5 ms·

There is a Cambridge University Press / APSA study about the United States that shows populist swelling or the popular vote rarely results in any legislative ch

There is a Cambridge University Press / APSA study about the United States that shows populist swelling or the popular vote rarely results in any legislative change that matches the sentiment, and legislative changes come from well funded special interests that were already there. It is either purely coincidence when those changes match what the protesters want because special interests became interests, or were already interested. You can see the desperation in trying to find an exception to this, given how much energy would be expended by protestors and those bound by the popular vote, so the we can at least concede - for their sake - that they may have gotten the attention of special interests sometimes, with one influencing the other. I think the more efficient use of energy would be to identify the most effective special interest groups and capture them. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

dillondoyle 5y ago
cool article. really long I skimmed it so far. seems focused on comparing economic elite/interest groups to common population, which would skew the policy measured to tangible economic/business outcomes? My first thought to your comment was an opposing example of gay rights. Sure gay marriage was SCOTUS but it first changed as policy at the state level. politicians changed because it became popular enough and strong voice in media (remember obama was against marriage equality amongst other things at first). We're now seeing this struggle with Trans rights. Where it's >52% popular you see equality legislation, where it's a good wedge issue for Republicans they act against (e.g. DeSantis is running for president on the backs of attacking children..) Civil Rights Act comes to mind too and interesting in that it had such strong opposition, interesting question of what are special interests if you expand beyond 'economic and business elite.' NAACP et al were very powerful. Marijuana & decriminalization is another quick thought, though that's a bit more cloudy especially with later states with a more established business interest group. But I worked on the original campaign here in CO and our budget was pretty tiny...
- vmception 5y ago
  > remember obama was against marriage equality amongst other things at first It is worth remembering that at that time period, which was just 2008, California literally voted to change its constitution to ban gay marriage, which was purely a popular vote which was successful. If you want 55 electoral college votes, you aren't going to be saying things that ensure the opposite outcome. I don't think it is useful to have actual opinions if you are playing that game.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    Exactly this. To effect policy you have to get elected, and Obama knew quite well that supporting gay marriage in 2008 was a big losing proposition. Regardless of your opinions of Obama's politics, he is not a stupid man. All this nonsense about his position "evolving" is just that, nonsense. Obama was never really against gay marriage, he just needed to have viable positions to get elected.
    - nindalf 5y ago
      This. I don’t know why people found Obama’s position on gay marriage so difficult to understand. It was simple. In 2008, he had to win a Democratic primary. This meant echoing the stances that would be popular with Democratic primary voters. In Obama’s case, he needed all of the black vote as well. Only 60% of Democrats in 2008 supported marriage equality, compared to 80% in 2020 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same...). Black voters are more likely to be religious, more likely to regularly attend church and therefore less likely to support marriage equality (https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/182978/religion-race-sex-marriage.aspx https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/182978/relig...). Pleasing black voters meant taking a “safe” stance on gay rights, one shared by all mainstream national politicians at the time. In 2012 it was different. There was no primary. Obama could afford to be less of a follower and more of a leader. Black voters might not be enthusiastic about gay rights, but there was no doubt they’d show up to vote for their guy. So Obama calculated he could get the black vote and the gay vote by “evolving” his public stance. This is of course separate from his own personal stance, which likely hasn’t evolved in a long time. What people find difficult to understand is that public figures have public and private personas.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
prince781 5y ago
This is a reoccurring theme in political science research and yet we still delude ourselves that the United States is a democracy in any form.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  It is a democracy. People vote for elected leaders. It's a deeply troubled democracy with a laundry list of items that could make it a more effective representative democracy but that doesn't make it, say, an authoritarian government where the people have no voice in any capacity. The efficacy of peaceful protests in enacting change is orthogonal to whether the US is a democracy "in any form" or not.
- mucholove 5y ago
  It is quite proudly a Republic with Democratic characteristics. The only democracy is Switzerland. Switzerland solves the problem of populist tyrannical capture by having an Executive Council instead of a President. More recently, I’ve come to the conclusion that all Republics are doomed to fail. One should never let an “expert” make a decision for you. They will over time deceive you because they will always be a likely scapegoat. It is much better to get it wrong yourself because then you can face the truth instead of constantly being on the watch for a scapegoat and damaging the dynamics of decision making.
  - naturalauction 5y ago
    >The only democracy is Switzerland. Switzerland solves the problem of populist tyrannical capture by having an Executive Council instead of a President. But women weren't allowed to vote (in every canton) until 1991. There is a ban on new minarets being constructed (but not other tall buildings). The anti-immigration referendum couldn't be implemented as would have led to dramatic consequences for Switzerland's relationship with the EU. From an outside perspective even Switzerland doesn't seem like a "true" democracy.
    - throwaway292a9 5y ago
bosswipe 5y ago
Yes, protests are the impotent desperate cry of the unheard. I love of the free because, no matter how much corruption, we will not lose that voice of last resort. Millions of us are willing to fight to the death to preserve it.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  If it doesn't make any difference, why is it important? It seems it is a security valve working directly against the average citizen that is "willing to fight to the death to preserve it". It is there to keep the status quo.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > If it doesn't make any difference Can you support that? History is filled with protests leading to change. Just looking at 100 years off the top of my head: Women's vote, Gandhi, civil rights, S. Korea, the fall of the Soviet Block, the Arab Spring ...
    - laurent92 5y ago
      As GP said, protests are scenarized. It looks like good protests are successful, but other protests are just delegitimized by inserting violent people in them and not arresting them. In France, countless pictures of pallets of bricks being delivered to demonstration sites in the night before the protest opposed to the leading party, in addition to criminals not being arrested, should at least give you a doubt on how much the “bad vs good” show is artificial. Many legitimate protests from people who actually are minorities in their nations, were put in bad light and you never heard of them.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        > protests are just delegitimized by inserting violent people in them and not arresting them It's an attempted tactic, though in the US I think by the political opposition (radical neo-reactionaries) and not the government. It has uneven success. > countless pictures of pallets of bricks being delivered to demonstration sites in the night before the protest opposed to the leading party Do we know those pictures were legitimate? Countless pictures on the Internet doesn't mean much. > Many legitimate protests from people who actually are minorities in their nations, were put in bad light and you never heard of them. How do you know?

