3 ms·
The Fundamental Theorem of Politics?
Here's my game-theory-style explanation of politics:
Let "A" and "B" represent individual candidates, political parties or both.
A and B want to win elections.
A wins the election.
Question: What does B --the loser-- need to do in order to win the next election?
Case 1: A has bad ideas and may or may not be competent
B can win the next election by staying out of the way, allowing A to push their agenda forward. A will deliver negative results and people will elect B at the next possible opportunity.
Case 2: A has middle-of-the-range ideas and may or may not be competent
B has to do just enough to ensure A's outcomes are negative. Without this subtle influence A could get lucky. If B can nudge A into delivering negative results, B can win. B has to interfere and sabotage while making sure they are not connected to the failures.
Case 3: A has excellent ideas and is quite able to deliver
B's only option is war against A. This means character destruction, interference, sabotage, time-wasting, fabrications, lies, etc. B has to engage in an all-out attack against A. Without this A will win the next election. Worse yet, the risk is a change in ideological alignment of voters that might last multiple future elections. B, facing an existential threat, has no choice but to attack.
With this simple model one can observe politics and reach a few conclusions by noting how the losing party behaves after an election.
This, to me, in the last 30+ years of paying attention to the way this game is played, explains what I've seen in politics throughout the world. Sure, there are variations, such as, in some countries, B will depose, jail and even assassinate A. I believe, for the most part, the three fundamental scenarios cover the majority of circumstances.
- anigbrowl 7y agoIt's easy to think of politicians that produce negative outcomes and keep getting elected, eg by assigning blame to the opposition fora ll their failures, rigging elections and so on. I think you should read this book, which explores the same basic ideas in considerable depth: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/logic-political-survival https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/logic-political-survival They've also written a version for a more general audience called The Dictator's Handbook which has some interestingly detailed examples and is different enough to make it worth owning both. Economist Bryan Caplan has also made some interesting contributions in this area, exploring the factors which lead voters to make apparently irrational choices for (indirectly) rational reasons.
- robomartin 7y agoSounds interesting. I'll read it. Thanks.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoCase 4: A may or may not be competent, but (because of intellectual blinders) B is unable to evaluate A's competence, and therefore fears that they are in case 3. I think we've seen this in the US, in growing amounts, from both sides, at least since Reagan. I think it grows out of a certainty of your own rightness. "We are obviously correct, and the other side is obviously wrong. But they won the election anyway! They must be very competent at doing evil things, so we're going to have to go into war mode to stop them! Then, after we stop their evil tricks, then the rightness of our position will be obvious to all, and we will will every election thereafter." But, in fact, neither side is obviously right to the degree they think they are. And voters see things much less black and white than the parties do. And so both parties lose elections while fully convinced of the obvious rightness of their positions.
- robomartin 7y agoThat's an interesting twist. It says the players might not be able to, after losing an election, understand why they lost and whether the winner poses a threat or not. In other words, it's a case where one or both players are ignorant or, as you said, blind to reality. Interesting.