In other cases, econ-brained thinking is harnessed to defend a position, but isn’t the main force behind that position. For example, the cultural wars that are currently raging over immigration definitely feature clashes between economic and sociopolitical considerations. However, I suspect that the pro-immigration side is not fundamentally motivated by immigration’s purported economic benefits, which are better understood as fig leaves on a deeper-rooted globalist ideology. Similarly, even though much of the explicit debate about Brexit pitted economic against cultural considerations, the sheer vitriol that elites leveled against Brexiteers suggests that they were primarily motivated by sociopolitical considerations of their own.
Surely different people support positions for different reasons. Many people (even if only a small minority) support these specific policies, in good faith, on the basis of economic arguments.
Which, of course, is not a counterpoint to “econ-brained thinking is harnessed to defend a position, but isn’t the main force behind that position”. That seems obviously true.
But the basic stance of rounding off the “reasons why a majority of people support a position” to “the true motives of that position”, seems fraught.
The “pro-immigration side” is heterogenous! It includes lots of different sub groups, which might have very different ideologies or internal mechanisms.
I agree that people support things for different reasons. However, I also think it’s meaningful to talk about the motivations of a faction or coalition, in a way that isn’t just averaging the motives of the members of that faction.
In the case of immigration, my model is something like:
Group A support some types of immigration for economic reasons. Group B, which is much larger, supports other (partially-overlapping) types of immigration due to their adherence to globalism. Almost everyone in group A carefully avoids a) clearly characterizing the actual populations they would support having immigrate, since they are scared of being called racist, and b) reasoning about how much power is held by group A vs group B in deciding immigration policy, since they are scared of clearly distinguishing their interests from those of globalism. Because of this (and group A’s smaller numbers) it’s fairly accurate to model the pro-immigration faction as being controlled by group B, with group A sometimes having marginal effects. For example, the migrants coming to Britain in boats across the English Channel are nearly at the bottom of the list of which populations group A would want to immigrate for economic reasons. Yet not only is group A unable to bargain to prevent this, it’s mostly not even willing to speak against it on economic grounds. (So in fact even talking about Group A as having preferences is not really accurate within its current factional arrangement.)
We can debate whether this model is true or false. But I’m most curious about whether, if this model were true, you think my characterization of the pro-immigration faction’s “fundamental motivations” is reasonable, or whether you think I should still use different language.
Surely different people support positions for different reasons. Many people (even if only a small minority) support these specific policies, in good faith, on the basis of economic arguments.
Which, of course, is not a counterpoint to “econ-brained thinking is harnessed to defend a position, but isn’t the main force behind that position”. That seems obviously true.
But the basic stance of rounding off the “reasons why a majority of people support a position” to “the true motives of that position”, seems fraught.
The “pro-immigration side” is heterogenous! It includes lots of different sub groups, which might have very different ideologies or internal mechanisms.
I agree that people support things for different reasons. However, I also think it’s meaningful to talk about the motivations of a faction or coalition, in a way that isn’t just averaging the motives of the members of that faction.
In the case of immigration, my model is something like:
We can debate whether this model is true or false. But I’m most curious about whether, if this model were true, you think my characterization of the pro-immigration faction’s “fundamental motivations” is reasonable, or whether you think I should still use different language.