You’re probably familiar with this, but a study by Diana C. Mutz at the University of Pennsylvania found that 2016 Trump voters weren’t any more economically anxious than the general public, but they were much more culturally anxious.
I think populism would actually be easier to deal with if it were primarily economic. In that case, you could a) educate people about the objective state of the economy to better align perceptions with reality, and b) implement pro-market, technocratic policies — like YIMBY reforms — that genuinely improve economic conditions.
On the other hand, if you tell prospective Trump voters to be less tribal or irrational, they probably won't vote for you.
Love the study. That's actually what started making me suspicious about the common narrative back when I read it around 2019.
Agreed. Moreover, if it were primarily economic (objectively economic), there wouldn't be much of a populist surge in the first place. Things are pretty good, economically speaking, for the vast majority of people in the developed world (and elsewhere).
What do you make of Trump winning a larger share of non-whites, especially Hispanics, in 2024?
My guess is that cultural anxieties still drove Trump support in 2024 to some extent, but people were also pissed about inflation and that broadened Trump's support. The trouble with the social sciences, though, is that you can always create just so theories after the fact, and I'm afraid I'm doing that.
Yeah, we should be mindful of just-so stories. But my suspicion is similar to yours. Just as the covid mishandling/shock helped Biden wipe the floor with Trump, so too did inflation help Trump beat Biden. 😞
However, I wouldn't discount the sheer power of dank memes, social-media panics, and people simply doing it for the lulz and to own the libs. Those are strong forces among both whites and non-whites, I'm afraid.
That's an unfortunate aspect of democracy (sans the liberal part) in general: you have no incentive to vote "correctly" because your individual vote almost literally doesn't count. In a time of severe breakdown of the informational ecosystem, that unfortunate aspect turns into an actual, scary danger.
I recall a study showing that while Trump voters weren't personally suffering much economically, they were more likely to live around those that were, which influenced their vote
Yep, we consistently find that voters are sociotropic, not egotropic. They vote based on what they think would help the broader community, not themselves specifically. But one issue here is that, although one knows pretty well how one's own household is doing (direct perception), the image one has of the community or the region is much more indirect and thus heavily influenced/biased by moral panics, partisanship, and media.
Another issue is that even in cases where perception aligns with reality (i.e., your community really is suffering), the supposed fix -- authoritarian populist protectionism -- doesn't work. It leaves societies in general worse off and increases or at least does not alleviate suffering. For instance, the labor share of income and inequality remain unchanged after populists come to power.
Thanks for this -- it aligns with my understanding of economic causes, too. Do you mind sharing a link to the meta-analysis? An interesting complication here, though, can also be the idea that economic factors can amplify some cultural concerns (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019830714)
I think political and moral philosopher Vlad Vexler's 4 × 4 story for this current moment grasps the economic, social, and technological changes that have contributed to our present condition.
These are four pathologies relating to institutions of feelings of unsafety, incompetence/distrust, hostility, and opacity.
The other set of four is: economic exclusion, the breakdown of social bonds, contemporary ideologies of authenticity and self-realization (hyper-identity politics/ 'wokeism') that are parasitic on solidarity, and last but not least the current state of social media/ the internet.
Forgive a naive question. If both raising taxes and reducing benefits are politically unfeasable, what hope is there of reducing government budget deficits?
You’re probably familiar with this, but a study by Diana C. Mutz at the University of Pennsylvania found that 2016 Trump voters weren’t any more economically anxious than the general public, but they were much more culturally anxious.
I think populism would actually be easier to deal with if it were primarily economic. In that case, you could a) educate people about the objective state of the economy to better align perceptions with reality, and b) implement pro-market, technocratic policies — like YIMBY reforms — that genuinely improve economic conditions.
On the other hand, if you tell prospective Trump voters to be less tribal or irrational, they probably won't vote for you.
Love the study. That's actually what started making me suspicious about the common narrative back when I read it around 2019.
Agreed. Moreover, if it were primarily economic (objectively economic), there wouldn't be much of a populist surge in the first place. Things are pretty good, economically speaking, for the vast majority of people in the developed world (and elsewhere).
What do you make of Trump winning a larger share of non-whites, especially Hispanics, in 2024?
My guess is that cultural anxieties still drove Trump support in 2024 to some extent, but people were also pissed about inflation and that broadened Trump's support. The trouble with the social sciences, though, is that you can always create just so theories after the fact, and I'm afraid I'm doing that.
Yeah, we should be mindful of just-so stories. But my suspicion is similar to yours. Just as the covid mishandling/shock helped Biden wipe the floor with Trump, so too did inflation help Trump beat Biden. 😞
However, I wouldn't discount the sheer power of dank memes, social-media panics, and people simply doing it for the lulz and to own the libs. Those are strong forces among both whites and non-whites, I'm afraid.
That's an unfortunate aspect of democracy (sans the liberal part) in general: you have no incentive to vote "correctly" because your individual vote almost literally doesn't count. In a time of severe breakdown of the informational ecosystem, that unfortunate aspect turns into an actual, scary danger.
I recall a study showing that while Trump voters weren't personally suffering much economically, they were more likely to live around those that were, which influenced their vote
Yep, we consistently find that voters are sociotropic, not egotropic. They vote based on what they think would help the broader community, not themselves specifically. But one issue here is that, although one knows pretty well how one's own household is doing (direct perception), the image one has of the community or the region is much more indirect and thus heavily influenced/biased by moral panics, partisanship, and media.
Another issue is that even in cases where perception aligns with reality (i.e., your community really is suffering), the supposed fix -- authoritarian populist protectionism -- doesn't work. It leaves societies in general worse off and increases or at least does not alleviate suffering. For instance, the labor share of income and inequality remain unchanged after populists come to power.
I'll have a post up soon on that topic.
Your work is so good, thanks and keep going!
That's very kind, thanks!
Thanks for this -- it aligns with my understanding of economic causes, too. Do you mind sharing a link to the meta-analysis? An interesting complication here, though, can also be the idea that economic factors can amplify some cultural concerns (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019830714)
I thought I'd included the link in the post! My bad. Here's the study: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/populist-backlash-against-globalization-a-metaanalysis-of-the-causal-evidence/A672BE773701512F9F4E0B171049E4DF
Yeah, thanks, that is a complication worth thinking about. It's also noted by the authors of the meta-analysis. I'll have to think more about that.
I think political and moral philosopher Vlad Vexler's 4 × 4 story for this current moment grasps the economic, social, and technological changes that have contributed to our present condition.
These are four pathologies relating to institutions of feelings of unsafety, incompetence/distrust, hostility, and opacity.
The other set of four is: economic exclusion, the breakdown of social bonds, contemporary ideologies of authenticity and self-realization (hyper-identity politics/ 'wokeism') that are parasitic on solidarity, and last but not least the current state of social media/ the internet.
Would appreciate your take on this: https://open.substack.com/pub/michaelwgreen/p/part-1-my-life-is-a-lie?r=b5zww&utm_medium=ios
Forgive a naive question. If both raising taxes and reducing benefits are politically unfeasable, what hope is there of reducing government budget deficits?