Barney Frank Defends Political Hypocrisy, Game Theory Explains It 191
HughPickens.com writes with a link to Steven I. Weiss's Atlantic article which says game theory can shed light both on what is happening in Washington and on how the bargaining power of its negotiating parties may evolve over time and comes to the conclusion that hypocrisy is essential to the functioning of Congress -- in fact, it's the only tool legislators have after they've rooted out real corruption. "Legislators do not pay each other for votes, and every member of a parliament in a democratic society is legally equal to every member," writes Congressman Barney Frank in his new memoir, Frank: A Life in Politics From the Great Society to Same-Sex Marriage. For legislators, cooperation is a form of political currency. They act in concert with other legislators, even at the expense of their own beliefs, in order to bank capital or settle accounts."
Game theory sets out conditions under which negotiating parties end up cooperating, and why they sometimes fail to do so. It does so based on analyzing what drives individuals in the majority of bargaining situations: incentives, access to information, initial power conditions, the extent of mutual trust, and accountability enforcement. Instead of seeing political flip-flopping as a necessary evil, Frank suggests it is inherent to democracy and according to Frank if there's any blame to be doled out in connection with political hypocrisy, it's to be placed on the heads of voters who criticize legislators for it, instead of accepting it as a necessary part of democratic politics.
Game theory sets out conditions under which negotiating parties end up cooperating, and why they sometimes fail to do so. It does so based on analyzing what drives individuals in the majority of bargaining situations: incentives, access to information, initial power conditions, the extent of mutual trust, and accountability enforcement. Instead of seeing political flip-flopping as a necessary evil, Frank suggests it is inherent to democracy and according to Frank if there's any blame to be doled out in connection with political hypocrisy, it's to be placed on the heads of voters who criticize legislators for it, instead of accepting it as a necessary part of democratic politics.
blame the voter (Score:5, Insightful)
Frank suggests it is inherent to democracy and according to Frank if there's any blame to be doled out in connection with political hypocrisy, it's to be placed on the heads of voters who criticize legislators for it, instead of accepting it as a necessary part of democratic politics
yes... lets blame the voter for the person they voted for not doing the things that he was voted in for
I dont disagree with the fact that voters share blame for voting the same people in over and over and seeing nothing change, however for a politician to blame the voter, and even worse make the argument that his hands are tied is pretty pathetic IMO.
Party loyalty is the root of the problem ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Frank suggests it is inherent to democracy and according to Frank if there's any blame to be doled out in connection with political hypocrisy, it's to be placed on the heads of voters who criticize legislators for it, instead of accepting it as a necessary part of democratic politics
yes... lets blame the voter for the person they voted for not doing the things that he was voted in for
I dont disagree with the fact that voters share blame for voting the same people in over and over and seeing nothing change, however for a politician to blame the voter, and even worse make the argument that his hands are tied is pretty pathetic IMO.
Yes, but, voters are even more pathetic for, as you say, voting for the same politicians over and over.
Basically party loyalty is the root of the problem. Its the trap that makes a voter irrelevant, both parties may ignore a loyal party voter. The voter's party because they already have that vote, the other party because they cannot get that vote.
The only way to make politicians accountable is to be a disloyal party member. (1) To consider the other candidate and be willing to vote for that candidate if he/she looks like they will do a better job, which may be will do less damage, "better" is a relative thing. (2) To punitively vote against an incumbent, even from your own party, if they choose to represent interests other than the people's. Honest disagreement over how to accomplish a goal is fine, but acting absolutely contrary to the people's interests must be punished. Failure to do so is encouraging such behavior.
The currency of politics is votes, as Frank admits, but that currency is primarily held by the voters. In a one person one vote system the 99% have the power, the money of the 1% can only buy influence when the 99% permit it. And we permit it by re-electing incumbents that fail to protect our interests. A politicians greatest goal is to get re-elected and that is in the hands of the 99% not the 1%.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only way to make politicians accountable is to be a disloyal party member.
No, there is one other way, and a better one: use the primary election to kick out a bad incumbent and put in place a better representative from the same party. The fact that voters don't turn out in the primaries is one of the greatest failings of our political process. If we used the primaries to select a candidate who would sign on to a properly framed platform we would have a much more responsive and representative system.
Re: (Score:3)
The only way to make politicians accountable is to be a disloyal party member.
No, there is one other way, and a better one: use the primary election to kick out a bad incumbent and put in place a better representative from the same party. The fact that voters don't turn out in the primaries is one of the greatest failings of our political process. If we used the primaries to select a candidate who would sign on to a properly framed platform we would have a much more responsive and representative system.
That is one aspect of the punitive voting scheme I am referring to. Punitive votes can occur in the primary or the general. However the punitive votes in the general may be necessary to break the party machine and the power of the fringes. The fringes will always have a disproportionate influence in the primary as opposed to the general. In the general they sort of cancel out to a degree. A Darwinian process of constant losses and the machine and fringe should adapt, moderate or get nothing.
Re:Party loyalty is the root of the problem ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically party loyalty is the root of the problem.
It has nothing to do with party loyalty and everything to do with the system itself. A winner-take all system will devolve into a two party system and stay that way. Game theory is in agreement with that. No matter how much one group wants to splinter, doing so would ensure the success of the other group, which is usually viewed as worse than sticking with ones own group, even if you dislike a lot of their policies.
We won't get anything else until we fix that basic element of our political system, but neither of the current parties have any interest in doing so because both realize that neither will ultimately die with the current system in place. At worst, they shift position slightly, change names, and reach near equilibrium within a few election cycles.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically party loyalty is the root of the problem.
It has nothing to do with party loyalty and everything to do with the system itself. A winner-take all system will devolve into a two party system and stay that way. Game theory is in agreement with that. No matter how much one group wants to splinter, doing so would ensure the success of the other group, which is usually viewed as worse than sticking with ones own group, even if you dislike a lot of their policies.
You are missing a critical detail. Members of both parties are disloyal. There is no one party splintering and one party remaining solid. There is simple members of both parties voting for a superior candidate regardless of party, and punishing an incumbent that represents interests other than the people's. I am not referring to punishing an incumbent over mere disagreement on the best path to a common goal. For example honest disagreement on banking reform, as opposed to outright giving dishonest bankers a
Re: (Score:2)
Basically party loyalty is the root of the problem.
Party loyalty is much weaker today than in the past, when candidates were picked by party bosses rather than elected in primaries, and campaign funds were provided by the parties rather than PACs. So if party loyalty was the root of the problem, things would be getting much better.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically party loyalty is the root of the problem.
Party loyalty is much weaker today than in the past, when candidates were picked by party bosses rather than elected in primaries, and campaign funds were provided by the parties rather than PACs. So if party loyalty was the root of the problem, things would be getting much better.
Two thirds of the voters are out of the game due to party loyalty. Only the disloyal are being courted and persuaded and making the decision on who runs things.
"Party loyalty" is not about selecting candidates, its about voting for them. If a poor candidate is selected then a party member should view the other candidate more favorably. This will lead to better candidates being selected in the primaries. Its going along with some idiot that won the primary because he/she is your party's choice that is scr
Re:Party loyalty is the root of the problem ... (Score:4, Interesting)
To be fair, most of those "Fox is the worst" studies are just terrible. Except in one or two cases they are opinion pieces disguised as scientific studies and a person is determined to be uninformed if they disagree with the questioners opinion. For example, this is the statement from one of the studies as to how they determine a correct answer:
Of course they used their own discretion to determine which groups are non-partisan and on which topics their opinion is the correct one.
The more interesting thing is that in one of the better studies (it still had some opinion questions but more simple fact based ones), while Fox viewers were rated the least informed about world events (in actuality just slightly below MSNBC and CNN but that is rarely mentioned) when broken down by political leanings it found that that the least informed were conservatives who watched MSNBC and liberals who watch FOX. People who watch the News channel more generally in line with their political leanings scored significantly higher.
Re: (Score:2)
The money of PACs is overrated. No amount of Koch brothers commercials will change an informed mind.
Except Koch money (and others, esp. Murdoch) is being used to "inform" minds.
Only to inform naive apathetic minds, and these people only have a disproportionate power because so many of those who do care take themselves out of the game by party loyalty. Exception, NRA and AARP members. They care about their issues, show up to vote, and are not loyal to a party; and as a results they have enormous power. These organizations show the secondary status of money, delivering votes is far more powerful than delivering money.
Re: (Score:2)
"it's the only tool legislators have after they've rooted out real corruption"
It'll be awhile for this condition to occur, so the rest of his argument is moot.
Re: (Score:3)
Politicians want to be leaders not minions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically party loyalty
It isn't Party loyalty that's the problem, it is the parties themselves that are the problem.
Eliminate Party Primaries, and have complete and open primaries, and you'll have much better representation than the current binary system we have today.
Or, let me put it this way, how much in common does a Democrat from San Fransisco have to a Democrat from Kentucky?
Re: (Score:2)
The pervasive first-past-the-post system means that there will be two major parties. At that point, I don't see much difference between partisan and non-partisan primaries.
Since one party will wind up in control of the Senate, and one in control of the House, it's to the interest of the San Francisco Democrat that the Democrat is elected in Kentucky.
Re:Party loyalty is the root of the problem ... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, party loyalty is only a symptom, not a root. The same 'game theory' explanation given in TFS is also the root of 'party loyalty'.
No it does not. Two members of Congress are peers and have to cooperate in some form. However a voter in a one person one vote system is not a peer, voters have absolute control over the politician's future unlike a fellow member of Congress. Voters may reward good behavior (re-elect) and punish bad behavior (punitive vote for the other candidate, forcing incumbent out of office). Party loyalty disrupts this reward/punishment feedback loop, it breaks what would otherwise be a Darwinian process.
Again, the 99% have the power, they just choose to accept the status quo and permit a certain level of bad behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Members of Congress may be peers, but they are in no way equals when it comes to influence.
Membership and especially chair positions on some committees (House Ways & Means, Intelligence, etc.) have a lot more power than other committees and those memberships are not handed out to the freshmen class.
Re: (Score:2)
Members of Congress may be peers, but they are in no way equals when it comes to influence. Membership and especially chair positions on some committees (House Ways & Means, Intelligence, etc.) have a lot more power than other committees and those memberships are not handed out to the freshmen class.
Yes, but a powerful chair can not remove a low ranking member from office. Something the voters can do.
Re: (Score:2)
You're ignoring the structure of the voting system.
You can't vote "none of the above". One candidate in an election is going to get more than any other, and will win. This means that third parties are screwed, since it's really hard for a third party to get enough of a chance to attract people who are afraid they're throwing their vote away by voting for said party. Something like ranked-choice voting would be very useful here, as it would allow voters to vote for their favored candidates first and st
Re: (Score:2)
Throwing the rascal out means electing the candidate of the less favored party. Except in particularly egregious cases, it won't be clear that the opposite party candidate is any better. This makes "throw the rascal out" very unattractive.
Everything has a price. It is a Darwinian process. For candidates to be shown that serving the people is the path to future office and serving special interests is the path out of office they must see that party loyalty will not save them. They must fear that their party members **will** vote for the unattractive less favored opponents in response to bad behavior.
You are essentially arguing to vote for a party platform, essentially excusing a office holder's bad behavior. That is exactly what is happenin
Re:Party loyalty is the root of the problem ... (Score:4, Informative)
The currency of politics is votes, as Frank admits, but that currency is primarily held by the voters. In a one person one vote system the 99% have the power, the money of the 1% can only buy influence when the 99% permit it. And we permit it by re-electing incumbents that fail to protect our interests. A politicians greatest goal is to get re-elected and that is in the hands of the 99% not the 1%.
Unfortunately, the 1% control exposure to candidates through media cartels. The 99% can vote in whoever they want, but the only candidates they'll ever see are those who have been vetted by the 1%.
We had a case where the voters got sufficiently riled up that a candidate with no money or name recognition beat the incumbent. An incumbent that outspent the no name 1,000:1 and who was the ranking party leader in the House. The winner was not the choice of the 1%.
2014 House Majority Leader lost to professor (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, you're basically saying the same thing Frank said -- cooperation (with your party) is currency.
Except that there are multiple currencies and not all currencies are equal. The supreme currency is the vote of the citizen, it determines whether one gets into office, stays there, or is removed. The vastly inferior currency is the favor trading among peers in the House or Senate that will not save a politician from the wrath of voters.
It's based on a faulty premise... (Score:2)
...that essentially, when you get down to it, all political decisions are the same.
Voting in slavery or declaring a war or a rehaul of a transportation system... same shit.
It's all just the stuff politicians do.
They act in concert with other legislators, even at the expense of their own beliefs, in order to bank capital or settle accounts.
Ergo, it is perfectly fine to give up one's own principles and voters in order to curry favor with one's peers and accumulate personal political prestige, which can then be further traded.
So, giving up one's principles to accumulate prestige, and giving up one's voters to accumulate even more...
