Sunday , May 9 2021
Home / Bryan Caplan /Goldberg on Expressive Politics

Goldberg on Expressive Politics

Summary:
Brennan and Lomasky’s expressive voting model tries to explain why politics is largely about style and stories, not substance and numbers.  Long story short: Political entertainment is a private good; political results are a public good.  As a result, political systems primarily yield entertainment, not results.  Jonah Goldberg nicely illustrates these insights in a recent column.  Highlights: Application to immigration: [I]mmigration is a perfect example of what I’m getting at. It’s an important issue regardless of where you come down on the specifics of immigration policy. But there’s a reason Republicans and Democrats often invest so much more in the issue than it warrants. It taps into, among other things, questions of race, national identity and the relationship between wealthy elites

Topics:
Bryan Caplan considers the following as important: , ,

This could be interesting, too:

Bryan Caplan writes Anti-Communism and Anti-Racism: A Reply

Bryan Caplan writes Anti-Communism and Anti-Racism Reconsidered

Bryan Caplan writes Anti-Communism and Anti-Racism

Bryan Caplan writes Thoughts on My Simplistic Theory of Left and Right

Brennan and Lomasky’s expressive voting model tries to explain why politics is largely about style and stories, not substance and numbers.  Long story short: Political entertainment is a private good; political results are a public good.  As a result, political systems primarily yield entertainment, not results.  Jonah Goldberg nicely illustrates these insights in a recent column.  Highlights:

Application to immigration:

[I]mmigration is a perfect example of what I’m getting at. It’s an important issue regardless of where you come down on the specifics of immigration policy. But there’s a reason Republicans and Democrats often invest so much more in the issue than it warrants. It taps into, among other things, questions of race, national identity and the relationship between wealthy elites and average workers. Democrats love the issue because it lets them demonize Republicans — often but not always unfairly — as rank nativists and bigots. It lets Republicans rail about Democratic animosity toward the working class and indifference — real or alleged — to American culture.

I can’t recall if Jonah and I discussed immigration in this interview, but in a sense I agree.  If massive deregulation of immigration is on the table, it’s the most important issue in the world.  But if we’re only arguing about whether borders should be 98% closed or 99% closed, there’s little reason for either side to get excited.

P.S. My main disagreement with Jonah, strangely, is on Dr. Seuss:

For the record, Seuss wasn’t actually canceled. His estate announced it wouldn’t continue to publish a handful of his least popular and allegedly racially insensitive works.

The estate will cease publication of some books because they’re worried someone somewhere might take offense where none was intended?  That’s virtually the definition of “cancelled.”  Furthermore, when I actually looked up the list, I discovered that two of cancelled works – If I Ran the Zoo and To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street – were personal favorites.  Indeed, I routinely use the expression “if I ran the zoo” when people query my precise policy preferences.  So yes, while the budget is objectively a million times more important, I’m still unhappy about what happened to the noble Dr. Seuss.

Bryan Caplan
Bryan Caplan is Professor of Economics at George Mason University and Senior Scholar at the Mercatus Center. He has published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the American Economic Review, the Economic Journal, the Journal of Law and Economics, and Intelligence, and has appeared on 20/20, FoxNews, and C-SPAN. Bryan Caplan blogs on EconLog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *