4 ms·

We've entered an era where there is a not-so-quiet battle occurring within the system. This doesn't so much show through in "Trump" as in the criticisms of Trum

We've entered an era where there is a not-so-quiet battle occurring within the system. This doesn't so much show through in "Trump" as in the criticisms of Trump, Brexit, the Australian push for a plebiscite on same-sex marriage, etc. Let's leave aside for the moment the question of whether any of the policies or people is right or wrong. It has recently become commonplace for elected officials to get away with arguing that they have a moral imperative not to listen, and not to give a greater opportunity for people to voice their views. Each of these topics is frequently decried not just as wrong but as "populism". The Australian plebiscite is opposed because a public debate might be harmful. A remarkable feature of Clinton's "deplorables" comment was that the focus just ended up on the number (is it really 20% of Americans that are deplorable?) not the inversion of the electoral relationship -- that the politician was casting her judgment on the electorate, rather than the electorate casting their unrestrained judgment on the politician. If you listen to Obama's speech at the University of Queensland before the Brisbane G20, though the audience applauded loudly when he talked about progressive measures, when he mentioned standing up for democracy in the region there was almost silence from the audience. We have reached a point where we would rather our governments disengage from the public than risk them hearing our opponents. We're not sure about standing up for democracy because, y'know, my neighbour might not agree with me on something that dammit they should be required to. And that is even though the two sides of politics are closer in policy than they used to be. Back in the 80s, it was nationalisation versus privatisation; unilateral disarmament vs mutually-assured-destruction. Now it's mostly about the tone of the debate, and rhetoric about emotive symbolic policies that aren't realistic (do you seriously think a wall would actually get built? or have any effect if it was?) And the trouble is, while here we are telling them to stop listening to those ignorant dissenters on one set of issues, somehow we mysteriously think they will listen to us when we dissent on other issues -- economics, trade, etc. We're building a system where we cannot influence economic policy because we're too busy telling the government "whatever you do, don't listen to people".

jpatokal 10y ago
I'm aware of two primary reasons to oppose the plebiscite, neither of which aligns with your thesis: Supports of gay marriage oppose it because it's a foregone conclusion (most polls find a solid majority in favor of gay marriage), a hugely expensive exercise and non-binding to boot. Opponents of gay marriage oppose it because having rock solid data about the level of support would make "but won't somebody please think of the children!" type fearmongering harder. TBH, I'm not really sure why anybody even in government supports it, but that's Aussie politics for you.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  I oppose it because it is not binding. If we are going to the expense and hassle of us all voting at least make our vote count and hold a referendum.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>It has recently become commonplace for elected officials to get away with arguing that they have a moral imperative not to listen, and not to give a greater opportunity for people to voice their views. Each of these topics is frequently decried not just as wrong but as "populism". Well yes, of course. If you actually listened to the people, you'd have to stop passing trade deals that put capital over labor and the environment, pass universal health care, fix public education, fix basic infrastructure, tax the rich and the upper-middle class more (not out of justice, but because that's where the money is), enforce corporate taxation for once (again, because that's where the money is), stop wasting money on "military" projects the military itself doesn't even want, and numerous other policies about which there is a large consensus among the bottom 90% of the population but apathy or controversy among the top 10%. So instead we hear about the dangers of "populism".
- vlehto 10y ago
  You have awfully clear image what the public most wants. In my country it's complete opposite. What everybody agrees is that the other guys should stop their populism.
- googletazer 10y ago
  Good points, this type of "populism" won't put money in politicians pockets.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Yes, we should actually listen to the people. Then you'd need to pass some counterproductive feel-good measures that make white non-workers feel like they have a higher status. E.g. build a giant wall patrolled by bastards and rapers to keep out Osama bin Lopez. You'd have to make peaceful Chinese, Indians and Africans poorer, just so that a few wealthy Americans could maintain their existing social status. The consumers of goods produced by the Chinese are harmed by this, but that's a diffuse harm that's too complicated for most people to understand. You'd have to Leave, because a bunch of voters think "Leave" means "Pakistanis leave the UK" rather than "you need a visa to take a weekend Ryanair to Amsterdam". (I suppose that last bit would be good for Amsterdam.) You'd need to throw more money at education and eliminate all accountability (it makes me angry little Johnny isn't in the 95'th percentile? your standardized tests are broken!), and ignore the unpleasant sounding policies that would really help (e.g. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/09/value-added_and.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/09/value-added_and.... ). Oh yeah, and we'd spend more money on all the free ponies, while simultaneously lowering taxes on ourselves and only raising them on other people. You want to raise taxes on the rich, I'd like to raise taxes on gays and Mexicans, so we'll split the difference and only tax rich gay Mexicans. If we listened to the people, all we'd do is push policies where the benefits are obvious and the harms require a little mental effort to understand (or are only inflicted on unsympathetic minorities). We'd push policies based on being emotionally pleasing rather than actually being beneficial.