Clear
Re:It's based on a faulty premise... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the thing that matters is to execute those actions which keep the machine of government moving along
Sometimes you work against your immediate interests in order to promote your long-term interests
The Tea Party members of Congress are unable to do this, that is why were only see small bits of legislation being originated in the House and most of it has to do with killing the ACA, which at this point is little more than an old campaign platform that has little bearing on the current issues that the country faces
Re: (Score:3)
No, the thing that matters is to execute those actions which keep the machine of government moving along
Sometimes you work against your immediate interests in order to promote your long-term interests
No, that's what the career politicians tell themselves to validate their own hypocrisy.
And if the Tea Partiers were the only issue, and compromise and cooperation really are "currency", then rest of the Republicans would be closing deals hand over fist and legislation would be passing like shit through a goose.
Tea Partiers not knowing how the "cooperation currency" works, just sitting on their "currency" and making no use of it, and thus raising it's value - it would be prime time to both cash in AND to mak
Not considering the entire equation (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that's what the career politicians tell themselves to validate their own hypocrisy.
I'm guessing you've never been involved in any elected office where voting was part of the job description. The post you were replying to is right and it isn't a self justification on the part of the politicians. No elected official in a democracy can get their way all the time. What's important to them is usually not important to others. The only (legal) currency they have to trade with other legislators is their votes on issues. So if they have an issue that is really important to them they necessarily will have to trade their vote on other issues they consider less important in order to get something done. If they are unwilling to compromise like this then very little legislation will get passed. This is EXACTLY what is happening in our current legislature. The thing you aren't considering is why those people got elected in the first place. In particular you aren't considering the effects of gerrymandering.
Tea Partiers not knowing how the "cooperation currency" works, just sitting on their "currency" and making no use of it, and thus raising it's value - it would be prime time to both cash in AND to make big deals for the future.
You're not considering the whole equation. The ENTIRE reason these tea party folks got into office was because they were the most ideologically pure candidate in a gerrymandered district. If they compromise and do something actually useful that involves compromise they get voted out of office during the next election cycle by another Tea Partier who promises to never compromise. This happens even if the legislation is objectively in the best interest of the country. This in spite of the fact that it is almost literally impossible to do anything useful in a legislature without trading votes unless you have a one party supermajority. This happens on the left too in many places - it's not just one side or the other. (though the tea party provides probably the clearest example it isn't the only one)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the thing that matters is to execute those actions which keep the machine of government moving along
Sometimes you work against your immediate interests in order to promote your long-term interests
And most people should be familiar with this process. When I get paid, do I spend all my money now and party, or sacrifice a little to save away for a rainy day.
What's most surprising is that a lot of people don't seem to understand this concept.
Re:blame the voter (Score:5, Insightful)
Goddamn right blame the voter! With 98% reelection rates there is nobody else to blame. I don't care who does it. There is nothing wrong with a thief calling you stupid if you let him rob you over and over. He would be correct in that assessment!
Re: (Score:2)
With the Congressional approval rates, it's obvious voters are not getting what they want.
98% of the time, the incumbent looks like a better bet. The odds are that the incumbent has positions more to the taste of the voters in that district, who usually have the option of voting for somebody with less palatable positions and who may be no better a person than the incumbent. The main problems are structural.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
Re:blame the voter (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the problems arise when voters fall for the call to 'clean house' and keep putting new people into office who have heartfelt agendas that keep them from negotiating
The biggest problem with the people placed into office with the Tea Party has been that they only have a couple of rallying calls that they will beckon to and the actual process of legislating is far too muddy for them to deal with
So, we get a smattering of votes to defund the government or kill the ACA and nothing else
They have been slandered endlessly, but 'real' legislators like Ted Kennedy are what kept things moving along, even when the "opposition" party held the White House
Re: (Score:2)
Well voters rarely kick out the incumbent even if they didn't deliver what they promised. So yeah voters are to blame. They still believe today what Reagan promised just because he played a nice guy.
So no compromise allowed? (Score:2)
lets blame the voter for the person they voted for not doing the things that he was voted in for
So you think that legislators should have no room to compromise whatsoever when making legislation? You've just explained why our current congress is unable to get anything done. You've also explained the reason we continue to see more fringe tea-party candidates who would rather shut the government down rather than pass necessary legislation even though it isn't their ideal version of a bill.
You cannot have an effective legislature AND have members who cannot compromise unless you live in a one party dic
Re: (Score:2)
A thinking tyrant, it seemed to Vetinari, had a much harder job than a ruler raised to power by some idiot vote-yourself-rich system like democracy. At least he could tell the people he was their fault.
