The Political Process Is Unmanagable
From 's blog post.
: I voted to ban Affirmative Action, although I had not given it thought before. It's difficult for me to conceive of voting in favor of Proposal 2 out of racism or sexism. I think most people were like me, and said, "if we're not going to discriminate, then let's not discriminate."
I wish I had read 's LJ post about it, and then I would have voted the other way. Of course we keep hearing we should feel guilty if we don't vote, even though we know we're not qualified, don't recognize any names, and are pretty much using the ballot for a dartboard; then we still get in trouble when we vote wrong. There's no winning.
: Why not take a couple hours and become qualified?
: That proves you're not qualified.
: You lost me. Taking a few hours to find out about the candidates and issues proves you aren't qualified?
: Yes. It's because you took only a few hours and now you know just enough to be dangerous. Everybody on every side of an issue with a sandwich sign ranting on a street corner does that. According to a paper appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, incompetent people don't know how incompetent they are, but super-competent people know how incompetent they are. As it turns out, political issues are too complex for anyone but an expert in sociology, and I have a life to live rather than become one.
By contrast, philosophy-- determining what you value-- is easy. The problem arrives when you support policy on that basis and have no idea they are actually undermining those values in the real world. Believe me, I've wandered my imagination and thought in the abstract about political philosophy without appealing to observational evidence. I ended up a cross between an anarcho-libertarian and a radical socialist. I am well aware those are at incompatible extremes.
Then I read Mark Rosenfelder's "What's Wrong With Libertarianism" and it kicked my butt with facts. Another very humbling experience has been reading David Brin's website and blog in which he extols the virtues of a pragmatic effects-based observational approach over ideology.
Values are one thing, policies that can achieve them are quite another. Statistics and studies are just too overwhelming to keep up with, without making a major hobby out of being a policy wonk. And even then I don't know if the other side has studies I missed that cast the whole thing in an opposite light.
Comments
rachelann1977 on Nov. 9, 2006 5:06 PM
It's good to try to understand these things better, but I don't think you have to be a sociology or political science major to understand the potential outcomes of the various proposals.
It helps to do a little research, but there is a reason we vote on these things instead of just letting one person randomly make laws that we would then have even less knowledge of.
It's true that politicians have worked to make everything we vote on much less accessible in the time up until the actual vote occurs, but that's all the more reason to fight that process, and find out as much as you can.
users on Nov. 9, 2006 5:39 PM
I wish I could convince libertarians that the extremely wealthy don't need them as their unpaid advocates. Power and wealth don't need a cheering section; they are-- by definition-- not an oppressed class which needs our help. Power and wealth can take care of themselves. It's the poor and the defenseless who need aid and advocates.
God do I hate to hear this liberal argument. It is as dangerous as the libertarian "taxation is theft" mantra. They are not "by definition" an unoppressed class. They are "by definition" wealthy and/or powerful, which does not rule out, "by definition" oppression. It just means they have the financial and/or political means to escape the negatives of much of the oppression, but when they have to spend a great deal of money in an only vaguely successful attempt to prevent the government from redirecting their money to another source, that is oppression.
Sorry, that quote just hit a nerve, because I hear it so often and, the worst part is, if you don't pay much attention it sounds correct. It sounds logical. It isn't.
novapsyche on Nov. 9, 2006 6:13 PM
I cannot begin to express my frustration at trying to explain to people why Prop 2 should fail (or, at this point, should have failed). I tried explaining it from a sociological perspective, but the problem is that it took hours of instruction and analysis when I was in college. How does one distill hours, months, years of information into a paragraph or two in LJ-banter? I found that it cannot be done (or, if it can be done, I could not do it).
It's difficult for me, because despite being in an online forum, I openly identify as a black woman, so when I make arguments about affirmative action, I can be seen as being apologetic about it. However, I speak about this not only with anecdotal evidence but with the information and knowledge that I've accumulated through my studies in social science. I try to dispense this information as dispassionately as possible, but again my frustration shows through when I display historical evidence of discrimination and people are like, "Well, that happened in the past, so it's not relevant." I want to tear my eyes out.
davehogg on Nov. 10, 2006 6:01 PM
I tried explaining it from a sociological perspective, but the problem is that it took hours of instruction and analysis when I was in college. How does one distill hours, months, years of information into a paragraph or two in LJ-banter? I found that it cannot be done (or, if it can be done, I could not do it).
