5 ms·

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 measu

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.
    - refurb 5y ago
      To be honest that sounds like lying and manipulating the public. Not singling out Obama here because all politicians do it to an extent (the ones who don’t never get far). Just calling out it’s not exactly a virtue.
      - danielheath 5y ago
        Is it virtuous to be truthful when that means giving up a chance to meaningfully improve the world? Obama presided over many terrible things, but overall the amount of terrible things dropped during his tenure. Not sure virtue is the right word but it’s more complicated than “lying bad”.
        5y ago
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  I think that kind of gets to my point though. Politicians follow what gets them elected and I think that's an argument that non-elite, non-special interest movements have made change. Some rightfully point out below that there's always politician BS lip service, saying something during the election and not following through or doing the opposite. But on this issue both 'sides' show the point I'm trying to make. Public sentiment, not industrial lobbyists, drove anti-queer policy (though to be fair with Prop 8 you could call the mormon's monied elites since they evidently have a ginormous secretive endowment controlled by a few white guys). And then in just a few years popular opinion turned, laws/policy followed at a lightning fast pace. Because politicians want to get elected. Pretty amazing. I distinctly remembering talking about marrying my at the time long term boyfriend, my parents didn't realize I could get married like a year after SCOTUS opinion & they are very supportive. i think and hope that there are many examples like this, which parent's study seems to show doesn't exist, at least affecting business/tax/money policy
simonh 5y ago
I think company policies and advocacy has actually made a significant positive difference on some of these issues. In some of the big banks and other corporations, HR departments fall over themselves to promote LGBTQ representation, minority right champion programmes, inviting in diverse speakers and setting up representation forums. Yes I know most of it is meaningless me-too bullshit and to an extent is even done cynically to make themselves look good as much as enact actual change. It's largely done to make hiring easier, but nevertheless the fact that big companies openly and publicly promote these attitudes does matter to politicians. As big employers, companies get a say in local, regional and national policy development. They comment on and influence advertising, safety, accessibility, transport and zoning regulations. They are big donors to political campaigns. Over time the fact that they have consistently and persistently pushed the same narrative has I think had a normalising effect.

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.
  - refurb 5y ago
    To be honest that sounds like lying and manipulating the public. Not singling out Obama here because all politicians do it to an extent (the ones who don’t never get far). Just calling out it’s not exactly a virtue.
    - danielheath 5y ago
      Is it virtuous to be truthful when that means giving up a chance to meaningfully improve the world? Obama presided over many terrible things, but overall the amount of terrible things dropped during his tenure. Not sure virtue is the right word but it’s more complicated than “lying bad”.
      - 5y ago
dillondoyle 5y ago
I think that kind of gets to my point though. Politicians follow what gets them elected and I think that's an argument that non-elite, non-special interest movements have made change. Some rightfully point out below that there's always politician BS lip service, saying something during the election and not following through or doing the opposite. But on this issue both 'sides' show the point I'm trying to make. Public sentiment, not industrial lobbyists, drove anti-queer policy (though to be fair with Prop 8 you could call the mormon's monied elites since they evidently have a ginormous secretive endowment controlled by a few white guys). And then in just a few years popular opinion turned, laws/policy followed at a lightning fast pace. Because politicians want to get elected. Pretty amazing. I distinctly remembering talking about marrying my at the time long term boyfriend, my parents didn't realize I could get married like a year after SCOTUS opinion & they are very supportive. i think and hope that there are many examples like this, which parent's study seems to show doesn't exist, at least affecting business/tax/money policy

simonh 5y ago

I think company policies and advocacy has actually made a significant positive difference on some of these issues. In some of the big banks and other corporations, HR departments fall over themselves to promote LGBTQ representation, minority right champion programmes, inviting in diverse speakers and setting up representation forums. Yes I know most of it is meaningless me-too bullshit and to an extent is even done cynically to make themselves look good as much as enact actual change. It's largely done to make hiring easier, but nevertheless the fact that big companies openly and publicly promote these attitudes does matter to politicians. As big employers, companies get a say in local, regional and national policy development. They comment on and influence advertising, safety, accessibility, transport and zoning regulations. They are big donors to political campaigns. Over time the fact that they have consistently and persistently pushed the same narrative has I think had a normalising effect.