Plato, Machiavelli and the status quo

Daniel Finkelstein makes a profound point here, without either justifying it adequately or drawing the right conclusion. He says:

Politicians who offer sharp departures from current practice are often seen by voters as threatening, even if the very same voters could later be persuaded by a governing party that the very same policies were a good idea.

This is true, but probably not for the reason he gives. Voters’ preference for the status quo probably owes less to anchoring than to, say: the endowment effect; loss aversion; the mere exposure effect; or pseudo-certainty.
Whatever the reason, Daniel is hinting at a deep truth – that practical day-to-day politics consists in the manipulation of people’s irrationality.
This means there’s a dichotomy between two questions – think of them as the Platonic versus the Machiavellian.
One asks: how should we be governed? The other: how can we win power?
The two questions are very different.
It might save some confusion if readers remember that I am only interested in the Platonic question, whilst the dead trees and some popular blogs seem interested only in the Machiavellian one.

Comments

[mat]

Speaking about voter fear of aberrant politicians.... Living in America, every second day I hear people say they are 'fiscally conservative, socially liberal'. In other words, they're quasi-libertarian. But if you mention the word, they'll step back aghast. Shock! Horror! "I'm not extreme like that; I'm moderate!" If only some Americans were to start a 'Moderate' party with the slogan "fiscally conservative, socially liberal". I'm convinced it would do well.

[chi flat iron]

CHI flat iron by Farouk system. Direct from the manufacturer, this genuine Chi ceramic iron comes with valid, one year warranty!