5 ms·
1) This does not explain 'bad behaviour' it explains 'selfish behaviour'. 2) People are moral and have a sense of fairness. This is actually far more common th
by jollybean 5y ago
1) This does not explain 'bad behaviour' it explains 'selfish behaviour'.
2) People are moral and have a sense of fairness. This is actually far more common than not. While it's hard to get people to talk with their pocket book - guess what - they do want to spend money on social things, so long as they don't feel it and of course, people hate corruption. So transparency there is helpful.
I was expecting a thing about how the most ragged, boorish politicians make a name for themselves. We all know the names of the 'loudmouths' in Congress, but most of us do not know the reasonable Senators who actually do a lot of work. I think that deserves a story.
- jessaustin 5y agoWould you be thinking of any particular senator(s) "who actually do a lot of work"? I would appreciate a reason to have some hope...
- pfisherman 5y agoRon Wyden
- pmyteh 5y agoI briefly interned for Sherrod Brown (D-OH) when he was a congressman. His political positions were not always mine, but I found him honest and competent. I think he's done good work, at least within the constraints of what's possible in a deadlocked legislative system.
- jollybean 5y agoIt's not the quantity, it's the quality, and I would suggest that over 1/2 of Senators are actually mostly reasonable, and 85% would be reasonable if they didn't get pulled into the abyss by populism.
- waterheater 5y agoThe work of reasonable Senators certainly does deserve recognition. That said, the article is talking about political leadership and holding that power. Those in the background are important but are not the leadership.
- jollybean 5y agoNo, the article assumes that most people don't have power, and they offer no evidence for it. I believe that we live in a 'bureaucratic autocracy' i.e. where the things we argue about on the News and in Congress are only a tiny, tiny slice of governance, but that there is generally enough transparency in the system to cause change, driven by voting, public sentiment. In particular - think about how so many people in power are 'really sensitive' on a lot of issues. Literally, if almost anyone in the USA uttered the 'n word' in public - they would be 'out'. Just consider that: a single word - and 'gone'. That's due to sensitivities. Overt corruption usually amounts to the same thing.