3 ms·
> a man who doesn't understand the laws he's trying to push forward. I think we should stop giving politicians the benefit of the doubt, that they do not under
by smoe 8y ago
> a man who doesn't understand the laws he's trying to push forward.
I think we should stop giving politicians the benefit of the doubt, that they do not understand the laws they are lobbying for.
It is their freaking job to do so. And if it's above their head technically, no matter whether it is about internet, nuclear power or farming, it is up to them to either catch up or back off.
- LaurentS 8y agoFrom my limited experience with calling MEPs, they don't always get the entire picture. Who could blame them for not being experts in web, nuclear energy, agricultural policies and more all at the same time? One way to help them is by calling them up and explaining our views on topics we care about. Mass emailing doesn't seem to do more than clog their spam filters, but a phone call actually seems to at least be listened to, if not acted on.
- smoe 8y agoThat is the other side of the coin. People and especially journalists expect any politician to have a short, quotable statement ready on any topic at any point in time and don't accept "I don't know" as an answer. Which is just a silly expectation. I'd rather have a politician not having strong opinions on social issues (and doesn't vote on them) if they have proven expertise and focus on lets say agriculture. But lots of people would disqualify that person on the latter because they don't align with them politically on the former. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I have my doubts that calling them really changes their mind, or if they just count the number of calls and when it reaches the threshold to endanger their reelection, they act on it. That kind of coercion is perfectly fine by me, if the system doesn't provide other tools to the public like more direct democracy in Switzerland, but it is not ideal.
- pessimizer 8y agoSorry, due to Hanlon's Razor, we have to accept that every politician who feigns ignorance while collecting massive checks is operating in good faith. We still have to accept that good faith after we've loudly, painstakingly and publicly explained the details to them, because they may be deaf or have memory issues.
- GW150914 8y agoHeinlein’s Razor! Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don’t rule out malice.