Of course you're right on a deeper theoretical level; what I'm trying to say is that people think issues like voter ID are purely partisan self-dealing, when the truth is policy positions are often deeper seated and less short-sighted than that.
I think that’s fair—what I’d say is that while voter ID is often framed in media through horserace bias, it also reflects the underlying salience of “cheating” & ressentiment in political values that transcends the evidence, & that negative polarization explains Dem position more than impact
I’d say that Manchin’s push to include Voter ID in the post-Covid spending bills, & progressive rejection, shows that well: Manchin wanted to pay states to give free IDs that could be used for voting, to take away issue he saw GOP dominance on; would have addressed many practical complaints about
Voter ID from Dems, & given bargaining chip for other Manchin concessions. Roundly rejected as validating GOP narrative. Practical horserace concerns were mostly addressed, felt like opposition was mostly a Pyrrhic internal power flex by “progressive” wing, itself muddled on ideology
The combination of low-trust/libertarian/anti-state left sits awkwardly w institutional/pro-goverment/classic US progressives, but institutional left wouldn’t rally for Manchin or make trade on otherwise low salience issue for moderate Dems
Comments
Of course you're right on a deeper theoretical level; what I'm trying to say is that people think issues like voter ID are purely partisan self-dealing, when the truth is policy positions are often deeper seated and less short-sighted than that.