Exploring the Electoral Landscape: Insights into America's Shifting Mood
TL;dr dips its toe into political waters with an eye toward how it impacts those responsible for daily governance
We wade a little bit into national politics — a subject that’s going to be hard to avoid over the next nine months — in this edition of TL;dr. I do my best to avoid partisan advocacy here at GGF. But you can’t live in the governing world without acknowledging and understanding the political world. With that disclaimer, let’s dive right in.
How America Lost its Mind (And Sense of Humor)
Technically, this should be a TL;dl (Too long, didn't listen) since it’s from a podcast. The Jan. 31 edition of The Remnant featured host Jonah Goldberg and guest Daniel Hannan, a British journalist and former member of the European Parliament. They explored questions like: When and why America began to take a turn for the crazy? Why do recessions lead to populism? Is political apathy actually a good thing?
They peg the time at 2011-2012 when the U.S. (and the U.K.) took a turn for the loopy. The hope and change promised by the re-election of Barak Obama — “a secular messiah who was going to redeem America of its sins,” Jonah opined — didn’t come to pass. At the same time, social media was becoming solidly mainstream, which ushered in “three terrible ideas that have become increasingly woven into America … What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker; always trust your feelings; and life is a battle between good people and evil people,” from the book The Coddling of the American Mind. “These three Great Untruths contradict basic psychological principles about well-being and ancient wisdom from many cultures.”
Hannan notes the “negative polarization” that was becoming concretized during this time was happening on his side of the pond as well. He saw it firsthand after the Brexit vote.
I observed it very strongly in the immediate aftermath of our Brexit referendum, not in the run up to the vote. That was the funny thing. During the referendum itself, I was out campaigning every day, manning street stalls, campaigning. And more often than not, you’d run into the other side with that blue “Stronger In” t-shirts, and we’d wish each other luck and we’d take selfies together. And it was all a perfectly civil and civilized conversation about sovereignty, money, migration, law, whatever. After the result came in, it suddenly shifted into being a culture war, in exactly (Jonah’s) phrase, ‘negative polarization.’ So, it became about whom don’t we like? Who are the bastards on the other side whom we imagine to be typical of the other team and then delete as (either) ignorant working-class oafs who fell for unscrupulous demagogues or sneering snobs who secretly hate their own country?
Regarding recessions leading to populism: Hannan makes a point I personally think is spot on — the lack of accountability following the subprime mortgage meltdown in 2008-09 and ensuing global financial crisis really took a toll on trust in liberal democratic systems.
Ever since I was a student, I’d listened to Marxists saying, ‘Capitalism is a racket. It isn’t a real thing. It’s just a word that the rich use to preserve their entrenched interests. It’s all about keeping the ruling class on top.’ And that, all my life until the global financial crisis, seemed to me demonstrably false. It was not a point of view that you could hold in conjunction with the observed facts. But when the bailouts happened, I think we saw something really unexpected, which is that the Marxist critique kind of looked to be a little bit vindicated in the sense that we’re taxing low and medium income people to rescue some very wealthy bankers and bondholders from the consequences of their own mistakes. And it really did look as though the whole system was a racket.
On voter apathy being a good thing: Jonah posits that low voter turnout is a sign of “political health,” because a well-run government takes the oxygen out of discussions about how our politics is failing. Says Jonah:
Most people who are apathetic about politics aren’t apathetic about their businesses, about their families, about the things that actually have meaning in their daily lives. And so, for me, it has always been a sign of political health, to a certain extent, to have low voter turnout, because that meant you didn’t feel like you had enough at stake in an election to bother to vote, which is, people saw that as a sign of sickness or lack of civic engagement. In some cases it might be, but other cases, actually, no, ‘We’ve got better things to do.’
The Rise of the Techno-Optimists
An Axios article caught my eye because of something Jonah said on a different podcast. He was speaking at an event in Ohio with New York Times opinion writer Ezra Klein. They were asked the question: What can you tell a college student today to give them hope for the future? Jonah’s answer was about faith, family, friends, experiences, earned success. Ezra’s answer was about “things like artificial intelligence, mastering the process of protein folding, and drugs like Ozempic” that help people eat less. It was the answer of a Techno-Optimist. A day later I came across Behind the Curtain: A new, powerful political movement.
Clearly, something’s in the zeitgeist. Here are three takeaways.
Rise of a Powerful Movement: The emergence of the techno-optimist movement represents a significant shift in American politics. Comprised mostly of affluent, white, middle-aged men from the tech sector, this group is gaining influence rapidly through various channels such as social media, podcasts, journalism projects, and political activism. Despite lacking a formal structure like a political party, techno-optimists share common platforms, ideologies, and beliefs, contributing to their collective influence.
