National politicians over-value the power of top-down message and

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Sat Apr 19, 2014, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

under-value the effect of the real world.

It is literally true the people vote their impressions over the facts. If the public perceives that the economy is stronger they will vote on that basis. But propoganda only goes so far. The only really reliable way to create the perception that the economy is good is for the economy to be good.

That is because real people exist in the real economy. They don't rely entirely on the TV for what they think of their own lives. On policies with deep real-world effects (unlike made-for-TV issues like a flag-burning amendment) the best policy answer is usually the best political answer.


For instance, is deporting tons of people a "safe" play because Hispanics are in the bag for Democrats? And is there any net pay-off to it?

There is some political benefit to deporting tons of people insofar as it stabilizes the informed conventional wisdom that Obama is more hawkish than Republicans claim. That does have some value in votes.

But knowing someone, being related to someone, working with someone who is deported has a large effect on generalized satisfaction with the status quo that is probably pretty darn deep.



Remember the stimulus fight in 2009? A prime example... it was assumed to be politically radioactive to have a stimulus package of more than a trillion dollars. Everyone *knew* this, and I don't doubt that polling would have shown high psychological discomfort with "a trillion dollars."

So, was $800 billion better politics than $1.2 trillion? That depends on whether you think a stimulus of any size, large or small, was a dumb publicity stunt with no real world effect.

If you believed that the size of the stimulus actually affected things like speed of recovery, unemployment rate, etc.. then what the public thought (for about ten seconds of their lives) about the word "trillion" is nothing compared to what the public thinks about large numbers of people actually being employed.

Policy affects the real world. The real world affects voting.

$400 billion worth of additional employment is much better politics than avoiding the PR hit associated with that additional employment.

The alternate view is cracked... the idea that it gets more votes to play a fiscally responsible character on TV than for the unemployment rate to be substantially lower on the next election day flies in the face of almost everything we know about elections.

High unemployment *that is not improving very rapidly* gets you killed in 2010. (The beloved Reagan saw his party beaten like a rented gong in 1982) And then people say it was Obamacare or some shit, which is absurd because Obamacare was doing anything to anybody in 2010 and the economy was a disaster and not improving quickly enough and people in that kind of environment tend to get creamed in elections.

A bad economy will cost elections.

So the whole "What's the politically smart way to play the stimulus?" thing was hubris... an idea that the public can be managed into overlooking things they really deal with, like how many unemployed people they know.

The politically smart way to handle the economy is to make it GROW, no matter what focus groups say. The party holding the presidency will do better in congressional races based on GDP and unemployment.

Deficit hawks do not, as a group, vote for lower deficits. There is no evidence they do. (Reagan and Bush II are responsible for the development of our structural deficit so I assume everyone agrees that deficit hawks do not vote on the deficit.)

For Reals... this >>> Run up the deficit to reduce unemployment and deficit hawks will be likelier to vote for you. Because almost EVERYBODY votes the unemployment rate and almost NOBODY votes the deficit.

Even people who reject modern economics and think deficit spending causes, rather than reduces, unemployment will still vote for you (or not bother voting against you) if unemployment is actually lower, because unemployment is not just an abstract number. It is a reality that shapes how hopeful and happy everybody is.

If the economy is hot enough, congress can impeach the President and nobody will care. If, however, unemployment had been high and rising in 1996 and 1998 those elections would have been different.

I think that what I am saying can be summed up thusly:

In politics, image matters but real-world conditions of the voters matters more. The most politically smart decision is making people's lives better. They won't give you credit, necessarily, but they won't bother turning out to depose you and will give you the benefit of the doubt.

[cthulu2016]

1. .