,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I'm enjoying Chris's book and his commentary. But I'll say the thing no one is supposed to say: I'm okay with it if candidates don't go after the "back-row" voters who just want someone to "shake shit up." Chasing that vote is how you get to populism and authoritarianism. /1
Ignoring that vote leads, eventually, to technocratic authoritarianism, or a limited epistocracy of some kind. I worry about that plenty. But trying to hit the bullseye of a voter demo that wants someone in power to solve their personal problems is the road to Mussolini. /2
Not because these are bad people who want a dictator, but because for many of them, you cannot solve their problems. Government didn't create their problems, and government can't fix their lives. And each successive failure to do so leads to a demand for more power to fix it. /3
And each time things don't change, the answer is simple: "Shake shit up" harder. Find someone to blame. Assign more scapegoats. Transfer more wealth and make more excuses. Later, rinse, repeat. /4
We've been seeing it for years: Government, and especially the President, as Daddy. Save my town. Bring back the jobs I want. End my addictions. Provide a father for my children. On and on.
Sooner or later, Daddy becomes a brother. A Big Brother. /5
Sooner or later, Daddy becomes a brother. A Big Brother. /5
Years ago, I referred to the OOT voter - Obama-Obama-Trump - as basically just another incarnation of the White Welfare State voter. I don't see how that's changed. And I don't think there's a message to that voter that will work other than "I will solve everything." /6
Where the Democrats, I think, are making a mistake, is in potentially scaring that voter off. You don't have to *win* them, but there's no point in alarming them in states that Democrats must recapture. But that's a different issue for a different day. /7x
