5 ms·

>We're being "bled out" to save us from the common cold with potentially disastrous consequences. I'm convinced this is a direct consequence of the "management

>We're being "bled out" to save us from the common cold with potentially disastrous consequences. I'm convinced this is a direct consequence of the "management politics" that have become the norm. The winning strategy in politics is not to present meaningful socio-political projects, which carry risk and can cost elections, but instead to let the invisible hand set the course, and content oneself with avoiding immediate obstacles. A consequence of this is that politicians actively reduce their authority, when it suits them. In the case of a global pandemic, this takes the form of deferring to science or medicine; the lockdown wasn't "their idea", it was the medical profession's! The telos of the politician is -- in the strictest sense of the term -- tragic. It is his job to make hard judgement calls between equally important, but opposing values. In war, politicians send thousands of young men to their deaths, and in the best possible case, this is done in service of another ideal, such as the survival of the nation. Yet with respect to the pandemic, the political class has abandoned its duty to to grapple with these moral issues, and has instead left the decision to the medical class, whose telos makes the resulting policy a foregone conclusion; The medical profession's function is to reduce risk (at all costs!), not arbitrate values. The result is that we are now maximizing "life" in the lowest biological sense, even if it means sacrificing the basis for thriving. History will look at this as one of the biggest blind-spots of 21st century society. I am convinced of it.

iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago
Yes! I've made a similar observation that politicians have abdicated their responsibility for decision making in many policy matters. And that good politicians are really all that keeps us from some sort of creepy technocracy where we are forced to behave "for our own good" based on someone else's narrow version of what our own good it. There was even a Simpsons episode about it, where the nerds took over the city leadership (also a similarly themed fresh price I believe where Carleton ran the school cafeteria). Covid is the most obvious ongoing example but I think the thread is there through how all kinds of new technology is managed, from ride sharing, crypto, etc, to digital records and data collection. The economy is another great example I never really thought about. Unfortunately, nothing will change in my view until we have a decent batch of politicians come along that are both principled to want to do something beyond just pandering to whoever is loudest, and charismatic enough to build the consensus that is needed for tough change. I suspect this will have to wait until a real serious crisis comes along that galvanized people into putting the usual retail political aside.
- omginternets 6y ago
  >we have a decent batch of politicians come along that are both principled to want to do something beyond just pandering to whoever is loudest I think this in turn can only happen if we abandon the idea that markets should be the main mechanism by which we regulate society (and by extension, politics). This kind of collective (ideally sensible) risk-taking requires a debate centered on shared values, rather than just material outcomes. On another note, it is really nice to see that I'm not alone in having these thoughts. Thank you for your comment. :)
- mattmanser 6y ago
  On the other hand the reason why so many modern economies have "outsourced" the decision making on central banking is because when it was up to them, they'd pull the short-term gain, long-term collapse lever too often.
  - omginternets 6y ago
    It took me a while to put a finger on what seems wrong about this take. I don't think politicians have "outsourced" the work to the invisible hand (n.b.: not banks per se) because they failed to make long-term decisions. I think they "outsourced" the work because it reduces their responsibility in the eyes of the public. The point is that the invisible hand also makes short-term decisions, in addition to all the other problems it produces. This is not an improvement!
hnick 6y ago
To borrow from that other thread today, the Just a Job crowd outcompetes the Really Care crowd at every level. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26170052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26170052 I've noticed this in our politics in Australia. No one wants to lead anymore and put up a stake, except on easy wins or moral issues. COVID handling has been almost entirely abdicated to the states.
TrispusAttucks 6y ago
You nailed it. Politicians take credit when things go well and point the finger of blame when things go badly. When was the last time you heard one claim they made a mistake? Sacrifice everything to the God of safety. Send the heretics of strength to hell and blame them while they're on their way. This is the opposite of leadership. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
enraged_camel 6y ago
>> The telos of the politician is -- in the strictest sense of the term -- tragic. It is his job to make hard judgement calls between equally important, but opposing values. I don’t really agree. A good politician is like a good manager: he empowers those under him by making sure they have the resources they need, removes the obstacles in front of them, and shields them from outside interference. It is not his job to make bold decisions on his own and without any input.
- omginternets 6y ago
  Yes, you’ve just summarized the ethos of “management politics”. My contention is that this reasoning is part of what got us into this mess to begin with. He should be removing obstacles on the path to what? Conspicuously absent from your view of politics is any notion of policy or project. What are we even hoping to achieve? This is like driving aimlessly whilst avoiding potholes. It’s hardly thriving.
  - TrispusAttucks 6y ago
    Eyes on their feet, watching where they step, oblivious that they're heading, directly towards a cliff!
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  I think that is true at many levels of government, but at the top level, the job of the leader is to set direction and choose the people below to implement it. It’s different than following someone else’s lead. You probably shouldn’t make “bold decisions” per se, but you should set the values that enable bold decision making by the lower downs.
  - omginternets 6y ago
    >you should set the values that enable bold decision making by the lower downs. This take is indistinguishable from management politics. Without a policy at the top: 1. The "lower downs" all make "bold decisions" in different directions, resulting in administrative paralysis. 2. Voters aren't making meaningful choices. They're literally voting for someone who will enable everyone to do whatever. This is a recipe for political chaos. More importantly, it's the story that's been playing out for the past 40 years, with the results we all know. I can relate to the distrust of central planning to some extent -- it is certainly something that warrants caution -- but those risks are best addressed through institutional checks and balances, not by having the political class abandon its duties altogether! The irony is that in an effort to avoid tyranny/autocracy, we've created the kind of political vacuum that incubates the very outcome we feared.

iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago

Yes! I've made a similar observation that politicians have abdicated their responsibility for decision making in many policy matters. And that good politicians are really all that keeps us from some sort of creepy technocracy where we are forced to behave "for our own good" based on someone else's narrow version of what our own good it. There was even a Simpsons episode about it, where the nerds took over the city leadership (also a similarly themed fresh price I believe where Carleton ran the school cafeteria). Covid is the most obvious ongoing example but I think the thread is there through how all kinds of new technology is managed, from ride sharing, crypto, etc, to digital records and data collection. The economy is another great example I never really thought about. Unfortunately, nothing will change in my view until we have a decent batch of politicians come along that are both principled to want to do something beyond just pandering to whoever is loudest, and charismatic enough to build the consensus that is needed for tough change. I suspect this will have to wait until a real serious crisis comes along that galvanized people into putting the usual retail political aside.

omginternets 6y ago
>we have a decent batch of politicians come along that are both principled to want to do something beyond just pandering to whoever is loudest I think this in turn can only happen if we abandon the idea that markets should be the main mechanism by which we regulate society (and by extension, politics). This kind of collective (ideally sensible) risk-taking requires a debate centered on shared values, rather than just material outcomes. On another note, it is really nice to see that I'm not alone in having these thoughts. Thank you for your comment. :)
mattmanser 6y ago
On the other hand the reason why so many modern economies have "outsourced" the decision making on central banking is because when it was up to them, they'd pull the short-term gain, long-term collapse lever too often.
- omginternets 6y ago
  It took me a while to put a finger on what seems wrong about this take. I don't think politicians have "outsourced" the work to the invisible hand (n.b.: not banks per se) because they failed to make long-term decisions. I think they "outsourced" the work because it reduces their responsibility in the eyes of the public. The point is that the invisible hand also makes short-term decisions, in addition to all the other problems it produces. This is not an improvement!

hnick 6y ago

To borrow from that other thread today, the Just a Job crowd outcompetes the Really Care crowd at every level. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26170052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26170052 I've noticed this in our politics in Australia. No one wants to lead anymore and put up a stake, except on easy wins or moral issues. COVID handling has been almost entirely abdicated to the states.

TrispusAttucks 6y ago

You nailed it. Politicians take credit when things go well and point the finger of blame when things go badly. When was the last time you heard one claim they made a mistake? Sacrifice everything to the God of safety. Send the heretics of strength to hell and blame them while they're on their way. This is the opposite of leadership. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

enraged_camel 6y ago

>> The telos of the politician is -- in the strictest sense of the term -- tragic. It is his job to make hard judgement calls between equally important, but opposing values. I don’t really agree. A good politician is like a good manager: he empowers those under him by making sure they have the resources they need, removes the obstacles in front of them, and shields them from outside interference. It is not his job to make bold decisions on his own and without any input.

omginternets 6y ago
Yes, you’ve just summarized the ethos of “management politics”. My contention is that this reasoning is part of what got us into this mess to begin with. He should be removing obstacles on the path to what? Conspicuously absent from your view of politics is any notion of policy or project. What are we even hoping to achieve? This is like driving aimlessly whilst avoiding potholes. It’s hardly thriving.
- TrispusAttucks 6y ago
  Eyes on their feet, watching where they step, oblivious that they're heading, directly towards a cliff!
earthboundkid 6y ago
I think that is true at many levels of government, but at the top level, the job of the leader is to set direction and choose the people below to implement it. It’s different than following someone else’s lead. You probably shouldn’t make “bold decisions” per se, but you should set the values that enable bold decision making by the lower downs.
- omginternets 6y ago
  >you should set the values that enable bold decision making by the lower downs. This take is indistinguishable from management politics. Without a policy at the top: 1. The "lower downs" all make "bold decisions" in different directions, resulting in administrative paralysis. 2. Voters aren't making meaningful choices. They're literally voting for someone who will enable everyone to do whatever. This is a recipe for political chaos. More importantly, it's the story that's been playing out for the past 40 years, with the results we all know. I can relate to the distrust of central planning to some extent -- it is certainly something that warrants caution -- but those risks are best addressed through institutional checks and balances, not by having the political class abandon its duties altogether! The irony is that in an effort to avoid tyranny/autocracy, we've created the kind of political vacuum that incubates the very outcome we feared.