,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Policy preferences don't drive party choice. Instead, for many people, tribal partisan attachments drive their policy preferences. People will adopt a new policy because their party backs it, but also *deny* that this is why they have done this. 
This kind of psychology helps explain otherwise puzzling rise in support for "No Deal" Brexit - "Leave" and "Remain are now our most powerful political identities. So when "Leave" elites say "No Deal" is best, "Leave" voters adopt this preference & claim they backed it all along
Increasing political information doesn't help, incidentally - this isn't a matter of ignorance. On the contrary - those with greater political knowledge have more tools available to kid themselves that they made the switch of their own accord.
Excerpt is from this interview with Liliana Mason, whose book "Uncivil Agreement" is a really excellent account of the pervasive impact of partisan identity attachments in the US. Interview here: blog.lareviewofbooks.org/interviews/rhe…
When making political choices, "Engaged people behave less like bankers, and more like sports fans"
This is also good - people's self-declared ideological attachments often don't match up with policy preferences. e.g people who think of themselves as "conservative" but back left wing economic policies. When this occurs, parties have an incentive to emphasise identity conflicts
