Though I got my PhD in formal political theory and spent the last year studying culture, I didn’t until a few days ago notice the big connections between politics and culture.
"even though it doesn’t seem to give better policy outcomes."
Just not being subjected to the arbitrary will of a dictator, having real rights and freedoms, especially freedom of opinion and expression, a justice system that is not simply an Orwellian charade. But all of this is probably just a detail. I am surprised to find that most liberal intellectuals who make a point of criticizing democracy generally choose to live in democratic states rather than authoritarian ones where they would have every opportunity to enjoy "better policy outcomes". Conversely, I note that many people, especially intellectuals, flee these dictatorships and seek refuge in democratic states. After having concrete experience with both systems, they generally prove to be very favorable toward democracy. To me, relative freedom and protection from arbitrary power/decisions is a great policy outcome, probably the most important.
Yeah, this is a pretty spicy take. I haven't seen any convincing rebuttal of Churchill's famous "worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried".
I think the vibe change leads to the electoral win, not the other way around. Tyler Cowen called out what he called the "vibe shift" (in US politics) early 2020 and we all know the result. That's a sample size of 1, but I'd be interested to see counter points.
Culture has a larger effect on politics (“politics is downstream of culture”). Liberal democratic politics can only be maintained in the presence of cultural institutions that propagate the requisite virtues. But you are right that there is some interaction the other way as well.
Reasonable, but to some extent you're explaining what's already been recently explained. Traditional rational ignorance theory and public choice, amplified by Bryan Caplan's concept of "rational irrationality," purport to explain why voters care about politicians' views on cultural issues and don't care about fancy new policy ideas, and they seem to do pretty well.
One thing I think public choice understates is that it matters a lot what kinds of people, in terms of moral character, are in the public eye, since they naturally become role models. In the past, voters have often demanded an upright moral character in politicians. Trump succeeds for the opposite reason: he's flagrantly bad, at a time when people are sick and tired of being good in the societally approved ways.
"even though it doesn’t seem to give better policy outcomes."
Just not being subjected to the arbitrary will of a dictator, having real rights and freedoms, especially freedom of opinion and expression, a justice system that is not simply an Orwellian charade. But all of this is probably just a detail. I am surprised to find that most liberal intellectuals who make a point of criticizing democracy generally choose to live in democratic states rather than authoritarian ones where they would have every opportunity to enjoy "better policy outcomes". Conversely, I note that many people, especially intellectuals, flee these dictatorships and seek refuge in democratic states. After having concrete experience with both systems, they generally prove to be very favorable toward democracy. To me, relative freedom and protection from arbitrary power/decisions is a great policy outcome, probably the most important.
Yeah, this is a pretty spicy take. I haven't seen any convincing rebuttal of Churchill's famous "worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried".
I think the vibe change leads to the electoral win, not the other way around. Tyler Cowen called out what he called the "vibe shift" (in US politics) early 2020 and we all know the result. That's a sample size of 1, but I'd be interested to see counter points.
Culture has a larger effect on politics (“politics is downstream of culture”). Liberal democratic politics can only be maintained in the presence of cultural institutions that propagate the requisite virtues. But you are right that there is some interaction the other way as well.
Reasonable, but to some extent you're explaining what's already been recently explained. Traditional rational ignorance theory and public choice, amplified by Bryan Caplan's concept of "rational irrationality," purport to explain why voters care about politicians' views on cultural issues and don't care about fancy new policy ideas, and they seem to do pretty well.
One thing I think public choice understates is that it matters a lot what kinds of people, in terms of moral character, are in the public eye, since they naturally become role models. In the past, voters have often demanded an upright moral character in politicians. Trump succeeds for the opposite reason: he's flagrantly bad, at a time when people are sick and tired of being good in the societally approved ways.
Sounds a lot like Abner Cohen’s “Two-dimensional Man”, power and symbolism are fundamentally interconnected.