NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do people seem to hate politicians who "do what is popular" so much.

Politicians are supposed to be the representatives of the electorate, they are supposed to attempt to get (re)elected by doing what the electorate desire, namely what is popular. Taking a decision because it's popular follows the basic precept of democracy which is (IMHO) give the people what they want.

If a politician makes a decision based on what the majority of the people he is supposed to represent actually want, then surely that is the best way he can fulfill his office, and if that decision is a bad one, then the fault for that (IMHO) doesn't lie with the politician.

That's because people are nothing more than a pack of fickle mushheads.

That's because people are nothing more than a pack of fickle mushheads.
QFT

People are dumb. That's why they need leaders.

Because populism doesn't work. It's a dangerous mix of strong social conservatism and ignorant economics, with the result being that the people get screwed and lose the freedoms they once had. Everywhere that has had a populist government has run in to trouble.

Simply put, too many people don't know what is good for them or for their country, and they can be easily deceived.

Modern liberal democracies are supposed to combine the will of the majority with the rights of the minority.

Just because something is popular does not mean it is always the right thing.

You have to understand that when the powers-that-be call someone a populist, what they really mean is "someone who's willing to wage class war on behalf of the lower classes," and since that threatens their positions, they can't abide it.

QFT

People are dumb. That's why they need leaders.

No, if given accurate and complete information groups of people will make good decisions based on Condorset's jury theorem.

It states that where the average chance of a member of a voting group making a correct decision is greater than fifty percent the chance of the group as a whole making the correct decision will increase with the addition of more members to the group.

A fifty percent chance of reaching an answer to any question, where there are two choices, is a blind guess. Any answer based on true information correctly processed must have a greater than fifty percent chance of being correct. The only way to go below fifty percent chance is to either have incorrect information or badly processed information.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet's_jury_theorem

No, if given accurate and complete information groups of people will make good decisions based on Condorset's jury theorem
And when have people ever been given accurate and complete information?

And when have people ever been given accurate and complete information?

Classical economics, I think.

And when have people ever been given accurate and complete information?

Yeah, I know. Sucks to live in the real world, doesn't it?

You have to understand that when the powers-that-be call someone a populist, what they really mean is "someone who's willing to wage class war on behalf of the lower classes," and since that threatens their positions, they can't abide it.

A "class war" threatens ALL our positions.

Something I hoped people would have learned from the Russian Revolution. How quickly they forget. Sigh... commies.

Because genuine populists cease the state's servility to the ruling class in favor of something resembling democracy.

This infuriates the rulers, for whom popular rule is an abomination that must only exist nominally.

too many people don't know what is good for them or for their country

Why is it that right-wing libertarians say things like this all the time with regard to democracy, but call non-libertarians paternalistic and elitist when they say the same thing about individual freedom?

And, no, populists need not be particularly socially conservative, though they do tend to be leftist, nationalist, or both economically.

A "class war" threatens ALL our positions.

Something I hoped people would have learned from the Russian Revolution. How quickly they forget. Sigh... commies.
Let me let you in on a little secret--there's always been a class war going on, and the rich win it 99.9999% of the time, largely because they scare politicians into thinking that a class war is a bad thing. The wealth stays in the hands of the elite and everyone else scrabbles for scraps. You don't have to have a communist society to have a smaller divide between rich and poor--lots of Europe is doing a pretty good job at it, and we were doing all right (though with major racial inequalities) in the 50s and 60s.

God, I hate it when you people do this--act like the only fucking options are either unregulated capitalism or full on communism. It shows you don't have any basis for your own beliefs and have to erect armies of straw men to mow down.

Let me let you in on a little secret--there's always been a class war going on, and the rich win it 99.9999% of the time, largely because they scare politicians into thinking that a class war is a bad thing.

War tends to be a bad thing. That's one of my little secrets. Dividing people into arbitrary groups and setting them against each other like home team versus away team and going "ra ra ra!" whenever your team scores and "boo" when they don't is also lame.


God, I hate it when you people do this--act like the only fucking options are either unregulated capitalism or full on communism.

I don't. But, if you're talking about Marx's class divisions in society, and championing the so-called proletariat, that sounds to me like its communist. And if you want a war (i.e revolution!) to wage about it, even more so. I call em like I see it.

Because governments are better to formulate long-term strategies rather than respond to the whims of public opinion.

Because governments are better to formulate long-term strategies rather than respond to the whims of public opinion.

Because, of course, people are too stupid to plan ahead. And, naturally, rulers, being above the mere, pathetic mortals they rule, avoid this problem.