"Going postal"
Terry Pratchett
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not how democracy is designed to work. The decision to support or oppose a policy is supposed to be based on whether the policy is a good one, not on whether or not you can get support for one of your policies in return.
The US is unusual in this respect, I believe, though presumably not unique. Whether the more usual system (party line voting) is any better is open to question; I prefer it, but that's presumably just because it's what I'm used to.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What are you talking about?
Whether or not a policy is "good" has no bearing at all. Whether or not a policy is popular among the voters is the only deciding factor. If voters want a bad policy, they get a bad policy. If not enough voters want a good policy, they don't get the good policy.
There is no absolute assessment of whether or not a policy is good or bad. There is only an assessment of its popularity among voters.
Of course, there is a presumption that a good policy will be a popular policy. Wheth
Re:blame the voter (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah. I think I see what you mean. The key phrase is "The diversity of interests represented in any large political body makes such an approach relatively ineffective" - in other words, in the US, voters in different parts of the nation may want very different things. That's much less true pretty much everywhere else in the world, which might well explain why the US system is so different.
In a pure democracy, the voters in different parts of the US would have to negotiate directly with one another. That's implausible, so you have a representative democracy, and the representatives negotiate with one another.
When you put it that way, it actually makes sense. ... it still isn't how democracy was *first* designed to work, which is what I was originally thinking of - but it seems fair to say it is how American democracy was designed to work, and that's what I should have been thinking of. :-)
Odd sense of hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Frank suggests it is inherent to democracy and according to Frank if there's any blame to be doled out in connection with political hypocrisy, it's to be placed on the heads of voters who criticize legislators for it, instead of accepting it as a necessary part of democratic politics.
A lot of other politicians would call it horse-trading. They aren't doing anything that is hypocritical to being a politician, though they may on occasion be making decisions (or casting votes) that are counter to their campaign promises.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That they think of themselves as "politicians" is the problem. The voters don't think of them that way. The voters (most are woefully naive and uninformed) think they're voting for "statesmen".
By the way, what is the difference in definition of 'politician' versus 'statesman' in this context?
Re: (Score:3)
A politician disagrees with you, and a Statesman agrees with you.
For any particular value of "you", of course.
Note that the real problem with any elected governing body is that they are measured by the legislation they pass or oppose. It's never occurred to most of them that most problems will resolve themselves without having to pass a law....
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Presumably you have ideas about what's best. Therefore, the statesman is the one pushing for the right things, and the politician is the one you disagree with, since he or she is presumably doing so for venal reasons.
Re: Odd sense of hypocrisy (Score:2)
Compromise is when you get some of what you wanted, but not all.
Horse trading is when you support something you don't care about in exchange for something you do.
Hypocrisy is when you claim to dislike something, then support it anyway.
I see no reason why politics cannot function with only the first two.
Re: (Score:3)
The essence of being a politician (in a representative democracy) is representing the interests of those who voted for you. Failure to do that is basically an abrogation of you duty. Otherwise we could just go with direct voting and cut out the middle-man.
Horse-trading is more in line with cutting deal. In a real world sense, it is the process of figuring out where your preferences lie. It may be a fine line, but it is there.
And neither have anything to do with the shady deals most politicians engage in. It
Re: (Score:2)
The essence of being a politician (in a representative democracy) is representing the interests of those who voted for you.
That is an interesting starting point, but it is based on the assumption that everyone who voted for you agrees with each other 100% of the time. I often find myself in the voting booth trying to decide which is the less smelly of two bowls of shit [goodreads.com]. I'm not sure I have ever seen a candidate who I agreed with on every single issue; and amongst my closest friends I don't know that I agree with any of them on 100% of the issues that come up in a typical congressional session.
In other words, I would say
Not hypocrisy. (Score:3)
Could be. But what it is NOT is hypocrisy since both the initial claim to support/oppose X and the vote to oppose/support X are in the public eye.
Hypocrisy is when a PUBLIC virtue is claimed while practising the associated vice in PRIVATE.
This could be horse trading (regular politics). This could be corruption. This could be a two-faced lying politician.
But it would not be hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be. But what it is NOT is hypocrisy since both the initial claim to support/oppose X and the vote to oppose/support X are in the public eye.
Hypocrisy is when a PUBLIC virtue is claimed while practising the associated vice in PRIVATE.
