Thank you! Could not agree more with this and the companion piece from last week. As a left of center person, the left's rejection of econ in favor of this stuff has been really irritating (I'm sure centrists and right-leaning folks much older than I am will say this has been a thing from time immemorial but still).
It does make me wonder and worry about if there's a tradeoff between being popular/electable with a message and being actually correct. And does that lead to, at best, shallow victories and a quick reversal (on both side but I want to talk about the left more in this case).
It seems true that populist messages are pretty effective theses days (maybe they always were but it does feel like "a moment" right now). But most of them aren't addressing the actual problems facing people; as you note.
As two prime examples, blaming everything on "monopoly power" seems popular, on both sides of the aisle. But, while I think anti-trust is important, that's not THE problem of affordability. Solving it will not change that.
In a similar vein, "greedflation" seemed powerful and probably still is, again, used on both sides. But, like, it wasn't actually what happened.
So, if you win office based on eliminating those problems, or that you will eliminate COL issues by addressing those issues...you will either fail or have lied to everyone... Both seem bad!
I agree with your points. On the other hand, politics realistically requires a defined opposition you want to rally your supporters against. Campaigns require a narrative. Democrats shouldn’t make all businesses villains, but I think targeting social media in particular has potential. I’m coming around to Auchincloss point of view on this.
Thank you! Could not agree more with this and the companion piece from last week. As a left of center person, the left's rejection of econ in favor of this stuff has been really irritating (I'm sure centrists and right-leaning folks much older than I am will say this has been a thing from time immemorial but still).
It does make me wonder and worry about if there's a tradeoff between being popular/electable with a message and being actually correct. And does that lead to, at best, shallow victories and a quick reversal (on both side but I want to talk about the left more in this case).
It seems true that populist messages are pretty effective theses days (maybe they always were but it does feel like "a moment" right now). But most of them aren't addressing the actual problems facing people; as you note.
As two prime examples, blaming everything on "monopoly power" seems popular, on both sides of the aisle. But, while I think anti-trust is important, that's not THE problem of affordability. Solving it will not change that.
In a similar vein, "greedflation" seemed powerful and probably still is, again, used on both sides. But, like, it wasn't actually what happened.
So, if you win office based on eliminating those problems, or that you will eliminate COL issues by addressing those issues...you will either fail or have lied to everyone... Both seem bad!
I agree with your points. On the other hand, politics realistically requires a defined opposition you want to rally your supporters against. Campaigns require a narrative. Democrats shouldn’t make all businesses villains, but I think targeting social media in particular has potential. I’m coming around to Auchincloss point of view on this.