3 ms·

Is there anything in the world quite as dumb as this form of argument? If Democrats in the city or in Sacramento actually cared about the poor or the environme

Is there anything in the world quite as dumb as this form of argument? If Democrats in the city or in Sacramento actually cared about the poor or the environment

veryworried 8y ago
The argument that Democrats are all the best people who always have a genuine interest for others and the environment has it beat.
- justin66 8y ago
  I'm sure that matters to you, but I was talking about the form of the argument. It'd be equally stupid if it were something starting with If Republicans cared about free markets or low taxes... It's a completely useless way to preface any statement, signalling useless text to follow. See what I mean?
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Yes, but no. "X is not acting in accordance with X's stated values" is a perfectly valid statement, for all values of X. "It would help problem Y if X did act in accordance with their stated values" is also a valid statement. What's not valid is to act all surprised that X does not in fact act in accordance with their stated values - especially where politics is involved. (It's still valid to point out that it's happening.) Politicians dissemble, lie, act hypocritically, mislead voters, and... did I leave anything out? If you want to change their actual behavior, you have to change their incentives. One way to do that is to get the voters to hold their feet to the fire, to get them to act consistently with the values that the voters elected them to embody. (Which gets us back to "X is acting inconsistently..." being a perfectly valid thing to say.) But the problem can run deeper than that. The voters themselves may mouth certain values, but actually desire things inconsistent with those values. At that point, the politicians are embodying the desires of the voters; the problem is the voters' hypocrisy. Once again, though, pointing out the hypocrisy is about the only way to try to attack the problem. (Changing the voters' incentives would almost always require the voters' acquiescence...)
danso 8y ago
Yes, it's generally bad form. But the important context here is that Democrats have a mega-majority in the state legislature (up from being a normal super-majority) [0], plus the governor's mansion, likely much of the judicial bench, and much of the electorate (who can weigh-in directly via ballot propositions). If something is or isn't being done in terms of statewide policy and regulations, the buck stops with the Democratic Party more than it would in almost every other jurisdiction. [0] https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-democrats-legislature-supermajority-20181203-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-democrat...
- masonic 8y ago
  They could have put a repeal of Proposition 13 protections for commercial property on the ballot anytime in the last two decades, had they wanted.

Is there anything in the world quite as dumb as this form of argument? If Democrats in the city or in Sacramento actually cared about the poor or the environment

veryworried 8y ago

The argument that Democrats are all the best people who always have a genuine interest for others and the environment has it beat.

justin66 8y ago
I'm sure that matters to you, but I was talking about the form of the argument. It'd be equally stupid if it were something starting with If Republicans cared about free markets or low taxes... It's a completely useless way to preface any statement, signalling useless text to follow. See what I mean?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Yes, but no. "X is not acting in accordance with X's stated values" is a perfectly valid statement, for all values of X. "It would help problem Y if X did act in accordance with their stated values" is also a valid statement. What's not valid is to act all surprised that X does not in fact act in accordance with their stated values - especially where politics is involved. (It's still valid to point out that it's happening.) Politicians dissemble, lie, act hypocritically, mislead voters, and... did I leave anything out? If you want to change their actual behavior, you have to change their incentives. One way to do that is to get the voters to hold their feet to the fire, to get them to act consistently with the values that the voters elected them to embody. (Which gets us back to "X is acting inconsistently..." being a perfectly valid thing to say.) But the problem can run deeper than that. The voters themselves may mouth certain values, but actually desire things inconsistent with those values. At that point, the politicians are embodying the desires of the voters; the problem is the voters' hypocrisy. Once again, though, pointing out the hypocrisy is about the only way to try to attack the problem. (Changing the voters' incentives would almost always require the voters' acquiescence...)

danso 8y ago

Yes, it's generally bad form. But the important context here is that Democrats have a mega-majority in the state legislature (up from being a normal super-majority) [0], plus the governor's mansion, likely much of the judicial bench, and much of the electorate (who can weigh-in directly via ballot propositions). If something is or isn't being done in terms of statewide policy and regulations, the buck stops with the Democratic Party more than it would in almost every other jurisdiction. [0] https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-democrats-legislature-supermajority-20181203-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-democrat...

masonic 8y ago
They could have put a repeal of Proposition 13 protections for commercial property on the ballot anytime in the last two decades, had they wanted.