This could be horse trading (regular politics). This could be corruption. This could be a two-faced lying politician.
But it would not be hypocrisy.
Yeah - it's hypocrisy. It doesn't mean it's not horse trading (which ain't necessarily a good thing if it's a responsible position being traded - no matter how often it occurs), or two-faced lying (which is a redundant term).
Dunno why you're trying so hard to pretend that it's not. Hint: a hypocrite is someone whom maintains a moral stance that contradicts their practices - whether or not the contradictory actions are public or private it's still hypocrisy. They're lowlifes just like falsifiers.
No amount of
of course. (Score:2)
Compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called compromise, not hypocrisy. That's common to all negotiations. You not supposed to pretend to like what you're voting for; you just have to say to yourself, "OK, I'm not getting what I want here, but I am getting what I want over there." Of course, compromise is impossible when one side absolutely refuses to compromise.
Hypocrisy is where you claim to represent "family values," while sleeping with someone other than your wife, or soliciting men in the men's room.
Re: (Score:3)
Phew, I thought for a minute that they have to be hypocritical, but if it's only a last resort AFTER they've rooted out corruption, they must still have plenty of other tools available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a different matter, and is a problem with the voters. If a Senator was likely to get more approval from trimming $50G of pork from the budget than getting $1G into his or her own state, we'd have more financial responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
See, and I'd say hypocrisy is spending the last 6 years of your career in government complaining about the fuckery going on with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and their subprime loans...when you were in charge of the relevant committee AND were 'married to' * the dude RESPONSIBLE for the subprime loans at one of those very two agencies.
THAT'S hypocrisy.
* quote only because it was proforma at the time
Re: (Score:2)
Reid and Pelosi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called compromise, not hypocrisy. That's common to all negotiations. You not supposed to pretend to like what you're voting for; you just have to say to yourself, "OK, I'm not getting what I want here, but I am getting what I want over there." Of course, compromise is impossible when one side absolutely refuses to compromise.
Hypocrisy is where you claim to represent "family values," while sleeping with someone other than your wife, or soliciting men in the men's room.
The Republicans here don't under stand compromise; just look at how they've spent the past 8 years chanting "NO!".
While giving President Obama everything he asks for. You are right, that isn't compromise, it's fellatio.
Everything he asks for? (Score:3)
While giving President Obama everything he asks for. You are right, that isn't compromise, it's fellatio.
They have given him almost nothing he has asked for. In fact they routinely and almost universally oppose all things he proposes even when they are actually republican ideas in origin. They refuse reasonable compromise legislation constantly even when it has significant features that should appeal to the right. Give Obama "everything he asks for"? What planet are you living on that you think that has happened?
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans here don't under stand compromise; just look at how they've spent the past 8 years chanting "NO!".
What makes you think that? Instead, it appears to me that they perceive no advantage to compromise.
I have to agree for different reasons. For example, I see no upside to compromising on our basic freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
New Moral Coding (Score:5, Insightful)
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time
they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." --- Frédéric Bastiat [wikiquote.org]
Re:New Moral Coding -- Exception Thrown (Score:2)
Game Theory is an academically sanctioned tabloid fascination with soiled brown underwear, thinly disguised as a tool for analyzing base motives.
Great things have been accomplished by those with brown underwear though they would rather not fixate on it and most historians tend not to record it, because brown underwear it is boring. Game Theory can precisely describe the motivations of Spherical Cows in a vacuum. To use it to describe complicated human beings is a gross insult -- indeed so much of an insul
Everyone understands this, but not for core issues (Score:2)
Everyone understands that, in the current system in the USA, politicians have to give and take. The problem that people have with this is twofold:
1. Because the whips have much less power than in other countries (such as the UK), politicians in the USA can blame others when they don't do what their votors want them to do.
2. People get upset when politicians abandon core issues in the name of "horsetrading".
People understand that they won't get everything their representative promised, but when they get onl
Ignore the 800lb gorilla why don't you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points. What can you expect if politicians are financed by the highest bidder?
Blame the voters (Score:2)
Think about it......would you rather vote for someone who supports gay marriage, or one who would change the constitution to make it illegal? Most politicians opposed gay marriage not long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Voters would rather have a hypocrite in office who does what they want
And what they actually get is someone who tells them what they want to hear while never resolving the issues that keep the voter coming back for more.
Corruption "gone"?!? (Score:2)
it's the only tool legislators have after they've rooted out real corruption
Uhm... are you sure you're talking about the US? That's the only country in the world that outright legalized corruption, in the guise of "campaign donations".