Core Ideology and Philosophical Manifestos: Techno-optimists adhere to a set of core beliefs that include advocating for unfettered free speech, promoting artificial intelligence, opposing mainstream media, and expressing skepticism towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and political correctness. Influential figures within the movement, like investor Marc Andreessen, have written provocative philosophical manifestos that celebrate technology as a driving force for progress and human potential. Andreessen’s manifesto denounces efforts to regulate technology in bolder, brasher strokes than Silicon Valley has heard for years. It’s an interesting counter to Will Hurd’s thoughts on AI regulation we shared in last week's TL;dr.
Influence on Politics and Political Candidates: Techno-optimists are actively engaging in politics, supporting candidates, and shaping political discourse. They leverage their platforms, including social media and podcasts, to boost political figures aligned with their vision, such as Vivek Ramaswamy and RFK Jr. While some, like investor Bill Ackman, invest money directly into political campaigns, others use their influence to promote specific policy agendas, particularly related to technology and innovation. Despite differing opinions within the tech industry, techno-optimists present a unified front in advocating for their political priorities and influencing public opinion, especially among white men outside of major urban centers.
From Techno Optimism to Economic Pessimism
I’ve seen several articles over the past couple of months about how the U.S. economy is objectively improving but regular folks, i.e. voters, don’t seem to believe things are actually getting better. Four Wall Street Journal reporters went into the field to ask people why. Their reporting appeared in a Feb. 7 essay, Why Americans Are So Down on a Strong Economy.
Here are three takeaways:
Perception vs. Reality: Despite strong economic indicators such as low unemployment rates and brisk consumer spending, many Americans hold a pessimistic view of the economy. The prevailing gloominess stems from concerns about long-term financial security, including the fragility of reliable steps up the economic ladder, global instability due to wars and geopolitical tensions, and a lack of confidence in the competence of government leaders to address complex issues effectively. Ouch.
Structural Challenges: Structural changes in the economy have contributed to widespread anxiety about the future among Americans. Factors such as the decline of company pensions, doubts about the value of a college degree in securing a middle-class lifestyle, and the erosion of confidence in achieving upward mobility through hard work have fueled feelings of economic insecurity. Many Americans, including those who have experienced personal financial gains, feel like they are sliding backward financially despite pay raises and frugal habits.
Political Influence: Republicans tend to be more optimistic about the economy when their party is in power, while Democrats may become more negative in their assessments under the same circumstances. This partisan divide in economic perceptions is particularly pronounced during election cycles, shaping public discourse, and contributing to the overall mood regarding the economy. Additionally, media coverage of economic news may amplify negative sentiments, exacerbating the gap between public perception and economic reality.
In Other’s Words
We leave you with a related thought on pessimism as well as the crazy notion that facts matter in our political discourse.
In a piece for The Atlantic under the headline Chicken Littles are Ruining America, author and New York Times columnist David Brooks argues we’ve gone from a mindset of individualism in the 1970s (the rise of Me, Inc.) to a new kind of communalism.
Groups on each side of the political divide are held together less by common affections than by a common sense of threat, an experience of collective oppression. Today’s communal culture is based on a shared belief that society is broken, systems are rotten, the game is rigged, injustice prevails, the venal elites are out to get us; we find solidarity and meaning in resisting their oppression together. Again, there is a right-wing version (Donald Trump’s “I am your retribution”) and a left-wing version (the intersectional community of oppressed groups), but what they share is an us-versus-them Manichaeism. The culture war gives life shape and meaning. … In this way, pessimism becomes a membership badge—the ultimate sign that you are on the side of the good. If your analysis is not apocalyptic, you’re naive, lacking in moral urgency, complicit with the status quo.
Which is even more reason to keep fighting the good fight in government with a firm grip on reality and a relentless pursuit of policies and programs grounded in reality. Veteran journalist and author Joe Klein acknowledges such in an essay last year from his Substack newsletter, Sanity Clause.
A basic rule: You can’t do democracy if you can’t do reality. Facts matter, especially the details of policy. You can’t do democracy if you can’t construct stable institutions and subtle policies that will prove valuable in the long-run—you support Ukraine, without risking American lives, in part because Ukraine’s stiff defense of its sovereignty sends a message to China about what might happen if it moves on Taiwan. John Maynard Keynes said, “In the long run, we are all dead.” But there is no long-run in 21st century America; there is only now. There is only the immortality of the moment.
Onward and Upward.
Will,
Your essay is brilliant and eloquent.
Thank you.