i think these alternatives are mistaken. the alternative to (bad versions of) populism are mediating institutions in which people, regardless of their personal education, can recognize their own interests and values, which they can trust to act rationally and professionally in pursuit of those. 1/

it’s the lack of mediating institutions — of a menu of political parties that reflects the diversity of the electorate — that puts voters in a position of trying beyond their (really anyone’s) expertise to be strategic about and within amorphous coalitions… 2/

or else vote for charismatic heroes with simple, compelling, and false stories about why things are terrible and what should be done to fix it. /fin

americans should not have elected trump. 1/

even most of those opposed to him were complicit in the sense they could have done more to persuade, or raise the social costs of supporting trump. 2/

yet punishing or holding to account arbitrary americans for not having done more to prevent trump’s election would serve neither a practical nor moral purpose, and would amount to violation of the dignity and independence we accord to individuals in liberal societies. /fin

the franchise is a sacrament, not a device to be manipulated. but from a purely sociopathic perspective, wouldn’t the SAVE Act be just terrible for MAGA? there are not in fact a lot of illegals voting. 1/

i guess the theory is the extra burden on married women who changed names (birth certificate + marriage license) would discourage more lib-voting women than the whole doc requirement would discourage the low information, weakly partisan voters who are MAGA’s margin? 2/

it’s a betrayal of the democratic ethos, which thirsts for universal participation. but on its own cynical terms, it seems like a risky bet. /fin