4 ms·

This is a democratic worry: unhappy people are pliable people and are more likely to vote for demagogues, demagogues who are more a wrecking ball than a manager

This is a democratic worry: unhappy people are pliable people and are more likely to vote for demagogues, demagogues who are more a wrecking ball than a manager of state.

drewcoo 3y ago
> "unhappy people are pliable people and are more likely to vote for demagogues, demagogues who are more a wrecking ball than a manager of state" That's a stilted and verbose euphemism for "voting against the status quo." Isn't that expected when people are allowed to vote and when the status quo fails them? > This is a democratic worry No, not being allowed to vote for change shows that democracy is absent.
- skhunted 3y ago
  The concern is not that people want change or that they vote for change per se but that the change comes in the form of a person or persons who destroy the freedom to vote for change. This is more likely to happen during times of discontent. Falling happiness ought to be a concern for any political system that seeks to enhance the society.
zo1 3y ago
You say that as a bad thing, others see it as a good thing. Like with everything, we eventually revert to a happy and "flowing" medium. People being unhappy means their needs and worries were not being catered.
- zaptrem 3y ago
  Sometimes that takes many hundreds of years (see Russia)
- tumult 3y ago
  This is obviously not true if you look at the current state and history of many countries in the world.
- 0xEF 3y ago
  Your word choice of "catered" in reference to meeting the needs of people is interesting. Do you feel that suffering is part of being a citizen? Needs are not something to be "catered" to, but met with reasonable effort, and the US, so far as I can tell, is failing on that front, and has been for decades, regardless of red or blue leadership. Nobody is asking for handouts, just the ability to afford a home and groceries with an appropriate wage. Sorry to be pedantic, and I certainly agree with your sentiment, but we need to watch our language in this discussion since I firmly believe that is part of why the subject matter is so divisive.
  - zo1 3y ago
    I re-read my post just now, and I may have worded it funny with the use of the word "catered", but I did mean it in a blanket sense as it applies to needs and worries. So for their needs, they're not being met with reasonable effort. I'd even argue that some needs are not even being considered. Likewise, for their worries, they're not being taken into consideration. E.g. If people are worried about immigration, address it. Or if people are worried about student debt, also do something. But don't let politicians ignore it entirely while talking incessantly that it needs to be fixed. This is why I'm a huge proponent of direct-democracy, or any sort of more directed form of democracy other than representative. People recently have been correctly realizing that "democracy" is not as noble or actually as representative as they've been told since birth. Side note, I think government/politicians/TPTB/etc are using "Democracy" as a way to have their cake and eat it. It's very difficult for peoples needs/worries to be address in government, they're always somehow mediated or ignored with the common excuse being party-lines, lack of bipartisan support, or just "hey it's those evil guys over there". But at the same time, we're told that it's "okay" because don't worry, this is democracy and it's just the will of the people. I call BS. If it's the will of the people, we'd be 100% okay with doing referendums left right and centre on every contentious issue tomorrow. /rant. Sorry that turned into a bit of a tangential rant.
- maratc 3y ago
  Alternative explanation would be quite different: once people have their needs and worries taken care of, they immediately think of new needs. These new needs are (naturally) not being catered (yet), so people feel unhappy. Once these are catered, new ones are created. If my neighbours have a car but I don't, I'm unhappy. If I get a car, I'm unhappy since my neighbours have an SUV. Once I get an SUV, I'm unhappy since they have one with climate control, power windows, roof window, and navigation. Rinse, repeat. This explanation talks more about what we humans are as a species, and less about government etc.
deathlight 3y ago
Hopefully we get good and hard the democracy that we have long been promised; and good and hard because you only get an outcome that people whose lives have been utterly and entirely unlike your own are the ones making the rules for how you and yours will be to the end of your days. Sounds like a lot of fun right? It sure is interesting how people's opinions change when they realize what kind of people are the ones getting to make the rules for everybody from here on out.

This is a democratic worry: unhappy people are pliable people and are more likely to vote for demagogues, demagogues who are more a wrecking ball than a manager of state.

drewcoo 3y ago

> "unhappy people are pliable people and are more likely to vote for demagogues, demagogues who are more a wrecking ball than a manager of state" That's a stilted and verbose euphemism for "voting against the status quo." Isn't that expected when people are allowed to vote and when the status quo fails them? > This is a democratic worry No, not being allowed to vote for change shows that democracy is absent.

skhunted 3y ago
The concern is not that people want change or that they vote for change per se but that the change comes in the form of a person or persons who destroy the freedom to vote for change. This is more likely to happen during times of discontent. Falling happiness ought to be a concern for any political system that seeks to enhance the society.

zo1 3y ago

You say that as a bad thing, others see it as a good thing. Like with everything, we eventually revert to a happy and "flowing" medium. People being unhappy means their needs and worries were not being catered.

zaptrem 3y ago
Sometimes that takes many hundreds of years (see Russia)
tumult 3y ago
This is obviously not true if you look at the current state and history of many countries in the world.
0xEF 3y ago
Your word choice of "catered" in reference to meeting the needs of people is interesting. Do you feel that suffering is part of being a citizen? Needs are not something to be "catered" to, but met with reasonable effort, and the US, so far as I can tell, is failing on that front, and has been for decades, regardless of red or blue leadership. Nobody is asking for handouts, just the ability to afford a home and groceries with an appropriate wage. Sorry to be pedantic, and I certainly agree with your sentiment, but we need to watch our language in this discussion since I firmly believe that is part of why the subject matter is so divisive.
- zo1 3y ago
  I re-read my post just now, and I may have worded it funny with the use of the word "catered", but I did mean it in a blanket sense as it applies to needs and worries. So for their needs, they're not being met with reasonable effort. I'd even argue that some needs are not even being considered. Likewise, for their worries, they're not being taken into consideration. E.g. If people are worried about immigration, address it. Or if people are worried about student debt, also do something. But don't let politicians ignore it entirely while talking incessantly that it needs to be fixed. This is why I'm a huge proponent of direct-democracy, or any sort of more directed form of democracy other than representative. People recently have been correctly realizing that "democracy" is not as noble or actually as representative as they've been told since birth. Side note, I think government/politicians/TPTB/etc are using "Democracy" as a way to have their cake and eat it. It's very difficult for peoples needs/worries to be address in government, they're always somehow mediated or ignored with the common excuse being party-lines, lack of bipartisan support, or just "hey it's those evil guys over there". But at the same time, we're told that it's "okay" because don't worry, this is democracy and it's just the will of the people. I call BS. If it's the will of the people, we'd be 100% okay with doing referendums left right and centre on every contentious issue tomorrow. /rant. Sorry that turned into a bit of a tangential rant.
maratc 3y ago
Alternative explanation would be quite different: once people have their needs and worries taken care of, they immediately think of new needs. These new needs are (naturally) not being catered (yet), so people feel unhappy. Once these are catered, new ones are created. If my neighbours have a car but I don't, I'm unhappy. If I get a car, I'm unhappy since my neighbours have an SUV. Once I get an SUV, I'm unhappy since they have one with climate control, power windows, roof window, and navigation. Rinse, repeat. This explanation talks more about what we humans are as a species, and less about government etc.

deathlight 3y ago

Hopefully we get good and hard the democracy that we have long been promised; and good and hard because you only get an outcome that people whose lives have been utterly and entirely unlike your own are the ones making the rules for how you and yours will be to the end of your days. Sounds like a lot of fun right? It sure is interesting how people's opinions change when they realize what kind of people are the ones getting to make the rules for everybody from here on out.