Leaders, Followers, and Casuals

what Jeffrey Friedman, interpreting Philip Converse, can teach us about politics

Jeffrey Friedman wrote,

in mass democracies, the blinkered are leading the blind

The elites who do the leading are biased by their ideologies. The masses are too ignorant to understand and influence government.

Friedman, who died relatively young in 2022, was revisiting the research of Philip Converse, who died much older in 2014. Converse, of the venerable University of Michigan Survey Research Center, presented findings in 1964 showing that systematic political beliefs could only be found among a well-educated minority of the public.

Forty years after Converse’s paper appeared, Friedman organized a symposium on whether its findings had adverse implications for democracy. Converse himself, in his contribution to the symposium, gave a response that resonates with me. He wrote,

When leadership has become truly catastrophic, public attentiveness is likely to rise to extraordinary levels, and even the barest majority gets to “throw the rascals out” by something short of violent revolution.

But Friedman was wondering whether democracy had any hope of leading to good public policy, given the level of ignorance of the voting public. He divided the public into three groups. I call them Leaders, Followers, and Casuals.

Leaders are politicians or intellectuals who articulate ideological viewpoints. They take positions on many issues. They relate these positions to one another. They justify their positions using cause-and-effect reasoning and general logic. But by no means does that make their positions sound or logical. Intellectuals are gifted at rationalizing the irrational.

Followers are people who have a rooting interest in an ideological viewpoint. They have some ability to recapitulate the reasoning that leaders employ, but mostly they just cheer for a particular side. They are not wedded to the logic of a particular position, so that when their Leaders change, Followers have little difficulty changing with them. When the pigs switch from “four legs good, two legs bad” to “two legs good, four legs bad” the Followers go along.

Casuals are people who do not follow political news closely. They mostly pay attention around the time of Presidential elections. They have little knowledge of policy or government structure. Their allegiance is fickle—they are “swing voters.”

There is a natural analogy with sports. Professional football teams, including owners, coaches, and players, are the Leaders. Fans who regularly watch games and root for a team are Followers. And people who only tune in to the Super Bowl, with about as much interest in the halftime show and the ads as in the game itself, are Casuals.

The Internet has made the Followers in politics more active, in what Martin Gurri calls The Revolt of the Public. Government and mainstream media used to have much more control over what information reached Followers. But with the Internet, the Leaders’ hold on information has loosened. It is as though the fans can come on the field along side the players. The elites who used to have the playing fields of politics and journalism to themselves are shocked and resentful.

One might think that the Casuals represent the biggest obstacle to good government. Ignorant and fickle, the Casuals seem likely to make poor choices. Political competition for their votes is likely to lead to a race to the bottom in terms of policy.

But Friedman emphasized that the Leaders and Followers are at least as dangerous. Ideological systems by their nature entail a biased outlook on the world. Ideologues screen out information that might run counter to their committed beliefs.

Consider the model in my Three Languages of Politics. A conservative can use the “civilization-barbarism” framing to screen out other ideologies and demonize those who hold them. A progressive can use “oppressor-oppressed” framing to screen out other ideologies and demonize those who hold them. And a libertarian can use “liberty-coercion” framing to screen out other ideologies and demonize those who hold them.

If Casuals are adversely affected by what they don’t know, Leaders and Followers are hampered by “what they know that ain’t so.” Technocrats make unreasonable bets on regulations and government projects, which end up failing to live up to their promise while causing unintended harms. Worst of all, even badly-performing policies are difficult to discard. They develop constituencies that benefit from the continuation of misguided efforts. In the private sector, a firm’s failed initiatives lead to financial losses (look at Apple’s Vision Pro headset, for example). If those are not enough to get the firm to cancel the project, bankruptcy will kill it. There is no comparable check on government.

Elites compete to attract Followers and Casuals

I am trying to get away from looking at political conflict as elites against populists. I think of it as elites against elites. The Leaders are competing to attract Followers and Casuals.

Within the Republican Party, there are various factions jockeying for power. Every intellectual on the right these days is looking to Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to further that intellectual’s pet projects. MAGA is providing the Followers, and Mr. Trump’s success with Casuals puts him in a strong position. As a result, the Republican establishment is enfeebled.

On the Democratic side, the battle for Leadership can be described as social justice activists against moderates. The moderates claim that the social justice activists will alienate Casuals and some erstwhile Followers.

Sixty years ago, the professionals within the major parties mobilized voters. They could reach Followers and Casuals through their affiliations: labor unions, trade associations, local political machines, civic groups.

Today, the associations are not as significant (Robert Putnam’s “bowling alone” phenomenon), and the two major parties are relatively weak. Individual politicians try to use social media to connect directly with Followers and Casuals.

Another difference from 60 years ago is that Followers are much more antagonistic toward the other side. Along with the primary system, this makes it more difficult for Congress to arrive at compromises on issues that receive a lot of public attention.

Finally, sixty years ago the two parties were more equal in their ability to attract college-educated voters. This segment has become much larger share of the Followers who back the Democratic Party. The Republicans have a smaller share of college-educated supporters.

Republican Leaders still come from the college-educated elite, but this is not the case for the Casuals and many of its Followers. I suspect that this will cause tension. If the DeSantis Presidential campaign is any indication, the ability of Republicans other than Mr. Trump to connect with the Casuals may be in doubt.