Thread by @whstancil

I think politics makes more sense if you assume voters see money stuff as boring and don't really care about it the way nerds do

https://twitter.com/EricLevitz/status/1486363196575387650

Some years I do better financially, other years I don't, on some level I understand this reflects public policy but emotionally it just processes like "the vicissitudes of life" and a pretty esoteric thing to vote on, instead of the sweeping moral narratives of partisan conflict

here's a clue that everyone misses: even among people who are strongly supportive of the child tax credit, the support is not because they want the money themselves, but because for them, the CTC is a values issue about protecting children that instills strong emotions!

the fundamental error is assuming that voters are somehow UNLIKE US, and their votes can be bought by a few hundred extra dollars that personally benefits themselves, rather than because they've been persuaded to emotionally invest in our moral narrative of the universe

politics is the business of using people's emotions to earn their support, and it's a real problem that we've turned it over to spreadsheet types

citation: I've met both real people and good politicians

I actually think it's possible to sell something like the CTC pretty well, the problem is that often Dems won't make an unapologetic moral case for it. The debate becomes "improve your finances" (emotionally inert) versus "free money for the undeserving" (emotionally evocative).