I am a product of the mainstream media. For the most part, my beliefs are based on The San Francisco Chronicle, The Economist, and Stratechery. The NYT, WSJ, and Post are similarly excellent, though I don't read them day-to-day.

So much of politics hinges on one's beliefs about the world. If you think women have it bad in the workplace, of course you'll support more initiatives for gender equality. Ditto for rent control, free trade, and many other issues. Personal experiences matter.

But I worry our emphasis on personal narrative has gone too far, that we're giving personal narrative the same weight as expert consensus. That isn't appropriate. There are some issues, like the solvency of Social Security, that are closer to fact than opinion. On issues like that, acting like everyone's opinion matters is folly; the issue is settled, there really isn't room for debate. Same deal with rent control; you can argue over whether it's a good idea, but its effects are pretty well-understood: a two-tiered system of "haves" and "have nots" where the "haves" and "have nots" markets clear at price respectively below, and above, the free-market price. And yet, in debates, I get incredible pushback, with reactions like, "Oh, that's just not true".

"Just not true." Cool argument, bro.

Perhaps this is what Ray Dalio meant when he wrote, in 2017, that

Given the extent of it now, over the next year populism will certainly play a greater role in shaping economic policies. In fact, we believe that populism’s role in shaping economic conditions will probably be more powerful than classic monetary and fiscal policies (as well as a big influence on fiscal policies).

A quick review: populism is

a political and social phenomenon that arises from the common man being fed up with 1) wealth and opportunity gaps, 2) perceived cultural threats from those with different values in the country and from outsiders, 3) the “establishment elites” in positions of power, and 4) government not working effectively for them. These sentiments lead that constituency to put strong leaders in power. Populist leaders are typically confrontational rather than collaborative and exclusive rather than inclusive. As a result, conflicts typically occur between opposing factions (usually the economic and socially left versus the right), both within the country and between countries. These conflicts typically become progressively more forceful in self-reinforcing ways.

Seems pretty accurate. What fascinates me is how the US deals with a conflict that isn't along the usual left-right lines, as there's the right-populism of guys like Trump, and the left-populism of Ocasio-Cortez. Same stuff inside, though the label on the box is a little different.