I wonder whether 50 years ago, the same argument would be made the other way round, something like: Religious people are more likely to vote Right. If you make bad policies, people will live in fear and need strong social networks, which are traditionally provided by religion, therefore more votes for the Right. If you make good policies, people wil relax and think independently, become less religious, and vote Left. Sadly, because destruction is easier, the Right will keep growing more and more powerful. How well would such prediction work?
The assumption that people frustrated by the system will vote Left also seems dubious. Didn’t many people vote for Trump because they felt that the system was somehow stacked against them? It can go either way.
The right can definitely exploit jingoism for support to some degree. But I don’t think the economic case is symmetrical. What is an actual lever, as powerful as welfare, which the Right could pull (even in other eras) to increase its support?
Re Trump, what matters is the overall incentive. If it’s a 55⁄45 trend, lots of people are going to buck the trend but it still exists. Trump couldn’t run on a platform of welfare and government spending cutbacks, to the policies are also winning independent of the politicians.
I wonder whether 50 years ago, the same argument would be made the other way round, something like: Religious people are more likely to vote Right. If you make bad policies, people will live in fear and need strong social networks, which are traditionally provided by religion, therefore more votes for the Right. If you make good policies, people wil relax and think independently, become less religious, and vote Left. Sadly, because destruction is easier, the Right will keep growing more and more powerful. How well would such prediction work?
The assumption that people frustrated by the system will vote Left also seems dubious. Didn’t many people vote for Trump because they felt that the system was somehow stacked against them? It can go either way.
The right can definitely exploit jingoism for support to some degree. But I don’t think the economic case is symmetrical. What is an actual lever, as powerful as welfare, which the Right could pull (even in other eras) to increase its support?
Re Trump, what matters is the overall incentive. If it’s a 55⁄45 trend, lots of people are going to buck the trend but it still exists. Trump couldn’t run on a platform of welfare and government spending cutbacks, to the policies are also winning independent of the politicians.