[JumpCrisscross]

> people who don't want that are a minority, but they are getting their way

They’re the majority. Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis. Herego, we spend most of our non-crisis time on non-pocketbook issues.

[arrosenberg]

No, they aren't the majority. The elites that the system actually serves have successfully ignited a culture war that splits the average people on which issues are driving the economic problems. The overwhelming majority of Americans want higher wages and cheaper cost of living, they just can't agree on how to get there (by design).

Divide et impera.

[JumpCrisscross]

> overwhelming majority of Americans want higher wages and cheaper cost of living, they just can't agree on how to get there (by design)

By design? Or because it's hard? You really think the sole thing keeping us from having more for less is conspiracy?

[arrosenberg]

Not conspiracy - culture wars. Conspiracy is a part of that, but racial equality, immigration and abortion have all been wielded to great effect. It's certainly easier to create disruption than consensus, but the money is clearly backing disruption.

[JumpCrisscross]

> racial equality, immigration and abortion have all been wielded to great effect

There is plenty of evidence happiness is, in part, relative. I’m not convinced there aren’t voters who would rather be a little poorer than better off but not as much as that other group.

> easier to create disruption than consensus, but the money is clearly backing disruption

I’m moderately wealthy. Split time between New York and Wyoming. It’s certainly wild that a bunch of voters in rural Pennsylvania feel strongly about lowering my taxes so long as it pisses off some liberals. If I had more resources and were more self centred, I could see myself encouraging that.

[CamperBob2]

Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis.

We're not in a crisis now, but people voted in the last national election as if we were, because Fox News told them that we were.

[JumpCrisscross]

> because Fox News told them that we were

This is my problem with the “elites in control” hypothesis. It seems to rely on voters’ power existing, but being circumvented because said voters are too stupid to handle it.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> This is my problem with the “elites in control” hypothesis. It seems to rely on voters’ power existing, but being circumvented because said voters are too stupid to handle it.

You are correct (except that it need only be a subset of voters).

Now that you've done a good job of elaborating on the hypothesis, what exactly is your problem with it?

[JumpCrisscross]

> what exactly is your problem with it?

It doesn't work. Its testable predictions preclude a good amount of extant politics, including practically all populism. Elites the world over are losing in democracies because they presupposed, from afar, that they knew what their constituents wanted. Voters' interests are complex, and they can't be so easily bought.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> Its testable predictions preclude a good amount of extant politics, including practically all populism.

How so?

> Elites the world over are losing in democracies because they presupposed, from afar, that they knew what their constituents wanted

Elites the world over are winning in democracies (take the US for example), which could feed into the hypothesis. Indeed, nonzero voters of these elites were easily bought.

[llamaimperative]

That is a huuugely presumptive interpretation.

Here’s another possible interpretation: our information environment makes people extremely vulnerable to actual bullshit in massive volume.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Here’s another possible interpretation: our information environment makes people extremely vulnerable to actual bullshit in massive volume

That is also true. People get angry and then misdirect it. But the anger is real, and it filters up through the political system when the valves aren't clogged. They aren't, not anywhere in the West. Voters across the West have essentially begun a wholesale replacement of their stable of elites. That is not what happens in an oligarchic system.

[CamperBob2]

Elites the world over are losing in democracies because they presupposed, from afar, that they knew what their constituents wanted.

... or perhaps because you've misidentified the "elites."

Voters' interests are complex, and they can't be so easily bought.

No need to buy cattle you already own. You just herd them.

[JumpCrisscross]

> perhaps because you've misidentified the "elites."

If the elites are constantly changing then the 'elites' being in power is about as threatening as the 'people' holding it.

[CamperBob2]

Well, that's pretty much the size of it, isn't it?