8 ms·

> Mr Johnson ought to have resigned for lying repeatedly to Parliament about whether he broke his own laws There seems to be a problem developing across many w

by zmmmmm 4y ago

> Mr Johnson ought to have resigned for lying repeatedly to Parliament about whether he broke his own laws There seems to be a problem developing across many western democracies that a large segment of voters have developed a tolerance for lying by their leaders. Perhaps it's just me getting older and more cynical but I really feel like this was not how it was 30 years ago. I'm not sure where it will lead but it feels like this is one of the hallmarks that you would expect to see at the beginning of the breakdown of a civilised society.

sudosysgen 4y ago
What consequences were there, really, for the Gulf of Tonkin? I think lying was tacitly accepted in US politics since living memory.
- wutbrodo 4y ago
  > accepted in US politics Is your impression that this is US-specific? Mine is that lying is accepted in politics in general.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    The US is the oldest continuous western democracy, so it makes sense to use it as an example here, but of course the problem isn't limited to it.
    - benj111 4y ago
      How are you defining "continuous western democracy" because the subject of this piece (the UK) would seem to have a better claim.
      - sudosysgen 4y ago
        Would it? Before 1832 almost half of the seats in the UK were nomination boroughs and there was no secret ballot until 1872 - the country was practically controlled fully by the aristocracy.
molsongolden 4y ago
Ray Dalio’s Principles framework calls this out as an indicator of a society in decline. When political groups start to care more about winning than they do about the integrity of the system.
- sergiomattei 4y ago
  It’s always been this way.
  - lumost 4y ago
    Is that really true? there have always been side deals and scandals - but Nixon was a popular president before watergate and was ousted in a heartbeat. That was only 50 years ago.
    - acover 4y ago
      He resigned, which avoided the fight entirely.
- Hammershaft 4y ago
  This seems like a simplistic or morally convenient take. Politics everywhere evolves to a state where top competitors seek primarily to win. The difference between say, the highly adversial politics of the US & the less negative politics of, say, Canada, is not the result of some difference in altruistic behavior between Canadian & American politicians, but a difference in systemic incentives between countries. In the US, elections are fought between two party candidates, and so the results of a highly adversarial approach can viewed through a zero sum lens. If I lose less social trust by smearing my opponent then they do, then smearing my opponent is a strong viable strategy. In Canada, due to a host of systemic differences (smaller electoral districts, debates run by inclusive institutions, stricter campaign finance regs, etc) multiple visible parties compete politically. A direct result of this is that if adversarial behavior negatively affects public perception of both the attacking party and the target party, both parties lose while a third party gains. This a small example of one facet about how differing systems channel the behavior of competitive politicians. An observation of flawed electoral systems is that they tend towards harmful feedback loops. Culturally, maliciously adversarial behavior becomes normalized and escalated. Gerrymandering leads to competitive primaries & non competitive general elections which leads to partisanship that makes it more difficult to deal with gerrymandering. Judicial capture leads to the institutionalization of systemic flaws that benefit the party of the judiciary.
dwater 4y ago
30 years ago was the end of George H W Bush’s era, who among other lies was wrapped up in the Iran Contra affair under Reagan; and the beginning of the Clinton era who famously lied about his personal life but certainly had his fair share of political lies as well. In American history it feels like we’ve had more lying leaders than not for a long, long time.
- mc32 4y ago
  Less than 20 years ago Kerry basically lost due to "flip-flopping". GW Bush as well was almost undermined by some smearing by a reporter -who unfortunately didn't do a good enough job to sink his candidacy. People used to care more about higher politicians' lying. Today, people don't even blink. After Trump's antics, now we have Biden denying something he said the day prior and it's a non-issue at all.
  - JellyBeanThief 4y ago
    I feel like, what can I do? If I have a lying red/blue on my hands, my only choice is to swap it for a lying blue/red.
    - sph 4y ago
      Voting gives you an illusion of control over the situation, but in fact blue or red it's the exact same outcome. Your ballot is like the close door button in the elevator.
      - adrianN 4y ago
        That is an often repeated argument, but I don't think the policies supported by the two parties in the US are exactly the same. There is a very large overlap of course, but "your vote doesn't count" only strengthens extremists (on either side).
      - haswell 4y ago
        While we do have little direct control over the situation, and while it's true that both parties lie, lying is not the outcome. Lying is a tactic employed along the way to the outcome. In no way do I mean to imply that lying is is unimportant because both parties do it - it's unacceptable regardless, but I have trouble accepting arguments that point to a shared <bad> thing between parties and then use that to conclude that voting doesn't really matter.
int_19h 4y ago
Look up what Nixon supporters were saying even after he resigned.
- labster 4y ago
  Or back further, the Teapot Dome scandal. Or “remember the Maine!” Or “it’s a war about states’ rights.” Or “I come not to praise Caesar but to bury him.” Or “we feel totes bad about attacking you so we built you this wooden horse as an apology.” Maybe politicians have always been liars and people have always let them get away with it.
nemo44x 4y ago
The thing is it wasn’t about anything important. The entire Covid thing wasn’t as serious to most people as the media wants to believe. No one believed in those rules. If he did something serious then fine. But who actually cares about this? It’s a fake outrage.
- anothernewdude 4y ago
  He broke the rules he imposed on the country. He should be gone yesterday.
- MattPalmer1086 4y ago
  I think you'll find most of us followed them, even if we didn't agree with all of them.
