One of the best takes I've read on the causes of anti-establishment backlash--thank you. Tracks with Martin Gurri's book, "The Revolt of the Masses."
I think humans are generally good at sensing when something is wrong, but not necessarily good at an accurate diagnosis. Which is why Paul Krugman's frequent bleating during the election to …
One of the best takes I've read on the causes of anti-establishment backlash--thank you. Tracks with Martin Gurri's book, "The Revolt of the Masses."
I think humans are generally good at sensing when something is wrong, but not necessarily good at an accurate diagnosis. Which is why Paul Krugman's frequent bleating during the election to the effect of, "What are you people whining about? The data shows the economy is strong!" was so wrongheaded. Even if Krugman was right (I think he was more the victim of motivated reasoning), he was being too literal. People are correct to feel uneasy. Their specific diagnosis of the economy or anything else is secondary. Krugman never wanted to search below the surface self-diagnoses.
In which regard, conspiracy theories can be revealing diagnostics. People roll their eyes at, say, QAnon, but the notion that the establishment is crawling with child abusers and cannibals didn't come from outer space. More probably it's a literal rendering--a misdiagnosis--of the otherwise accurate sense that the establishment has become fundamentally parasitic.
Most Democratic takes on why Harris lost seem to be from people primarily engaging with the voices in their heads. A better approach is to engage with concerns voiced by actual voters. But other than the simplest behaviors ("I got a glass of water because I was thirsty"), there’s always more to our behavior than we ourselves can recognize, or articulate. So the best approach--the one you use here--is to engage with the concerns voiced by actual voters while also peering beneath the surface. There needs to be a lot more of this if the Democrats hope to recover from what they’ve become.
One of the best takes I've read on the causes of anti-establishment backlash--thank you. Tracks with Martin Gurri's book, "The Revolt of the Masses."
I think humans are generally good at sensing when something is wrong, but not necessarily good at an accurate diagnosis. Which is why Paul Krugman's frequent bleating during the election to the effect of, "What are you people whining about? The data shows the economy is strong!" was so wrongheaded. Even if Krugman was right (I think he was more the victim of motivated reasoning), he was being too literal. People are correct to feel uneasy. Their specific diagnosis of the economy or anything else is secondary. Krugman never wanted to search below the surface self-diagnoses.
In which regard, conspiracy theories can be revealing diagnostics. People roll their eyes at, say, QAnon, but the notion that the establishment is crawling with child abusers and cannibals didn't come from outer space. More probably it's a literal rendering--a misdiagnosis--of the otherwise accurate sense that the establishment has become fundamentally parasitic.
Most Democratic takes on why Harris lost seem to be from people primarily engaging with the voices in their heads. A better approach is to engage with concerns voiced by actual voters. But other than the simplest behaviors ("I got a glass of water because I was thirsty"), there’s always more to our behavior than we ourselves can recognize, or articulate. So the best approach--the one you use here--is to engage with the concerns voiced by actual voters while also peering beneath the surface. There needs to be a lot more of this if the Democrats hope to recover from what they’ve become.