Liberal Democracy and Narrative

A small quote from the Z-man:

We see this in the current election cycle. Gavin Newsome, the governor of California, says his party is in trouble because they are “getting crushed on narrative.” It is not the economy or culture; their problem is they have not presented a “compelling alternative narrative” to the Republicans. No one can tell you what the Republican narrative is, but he is sure it must be better. How else can one explain why voters appear to be moving against the Democrats next week?

This incredible op-ed in the Financial Times lays the blame for inflation at the feet of the storytellers, rather than economic policy. You see, corporations are taking advantage of inflation to raise prices higher than necessary. They can do this because “the power of storytelling has conditioned consumers to accept price rises.” You see, “consumers seem to be buying stories that seem to justify price increases, but which really serve as cover for profit margin expansion.”

What those two examples suggest is that the great promoters of liberal democracy think the tenets of liberal democracy are nonsense. The politicians think people are morons who will fall for a good story, rather than vote their interests. The economists think consumers are not swayed by prices but by irrational beliefs. The premise of liberal democracy is that people understand their interests. If given the chance in a democratic system or a market economy, they will express those interests.

Amazingly, his conclusion after this is that good storytellers can convince people to go against their interests. While this is probably true to some degree, the current political landscape on the eve (almost) of the midterm elections is a refutation rather than a confirmation of that conclusion. 

Rather, I'd suggest that people do express their interests, to the extent that they understand them. The biggest problem with regular economic theory as I learned it (as an economics major) in college  is that it presumes that people know and understand what their interests are. In reality, people's interests are at best often vaguely defined, and not always quantifiable, or economic in nature. Higher level economic theory at least nods at this concept, if it does a relatively poor job of accounting for it, but people certainly often have interests that are more compelling to them than financial/economic interests, and sometimes defining those interests is difficult.

People have an interest in the general prosperity of their nation, people and communities, yet they also have an interest in cheaper goods outsourced to Third World crapholes; even if that means  medium and long term costs to the prosperity of their nation, people and communities. Is access to (relatively) cheap iPhones more important to them than the economic health of some community in West Virginia? Again, I don't think people necessarily understand their interest as well as the premise of liberal democracy would have you believe. 

Of course, this was understood a long time ago. Shakespeare famously wrote about it in Julius Caesar and the Founding Fathers specifically created a representative republic rather than a democracy because they knew that "mob rule" was based on fickle, in the moment decisions based on people who didn't understand their interests, or pursue them with the long term in mind.

Still, the point remains that I quoted that section for; the Establishment feels nothing but undisguised contempt for both the people that it claims to represent, and the system that is supposed to limit them. They are the ultimate busybody Karens, who are convinced that the world would be better if everyone else would just allow them to control their lives. If they could be in charge, unfettered by the freedom of others, and essentially enslave everyone to their will, then everything would be great.

This was, of course, the crux of the model proposed by Lucifer who became Satan, and which stood in defiance of God's plan for his children. Lucifer wanted the glory, he promised that all would be saved, but all would be completely and totally enslaved to his will. 

When a political movement mirrors the spiritual movement of Satan himself, that should tell you something about its merits.