- blitzar 4y ago
  > If he did something serious then fine. But who actually cares about this? It’s a fake outrage. he instructed police to prosecute, as criminals, people who stopped and said hello to a neighbour when they went for a walk. he instructed police to prosecute, as criminals, people who tried to hold the hand of their parent as they died. he instructed police to prosecute, as criminals, people who did what he was doing. but he did nothing wrong ...
wnevets 4y ago
When people care more about their "team" winning than anything else, democracy dies.
- Nursie 4y ago
  Thankfully I don’t think the UK is there (yet). Certainly not to the extent of the US. Parties other than Tory/Labour exist and do get significant votes.
- Terry_Roll 4y ago
  Democracy is just mob rule, I'd be happy to see Democracy replaced with an improvement. Even legislation creates fake science, so I think its time we developed a society that doesnt peddle superstition and falsehoods.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    It is called sortition.
    - Terry_Roll 4y ago
      Thats not thinking out of the box.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  But that is the definition of democracy, so you are saying it is going to die by design?
  - wnevets 4y ago
    > definition of democracy I'm gonna need to see your source.
runarberg 4y ago
Nah, I think it is the opposite. All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We’ve had lying leaders in direct proportion to their powers. What we might be seeing instead are journalists actually reporting on these lies and the public having less tolerance for them. I consider that good news for the future of society.
88913527 4y ago
One disconnect for me is the divergence of worker productivity metrics and very low GDP. How is it that workers can be twice as productive as say 2 decades ago but last decade's GDP growth is only +1.7%? People are doing more, but getting less. It doesn't really matter which government presides over the phenomena. Of course government can influence the outcome, but it's like holding the president accountable for gas prices: effective as screaming at clouds. The low growth is a problem, but the public figurehead doesn't control each economic agent's decisions; they can only maybe steer the trajectory. Growth wasn't >7% YoY 8 decades ago because we had more tenacious leaders. The secret sauce for high growth is likely more complicated than that.
- tmnvix 4y ago
  Maybe a corresponding growth in credit has allowed the financial sector to capture the increased productivity? A lot of loans are given for non-GDP transactions (i.e. purchases of existing assets as opposed to actual business and infrastructure investment).
- lkrubner 4y ago
  On the political aspect, you are almost quoting Achen & Bartels, see here in particular: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part-15-of?s=w https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part... They make the point that the public often screams at whoever the leader is, regardless of whether the leader has any power over economic events, and regardless of whether the leader is conservative or socialist. There is also this: Democracy for Realists, 2016 Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government By Christopher H. Achen & Larry M. Bartels Page 312 The result is that, from the viewpoint of governmental representativeness and accountability, election outcomes are essentially random choices among the available parties – musical chairs. Elections that “throw the bums out” typically do not produce genuine policy mandates, not even when they are landslides. They simply put a different elite coalition in charge. This bloodless change of government is a great deal better than bloody revolution, but it is not deliberate policy change. The parties have policy views and they carry them out when in office, but most voters are not listening, or are simply thinking what their party tells them they should be thinking. This is what an honest view of electoral democracy looks like. It is a blunder to expect elections to deliver more. https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part-17-of?s=w https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part...
jjcc 4y ago
Here's a theory: The hyper-connected modern society create a new ecosystem that our ancient brains are easily affected by media , disinformation, marketing strategy, manipulation supported by big data etc. In the ecosystem the more electable candidates happened to be good actors that are very good at acting , and deception not only to the public but also to themselves. Dishonest is a feature for having a better odds to win the elections in modern time. Not a bug. Statistically people get more dishonest politicians who are very good at being elected. It happened to accompanied with other traits. Dishonest is one of them. Another one , a more dangerous one then dishonest, is that they cause more conflicts and wars by inspiring "good" people fighting against "evil" with illusions that they stand in a high moral ground. The victims of this feature are in none-western countries. So the perceived impacts are less then dishonest. If the theory is true, then complaining about individual politicians doesn't work. The root cause of the problem which is reflected in statistics would be ignored.
jmeister 4y ago
“Anti-authoritarianism is an elite value” https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/1522341844960436224 https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/1522341844960436224 Also see Burnham, “The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom” or Hayek, “Rules and Order” section “Principles and Expediency”. In general it’s the elites who have to care about norms and principles, and hold each other accountable. Voters care about expedient matters such as gas prices.
whimsicalism 4y ago
Be cognizant that we are psychologically primed to view the past as rosy compared to the present. Studied phenomenon and also obvious in polls.
vineyardmike 4y ago
> this is one of the hallmarks that you would expect to see at the beginning of the breakdown of a civilised society. People have been crying wolf at the breakdown of society since the romans. Obviously sometimes there is a wolf, but if everything looks like a wolf, we're really bad at identifying the real ones.
Gibbon1 4y ago
It feels to me that some segments think they are in on the scam somehow. Thing I learned from O. Henry, the easiest mark is someone that thinks he's in on it.

