In respect of the "wasted" campaign money, it's at least in part because grass-roots people want very badly to believe that, in this day of consultants, pollsters and mega-donors, they can still make a difference.
I think it's less a true commitment to their ideology than it is self promotion, which you touch on; this is compounded by an obsessive focus on a highly-online, wealthy, influential slice of the electorate.
I can imagine it's intellectually comforting to believe that these people are true believers who are simply misguided, especially when the more likely alternative is that they're as every inch as greedy and self-interested as the capitalists they condemn.
I have often wondered what makes the naked greed for political power so much more socially acceptable than greed for material well-being amongst a certain "elite" set. This would be a good thing to write about sometime, Josh!
The problem with analyzing this as "greed" is that I think this crowd -- to a first approximation, the Warren-voting crowd -- does really suffer from two sets of misconceptions.
One is they believe more people are with them than actually are -- often helped along by issue polling that will confess to your worldview if you torture it enough. (This is a reason I'm so obsessed with the poor quality of issue polling and interested in how we can better understand what voters actually want.) The other is they are paternalistic, and think they know what "marginalized" groups want better than voters in those groups actually do. (That is, these are the kinds of democrats most apt to make "What's the Matter With Kansas" type arguments).
As such, I believe most of these people are not actually greedy in the sense you describe -- they don't think they're prioritizing their own needs and desires over others. They think they are altruists, and they are often in fact voting in a way that does not maximize their own narrow financial self-interest.
So, I think the best way to improve decision-making among this group really is to show them they are misunderstanding, not to shame them for their lust for power, which they wouldn't even understand as a thing they have.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply so thoroughly.
We are, I think, interacting with the word “greed” slightly differently. I would agree, theirs is not the Gordon Gecko-ish, rapacious greed that views the world as zero-sum (as in, they are not consciously putting themselves “ahead” of their constituents). I do also take your point on the issue-based polling.
However, I don’t think the willingness to dispense with others is a necessary condition for greediness; it can simply be indecent desire for something, power in this instance.
I guess what I’m saying: these people have a view of how the world should be, and have built a career out of advancing that worldview. They may very much view themselves as altruists, but they nonetheless acquire plenty of material wealth and influence along the way.
It’s very, very easy to believe what is good for oneself is good for other people. They would view their interests as being aligned with those they serve.
Lastly, I will be slightly more convinced of their “altruism” when the second-largest line item in BBB isn’t restoring their juiciest tax cuts:
Will all this said, our respective prescriptions are the same. Reasonably explaining another’s error is a good starting point, and shaming does little that isn’t counterproductive.
Makes sense. Interstingly, voting against their own financial interests is often said about Jews who are Dems (the majority of Jewish voters) as they support the redistribution of income policies Dems favor.
Well, if that's what Joe Manchin insists that the bill do, then that's what it will do. They need his vote. Of course, not 100% of any such bill would go to deficit reduction -- Manchin has indicated support for certain spending, and he also wants prescription drug price regulation that would reduce federal spending. But I do think if they get a tax-and-spend bill done, it will be net-deficit reducing. That said, I think the most likely outcome now is there won't be any such package, just the regular annual appropriations bills (and no big changes to the tax code).
This reminds of the honor culture vs dignity culture conflict. The GOP has always struck me as an honor culture, and democrats a dignity culture -- a coalition party has to be ordered around delivering practicalities and can't afford to worry too much about face. I'm worried that Democrats are transitioning into an honor culture mirror of the Republican party.
Principle first .... I guess there is something there to be admired. But you can't put your principles into practice if you can't get elected. And your principles must not be that popular if not enough voters are following your lead .... (first trump tapped an ignored sector with a message they believe and too many still still believe.... the second trump got exposed .... figured this was coming and I would offer my opinion instead of having to reply). Fortunately, this is where we find the ultras ofsides. Perhaps they will be accommodating enough to stay there.
I enjoyed your guest column, Josh! (Saying that here because I don't believe Andrew has comments.)
Thanks, David!
In respect of the "wasted" campaign money, it's at least in part because grass-roots people want very badly to believe that, in this day of consultants, pollsters and mega-donors, they can still make a difference.