Let me let you in on a little secret--there's always been a class war going on, and the rich win it 99.9999% of the time, largely because they scare politicians into thinking that a class war is a bad thing. The wealth stays in the hands of the elite and everyone else scrabbles for scraps. You don't have to have a communist society to have a smaller divide between rich and poor--lots of Europe is doing a pretty good job at it, and we were doing all right (though with major racial inequalities) in the 50s and 60s.
If America is suffering from class war then so is Europe, we are capitalist too.

My opinion is that war is always bad, class war included.

Class divisions do exist in society, and are exploited by those in power so they can remain in power. I'm not calling for the rise of the proletariat, just a more equitable division of the gains of labor. I'm far closer to socialist or strongly regulated capitalist than a communist. You don't see what you think you see here.
You do seem to have drifted to the left recently. *raises thumb*

War tends to be a bad thing. That's one of my little secrets. Dividing people into arbitrary groups and setting them against each other like home team versus away team and going "ra ra ra!" whenever your team scores and "boo" when they don't is also lame.
I agree. War does tend to be a bad thing. What's worse is when there's a war on and the aggressors continually deny that any such thing is happening, and that to say otherwise is damn near treasonous. That's the situation we're in right now in the US.



I don't. But, if you're talking about Marx's class divisions in society, and championing the so-called proletariat, that sounds to me like its communist. And if you want a war (i.e revolution!) to wage about it, even more so. I call em like I see it.
Class divisions do exist in society, and are exploited by those in power so they can remain in power. I'm not calling for the rise of the proletariat, just a more equitable division of the gains of labor. I'm far closer to socialist or strongly regulated capitalist than a communist. You don't see what you think you see here.

Because governments are better to formulate long-term strategies rather than respond to the whims of public opinion.

Yeah, like those great long term strategies in place to deal with the future scarcity of oil globally and water in many regions.

I agree. War does tend to be a bad thing. What's worse is when there's a war on and the aggressors continually deny that any such thing is happening, and that to say otherwise is damn near treasonous. That's the situation we're in right now in the US.


Oh, right. I keep forgetting that anyone who has above an arbitrary amount of wealth is an "aggressor" who is "waging war" on the poor proles. Comrade.

Class divisions do exist in society, and are exploited by those in power so they can remain in power. I'm not calling for the rise of the proletariat, just a more equitable division of the gains of labor. I'm far closer to socialist or strongly regulated capitalist than a communist. You don't see what you think you see here.

I see what I think I see. Socialist, communist, two fish in the same pond. You believe in "equality" (your misguided concept of it) over responsibility, collectivism over individualism, labor theory of value over modern economics.

What people want and what people need are seldom the same thing. People elect representatives because they trust the people they elect to be able to make better, more informed decisions than they themselves can make. A populist, therefore, is someone who isn't any more competent, by choice or by chance, than the people he or she serves. The point of representative government is to ensure competent leadership while keeping that leadership accountable. At least that's the theory.

Oh, right. I keep forgetting that anyone who has above an arbitrary amount of wealth is an "aggressor" who is "waging war" on the poor proles. Comrade.



I see what I think I see. Socialist, communist, two fish in the same pond. You believe in "equality" (your misguided concept of it) over responsibility, collectivism over individualism, labor theory of value over modern economics.

There go the straw men again. :rolleyes:

You know what? Never mind. You have proved my original point--that for you there are only the extremes of capitalism and communism, and no room for anything in the middle.

Generally because populists tap on the most negative attitudes of their people, and exploit them to gain public support, often through outlight lies, appeals to emotion and racism.

Why is it that right-wing libertarians say things like this all the time with regard to democracy, but call non-libertarians paternalistic and elitist when they say the same thing about individual freedom?
Because populist governments tend to infringe upon personal freedoms.

People don't know what's good for others, which is really what matters here. As long as you're only making decisions for yourself, I don't really care how much of an ignoramus you are. But as soon as you're making decisions on my behalf (which is what the majority does under a populist government), then your ignorance threatens my well-being.

Lets say I own a business. I don't have the skill, patience, or time to manage my business, so I hire someone to do it for me. I make sure that someone agrees with me on certain points that are important to me, but otherwise I just want to know that he's competent. Now if my manager seeks my input on every decision, and always does what I think we should do, then I might as well be managing the company myself. A good manager should make his own decisions, but should be making them in my best interests, so my company will grow and prosper. Of course, I have to watch my manager to make sure he's not violating my principles and that he's doing a competent job, but I don't want him to try and base business decisions after my personal interests and biases, thinking I'll probably go with them, even if it's really not a good idea.

A government office holder is really just a glorified manager, who we hire to manage our country.

Because populist governments tend to infringe upon personal freedoms.

People don't know what's good for others, which is really what matters here. As long as you're only making decisions for yourself, I don't really care how much of an ignoramus you are. But as soon as you're making decisions on my behalf (which is what the majority does under a populist government), then your ignorance threatens my well-being.

