3 ms·

The ancient art of bullshitocracy.

by Vivtek 11y ago

Qwertious 11y ago
It actually makes sense if you assume two axioms: 1. Politicians are rational actors with regards to getting into and staying in office. 2. Voters are thoroughly ignorant and what sounds good to voters is not the same as what is actually the best policy. #1 makes a whole lot of sense because people who don't compete to their fullest extent will be out-competed by people who do, and the goal of getting into political office is a necessary part of fixing the government (which most politicians genuinely want to do). #2 makes sense when you look at people in the middle ages, and understand that we haven't fundamentally changed from them, we just have ACCESS to more information, which most people haven't read. Loads of people don't know jack shit about economics 101, and yet they have strong opinions on how to fix the economy. * We can extend, from these two axioms, that most politicians will not have TOO much respect for public opinion, and will therefore try to sneak through some bills that are unpopular, but (in the politician's opinion) will do a better job of actually fixing whatever they're trying to fix. That suggests that if you have enough politicians on-board with your way of "improving" the world, you can fix it in spite of the idiot public. QED, lobbying.
- DanielBMarkham 11y ago
  I don't even think you need #2. Since voters are emotionally predisposed to certain parties or candidates anyway, regardless of past history, it's easy to continue this pattern with extremely intelligent and involved voters. When the politician is posturing yet has no chance of getting anything passed, they are "Making a bold statement" or "starting a discussion that needs to be had". i.e., the symbolism is more important than the results. When the politician is taking direct action, yet action that's at odds with the voters, it's "politics is all about compromise", "a flawed deal is better than no deal at all", "a move in the right direction", or "a politician that's brave enough to make choices other politicians won't" The trick is just to keep slowly alternating between these two perceptions over the segments of the electorate that you can turn out come election time. At the end of the day you can pretty much do whatever you want. So your end result remains the same regardless of any qualities inherent in the electorate, sadly. It's just a numbers game.
  - hga 11y ago
    At the end of the day you can pretty much do whatever you want. Eh, I'd say the history of "gun politics" in the last two decades suggests that's not true, or a bunch of politicians who passed or supported (Al Gore) gun control and ended up spending more time with their families just aren't good at playing this game. Assuming you believe they wanted the office more than the gun control bills, which in the case of the sunsetting and now sunset Federal "assault weapons" bill would seem to be particularly pointless.

The ancient art of bullshitocracy.

by Vivtek 11y ago

The ancient art of bullshitocracy.

It actually makes sense if you assume two axioms: 1. Politicians are rational actors with regards to getting into and staying in office. 2. Voters are thoroughly ignorant and what sounds good to voters is not the same as what is actually the best policy. #1 makes a whole lot of sense because people who don't compete to their fullest extent will be out-competed by people who do, and the goal of getting into political office is a necessary part of fixing the government (which most politicians genuinely want to do). #2 makes sense when you look at people in the middle ages, and understand that we haven't fundamentally changed from them, we just have ACCESS to more information, which most people haven't read. Loads of people don't know jack shit about economics 101, and yet they have strong opinions on how to fix the economy. * We can extend, from these two axioms, that most politicians will not have TOO much respect for public opinion, and will therefore try to sneak through some bills that are unpopular, but (in the politician's opinion) will do a better job of actually fixing whatever they're trying to fix. That suggests that if you have enough politicians on-board with your way of "improving" the world, you can fix it in spite of the idiot public. QED, lobbying.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago
I don't even think you need #2. Since voters are emotionally predisposed to certain parties or candidates anyway, regardless of past history, it's easy to continue this pattern with extremely intelligent and involved voters. When the politician is posturing yet has no chance of getting anything passed, they are "Making a bold statement" or "starting a discussion that needs to be had". i.e., the symbolism is more important than the results. When the politician is taking direct action, yet action that's at odds with the voters, it's "politics is all about compromise", "a flawed deal is better than no deal at all", "a move in the right direction", or "a politician that's brave enough to make choices other politicians won't" The trick is just to keep slowly alternating between these two perceptions over the segments of the electorate that you can turn out come election time. At the end of the day you can pretty much do whatever you want. So your end result remains the same regardless of any qualities inherent in the electorate, sadly. It's just a numbers game.
- hga 11y ago
  At the end of the day you can pretty much do whatever you want. Eh, I'd say the history of "gun politics" in the last two decades suggests that's not true, or a bunch of politicians who passed or supported (Al Gore) gun control and ended up spending more time with their families just aren't good at playing this game. Assuming you believe they wanted the office more than the gun control bills, which in the case of the sunsetting and now sunset Federal "assault weapons" bill would seem to be particularly pointless.