A cross-cultural study shows that people are more likely to vote for a policy that hurts the rich, even if it also makes the poor's lives worse. This suggests that resentment toward the wealthy can be a stronger motivator in political decision-making than the desire to improve conditions for the poor.
Related Insights
Populist leaders often correctly identify public suffering but propose solutions that worsen the problem. This is compared to Steve Jobs' fruit juice diet for pancreatic cancer, which accelerated his illness by feeding the tumor carbohydrates. Similarly, policies focused on punishing the wealthy rather than fixing root causes are catastrophically counterproductive.
Deficit spending acts as a hidden tax via inflation. This tax disproportionately harms those without assets while benefiting the small percentage of the population owning assets like stocks and real estate. Therefore, supporting deficit spending is an active choice to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
The appeal of a populist leader lies in their rejection of traditional political norms. When the electorate feels betrayed by the established "political class," they gravitate toward figures whose rhetoric is a deliberate and stark contrast, signaling they are an outsider.
The super-rich lose empathy not necessarily because they are bad people, but because their lifestyle systematically isolates them from common experiences. With private airports, healthcare, and schools, they no longer participate in or understand the struggles of mainstream society. This segregation creates a fundamental disconnect that impacts their worldview and political influence.
Political messaging focused on 'equity' and villainizing wealth often backfires. Most voters don't begrudge success; they want access to economic opportunity for themselves and their families. A winning platform focuses on enabling personal advancement and a fair shot, not on what is described as a 'patronizing' class warfare narrative.
The discomfort felt by those from lower-income backgrounds around the wealthy is not just envy, but a deep-seated frustration. It stems from the belief that those who grew up with money can sympathize but never truly empathize with the constant stress and lack of a safety net that defines life without it.
The federal budget reflects the values of those who vote. Since young people vote at lower rates than seniors, policies benefiting seniors (like Social Security adjustments) are prioritized over those for children (like the child tax credit), effectively defunding the young.
For some voters, a single, clear display of economic incompetence from an administration—such as an advisor failing to explain basic monetary theory—can be a 'radicalizing' event. This can override all other policy considerations and become the primary reason to vote for the opposition.
Political alignment is becoming secondary to economic frustration. Voters are responding to candidates who address rising costs, creating unpredictable alliances and fracturing established bases. This dynamic is swamping traditional ideology, forcing both parties to scramble for a new populist message centered on financial well-being.
The psychological engine of populism is the zero-sum fallacy. It frames every issue—trade deficits, immigration, university admissions—as a win-lose scenario. This narrative, where one group's success must come at another's expense, fosters the protectionist and resentful attitudes that populist leaders exploit.
