Robin Hanson comments on a recent political science paper.

Margit Tavits shows that in "23 advanced democracies over a period of 40 years," voters rewarded political parties for changing economic positions, but punished parties for changing other social positions.

"even those parties that make [social] policy adjustments that correspond to the preference shifts of voters lose votes."

On pragmatic issues, voters value "getting things done." Policy shifts in this domain signal responsiveness to the changing environment and are likely to be rewarded. Principled issues, however, concern core beliefs and values. Any policy shift in this domain is a sign of inconsistency and lack of credibility, which is likely to lead to voter withdrawal.

Alas, social science is built on the idea that better info can give better social policy; if voters interpret social policy changes as a lack of principles, rather than better info, it will be very hard for better info to induce better policy. Makes me want to be against principles.

I see no problem here. Politicians who exhibit unprincipled behavior should be rejected. The people will simply choose someone else who claims to hold the desired principles. That they are all faking it is just one of those truths we don't talk about. It makes me want to be against politics. Wait. . . I am against politics.

Besides, it's an illusion, and not a very good one, that "better info can give better social policy". The info is likely to be mistaken - often intentionally - and social policy is only useful for tiny homogeneous societies. In large, diverse societies social policy is more properly called culture war and is intended to oppress unfashionable minorities.