Ben

#showerthoughts on #politicalcapital

That the German SPD and FDP position themselves against green policies might actually be quite smart. This way, they force the greens for (fiscal) concessions for those areas where all parties differ while still getting green policies “for free.”

So even when we assume green policies objectively serve the greater good, it makes still sense to be against them as center-party to gain political capital.

Also, green voters lose politically on other fronts.

Sep 4, 2023 at 3:32pmWeb
Show threadBenSep 4, 2023

This is naive game theory of course and likely backfires in all kinds of ways. (Frustration and right wing voting? Anti climate narratives the central parties might not want themselves, necessarily?) But I wonder what the effect is when one (idealistic) voter group prioritizes the greater good over their own needs contra everyone else…

I mean, there are plenty other issues those demographics care about, education, mobility, inheritance taxes, …

Show threadBenSep 4, 2023
A possible rule of thumb could also be that the bigger the collective “credit” you are willing to pay the more political capital is left for other milieus. How much of the cultural right shift (for poorer right leaning milieus) and neoliberal policies (for the wealthy) can be explained by that? Left politics is to a large degree green politics now, but the financial benefits accrue for entrepreneurs who get subsidies - likely more neoliberal leaning clusters.
Show threadBenSep 4, 2023

What I like about this idea is that it breaks with the “the other side is evil” narrative but introduces a “we are selfless/just don’t get power” one. I think it’s valid to say that such a decision is indeed aligned with priorities (“I’m willing to forgo other goals to ‘save the planet’”), but I hardly see this stated explicitly.

It also hints at the ongoing paradigm shift from more traditional to neoliberal values in which externalities are addressed structurally, not directly. (Or just not.)

Show threadBenSep 4, 2023

What I mean by this: I perceive debates in Germany to be more traditional than eg in the US. There’s a stronger drive to look for collective solutions (let’s say, a more Kantian moral à la the categorical imperative). In the US, politics and ethics are much more transactional, thought of stronger in terms of contracts and power.

I’m not sure that’s aligned with reality, though. As suggested above there’s some advantage to keep part of the populace politically naive. (Politically! Not morally!)

Show threadLoukas (They/Them) 🏳️‍⚧️Sep 4, 2023
@b3n yes the centrists are happily pooping on the floor because they think mamma will always clean it up.
Show threadBenSep 4, 2023
@Loukas This problem might be bigger in multi-party rather than two-party states, right? Because “greater good” is closer aligned with voter majority whereas no party in the 5-30% range can make that claim? Shooting off the hip here… but as Europeans were quite fond of our non-partisan landscape and it would be interesting to think of (non-obvious) disadvantages.
Show threadLoukas (They/Them) 🏳️‍⚧️Sep 4, 2023
@b3n I'm not sure. The big parties in UK and USA are effectively big coalitions. So while the greens in Sweden have greened the social democrats while suffering a loss of support themselves, I see almost exactly the same thing happening to the green wing within the UK labour party. My general opinion is that voting systems make less political difference than people think.
Show threadBenSep 4, 2023
@Loukas Well, they allow a more-than-two dimensional map of the populace. For two parties you have the mean voter approach whereas in multi party systems you can try to carve out your “quadrant.” This assumes a lot about the media, of course - you likely can align multiple on a single dimension as well (“plus some flavor”). What I see in Germany right now is more a clustering along a cultural and a “class” dimension though. Parties/narratives lag reality, sure, and wealth distorts...
Show threadLoukas (They/Them) 🏳️‍⚧️Sep 4, 2023
@b3n but two-party systems are usually not fighting nation-wide votes. A lot of the support for labour, conservative, republicans and democrats are indeed based on carving out quadrants. The history of UK and USA since 2014 shows that two parties does not mean two dimensions at all, and that appealing to the non-mean voter is absolutely a winning strategy.
Show threadBenSep 4, 2023

@Loukas sure, it’s more about tendencies. I just think it’s easier to confront (gullible) voters with a “are you left or right” question in two party systems and “what issue is important to you” in a multi party system. Looking closer both fail, of course, but differently.

It does not change the basic cultural currents though, which are more similar and able to crush existing political maps. (Quickly, see US, UK, France).