Introduction
Politicians often find it easy to tell their disgruntled voters that they are victims of foreigners, elites, or other groups with little to no influence on elections. However, acting according to this narrative usually worsens the conditions for their electorate because it involves sacrificing merit and efficiency.
The Allure of Victimism in Politics
For ambitious politicians, the simplest strategy might be to address disaffected voters by claiming they are victims of biased policies enacted by governing elites, machinations of other groups, or the cunning of foreigners. This approach is particularly appealing when the disaffected form a distinct and, usually, sizable portion of the voting population, and those blamed do not vote or constitute a small fraction of the electorate.
As American essayist H. L. Mencken once said, “for every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” In most cases, the victimism argument fits this description, possibly explaining why what is presented as a solution often backfires.
Case Studies: India and the U.S.
India:
In many rapidly growing Indian cities, local politicians have started proposing minimum native employment quotas in top-tier jobs, arguing that too many high-quality private sector positions end up with migrants from other regions of the country. They fail to recognize that local dynamism has attracted more skilled workers from those regions. The higher presence of immigrants in high-quality jobs is not necessarily due to discrimination, nor is it likely. It might simply be a result of their own merits.
Assuming a politician implements a local worker minimum quota in top jobs, it might be somewhat beneficial if the policy does not impose excessive costs. These workers could offer guidance, support, and connections to other locals starting out (as happens in any group of like-minded individuals). However, ambitious politicians rarely settle for moderate measures; they crave high quotas.
This is where problems arise. Filling top-level positions with less qualified local workers will decrease productivity and competitiveness. It may not matter much if the company only competes locally with others subject to the same quota. But if it competes against prosperous Indian cities without such quotas or foreign producers, it does matter. Ultimately, the company will grow less, reduce overall hiring (both migrants and locals), and might even need to relocate its operations to more business-friendly cities.
The conclusion is that the presence of skilled immigrants adds competitiveness to local businesses, thereby increasing job opportunities (though not necessarily at the top level) for locals. Criticizing immigrants may seem like an easy political strategy, but putting it into practice can significantly worsen the situation for voters.
United States:
In the U.S., some politicians claim that meritorious native students struggle to get into top universities. President Donald Trump, for instance, believes that large U.S. universities “should have a limit of around 15%, not 31%” of foreign students. However, if foreign students only gain admission based on merit (and there’s no good reason to doubt this), imposing a limit will almost certainly lower the average quality of students. This makes U.S. universities less attractive to brilliant students worldwide, resulting in even lower quality. Moreover, with fewer brilliant foreign students staying in the country to teach and conduct research, U.S. university quality will continue to deteriorate.
Such policies can cause lasting damage. U.S. universities have long produced foundational research that has helped domestic companies lead the world in innovation. Driving out the best is a surefire way for other countries to erase that advantage.
Indian and U.S. politicians could learn from Singapore. A Singaporean minister shared that after launching a program to attract bright Chinese students, some voters protested. “Chinese students start last in class (because they need to learn English), but by the third year, they’re at the top. Our children won’t have a chance to get the best jobs.”
The minister responded that Singapore must remain globally competitive. “Fifteen years from now, when your children get jobs, would you rather these Chinese students, who grew up there, compete alongside them or against them?” Parents understood and the complaints subsided.
The Illusion of Industrial Recovery
Another version of the victimism narrative is the argument that the U.S. lost industrial production because other countries used unfair practices to lure it away. Apple, for example, hasn’t had substantial U.S. production since 2004, so the Trump administration proposes imposing high tariffs on imported iPhones to bring manufacturing back.
However, analysts point out that U.S.-made iPhones would be significantly more expensive. The fact that production occurs overseas isn’t due to cheating by other countries but rather because it’s more cost-effective.
If Apple were to comply with the government’s wishes and move iPhone production back to the U.S., the price increase would sink global sales of the product. Apple generates substantial income from highly profitable services sold to iPhone users via the App Store, iCloud, and Apple Music. Reducing the number of users would decrease these revenues. It’s likely that the potential benefit of repatriating production to the U.S. is outweighed by the loss of service income, revealing another hidden cost of implementing the victimism mantra.
A Better Approach
Instead of blaming others and leveling the economy downwards, it’s better to level it up by focusing on improving the capabilities (and thus opportunities) of those left behind. But who explains this to politicians?
Key Questions and Answers
- Q: Why do politicians often resort to victimism rhetoric? A: It’s an easy way to connect with disaffected voters by providing a simple explanation for their struggles, even if it’s factually incorrect or counterproductive.
- Q: How does implementing victimism policies affect businesses and job seekers? A: These policies can decrease productivity, competitiveness, and overall job opportunities, hurting both businesses and locals seeking employment.
- Q: What are the consequences of limiting foreign student enrollment in U.S. universities? A: It lowers the average quality of students, making U.S. universities less attractive to brilliant students worldwide and ultimately deteriorating the quality of education.
- Q: Can bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. through high tariffs on imported goods be beneficial? A: While it may seem advantageous, the increased costs could lead to reduced sales and ultimately harm both the company and consumers.
- Q: What’s a more constructive approach for politicians to adopt? A: Instead of blaming others and leveling down, politicians should focus on improving the capabilities of disadvantaged groups, fostering a more inclusive and prosperous economy.
