3 ms·
That last piece of research is interesting but has multiple interpretations, because they can't prove causation. Slightly silly example: maybe Congress only pa
by dash2 12y ago
That last piece of research is interesting but has multiple interpretations, because they can't prove causation.
Slightly silly example: maybe Congress only passes really good bills. Wealthy Americans are smarter than other Americans, so they're more likely to support good ideas. Now it looks as if wealthy Americans' support "causes" the good bills to pass. That's not a hugely credible interpretation, but there are likely to be many similar alternatives.
I agree with your worries about democracy and freedom, but it's important to be realistic about the limitations of social science research.
- higherpurpose 12y agoWhen you combine that data with signals such as approval of Congress being under 10 percent, I think it enforces the idea that "people are not listened to" by Congress, and Congress mostly passes laws that aren't to the benefit of the public.
- prewett 12y agoNone of that negates the original poster. Nothing says that the public actually knows what benefits it. In fact, the founders tried to avoid direct democracy for that reason, hence the Electoral College: you vote for someone to make good decisions for you. Given the short-sightedness of American culture (maybe just people in general), I am not convinced that the public makes good decisions. How many members of the public are going to vote to remove entitlements that benefit them, even if it is not in the best interests of the public at large? Mind you, I am not convinced that Congress makes good decisions, but if the public does not approve of Congress, it does not provide any information on the quality of Congress' decisions. Just their popularity.