Politics is often described as the business of persuasion, the crafting of assent from the governed. It means the democratic ideal is one of informed choice.
This requires rigorous prosecution of ideas which, in the era of 24-hour news and social media, has made professionals of our politicians. It also requires an active citizenship: an attitude of discernment that sifts between truth and salesmanship, short and long term benefits, values and priorities, individual and collective costs.
Yet the rational voter has always been a figment, the myth upon which democracies are built. Voters, like consumers, have limited attention and are prone to herd mentality, risk distortion, loss aversion, instant gratification and other impulses. This is the complicated algorithm social advocacies have to deal with.
It is an insight borrowed from behavioural economics, which is currently resurgent — perhaps in time for us to make sense of recent political developments.
Behavioural economics challenges the concept of homo economicus, the rational, independent, self-interested individual who makes decisions based on utility or profit. Federal budgets are pitched at such creatures, and perhaps to a lesser extent, election campaigns.
Quite obviously, things other than logic shape choice. People have cognitive and social biases that filter out information essential to decision-making. They are susceptible to anecdotes and conspiracies. They are sentimental. They can be unreliable. Unpredictable.
The UK referendum on EU membership and the rise of Donald Trump are clear demonstrations. So are 'truthers' and denialists. In other words, homo politicus is completely capable of making choices that carry no internal or contextual consistency, sometimes even acting against his interests.
It's called being human. Which is fine for individuals, but not for polities. We live in polities. Our lives are bound by objective realities that no degree or form of individualism or tribalism can overcome. This is a serious problem for our shared future, and not just a political one.
"Measures that pushed more people further into the margins -such as post-GFC austerity policies in the UK - were constructed by an overeducated, privileged class."
Climate change, refugee crises, atomised terrorism, emboldened far-right movements — these problems are systemic in nature and demand systemic solutions. Nuance is everything.
Yet the defining sentiment of this decade seems to be: 'have had enough of experts'. This was British Conservative Michael Gove's rebuttal to warnings against leaving the EU. It is not untrue; people have come to associate expertise with being screwed over. Measures that pushed more people further