jpatokal 10y ago

I'm aware of two primary reasons to oppose the plebiscite, neither of which aligns with your thesis: Supports of gay marriage oppose it because it's a foregone conclusion (most polls find a solid majority in favor of gay marriage), a hugely expensive exercise and non-binding to boot. Opponents of gay marriage oppose it because having rock solid data about the level of support would make "but won't somebody please think of the children!" type fearmongering harder. TBH, I'm not really sure why anybody even in government supports it, but that's Aussie politics for you.

danieltillett 10y ago
I oppose it because it is not binding. If we are going to the expense and hassle of us all voting at least make our vote count and hold a referendum.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>It has recently become commonplace for elected officials to get away with arguing that they have a moral imperative not to listen, and not to give a greater opportunity for people to voice their views. Each of these topics is frequently decried not just as wrong but as "populism". Well yes, of course. If you actually listened to the people, you'd have to stop passing trade deals that put capital over labor and the environment, pass universal health care, fix public education, fix basic infrastructure, tax the rich and the upper-middle class more (not out of justice, but because that's where the money is), enforce corporate taxation for once (again, because that's where the money is), stop wasting money on "military" projects the military itself doesn't even want, and numerous other policies about which there is a large consensus among the bottom 90% of the population but apathy or controversy among the top 10%. So instead we hear about the dangers of "populism".

vlehto 10y ago
You have awfully clear image what the public most wants. In my country it's complete opposite. What everybody agrees is that the other guys should stop their populism.
googletazer 10y ago
Good points, this type of "populism" won't put money in politicians pockets.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Yes, we should actually listen to the people. Then you'd need to pass some counterproductive feel-good measures that make white non-workers feel like they have a higher status. E.g. build a giant wall patrolled by bastards and rapers to keep out Osama bin Lopez. You'd have to make peaceful Chinese, Indians and Africans poorer, just so that a few wealthy Americans could maintain their existing social status. The consumers of goods produced by the Chinese are harmed by this, but that's a diffuse harm that's too complicated for most people to understand. You'd have to Leave, because a bunch of voters think "Leave" means "Pakistanis leave the UK" rather than "you need a visa to take a weekend Ryanair to Amsterdam". (I suppose that last bit would be good for Amsterdam.) You'd need to throw more money at education and eliminate all accountability (it makes me angry little Johnny isn't in the 95'th percentile? your standardized tests are broken!), and ignore the unpleasant sounding policies that would really help (e.g. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/09/value-added_and.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/09/value-added_and.... ). Oh yeah, and we'd spend more money on all the free ponies, while simultaneously lowering taxes on ourselves and only raising them on other people. You want to raise taxes on the rich, I'd like to raise taxes on gays and Mexicans, so we'll split the difference and only tax rich gay Mexicans. If we listened to the people, all we'd do is push policies where the benefits are obvious and the harms require a little mental effort to understand (or are only inflicted on unsympathetic minorities). We'd push policies based on being emotionally pleasing rather than actually being beneficial.