The Theory of Modern Politics That Explains Everything

The media, and most of the “intelligent” classes, are frequently wrong about politics. They consistently make terrible predictions about things. They never saw Donald Trump coming, or Bernie Sanders for that matter. This is because, on a deep level, they don’t understand how most voters are making their decisions.

I’ll call this theory the “two lenses” theory of politics.

Let’s say — to simplify things greatly — that there are two classes of people in the country. Let’s call the first class the “intelligentsia.” This would include people that work in politics, the media, and also people who don’t work in politics or the media but who are obsessed with politics (read Slate, the Nation, The National Review, other political blogs, keep up with the latest polls, etc.). If you’re reading this article, you’re part of the Intelligentsia. The intelligentsia sees election in “sharp focus.” They understand the nuances of each candidate’s policy positions, they pay attention to each step of a race as it unfolds. If politics is Plato’s cave, the Intelligentsia have the clearest view of reality.

What the intelligentsia don’t realize though is that they only really comprise a small portion of the electorate, maybe 5%. More than this, they don’t realize that the other 95% don’t see politics with their sharp lens. The other 95%, let’s call them the “regulars,” view politics through a soft, blurry lens. It’s not that the regulars are stupid (they’re not), and it’s not that they don’t care about politics (they do), it’s really just that most people don’t have TIME to obsesses about the minutia like the Intelligentsia. They have busy jobs, children, bills to pay — in short, real obligations.

All a Regular might ever see of a candidate are a few clips on a news program of the candidate speaking, or just a picture of the candidate in the paper along with a headline.

What I’m saying is more than simply that most voters are “low information” voters. We’ve always known that. What I’m talking about is the particular way of seeing of most voters.

The view that a Regular gets of a candidate is a quick, blurry snapshot. It’s like if you were jogging by a tree, pulled out a bad camera, and took a picture of the tree while you were in motion. They don’t see the details, just the broad outlines.

In the fuzzy focus view:

Bernie Sanders is “man of the people, looks trustworthy.”

Trump is: “strong, doesn’t take guff from anyone”

The problem with the other candidates (including Clinton) is not that they’re “bad” or “wrong” but they just don’t tell a sharp enough story to really come into view in the soft focus. If a candidate is already fuzzy in their public persona, they won’t even show up in the viewfinder of a soft focus voter, that is, most Americans. For the soft focus voter, it matters less what a candidate “believes” and more that the candidate is intelligible. What is intelligible can be seen, and what can be seen can be trusted. What can’t be seen, can’t be trusted.

In psychology, they would call this heuristics, the mental shortcuts we make when we’re busy and don’t have much information. Since most voters are in a hurry — that is, they have jobs, kids, other obligations — they’re concerned with simply meeting their most basic needs: safety and trust. If that’s the case, then they’ll go with the candidate with the most articulated persona, the candidate that they can really see.

Hence, Bernie Sander. Hence, Donald Trump. Both candidates jumped out of a novel as fully formed characters.

The intelligentsia consistently picks races incorrectly because they assume that everyone sees the world like they do. They’re imprisoned by their own intelligence. Truth be told, most political campaigns are as well. They agonize — truly agonize — over which policy positions to take, which positions will win voters over or turn them off. But they’re playing a game that nobody else cares about. Trump could care less about policy. He takes outlandish positions, or changes them at will. Doesn’t care. And yet, voters feel that they “know” him, trust him, because his persona is the most sharply defined. He’s the brash millionaire who doesn’t take guff from anyone. Rubio’s soft-focus persona is much fuzzier, and it’s a less effective persona (his would be “young handsome guy”). Therefore, Trump wins.

If my theory is true, it could spell disaster in a general election, of course, between Trump and Clinton. The only saving grace for Clinton would be demographics, that Democrats turn out huge in presidential years, and that the growing populations of latinos and blacks will reliably vote Democratic. Plus she’ll develop a new, sharper persona as the “first woman, barrier-breaker” that will help her. Clinton will probably beat Trump, but it will be much, much closer (and scarier) than people think.

The soft/sharp theory of politics is really just basic messaging, which most political consultants understand. Pick one very clear message, and repeat it again and again and again. What I think is still underestimated, though, is just how simple the message needs to be, just how soft-focus most voters are. Candidates should literally be picking just one or two adjectives and sticking with them. Candidates need to focus less on how they’re defined, and more that they’re defined at all. Hillary Clinton — who’s apparently never met an issue she didn’t want to triangulate — needs to figure this out, and fast. I honestly don’t know what her soft-focus persona is (she’s flirted with a few over the course of the race but can’t seem to settle on one), and I’m afraid that’s going to be a problem.