Political Tribalism

Unpopular Mandate :  Why do politicians reverse their positions

This New Yorker article discusses the changing political support for Obama-care's individual mandate .  The mandate started out as a Heritage Foundation proposal in 1989.  In 1991 it was put forward as part of a Republican alternative to Clinton-care with eighteen Republican co-sponsors.   It was later enacted at the state level by then Massachusetts Gov. Romney.  Now every Republican in the House and Senate as well as Presidential Candidate Romney claim it is unconstitutional. 

The article discusses experiments which show that whether a person supports a particular piece of legislation is more dependent on that person's party identification and which party put forward a bill rather than the actual content of the bill.  I don't find that altogether irrational though.  Figuring out what a bill actually says and what its impact will likely be can often be extremely difficult.  Most people have other things to do all day than read legislation and furthermore most of the public doesn't have a theoretical framework or knowledge of empirical evidence enough to put complicated legislation into context.  That may sound elitist but it is not saying that public is stupid rather they just don't have that training.  Perhaps it is a bit different on social issues.  But how many people could tell you what the impact of reducing the capital gains tax will be on capital formation?  Party identification of a bill acts as a shortcut to whether a piece of legislation  is likely to be something a person would support or not.   It is tribalistic but it is not wholly irrational.

However the case of how the public uses party identification seems a bit different than the case where elected officials completely change their opinion on the constitutionality a bill.  Either you think something is constitutional or you don't.  One would hope that if a politician is proposing a bill they have some idea what is in a bill, some idea of what its impact would be, and if it is constitutional.  One would hope..