> Psychologist Geoffrey Cohen once showed Democratic voters supported Republican proposals when they were attributed to fellow Democrats more than they supported Democratic proposals attributed to Republicans (and the opposite for Republican voters).
I think this is could be a rational matter of trust. You can't be an expert on understanding every proposal. You have one political representative group that has the appearance of being relatively aligned with your values, and another group that seems to be actively against many of your values. Which representative group are you going to extend some benefit of the doubt or delegate to, and which are you going to be more skeptical of?
But it's not always a matter of trust, it can also be a matter of attack. Consider one political party blocking all initiatives by the other party, to deny the other any wins, even if the initiative is also in the interests of their own party. Or consider the "own/trigger the libs" behavior, where the goal seems to solely be to hurt, not to advance any other goal. On the other end of an attack, though, they'll tend to have less trust of anything from any group they associate with the attack.
IMO, this only creates a feedback loop where you eventually will support contradictory and completely unrelated positions.
I totally get the idea of delegating away thinking about specific, maybe esoteric issues... but we're at a point where one party could say "the sky is green" and people will agree with that, even if they know (or once knew) that to not be the case, simply to be in defiance of the "others." (or the "own the libs" as you say)
Just look at any popular page for either party. The majority of the content is utter nonsense designed to get engagement. So much collective energy spent on things people won't even remember by next week.
There's a similar effect where you can describe a social program but frame it as a description of a replacement for that program and get Republicans (it's usually Republicans in these, since they're the ones who tend to have some amount of dislike for most social programs) to say they'd support it, while also saying they hate the existing program. Or you can get them to say that such-and-such program should be eliminated because it's way too wasteful, then to agree the program would be great if you could enact reform to get waste down to X... where X is actually the measured waste in the existing program.
Relatedly, you can get voters to say they don't like a social program, but get them to agree they like all the individual things it actually does (usually, they don't really know what it does, they've just been told to dislike it).
if you say that such-and-such policy will "reduce" the level of X to Y, and it turns out it was actually Y in the first place, and you knew that, then you have lied. there is no two ways about this.
it's an absurd gotcha. nobody has every statistic memorized.
> I think this is could be a rational matter of trust.
You trust your tribe, because it's your tribe. I don't think it's "some benefit of doubt" for very complex issues, it's basic stuff. The study mentioned is about welfare policy.
> One version provided generous benefits, whereas the other version provided stringent benefits. Informal pilot testing confirmed both that self-identified liberals preferred the generous policy to the stringent one and that self-identified conservatives preferred the stringent policy to the generous one
So it's not like "I know Neil and trust him and he's been working on anti-gravity for years, so if he says the right equation are these 44 pages, I'll take it", it's "I know Neil and trust him. If he says we have to sacrifice our firstborns, I'll get the axe."
Also, more generally, when you outright lie to someone and they believe you, it's not some revelation that they make incorrect conclusions based on that lie. "People who say they enjoy being outdoors in sunny weather will stay indoors if you tell them it's raining even if it's actually sunny."
> You have one political representative group that has the appearance of being relatively aligned with your values, and another group that seems to be actively against many of your values.
To me that doesn't sound like it. As an outsider, republicans project an image of populist demagogues who thrive in bait-and-switch politics. I'd be surprised if the average American expected republicans to actually implement policies that go against what they've been always proposing.
Nothing stops Democrats to run on the same issues as Republicans and actually deliver them. But that doesn't happen generally, so I don't think you're point is accurate.
I think this is could be a rational matter of trust. You can't be an expert on understanding every proposal. You have one political representative group that has the appearance of being relatively aligned with your values, and another group that seems to be actively against many of your values. Which representative group are you going to extend some benefit of the doubt or delegate to, and which are you going to be more skeptical of?
But it's not always a matter of trust, it can also be a matter of attack. Consider one political party blocking all initiatives by the other party, to deny the other any wins, even if the initiative is also in the interests of their own party. Or consider the "own/trigger the libs" behavior, where the goal seems to solely be to hurt, not to advance any other goal. On the other end of an attack, though, they'll tend to have less trust of anything from any group they associate with the attack.