Thread by @whstancil

A fundamental divide in our politics: Republicans just say, directly to voters, why the voters should pick them over the other side.

Democrats set up elaborate indirect demonstrations of their argument, almost all of which voters end up overlooking.

politico.com/news/2021/07/0…

Passing bills and hoping voters will see your accomplishments? Indirect: you're expecting voters to notice and then pick you.

Letting the GOP seethe and obstruct and hoping voters will see how unreasonable they are? Indirect: you're expecting voters to notice and pick you.

Trying to improve real economic conditions for voters? Indirect: you're expecting voters to notice you did it, and then pick you.

Implementing new programs that will benefit voters? Indirect: you're expecting voters to notice you did it, and then pick you.

Setting up big messaging bill votes in Congress? Indirect: you're expecting media to report it, voters to appreciate it, and then pick you.

Giving speeches about policy issues? Closer, but still indirect: you're hoping voters will like your view and pick you.

Meanwhile Republicans go directly to voters, with no intermediating event or information, and say "Here is why, in the strongest terms possible, the other side is bad and you should support us instead." The reasons are absurd but the communication is DIRECT.

In short, Republicans often appear to operate with the faith that they themselves are political actors with agency, whose statements millions of Americans take seriously, while Democrats adopt a kind of political modesty that assumes persuasion can only come from third parties.

Democrats are wrong: leading politicians are hugely influential figures in society. They're not stuck following public opinion, but can shape it - often directly, by simply telling people what to believe. Political belief flows DOWN from the top as much as UP from the population.

Democrats have been led badly astray by their obsession with poll-watching and the structural determinants of public opinion. This supposedly empirical frame is, almost by definition, blind to the fact that political opinions can be driven by politicians themselves.

As a result Dems have, over and over, neglected opportunities to seize on compelling narratives and rhetoric and facts that could be wielded against a corrupt and authoritarian opponent. In their heads, these tools are worthless, because they have no direct agency over voters.

A more effective Democratic Party would set aside the wonk-driven, data-obsessed politics of recent decades, and go back an older style of politics where the goal is to lay out compelling stories that seize the hearts and minds of Americans - positive AND negative narratives.

Data and empiricism has a role in politics, but it's a limited one, providing greater insight rather than steering the whole ship. The rise and fall of ideas and factions across entire societies are too complicated to reliably predict with some rudimentary modeling.