Jonathan Freedland offers the astute insight that Brexit is more a felt vibe than a literal definition (Brexit is a mood, not a policy – and Liz Truss captures it in all its delusion, 22 July).
If so, how should democracies argue about and represent moods? What is the mood-world equivalent of a political manifesto? Should we expect democratic citizens to vote in moods or for moods? Must mood politics always be the province of demagogues and manipulators?
The political language of rational-choice politics has little to say about mood, often dismissing it as frothy emotional distraction from interest-based preferences. Consequently, we are often dismayed by the shock waves of populism.
Some of us within the academy have been paying attention in recent years to the ways in which mood inflects democratic politics. I wonder how often this term will be used in the Guardian and other media outlets between now and the next general election? I wonder if we can learn to take it more seriously?
Stephen Coleman
Professor of political communication, University of Leeds