I think it's less a true commitment to their ideology than it is self promotion, which you touch on; this is compounded by an obsessive focus on a highly-online, wealthy, influential slice of the electorate.
I can imagine it's intellectually comforting to believe that these people are true believers who are simply misguided, especially when the more likely alternative is that they're as every inch as greedy and self-interested as the capitalists they condemn.
I have often wondered what makes the naked greed for political power so much more socially acceptable than greed for material well-being amongst a certain "elite" set. This would be a good thing to write about sometime, Josh!
The problem with analyzing this as "greed" is that I think this crowd -- to a first approximation, the Warren-voting crowd -- does really suffer from two sets of misconceptions.
One is they believe more people are with them than actually are -- often helped along by issue polling that will confess to your worldview if you torture it enough. (This is a reason I'm so obsessed with the poor quality of issue polling and interested in how we can better understand what voters actually want.) The other is they are paternalistic, and think they know what "marginalized" groups want better than voters in those groups actually do. (That is, these are the kinds of democrats most apt to make "What's the Matter With Kansas" type arguments).
As such, I believe most of these people are not actually greedy in the sense you describe -- they don't think they're prioritizing their own needs and desires over others. They think they are altruists, and they are often in fact voting in a way that does not maximize their own narrow financial self-interest.
So, I think the best way to improve decision-making among this group really is to show them they are misunderstanding, not to shame them for their lust for power, which they wouldn't even understand as a thing they have.
Josh:
I appreciate you taking the time to reply so thoroughly.
We are, I think, interacting with the word “greed” slightly differently. I would agree, theirs is not the Gordon Gecko-ish, rapacious greed that views the world as zero-sum (as in, they are not consciously putting themselves “ahead” of their constituents). I do also take your point on the issue-based polling.
However, I don’t think the willingness to dispense with others is a necessary condition for greediness; it can simply be indecent desire for something, power in this instance.
I guess what I’m saying: these people have a view of how the world should be, and have built a career out of advancing that worldview. They may very much view themselves as altruists, but they nonetheless acquire plenty of material wealth and influence along the way.
It’s very, very easy to believe what is good for oneself is good for other people. They would view their interests as being aligned with those they serve.
Lastly, I will be slightly more convinced of their “altruism” when the second-largest line item in BBB isn’t restoring their juiciest tax cuts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/11/16/second-biggest-program-democrats-budget-gives-billions-rich/
Will all this said, our respective prescriptions are the same. Reasonably explaining another’s error is a good starting point, and shaming does little that isn’t counterproductive.
S
Makes sense. Interstingly, voting against their own financial interests is often said about Jews who are Dems (the majority of Jewish voters) as they support the redistribution of income policies Dems favor.
Excellent point about the two different greeds.
What are the chances: Democrats would actually apply the revenue from tax increases towards the debt? I’m guessing about zero.
Well, if that's what Joe Manchin insists that the bill do, then that's what it will do. They need his vote. Of course, not 100% of any such bill would go to deficit reduction -- Manchin has indicated support for certain spending, and he also wants prescription drug price regulation that would reduce federal spending. But I do think if they get a tax-and-spend bill done, it will be net-deficit reducing. That said, I think the most likely outcome now is there won't be any such package, just the regular annual appropriations bills (and no big changes to the tax code).
This reminds of the honor culture vs dignity culture conflict. The GOP has always struck me as an honor culture, and democrats a dignity culture -- a coalition party has to be ordered around delivering practicalities and can't afford to worry too much about face. I'm worried that Democrats are transitioning into an honor culture mirror of the Republican party.
Just a history question: Is this extreme part of one of the parties who would rather lose gloriously that win unprecedented?
Principle first .... I guess there is something there to be admired. But you can't put your principles into practice if you can't get elected. And your principles must not be that popular if not enough voters are following your lead .... (first trump tapped an ignored sector with a message they believe and too many still still believe.... the second trump got exposed .... figured this was coming and I would offer my opinion instead of having to reply). Fortunately, this is where we find the ultras ofsides. Perhaps they will be accommodating enough to stay there.