by zmmmmm 4y ago

sudosysgen 4y ago

What consequences were there, really, for the Gulf of Tonkin? I think lying was tacitly accepted in US politics since living memory.

wutbrodo 4y ago
> accepted in US politics Is your impression that this is US-specific? Mine is that lying is accepted in politics in general.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  The US is the oldest continuous western democracy, so it makes sense to use it as an example here, but of course the problem isn't limited to it.
  - benj111 4y ago
    How are you defining "continuous western democracy" because the subject of this piece (the UK) would seem to have a better claim.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      Would it? Before 1832 almost half of the seats in the UK were nomination boroughs and there was no secret ballot until 1872 - the country was practically controlled fully by the aristocracy.

molsongolden 4y ago

Ray Dalio’s Principles framework calls this out as an indicator of a society in decline. When political groups start to care more about winning than they do about the integrity of the system.

sergiomattei 4y ago
It’s always been this way.
- lumost 4y ago
  Is that really true? there have always been side deals and scandals - but Nixon was a popular president before watergate and was ousted in a heartbeat. That was only 50 years ago.
  - acover 4y ago
    He resigned, which avoided the fight entirely.
Hammershaft 4y ago
This seems like a simplistic or morally convenient take. Politics everywhere evolves to a state where top competitors seek primarily to win. The difference between say, the highly adversial politics of the US & the less negative politics of, say, Canada, is not the result of some difference in altruistic behavior between Canadian & American politicians, but a difference in systemic incentives between countries. In the US, elections are fought between two party candidates, and so the results of a highly adversarial approach can viewed through a zero sum lens. If I lose less social trust by smearing my opponent then they do, then smearing my opponent is a strong viable strategy. In Canada, due to a host of systemic differences (smaller electoral districts, debates run by inclusive institutions, stricter campaign finance regs, etc) multiple visible parties compete politically. A direct result of this is that if adversarial behavior negatively affects public perception of both the attacking party and the target party, both parties lose while a third party gains. This a small example of one facet about how differing systems channel the behavior of competitive politicians. An observation of flawed electoral systems is that they tend towards harmful feedback loops. Culturally, maliciously adversarial behavior becomes normalized and escalated. Gerrymandering leads to competitive primaries & non competitive general elections which leads to partisanship that makes it more difficult to deal with gerrymandering. Judicial capture leads to the institutionalization of systemic flaws that benefit the party of the judiciary.

