Unsurprisingly, based on my most recent blog post, I was rather dissatisfied with the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. At least in my mind, the Miracle of Aggregation had failed; despite over 130 million Americans voting, our nation had, to me, made an irrational choice. In particular, I was baffled by the many lower-class voters who had supported Trump, even though his policies seemingly went against their economic interests.
After reading Caplan's book, however, I have a greater understanding of the power of beliefs in determining an individual's vote. Trump, more than any recent politician, was able to effectively exploit voters' systematic biases in order to create a movement through which his supporters gained immense utility from expressing their ideology. As a result, the marginal benefit derived from supporting Trump was very high for these people, even if doing so harmed their material well-being.
Looking forward to 2020, it seems as though some Trump voters have become "enlightened." In this case, these voters were not formally educated in economics since 2016, but their lived experiences under the Trump administration may have provided them with enough knowledge to change their preferences. For example, this ad campaign is focused on Midwestern former Trump voters who now regret their decision. The ads do not mention the impeachment inquiry or Trump's erratic behavior but discuss how his policies have actually hurt people's economic conditions. For these individuals, though they may still get utility from being a part of Trump's movement, they are now more aware of the high monetary cost of voting for Trump. Thus, it is no longer rational for ideology to be the dominant factor in their voting behavior.
2 comments:
Hi Andrew, I really like how you applied Caplan's ideas on systematic bias to recent politics, because I also feel that certain demographics have largely voted against their material well-being based on economically unsound ideas, such as protectionism. You mentioned that some voters may regret their choice in 2016 based on how it affected their well-being, and that perhaps these voters have become "enlightened" to the point that they will vote differently in 2020. However, I would worry that the incumbent has another advantage counter to movement you are describing, also based on Caplan's ideas. Specifically, if these voters have substantial preferences over beliefs, they may fail to move off their views and still dislike the policy options that the other party presents. We read in Caplan's book of the hypothetical anti-immigrant who has strong enough preferences over their belief that it serves as an ultimate justification: "The economy is bad because the anti-immigrant politician didn't win" or "The economy is bad but it would be worse if the anti-immigrant politician didn't win." It may be possible that currently dejected voters will think similarly. Personally, I hope that you are right, and that more Americans consider policy alternatives after treating their lived experiences as another form of education.
Jackson, thanks for the reply! I definitely agree with you; though the ad campaign focuses on a few people who do not rely on beliefs as an ultimate justification, there are certainly a lot of Trump voters who are so anti-immigrant that it is "rational" to support him, even if they know that his policies actually hurt their economic well-being.
Post a Comment