There has been a lot of digital ink spilled lately about liberals supposedly being more condescending toward people who hold different values and worldviews.
Let’s take it as a given that regardless of ideological flavor, elites (media, political, academic) of any stripe will on net be thoroughly condescending toward people who don’t share similar ideologies. The concept of prospective costs would say that considering the investment these people have made in their ideologies, and the sunk costs they would have to endure to change them — they have a very large incentive to protect their ideological investment.
So removing those types of people from the probability distribution, what would it look like? Well, I don’t know…there are a lot of other things that need to be illuminated.
What is clear, however, is the implications of favored policies.
On this metric, conservatives are the winners when it comes to social policy. There is nary a lack of conservatives that will take the stand to condemn the acts of normal people (from the perspective of religion, morality, philosophy etc). We are often treated to how traditional marriage is being undermined, families are being torn apart by lack of morals, and society needs to be guided in the “right” moral direction.
But moving to economic policy, liberals win by leaps and bounds. Underlying much of the economic policy that (leftist) liberals hold dear is the fundamental assumption that people are either unable, or too stupid to choose for themselves. The need to be protected, like children, from the evils of choice in a free market…and only liberals know the right answers.
In both instances, Frederich Hayek comes to mind:
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
P.S. Though liberals, Kurt Andersen is not helping you make your case…