It can be done, at least to some degree, but not with a sociology lecture. That's the whole mistake of the "you can't be an intelligent voter without devoting your life to public policy" idea.
It comes down to values. You have to take your sociological knowledge and distill into an argument that will reach the common voter. You have to explain to him or her why affirmative action doesn't go against their core values, despite what intellectually dishonest ad campaigns are telling them.
I can convince you the sky is blue without giving you a lecture on light refraction. I can show you that the Lions are a terrible football team without explaining the impact of Teddy Lehman's injury on their ability to play the Cover Two defense.
There will always be people who won't listen. They weren't going to vote your way to begin with.
paranthropus on Nov. 9, 2006 7:29 PM
Human beings are genetically pre-disposed to fascism. We like to defer our decision making ability to strong leaders. It's easier that way. Your argument is that you would rather live your life than become an expert in sociology. While it may seem that this argument comes from a rational worldview and a sane, logical, assessment of priorities it is, in fact, genetically programmed. You are placing yourself in the role of subordinate male in a large family of human primates.
Democracy was designed to allow us to move beyond our genetically programmed roles. Instead of a single, powerful leader, we have the power of the collective rational mind. It's not unlike the consensus that is reached through the progress of science and has, in fact, developed alongside it. As a way of allowing each of us to have influence over this collective mind, we delegate our decision making ability to like-minded peers who can devote their full energies to the task, and we simplify issues through debate. By the time issues such as Proposal 2 reach us, they have been distilled such that the strongest arguments on either side are brought to the forefront. Yes, strong arguments make our decision more difficult, but to not do the minimum of work that is needed in order to cast a vote is really unacceptable.
There is more at stake here than a simple proposal. Ultimately, this is about fascism - rule by means of the amygdala, and democracy - rule by means of the neocortex. The human species has struggled for centuries to find a means of a more enlightened rule, a means of governance that is more humane than simply deferring to authority figures as our religions want us to do. I choose to participate, rather than insult those who have struggled and died to give humanity a better life.
matt-arnold on Nov. 9, 2006 7:41 PM
It's probably not an accident that I used to literally be an overt authoritarian before I embraced the Enlightenment and modern values. Actually exercising those values tires and discourages me.
It's kind of ironic. The same way it's ironic that I loudly support the freedom to modify software, but I would rather jump naked into a swimming pool full of thumbtacks than do so.
thatguychuck on Nov. 10, 2006 5:16 AM
The same way it's ironic that I loudly support the freedom to modify software, but I would rather jump naked into a swimming pool full of thumbtacks than do so.
Wow. I have far too vivid of an imagination. After giving this some late-night thought, I've come to the conclusion that it would hurt badly, but much less than one would initially think.
Speaking of think, I think I need to go to sleep now.
tlatoani on Nov. 9, 2006 9:27 PM
Human beings are genetically pre-disposed to fascism.
I'd substitute "authoritarianism" for "fascism" throughout. They aren't synonyms, and what you're really arguing for is that humans are pre-disposed to follow strong leaders.
matt-arnold on Nov. 9, 2006 9:46 PM
Exactly who is the strong leader I've been following? All of my votes have been intended to punish one incumbent or another. I voted against Debbie Stabenow to punish her for removing habeus corpus. I deliberately voted for her Republican opponent who I loathe. Other than that one faceless evil whose name I cannot and need not remember, I voted all Democrat to punish the party in power. I am not a Republican or a Democrat, and I hate and fear both of the parties. I didn't vote in favor of any candidate, and the more I learn about politicians in any race, the less I like them or follow them. After a while that got enough to make me realize the more I know about the complexities of reality, the more I know that I don't know, and the less confident I am that my votes are actually making the world a better place.
What I say next is playing Devil's Advocate.
What makes you think you're seeing the strongest arguments? I sometimes feel that my politically active friends are being suckered, played, and used. They are too blinded by faith in their political leaders to question the two hours they spent researching the candidates.