More than that, populists don't appeal to the learned, intellectuals of society. They appeal primarily to the lesser educated folks.

More than that, populists don't appeal to the learned, intellectuals of society. They appeal primarily to the lesser educated folks.

Hurray for our intellectual elite?(This being a perjorative term used by some politicians and the media)

A "class war" threatens ALL our positions.

Something I hoped people would have learned from the Russian Revolution. How quickly they forget. Sigh... commies.

To play devil's advocate, there's a bit more to it than that. Let's take the example of a sedan chair. It's carried along by two people while one person sits on top. Now, let's say the handles of the sedan snap, and everyone is forced to walk. Whose life improved?

Why do people seem to hate politicians who "do what is popular" so much.

Politicians are supposed to be the representatives of the electorate, they are supposed to attempt to get (re)elected by doing what the electorate desire, namely what is popular. Taking a decision because it's popular follows the basic precept of democracy which is (IMHO) give the people what they want.

If a politician makes a decision based on what the majority of the people he is supposed to represent actually want, then surely that is the best way he can fulfill his office, and if that decision is a bad one, then the fault for that (IMHO) doesn't lie with the politician.

It is not so much populist politicians (although I very much prefer a politician who was elected because their views reflected their constituency, rather than adapted to buy their constituency), it is the activist populist politicians who endorse policy based on public will when it should be based on expert discussion.

For example, economic policies, if handled by government, should be handled by an independent organization rather than a politicians interested solely in the continuation of their political career.

QFT

People are dumb. That's why they need leaders.

"That's why we have leaders. So we don't have to think."

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1305/homerib2.png (http://imageshack.us)

And when have people ever been given accurate and complete information?
Even if I provide the people with accurate and complete information, they need to spend a lot of time and effort to learn and understand what I've told them, plus they have no reason to believe my information is more accurate than that of the snake oil salesman down the street.

So they'll tend to follow the guy telling the more attractive and more easily consumable lies.

So they'll tend to follow the guy telling the more attractive and more easily consumable lies.

I find this extremely funny, but I don't think you'll know why.

I find this extremely funny, but I don't think you'll know why.

Because you hate commercial advertising?

Because you hate commercial advertising?

No, because his political philosophy is probably the most attractive one around.

No, because his political philosophy is probably the most attractive one around.

As evidenced by all the libertarians in public office.

Oh, right. I keep forgetting that anyone who has above an arbitrary amount of wealth is an "aggressor" who is "waging war" on the poor proles. Comrade.
Is this wilful ignorance, compulsive straw-man creation or a combination of the two?

I see what I think I see. Socialist, communist, two fish in the same pond.
Almost every political ideology that people advocate these days are in the same pond. That is the reason pond. I don't see many "divine right to be in power" monarchists around, for example.

Yeah, like those great long term strategies in place to deal with the future scarcity of oil globally and water in many regions.
Tell your sarcasm to Brazil and Sweden.

But as soon as you're making decisions on my behalf (which is what the majority does under a populist government), then your ignorance threatens my well-being.
The majority usually makes decisions that are good for the majority in a populist government. You may see that as infringing on your rights, but the reason the majority turn to government is because many of these things can't be achieved individually.

No, because his political philosophy is probably the most attractive one around.
To people whose parents pay for everything, I'm sure it is attractively simple.

As evidenced by all the libertarians in public office.

I'm talking about from a technical standpoint. Libertarians don't get elected because they aren't from one of the two major parties, and there's been years of propoganda that a vote for someone outside of those parties is a wasted vote because they won't get elected. Plenty of people who do get elected would be considered "small l" libertarians.

I'm talking about from a technical standpoint. Libertarians don't get elected because they aren't from one of the two major parties, and there's been years of propoganda that a vote for someone outside of those parties is a wasted vote because they won't get elected. Plenty of people who do get elected would be considered "small l" libertarians.

Name some.

Name some.

Ah, got it. I see where the issue is. I'm using a broader definition of libertarian than you. If I go by a stricter definition, limiting it to laissez-faire or further right on the economic axis, you won't find many. That's where the technical aspect gets overridden by the more emotional aspect. From a technical standpoint, libertarianism is immensely attractive. However, pretty much everyone has been screwed over or at least feels like they have been screwed over by businesses at one point, so most people will always want at least a minimum of regulation.

Leaders is a poor way of organising to begin with, but populists are worse than most for a couple of reasons.

Populists are inconsistent & untrustworthy. Their aim is to figure out what a majority wants in any given situation, and tell them it's what they want as well. Not only does this endanger minorities & create a situation of the blind leading the blind, it also creates a situation where there either isn't any leadership, or where the agenda & actions of the leadership is unknown to the population.

It's the death of democracy, regardless of the nature of the populists.