dillondoyle 5y ago

cool article. really long I skimmed it so far. seems focused on comparing economic elite/interest groups to common population, which would skew the policy measured to tangible economic/business outcomes? My first thought to your comment was an opposing example of gay rights. Sure gay marriage was SCOTUS but it first changed as policy at the state level. politicians changed because it became popular enough and strong voice in media (remember obama was against marriage equality amongst other things at first). We're now seeing this struggle with Trans rights. Where it's >52% popular you see equality legislation, where it's a good wedge issue for Republicans they act against (e.g. DeSantis is running for president on the backs of attacking children..) Civil Rights Act comes to mind too and interesting in that it had such strong opposition, interesting question of what are special interests if you expand beyond 'economic and business elite.' NAACP et al were very powerful. Marijuana & decriminalization is another quick thought, though that's a bit more cloudy especially with later states with a more established business interest group. But I worked on the original campaign here in CO and our budget was pretty tiny...

vmception 5y ago
> remember obama was against marriage equality amongst other things at first It is worth remembering that at that time period, which was just 2008, California literally voted to change its constitution to ban gay marriage, which was purely a popular vote which was successful. If you want 55 electoral college votes, you aren't going to be saying things that ensure the opposite outcome. I don't think it is useful to have actual opinions if you are playing that game.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  Exactly this. To effect policy you have to get elected, and Obama knew quite well that supporting gay marriage in 2008 was a big losing proposition. Regardless of your opinions of Obama's politics, he is not a stupid man. All this nonsense about his position "evolving" is just that, nonsense. Obama was never really against gay marriage, he just needed to have viable positions to get elected.
  - nindalf 5y ago
    This. I don’t know why people found Obama’s position on gay marriage so difficult to understand. It was simple. In 2008, he had to win a Democratic primary. This meant echoing the stances that would be popular with Democratic primary voters. In Obama’s case, he needed all of the black vote as well. Only 60% of Democrats in 2008 supported marriage equality, compared to 80% in 2020 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same...). Black voters are more likely to be religious, more likely to regularly attend church and therefore less likely to support marriage equality (https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/182978/religion-race-sex-marriage.aspx https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/182978/relig...). Pleasing black voters meant taking a “safe” stance on gay rights, one shared by all mainstream national politicians at the time. In 2012 it was different. There was no primary. Obama could afford to be less of a follower and more of a leader. Black voters might not be enthusiastic about gay rights, but there was no doubt they’d show up to vote for their guy. So Obama calculated he could get the black vote and the gay vote by “evolving” his public stance. This is of course separate from his own personal stance, which likely hasn’t evolved in a long time. What people find difficult to understand is that public figures have public and private personas.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

prince781 5y ago

This is a reoccurring theme in political science research and yet we still delude ourselves that the United States is a democracy in any form.

emptysongglass 5y ago
It is a democracy. People vote for elected leaders. It's a deeply troubled democracy with a laundry list of items that could make it a more effective representative democracy but that doesn't make it, say, an authoritarian government where the people have no voice in any capacity. The efficacy of peaceful protests in enacting change is orthogonal to whether the US is a democracy "in any form" or not.
mucholove 5y ago
It is quite proudly a Republic with Democratic characteristics. The only democracy is Switzerland. Switzerland solves the problem of populist tyrannical capture by having an Executive Council instead of a President. More recently, I’ve come to the conclusion that all Republics are doomed to fail. One should never let an “expert” make a decision for you. They will over time deceive you because they will always be a likely scapegoat. It is much better to get it wrong yourself because then you can face the truth instead of constantly being on the watch for a scapegoat and damaging the dynamics of decision making.
- naturalauction 5y ago
  >The only democracy is Switzerland. Switzerland solves the problem of populist tyrannical capture by having an Executive Council instead of a President. But women weren't allowed to vote (in every canton) until 1991. There is a ban on new minarets being constructed (but not other tall buildings). The anti-immigration referendum couldn't be implemented as would have led to dramatic consequences for Switzerland's relationship with the EU. From an outside perspective even Switzerland doesn't seem like a "true" democracy.
  - throwaway292a9 5y ago

bosswipe 5y ago

Yes, protests are the impotent desperate cry of the unheard. I love of the free because, no matter how much corruption, we will not lose that voice of last resort. Millions of us are willing to fight to the death to preserve it.

Dah00n 5y ago
If it doesn't make any difference, why is it important? It seems it is a security valve working directly against the average citizen that is "willing to fight to the death to preserve it". It is there to keep the status quo.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > If it doesn't make any difference Can you support that? History is filled with protests leading to change. Just looking at 100 years off the top of my head: Women's vote, Gandhi, civil rights, S. Korea, the fall of the Soviet Block, the Arab Spring ...
  - laurent92 5y ago
    As GP said, protests are scenarized. It looks like good protests are successful, but other protests are just delegitimized by inserting violent people in them and not arresting them. In France, countless pictures of pallets of bricks being delivered to demonstration sites in the night before the protest opposed to the leading party, in addition to criminals not being arrested, should at least give you a doubt on how much the “bad vs good” show is artificial. Many legitimate protests from people who actually are minorities in their nations, were put in bad light and you never heard of them.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > protests are just delegitimized by inserting violent people in them and not arresting them It's an attempted tactic, though in the US I think by the political opposition (radical neo-reactionaries) and not the government. It has uneven success. > countless pictures of pallets of bricks being delivered to demonstration sites in the night before the protest opposed to the leading party Do we know those pictures were legitimate? Countless pictures on the Internet doesn't mean much. > Many legitimate protests from people who actually are minorities in their nations, were put in bad light and you never heard of them. How do you know?