4 ms·

Duh? Like, by definition, an average doesn't reflect uniform expression. The people who don't want those things are a minority, but they are getting their way,

Duh? Like, by definition, an average doesn't reflect uniform expression. The people who don't want those things are a minority, but they are getting their way, because the system reflects the desires of the elites, not the desires of the average.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> people who don't want that are a minority, but they are getting their way They’re the majority. Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis. Herego, we spend most of our non-crisis time on non-pocketbook issues.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis. We're not in a crisis now, but people voted in the last national election as if we were, because Fox News told them that we were.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > because Fox News told them that we were This is my problem with the “elites in control” hypothesis. It seems to rely on voters’ power existing, but being circumvented because said voters are too stupid to handle it.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      Well, that's pretty much the size of it, isn't it?
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      > This is my problem with the “elites in control” hypothesis. It seems to rely on voters’ power existing, but being circumvented because said voters are too stupid to handle it. You are correct (except that it need only be a subset of voters). Now that you've done a good job of elaborating on the hypothesis, what exactly is your problem with it?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > what exactly is your problem with it? It doesn't work. Its testable predictions preclude a good amount of extant politics, including practically all populism. Elites the world over are losing in democracies because they presupposed, from afar, that they knew what their constituents wanted. Voters' interests are complex, and they can't be so easily bought.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        That is a huuugely presumptive interpretation. Here’s another possible interpretation: our information environment makes people extremely vulnerable to actual bullshit in massive volume.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Here’s another possible interpretation: our information environment makes people extremely vulnerable to actual bullshit in massive volume That is also true. People get angry and then misdirect it. But the anger is real, and it filters up through the political system when the valves aren't clogged. They aren't, not anywhere in the West. Voters across the West have essentially begun a wholesale replacement of their stable of elites. That is not what happens in an oligarchic system.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        That is absolutely how oligarchic systems supplant democracies. Hitler was elected, Orban was elected, Bukele was elected.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Hitler was elected, Orban was elected, Bukele was elected None of them emerged from oligarchic political systems.
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  No, they aren't the majority. The elites that the system actually serves have successfully ignited a culture war that splits the average people on which issues are driving the economic problems. The overwhelming majority of Americans want higher wages and cheaper cost of living, they just can't agree on how to get there (by design). Divide et impera.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > overwhelming majority of Americans want higher wages and cheaper cost of living, they just can't agree on how to get there (by design) By design? Or because it's hard? You really think the sole thing keeping us from having more for less is conspiracy?
    - arrosenberg 2y ago
      Not conspiracy - culture wars. Conspiracy is a part of that, but racial equality, immigration and abortion have all been wielded to great effect. It's certainly easier to create disruption than consensus, but the money is clearly backing disruption.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > racial equality, immigration and abortion have all been wielded to great effect There is plenty of evidence happiness is, in part, relative. I’m not convinced there aren’t voters who would rather be a little poorer than better off but not as much as that other group. > easier to create disruption than consensus, but the money is clearly backing disruption I’m moderately wealthy. Split time between New York and Wyoming. It’s certainly wild that a bunch of voters in rural Pennsylvania feel strongly about lowering my taxes so long as it pisses off some liberals. If I had more resources and were more self centred, I could see myself encouraging that.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> people who don't want that are a minority, but they are getting their way They’re the majority. Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis. Herego, we spend most of our non-crisis time on non-pocketbook issues.

CamperBob2 2y ago
Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis. We're not in a crisis now, but people voted in the last national election as if we were, because Fox News told them that we were.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > because Fox News told them that we were This is my problem with the “elites in control” hypothesis. It seems to rely on voters’ power existing, but being circumvented because said voters are too stupid to handle it.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    Well, that's pretty much the size of it, isn't it?
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    > This is my problem with the “elites in control” hypothesis. It seems to rely on voters’ power existing, but being circumvented because said voters are too stupid to handle it. You are correct (except that it need only be a subset of voters). Now that you've done a good job of elaborating on the hypothesis, what exactly is your problem with it?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > what exactly is your problem with it? It doesn't work. Its testable predictions preclude a good amount of extant politics, including practically all populism. Elites the world over are losing in democracies because they presupposed, from afar, that they knew what their constituents wanted. Voters' interests are complex, and they can't be so easily bought.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        That is a huuugely presumptive interpretation. Here’s another possible interpretation: our information environment makes people extremely vulnerable to actual bullshit in massive volume.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Here’s another possible interpretation: our information environment makes people extremely vulnerable to actual bullshit in massive volume That is also true. People get angry and then misdirect it. But the anger is real, and it filters up through the political system when the valves aren't clogged. They aren't, not anywhere in the West. Voters across the West have essentially begun a wholesale replacement of their stable of elites. That is not what happens in an oligarchic system.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        That is absolutely how oligarchic systems supplant democracies. Hitler was elected, Orban was elected, Bukele was elected.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Hitler was elected, Orban was elected, Bukele was elected None of them emerged from oligarchic political systems.
arrosenberg 2y ago
No, they aren't the majority. The elites that the system actually serves have successfully ignited a culture war that splits the average people on which issues are driving the economic problems. The overwhelming majority of Americans want higher wages and cheaper cost of living, they just can't agree on how to get there (by design). Divide et impera.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > overwhelming majority of Americans want higher wages and cheaper cost of living, they just can't agree on how to get there (by design) By design? Or because it's hard? You really think the sole thing keeping us from having more for less is conspiracy?
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    Not conspiracy - culture wars. Conspiracy is a part of that, but racial equality, immigration and abortion have all been wielded to great effect. It's certainly easier to create disruption than consensus, but the money is clearly backing disruption.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > racial equality, immigration and abortion have all been wielded to great effect There is plenty of evidence happiness is, in part, relative. I’m not convinced there aren’t voters who would rather be a little poorer than better off but not as much as that other group. > easier to create disruption than consensus, but the money is clearly backing disruption I’m moderately wealthy. Split time between New York and Wyoming. It’s certainly wild that a bunch of voters in rural Pennsylvania feel strongly about lowering my taxes so long as it pisses off some liberals. If I had more resources and were more self centred, I could see myself encouraging that.