So who am I subordinate to? Analyze that genetically.
paranthropus on Nov. 9, 2006 10:31 PM
You are not subordinate to any specific person, in the same way that when you act in a democracy you are not consenting to be ruled absolutely by any specific person. What I am talking about are structures in the brain which give us senses of comfort or unease. When we feel comforted, we give up our decision making ability. There is no pressure to compel us in any direction, so we say "eh... who cares?".
That comfort can come from a variety of sources. Once source is the comfort that comes from group identity (ie: the Nazi rallies at Nuremberg). Another source of comfort (even more insidious) is the comfort that comes from affluence. A third source of comfort is the comfort that comes from rationalization. In this case, and individual convinces himself that his vote really does not count. He does this by starting from a desired end ("I don't want to take responsibility") and developing arguments like "candidate A is imperfect because ..., yet her opponent is also imperfect because ...", finally concluding that ALL candidates are imperfect (which, of course, they are) and that the entire process is flawed. Having thus rationalized away democracy, the individual is free to take the comfortable position of being a non-participant.
I am not saying that you are like this since, as you said, you participated. I only mean to show that your line of questioning may have a deeper motive, one that is genetically based, which compels us to seek out comfort even at the expense of our freedom. I don't want to infer from your opinions that you are about to become an apathetic non-participant. As evidence of your sincere disgust with both parties in power, do you feel compelled to participate in a third party, whether it be Libertarian, Green, Socialist, or even a new one of your own creation? If not, then perhaps you are indeed following your desire for comfort above all else.
Yes, tlatoani, authoritarianism is probably a better term.
matt-arnold on Nov. 9, 2006 10:45 PM
I usually vote all Libertarian, but with Bush having granted himself a complete police-state apparatus which Republicans merely trust him not to use against us, America seemed too far gone to think about fixing it all the way to Libertarian.
But yeah, I always vote. I just suffer from "concern fatigue" when people guilt me about my lack of civic-mindedness compared to them. There's always someone more civic-minded than thou, and this is why I envy you and your blessedly paltry two hours of superficial research: if you go down the rabbit hole, there's always something else genuinely worth being concerned about. Pretty soon public policy is your life. Eventually you have to stop giving a damn about something. An imminent police state is enough to make me feel like I have a free pass to not care about much else.
users on Nov. 9, 2006 11:35 PM
I just like to go by the principle that, no matter how informed you are, someone out there is way more informed, and they think you are an idiot and your opinion shouldn't matter...
rachelann1977 on Nov. 10, 2006 12:55 AM
Being civically minded to the nth degree ultimately comes from a desire to have some sort of influence. For me, it seems it is powered by the fear that if one does not stay as involved as possible, they will get screwed behind their backs. That is the ultimate irony of politics, though, the harder you try not to get screwed, the more likely it is that you will be.
I know I will be screwed to some degreee by my government, so I just try to keep my eyes open, and hope I can keep it from going to far. That's all you can really do, I think.
davehogg on Nov. 10, 2006 5:37 PM
There's always someone more civic-minded than thou, and this is why I envy you and your blessedly paltry two hours of superficial research: if you go down the rabbit hole, there's always something else genuinely worth being concerned about. Pretty soon public policy is your life. Eventually you have to stop giving a damn about something.
I did use the words "research" and "hours", so I guess you didn't totally mischaracterize my point.
I never said that with a "blessedly paltry two hours of superficial research" you could be an expert on public policy. I said that doing a few hours of research would keep you from being a completely ignorant voter who was throwing darts at the ballot.
As for public policy becoming your life, it is a big part of mine. I worked for a non-profit public policy group for the last eight years, after all.
If I'm going to spend a lot of my life - not all of it, which is just a strawman - I'd rather it be that than anime or romance novels or reality TV or Firefly or fantasy football or keeping track of when Tom Cruise is getting married.
An imminent police state is enough to make me feel like I have a free pass to not care about much else.
Let me get this straight:
You are (rightly) worried that Congress has given Bush the power to declare a police state, and you voted for MIKE BOUCHARD?
I have no idea why Stabenow voted for the MCA. In all the years that I've been involved in Michigan politics, Debbie Stabenow's continued success might be the strangest thing I've ever seen.
Mike Bouchard in the U.S. Senate would have been terrifying. Not only would he have voted for MCA, he would volunteer to go round up the people that Bush didn't like.
