3 ms·
I 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
by emodendroket 3y ago
I 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.