dwater 4y ago

30 years ago was the end of George H W Bush’s era, who among other lies was wrapped up in the Iran Contra affair under Reagan; and the beginning of the Clinton era who famously lied about his personal life but certainly had his fair share of political lies as well. In American history it feels like we’ve had more lying leaders than not for a long, long time.

mc32 4y ago
Less than 20 years ago Kerry basically lost due to "flip-flopping". GW Bush as well was almost undermined by some smearing by a reporter -who unfortunately didn't do a good enough job to sink his candidacy. People used to care more about higher politicians' lying. Today, people don't even blink. After Trump's antics, now we have Biden denying something he said the day prior and it's a non-issue at all.
- JellyBeanThief 4y ago
  I feel like, what can I do? If I have a lying red/blue on my hands, my only choice is to swap it for a lying blue/red.
  - sph 4y ago
    Voting gives you an illusion of control over the situation, but in fact blue or red it's the exact same outcome. Your ballot is like the close door button in the elevator.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      That is an often repeated argument, but I don't think the policies supported by the two parties in the US are exactly the same. There is a very large overlap of course, but "your vote doesn't count" only strengthens extremists (on either side).
    - haswell 4y ago
      While we do have little direct control over the situation, and while it's true that both parties lie, lying is not the outcome. Lying is a tactic employed along the way to the outcome. In no way do I mean to imply that lying is is unimportant because both parties do it - it's unacceptable regardless, but I have trouble accepting arguments that point to a shared <bad> thing between parties and then use that to conclude that voting doesn't really matter.

int_19h 4y ago

Look up what Nixon supporters were saying even after he resigned.

labster 4y ago
Or back further, the Teapot Dome scandal. Or “remember the Maine!” Or “it’s a war about states’ rights.” Or “I come not to praise Caesar but to bury him.” Or “we feel totes bad about attacking you so we built you this wooden horse as an apology.” Maybe politicians have always been liars and people have always let them get away with it.

nemo44x 4y ago

The thing is it wasn’t about anything important. The entire Covid thing wasn’t as serious to most people as the media wants to believe. No one believed in those rules. If he did something serious then fine. But who actually cares about this? It’s a fake outrage.

anothernewdude 4y ago
He broke the rules he imposed on the country. He should be gone yesterday.
MattPalmer1086 4y ago
I think you'll find most of us followed them, even if we didn't agree with all of them.
blitzar 4y ago
> If he did something serious then fine. But who actually cares about this? It’s a fake outrage. he instructed police to prosecute, as criminals, people who stopped and said hello to a neighbour when they went for a walk. he instructed police to prosecute, as criminals, people who tried to hold the hand of their parent as they died. he instructed police to prosecute, as criminals, people who did what he was doing. but he did nothing wrong ...

wnevets 4y ago

When people care more about their "team" winning than anything else, democracy dies.

Nursie 4y ago
Thankfully I don’t think the UK is there (yet). Certainly not to the extent of the US. Parties other than Tory/Labour exist and do get significant votes.
Terry_Roll 4y ago
Democracy is just mob rule, I'd be happy to see Democracy replaced with an improvement. Even legislation creates fake science, so I think its time we developed a society that doesnt peddle superstition and falsehoods.
- imtringued 4y ago
  It is called sortition.
  - Terry_Roll 4y ago
    Thats not thinking out of the box.
AdrianB1 4y ago
But that is the definition of democracy, so you are saying it is going to die by design?
- wnevets 4y ago
  > definition of democracy I'm gonna need to see your source.

runarberg 4y ago

Nah, I think it is the opposite. All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We’ve had lying leaders in direct proportion to their powers. What we might be seeing instead are journalists actually reporting on these lies and the public having less tolerance for them. I consider that good news for the future of society.

