4 ms·
Like what?
by aa-jv 3y ago
Like what?
- emodendroket 3y agoFor instance, one I watched described the Clinton administration as being aimless because its policy was too driven by the whims of the public as expressed by polling. In context it seemed convincing but if I’m sitting here now thinking about it I don’t think it is remotely true.
- uoaei 3y agoConsidering that Clinton et al. gleefully adopted the moniker of "technocrat" in a period where the Internet, and digital connectivity more broadly, was ascendant, I'd say that probably even Bill would agree with that assessment. I challenge you to find a serious political commentator who can identify a coherent vision that governed the administration's decisions beyond "whatever gets my approval rating up".
- emodendroket 3y agoI don't see how that supports the argument. What does being a technocrat have to do with being "populist" or poll-driven? I'd see these things as opposed. And I think that Clinton and the New Democrats rather dramatically reshaped the Democratic Party in ways we're all still living with.
- uoaei 3y agoThe questions present in polls or surveys, especially their phrasing, largely dictate the scope of what's considered debatable politics. When that scope is defined from above, populism cannot exist. Technocrats act under the auspices of "campaigns" and "programs" which start with questions defined by technocratic thinktanks, which are then inevitably justified by the polls due to their imposition of narrow Overton windows, and then operationalized according to the whims of the techno-utopians with their fetishism of statistics (read: tyranny of the majority). It is this pattern that was pioneered by the Clinton administration. It's why everyone now has such gloomy views of "political consultants".
- emodendroket 3y agoI’m sympathetic to this view, but if we’re talking about using push polls it’s not a matter of letting polling dictate what they do. The polling is instead of a method of legitimation for their desired policy.