit political instincts which have doomed the Democrats for the past decade. Nobody cares that Trump is divisive, if they did then they would’ve have voted for him after her tried to coup the government!
Trump’s approval is drowning on economic issues, and that’s what Democrat messaging needs to be. This literal billionaire is raising taxes and inflation through tariffs, cutting healthcare and food stamps, and wants to send your child to die in a Venezuelan swamp
highlyeducated_idiot on
So there is this great debate in modern political science about whether or not voters hold coherent beliefs or will even hold governments accountable for the results they produce. If you read *Democracy for Realists* by Achen and Bartels, you’ll conclude the answer on both counts is a resounding **no**. However, some papers have been pushing back on that- the most compelling of which is a paper I recently read titled[ “Ideological Dimensionality in Models of Political Behavior”](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3805016) by Dr. Hare, Dr. Highton, and Dr. Jones of UC Davis.
The paper shows, through modeling of some ANES data, that the ability of people to comprehend complex political issues is proportional to their knowledge/education, and that most voters are predictable based on a relatively low-dimension ideological space.
Why does this matter?
The Republican apparatus seems to intuitively understand this fact, while Democratic operatives do not. The Republican surrogates are very comfortable with using specific language to communicate their ideological preference in simple, understandable messaging. Meanwhile, Democrats (especially our very online surrogates, or “professional political class” as Ezra names them) keep talking about politics in the relatively high-dimensional policy space.
Consequently, our discussions online, and much of how our politicians are taught to “speak” to voters, are of a level of complexity/dimensionality that most voters just don’t even engage with it. It’s like hearing two math nerds talk about the Lagrangian while you’re just trying to enjoy your football game. I’m especially guilty of this- I’d rather spend hours researching/reading/debating something with as much nuance as I can muster instead of proceeding with an oversimplified representation of a subject- but that is not effective messaging.
Most voters, and most people, do not have the time or energy to care as much as we do… and while the liberal professional political class is living it up their corner offices in a University building and swanky San Francisco apartments, conservatives are out here inserting “blood and soil” into the mainstream discourse unopposed because we’re talking about healthcare policy outcomes.
Democrats need to accept the electorate as it is, and debate in the field most voters understand- simple, distilled ideology. We must broadcast as the party of personal freedom, of civil rights, and of building a better future for all our children. If you want to talk healthcare/affordability/housing, do it through **that lens**. Voters will not remember your specific policies, but they will remember your view of the world.
2 Comments
I think it’s time to recognize that Ezra Klein has good policy proposals, but the same dogshit political instincts which have doomed the Democrats for the past decade. Nobody cares that Trump is divisive, if they did then they would’ve have voted for him after her tried to coup the government!
Trump’s approval is drowning on economic issues, and that’s what Democrat messaging needs to be. This literal billionaire is raising taxes and inflation through tariffs, cutting healthcare and food stamps, and wants to send your child to die in a Venezuelan swamp
So there is this great debate in modern political science about whether or not voters hold coherent beliefs or will even hold governments accountable for the results they produce. If you read *Democracy for Realists* by Achen and Bartels, you’ll conclude the answer on both counts is a resounding **no**. However, some papers have been pushing back on that- the most compelling of which is a paper I recently read titled[ “Ideological Dimensionality in Models of Political Behavior”](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3805016) by Dr. Hare, Dr. Highton, and Dr. Jones of UC Davis.
The paper shows, through modeling of some ANES data, that the ability of people to comprehend complex political issues is proportional to their knowledge/education, and that most voters are predictable based on a relatively low-dimension ideological space.
Why does this matter?
The Republican apparatus seems to intuitively understand this fact, while Democratic operatives do not. The Republican surrogates are very comfortable with using specific language to communicate their ideological preference in simple, understandable messaging. Meanwhile, Democrats (especially our very online surrogates, or “professional political class” as Ezra names them) keep talking about politics in the relatively high-dimensional policy space.
Consequently, our discussions online, and much of how our politicians are taught to “speak” to voters, are of a level of complexity/dimensionality that most voters just don’t even engage with it. It’s like hearing two math nerds talk about the Lagrangian while you’re just trying to enjoy your football game. I’m especially guilty of this- I’d rather spend hours researching/reading/debating something with as much nuance as I can muster instead of proceeding with an oversimplified representation of a subject- but that is not effective messaging.
Most voters, and most people, do not have the time or energy to care as much as we do… and while the liberal professional political class is living it up their corner offices in a University building and swanky San Francisco apartments, conservatives are out here inserting “blood and soil” into the mainstream discourse unopposed because we’re talking about healthcare policy outcomes.
Democrats need to accept the electorate as it is, and debate in the field most voters understand- simple, distilled ideology. We must broadcast as the party of personal freedom, of civil rights, and of building a better future for all our children. If you want to talk healthcare/affordability/housing, do it through **that lens**. Voters will not remember your specific policies, but they will remember your view of the world.