NEWSFLASH - Slimy politician is slimy (Score:5, Insightful)
The entitlement out of these people is pretty fucking revolting. I mean, they think they earned something. They got elected - sure... people voted for them - sure... but if you get elected to do X and then do Y... fuck you. The voters might have been stupid to trust you but you're still a slimeball for fucking them over, aren't you shithead?
Who has any faith in these people at this point.
We seem to have no one choose from besides slime balls and crazy people.
On the left you've got a choice between Hillary and Bernie... Slime ball versus crazy person. And then on the right you have a collection of slimeballs versus a collection of crazy people. I can't really think of any one on either side that doesn't fit neatly into one of those categories.
Like... Trump... the republicans think that is a good idea right now for reasons that can only be attributed to fucking madness. he's a crazy person. Then you have Jeb and Cruz... slimeballs.
Its a race to see if we are ruled by corrupt lying shitheads... or people that probably should have butterfly nets thrown over their heads and carted off to a nice quiet place with a life time supply of jigsaw puzzles to chew on.
Re: (Score:2)
The entitlement out of these people is pretty fucking revolting. I mean, they think they earned something. They got elected - sure... people voted for them - sure... but if you get elected to do X and then do Y...
This kind of thinking right here is what's causing the problem. Congress' job is to pass the legislation needed to keep the government running properly. That of course includes any changes the government requires (one of which might be your "X"), but it also includes a lot of mundane crap. So you need to be voting for people whose judgment you trust to represent you in making these decisions and in keeping the government running smoothly.
Legislators aren't sent to Congress to vote on one bill and then go
Re: (Score:2)
... why do people think strawmen are valid arguments? Its a real mystery.
Nothing you're talking about relates to my point.
I"m not even going to respond to it. Try again with less strawmanning and I'll respond.
Re: (Score:2)
That's more down to the cultish adherence people have to these arbitrary parties.
Break all the factions down... and list all their beliefs.
Most of them shouldn't be on the same sides.
Why are greens and pro union people on the same party? they've got contrary interests.
Why are evangelical Christians and libertarians in the same party? They believe in almost none of the same things.
The whole thing is fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, just have more direct federal issue votes instead of relying so much on representatives.
"Should we go to war with [insert country], Yes/No".
"Should we increase border security funding by 10%, Yes/No."
Many states have these for state issues. The hard part is keeping cruft out of them, though. Have a fairly high barrier to including things on the issue ballet.
And streamline the voting process.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Its the 21st century we could do that.
Dont blame the voters (Score:2)
The voters are people. Every voter is equal.
Blame the corporate lobby groups. Lobby groups have more power than voters, limited only by how much money they have.
There's hypocrisy and then there's greed (Score:3)
Game theory does have a lot to say about why people hold their noses and vote for X, no doubt. What's more, all those crazy asshole congresspeople Michelle Bachman, Jim Inhofe, are very often representing the actual wishes of their constituents- Congress is divided because, largely the nation is divided.
If you want Congress to act like adults, it's up to YOU to find some way to engage people with opposing viewpoints and convince them or find a compromise on things that are important to you. If 75% of a district is telling Inhofe that global warming is a conspiracy, what do you think he's going to do on the Envrionmental Comittee?
That's in defense of the system. On the other hand...
Any argument that attempts to assert, or steers you to the "reasoned" conclusion, that the system HAS to be as dysfunctional as it is, however dysfunctional THAT is, is totall bogus. It's tantamount to saying "well, whatever goes down, it was inevitable anyway!"
We don't have to fund our elections in a way that gives virtually unlimited power to big political donors. We could set aside an amount, and make all candidates live on that amount and that's that.The SCOTUS decision equating money with free speech was just a symptom of the diseaseand nothing more.
The fact is that heedless, reckless greed can and will destroy the nation. The quintessential example is action on climate change being forestalled merely because Bil Oil and Big Coal control the purse strings Senators need to get elected.
In that scenario, it really doesn't matter how you compromise or connduct yourself because there's a direct line from how elections are financed to legislative outcomes to mass extinction. Try compromising with climate reality- see how far that gets you Barney.
There are other examples where greed and money are clearly the driving force irrespective of "compromise". Eric Holdre very cleary decline to prosecute Wall Street because
a) he's from Wall Steet and those are his bros
(sympathy and identification)
b) The Democratics Party is 100% dependent on Wall Street money, especially if the alternative is that same money switches sides
c) he's cashing in now - to the tune of millions of dollars a year- working for by the same people he should have prosecuted as Attorney General.