88913527 4y ago

One disconnect for me is the divergence of worker productivity metrics and very low GDP. How is it that workers can be twice as productive as say 2 decades ago but last decade's GDP growth is only +1.7%? People are doing more, but getting less. It doesn't really matter which government presides over the phenomena. Of course government can influence the outcome, but it's like holding the president accountable for gas prices: effective as screaming at clouds. The low growth is a problem, but the public figurehead doesn't control each economic agent's decisions; they can only maybe steer the trajectory. Growth wasn't >7% YoY 8 decades ago because we had more tenacious leaders. The secret sauce for high growth is likely more complicated than that.

tmnvix 4y ago
Maybe a corresponding growth in credit has allowed the financial sector to capture the increased productivity? A lot of loans are given for non-GDP transactions (i.e. purchases of existing assets as opposed to actual business and infrastructure investment).
lkrubner 4y ago
On the political aspect, you are almost quoting Achen & Bartels, see here in particular: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part-15-of?s=w https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part... They make the point that the public often screams at whoever the leader is, regardless of whether the leader has any power over economic events, and regardless of whether the leader is conservative or socialist. There is also this: Democracy for Realists, 2016 Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government By Christopher H. Achen & Larry M. Bartels Page 312 The result is that, from the viewpoint of governmental representativeness and accountability, election outcomes are essentially random choices among the available parties – musical chairs. Elections that “throw the bums out” typically do not produce genuine policy mandates, not even when they are landslides. They simply put a different elite coalition in charge. This bloodless change of government is a great deal better than bloody revolution, but it is not deliberate policy change. The parties have policy views and they carry them out when in office, but most voters are not listening, or are simply thinking what their party tells them they should be thinking. This is what an honest view of electoral democracy looks like. It is a blunder to expect elections to deliver more. https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part-17-of?s=w https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part...

jjcc 4y ago

Here's a theory: The hyper-connected modern society create a new ecosystem that our ancient brains are easily affected by media , disinformation, marketing strategy, manipulation supported by big data etc. In the ecosystem the more electable candidates happened to be good actors that are very good at acting , and deception not only to the public but also to themselves. Dishonest is a feature for having a better odds to win the elections in modern time. Not a bug. Statistically people get more dishonest politicians who are very good at being elected. It happened to accompanied with other traits. Dishonest is one of them. Another one , a more dangerous one then dishonest, is that they cause more conflicts and wars by inspiring "good" people fighting against "evil" with illusions that they stand in a high moral ground. The victims of this feature are in none-western countries. So the perceived impacts are less then dishonest. If the theory is true, then complaining about individual politicians doesn't work. The root cause of the problem which is reflected in statistics would be ignored.

jmeister 4y ago

“Anti-authoritarianism is an elite value” https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/1522341844960436224 https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/1522341844960436224 Also see Burnham, “The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom” or Hayek, “Rules and Order” section “Principles and Expediency”. In general it’s the elites who have to care about norms and principles, and hold each other accountable. Voters care about expedient matters such as gas prices.

whimsicalism 4y ago

Be cognizant that we are psychologically primed to view the past as rosy compared to the present. Studied phenomenon and also obvious in polls.

vineyardmike 4y ago

> this is one of the hallmarks that you would expect to see at the beginning of the breakdown of a civilised society. People have been crying wolf at the breakdown of society since the romans. Obviously sometimes there is a wolf, but if everything looks like a wolf, we're really bad at identifying the real ones.

Gibbon1 4y ago

It feels to me that some segments think they are in on the scam somehow. Thing I learned from O. Henry, the easiest mark is someone that thinks he's in on it.