Post

Conversation

People misconstrue the thermostat. It’s not just that the party in power tends to engage in unpopular overreach, it’s that when the party in power does popular things it takes the problem off the table and reduces the salience of their best issues.
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

That’s literally everything not unique to politics or power. I’m hungry I eat, no longer hungry and I’m not interested in lunch anymore. It’s not profound
Interesting. Solving problems makes you less popular. It's almost as if you have to invent problems to stay relevant. That's kind of how I feel about this whole gender craziness.
The overreach occurs in large part because our ultra-narcissistic politicians - in both parties - have a burning desire to leave (what they hope will be) an indelible legacy. That’s not accomplished through addressing popular issues on a bipartisan basis.
The most popular thing the democrats did was kick Trump out of the White House, but it did not take that issue off the table
Yes, and also people just don't like change, even if they agreed with it ex ante. Plus people fetishize bipartisanship, so the mere fact that the other side is criticizing is taken as evidence that the party in power is doing something bad.
I also think any random negative thing that happens gets over blamed on the party in charge and the other side can tell an unconstrained "this is how we would have solved it" version of alt history
I'm sure this happens but there's more to it Running on a hypothetical fix, which can be as perfect as you can imagine, will fall short of imperfect reality. Obamacare had Dems taking it to the teeth for years, because the imperfect reality of reform was more bitter than hope
This is a big problem for leftwing parties worldwide. Most developed countries have a reasonably functional welfare, healthcare and environmental protection system (yes, including the US)
It’s also that the party in power is the reflexive blame center for issues that annoy people but which have very little to do with who is running the government.
Governments *very rarely* take a problem off the table. More likely, they exacerbate a problem, thus getting themselves replaced.
And then they do unpopular things that had little salience when they rose to power, creating salience for their bases’ unpopular issues.
but if they don't deliver on their promises to fix issues they run on, voters punish them for that too, thus how democracy is supposed to cause improvements
thats true ever since hitler no populist has ran on the international jewery and gained a ton of traction. just like palestine wont be an issue in 4 years assuming elections either
It’s also that many policies that are popular during campaigns become deeply unpopular once they pass and the costs/drawbacks become obvious. Ie Brexit regret, or normie Dems who voted for "ending Trump’s border policies” only to be horrified by the Biden migrant flood.
Similarly . . . when you effectively prevent disaster - such as terrorist attacks or war - people then think it was never really a risk instead of giving you credit. I think Michael Oren once termed this Jonah's Dilemma, many years ago.
Unions pushed the 40-hour work week. The 40-hour work week became the standard for everyone. Victory for the unions; but we don’t need unions for that anymore.
So you're admitting the dems failed to codify Roe so they could campaign on abortion rights. Thanks, Matty.

Discover more

Sourced from across X
As many frustrations I have with the NYT, and I have a lot, it’s worth noting it is the only outlet in the world that could have done this story.
Image
For what it’s worth, I think Biden’s pardon would’ve played better if he just outright said, “I lost, he’s my fucking son, eat shit and deal with it” than whatever that was