Read on Twitter
In a basic sense, democratic governments are supposed to be (broadly) representative, with elected officials responding to the needs/desires/opinions of their constituents.
So what to do when people need something they don’t want?
Or want something that is detrimental?
So what to do when people need something they don’t want?
Or want something that is detrimental?
Well, it’s complicated. In a great article by Larry Bartels, he lays out the problem in the context of tax cuts.
Lots of people approved of the Bush-era tax cuts, even though they didn’t benefit from them (ie the cuts imposed costs on them)
https://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/homer.pdf
Lots of people approved of the Bush-era tax cuts, even though they didn’t benefit from them (ie the cuts imposed costs on them)
https://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/homer.pdf
Now Bartels says Americans don’t know much (beyond partisanship) about tax policy, so they distill opinions into “misplaced self-interest.”
The policy they want is opposed to the policy that would benefit them
The policy they want is opposed to the policy that would benefit them
It comes down to political culture, rather than economics: what Americans think the government should be doing.
Turns out, most Americans don’t think of inequality as a policy issue. So they also don’t demand policy solutions, even if they would materially benefit from them.
Turns out, most Americans don’t think of inequality as a policy issue. So they also don’t demand policy solutions, even if they would materially benefit from them.
To circle back to the issue at hand: I think something similar is at play in a lot of democracies around the world in a mirror image with #COVID19
Governments are taking unprecedented measures (controlling movement, commerce, etc.) to control a disease.
Governments are taking unprecedented measures (controlling movement, commerce, etc.) to control a disease.
When it works (fewer people get sick than predicted), people demand to know why the pain of these interventions was inflicted.
And the gap between wants and needs opens up opportunities for opposition groups to come in and make hay, both in good faith and (pressingly) not.
And the gap between wants and needs opens up opportunities for opposition groups to come in and make hay, both in good faith and (pressingly) not.
Opposition groups in South Africa are protesting the government’s lockdown, while public health officials praise it: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52241727
Same in Austria: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-austria-protest-idUSKCN2262VY
And New Zealand: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/21/ardern-accused-of-making-new-zealand-businesses-sacrificial-lambs-in-covid-19-lockdown
And of course the widely publicized protests in the US: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52359100
There’s certainly room for debate over these policies and how they are enacted.
And public opinion data from the US shows broad public support for lockdown measures: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/23/843175656/8-in-10-americans-support-covid-19-shutdown-kaiser-health-poll-finds
And public opinion data from the US shows broad public support for lockdown measures: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/23/843175656/8-in-10-americans-support-covid-19-shutdown-kaiser-health-poll-finds
But what this issue shows is how often democracies struggle to make complex policies that inflict real costs, even if they are for public benefit.
But also how the gap between wants and needs creates opportunities for (sometimes bad faith) opposition to exploit it.
But also how the gap between wants and needs creates opportunities for (sometimes bad faith) opposition to exploit it.