Ah, got it. I see where the issue is. I'm using a broader definition of libertarian than you. If I go by a stricter definition, limiting it to laissez-faire or further right on the economic axis, you won't find many. That's where the technical aspect gets overridden by the more emotional aspect. From a technical standpoint, libertarianism is immensely attractive. However, pretty much everyone has been screwed over or at least feels like they have been screwed over by businesses at one point, so most people will always want at least a minimum of regulation.

Fine, show me some that support a minimum of regulation.

Name 5 senators that are generally opposed to an active overseas military force, government subsidies, government regulation of markets, or the provision of social services.

People don't know what's good for others, which is really what matters here. As long as you're only making decisions for yourself, I don't really care how much of an ignoramus you are. But as soon as you're making decisions on my behalf (which is what the majority does under a populist government), then your ignorance threatens my well-being.

I recognize this distinction, but it doesn't square with what either you or Vetalia said earlier.

too many people don't know what is good for them

People are dumb. That's why they need leaders.

"Leaders," by the way, presuppose some people making decisions on other people's behalf - which is precisely why radical democracy is the way to go.

The majority usually makes decisions that are good for the majority in a populist government.
Right. Thus necessarily disenfranchising the minority. The individual has no necessary power at all, even over himself.
I recognize this distinction, but it doesn't square with what either you or Vetalia said earlier.

"Leaders," by the way, presuppose some people making decisions on other people's behalf - which is precisely why radical democracy is the way to go.
If there's going to be a government that makes decisions on behalf of the group, then I don't want the group having much control over those decisions, because the group isn't that bright.

However, the way to avoid that qundary is to prevent the leaders from making decisions that govern the group. That's where you find your freedom.

Because the input that the populace as a whole gives tends to be scant and relegated to opinion polls conducted by corporate media outlets.
Or, in other words, popular opinion tends to be inaccurately reflected.

The IDEA of a Populice government is great. The people want something, the government gives them what they want, government leaders get re-elected, everyone wins!

But IMO a Populice government is like Communism,once you add in human flaws, everything falls apart. People dissagree on things, the majority might not be smart, corruption, pretty much anything you can think of can throw off that kind of idea. Populice governments are awsome, we just need angels to make it work.

I think the way most people talk about it, populism refers to policies that have only been calculated to sound good rather than to work. It's either meaningless, symbolic, impractical legislation that the government dosen't even bother to enforce (some of Blair's antiterrorism laws and the fox-hunting ban come to mind) or just self-contradictory nonsense (the old trick of promising to lower taxes, raise spending and cut a deficit at the same time). It's usually presented as a quick fix to problems that don't have one, and generally makes them worse.

Because you end up like in Britain- the two main parties, two irritating fake so-called "politicians" for whom "reasoned policy" is a dirty word and "good headlines" the holy grail, no meaningful ideological content, and no interest in mainstream politics from all rational members of society.

Because you end up like in Britain- the two main parties, two irritating fake so-called "politicians" for whom "reasoned policy" is a dirty word and "good headlines" the holy grail, no meaningful ideological content, and no interest in mainstream politics from all rational members of society.

Hate to burst your bubble, but you get that without populist politicians too.

If there's going to be a government that makes decisions on behalf of the group, then I don't want the group having much control over those decisions, because the group isn't that bright.

However, the way to avoid that qundary is to prevent the leaders from making decisions that govern the group. That's where you find your freedom.

So because people are stupid they need leaders. These leaders shouldn' have any power to actually govern the people. Makes sense :rolleyes:

So because people are stupid they need leaders. These leaders shouldn' have any power to actually govern the people. Makes sense :rolleyes:
If the government has no power, I don't care how it's chosen. But if it does have power, I don't want it pandering to the majority.

If the government has no power, I don't care how it's chosen. But if it does have power, I don't want it pandering to the majority.

As opposed to its normal function of maintaining the luxury of the rich and powerful and crushing any attempt by the bottom to improve its collective lot? :headbang:

The problem with populist politicians is that they are suposed to be leaders but would kick their own mothers down a flight of stairs if 51% of the people polled said they were in favor of it. A populist does not lead, he follows and brings nothing new to the table. A populist is useless because he's just parroting the mob.

The problem with populist politicians is that they are suposed to be leaders but would kick their own mothers down a flight of stairs if 51% of the people polled said they were in favor of it. A populist does not lead, he follows and brings nothing new to the table. A populist is useless because he's just parroting the mob.

.... and sometimes the mob is wrong

.... and sometimes the mob is wrong

The people get the government they deserve.

As opposed to its normal function of maintaining the luxury of the rich and powerful and crushing any attempt by the bottom to improve its collective lot? :headbang:
I would describe what the government does now as pandering to the majority.

The majority is choosing a government which does them harm, and it's doing so because the majority is a dumb, panicky, dangerous mob.