I'm not sure how voting for the greater of two evils helps anyone.
matt-arnold on Nov. 10, 2006 6:14 PM
Then let me explain to you how it helps anyone. The Republican and Democratic parties know you'll vote for whatever they want you to vote for, if only they collude in a smoke-filled back room to offer you someone worse. The rigged game has worked its illusion of choice on you so well, that you have rewarded someone who canceled America. Good job, proud civic participant!
The only way to run the country and stop being played for a sucker is to act like a boss acts toward an employee. Use all votes as referendums on past performance, meting out reward and punishment by hiring and firing. You have to draw a line; there have to be certain things so odious that you have to terminate employment, full stop.
For me, that line is the MCA. I guess it's not for you. I voted for Mike Bouchard, knowing that he would not only vote for MCA, but that he would volunteer to go round up the people that Bush didn't like. It doesn't matter-- Stabenow has demonstrated that if we get her we're screwed anyway, so we may as well register our dissent and fire her. A vote for Stabenow was a vote for complacency and acceptance of the status quo.
Are you part of the political machine in your non-profit public policy group? If so, I'm hesitant to trust you, and I don't seek to emulate you. Your attempts to shame me have been counterproductive.
davehogg on Nov. 10, 2006 7:56 PM
The Republican and Democratic parties know you'll vote for whatever they want you to vote for, if only they collude in a smoke-filled back room to offer you someone worse. The rigged game has worked its illusion of choice on you so well, that you have rewarded someone who canceled America. Good job, proud civic participant!
Uh huh.
I never criticized you for not voting for Stabenow. If you found your line with the MCA, fine. Mine came a lot earlier than that - I've said for years that I will never support a Democratic presidential candidate in the primaries that voted for the war in Iraq. That's why I supported Kucinich in 2004, and why I won't support Clinton (and others) in 2008.
I said I don't understand why you voted for Bouchard. What kind of boss would fire a misbehaving employee, and then hire someone who promises to be even worse? If you felt that strongly, why not vote for the Green Party candidate or the Libertarian?
I don't care if you trust me, and I certainly don't ask you to emulate me, but, for the record, I worked for a campaign-finance reform group. It's on the web - http://www.mcfn.org
wolfger on Nov. 11, 2006 11:20 AM
All of my votes have been intended to punish one incumbent or another.
Well there is your first mistake...
Look at the numbers. Do you really think your one vote can possibly be considered punishment?
Even if it *could* be considered punishment, you have no way of signifying "I am voting for not-you in order to punish you" rather than "I am voting for so-and-so because I really, really love so-and-so".
Voting against a candidate, while very popular in our current society, is a ridiculously poor idea. You should vote for the candidate you like best, end of story.
You can never go wrong by voting for the candidate you want to win.
For my own part, I voted for Stabenow despite my intention not to, simply because upon review of all the candidates, she was the best choice. Which really says some sad things about all the folks running against her. Hers was the one position where I didn't find a candidate I genuinely liked.
phecda on Nov. 9, 2006 9:07 PM
It's kind of amusing to consider that American politics is subject to the Peter Principle.
But this is the whole burden of a democracy -- that it is the responsibility of the electorate to educate themselves on the issues so that they can make an informed decision at the ballot box.
To quote Heinlein -- democracy is based on the fallacy that the majority is right. Autocracy is based on the fallacy that one man is wiser than the majority.
Both systems are flawed.
wolfger on Nov. 11, 2006 11:11 AM
While tlatoani's entry is certainly the best argument against Prop 2 that I have ever seen, I still see nothing there that makes me change my mind. Racism and sexism are wrong, and they are wrong regardless of which group(s) are being discriminated for or against. Furthermore, tlatoani's assertion that this proposal will be used to go after Safe House and similar programs is what we in the Linux geek community refer to as FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Nothing in the wording of Prop 2 can lead one to the conclusion that Safe House is in jeopardy, and we should vote based on the wording of the proposal, and not how some future politician or judge may or may not interpret it. The only way Safe House could even possibly be targetted is if it is run by the state government... in which case I am sure there are similar programs which are not government-run which will continue unmolested. uh... pardon that unintended pun.
Anonymous on (None)
Leave a Comment