What does "compromise" have to do with that kind of sheer in-your-face corruption?
The system can become so diseased that the specifics and overarching context of any negotiations - which is what Frank is talking about- are totally irrelevant to the goodness of legislative outcomes.
That diseased system is in fact what we have. It owes largely to how campaigns are funded and the revoloving door.
pointing out corrupt politicians in Wa.DC is like (Score:2)
the unneeded tool (Score:2)
in fact, it's the only tool legislators have after they've rooted out real corruption.
By that definition they will never have a need for that tool.
Does not compute (Score:2)
"it's the only tool legislators have after they've rooted out real corruption." They've rooted out real corruption! Really? So... what's that other stuff? Imitation corruption?
Oh wait.... Game Theory. Um, I'm being gamed. Again.
The New World Order - it's not a mindset, it's an instruction. Thou shalt believe that hypocrisy is the logical result of the elimination of corruption. [sigh]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By real corruption they mean corruption so vile that it would disgust even members of congress. The other corruption simply goes by the name "business as usual". And, by the way, by that definition it is real corruption that does not exist, not the other kind.
Thanks for the clarification.
the dysfunction junction (Score:2)
In my opinion, all professionals are obliged to have an opinion of the system within which they operate, and a sense of whether dysfunctions exist which could be better resolved than endured.
The excessive influence of money on the American Congress was well understood. What did the politicians do? They went ahead and made the whole problem worse.
All too often politicians fail to publicly criticize the dysfunctional nature of the political system, preferring instead to revel within the obvious dysfunction
Blame voters (Score:2)
Blame voters because they do not want liars?
French first revolution had other fixes for liars (including the famous guillotine). I hope we will not go that wild, but carry on blaming voters and perhaps they will find the need for fixes.
Yet another inflammatory headline? (Score:2)
Nowhere in TFAs can I see any evidence that Barney Frank actually used the word "hypocrisy."
Well, did he? From what I can see, that word is used by the writers of TFAs, not Frank.
Hypocrisy is now a virtue (Score:2)
Hypocrisy is the only sin for a moral relativist -- failing one's own moral code, a universal sin that can always be pointed out by anyone to anyone. However, it is incredibly dangerous to demonize hypocrites -- because they can become non-hypocrites by embracing the bad thing, and that is worse yet seems to be overlooked. So someone who smokes and admits it's bad and you shouldn't do it, is a hypocrite. But someone who says you ought to smoke too is worse. These days, it seems to take more courage to be a
Re: (Score:2)
Hypocrisy is the only sin for a moral relativist -- failing one's own moral code, a universal sin that can always be pointed out by anyone to anyone.
Speak for yourself.
However, it is incredibly dangerous to demonize hypocrites -- because they can become non-hypocrites by embracing the bad thing, and that is worse yet seems to be overlooked. So someone who smokes and admits it's bad and you shouldn't do it, is a hypocrite. But someone who says you ought to smoke too is worse. These days, it seems to take more courage to be a hypocrite and speak out against something even though you have a personal failing, rather than safely promoting that thing because you truly believe in it.
Also, hypocrisy is different from flip-flopping, different from changing one's mind as new facts become known, and different from compromising as necessary to actually achieve one's goals as opposed to merely making a show of unyielding yet worthless support.
I see the problem, and it's common. You don't understand what hypocrisy means. Let me try and help:-
I smoke, and if I tell you smoking is bad - that doesn't make me a hypocrite (though smoking makes me an idiot). If you lived on tater tots dusted in Dorritos and I called you a fool for not respecting your body that that would make me a hypocrite.
If a politician called you a low-life because you broke a law, while they rented prostitutes in a (backward) places the criminalises prostitution
The reason that American politics is ruined (Score:2)
Isn't game theory, it's manipulation by fascists
see http://www.progressive.org/new... [progressive.org]
The Koch bros are Birchers, and the John Birch society was a organization founded to spread paranoid racist lies, and attempt to do it in secret.
And their money funded the tea party.
To make it clear what I mean by secret (Score:2)
The society's organization was based on the communist party or a cult. People met in secret, spun off other groups. The idea was to indoctrinate but not to do it entirely openly and not to expose the people involved.
political currency (Score:2)
What Frank isn't telling you is that "those larger objectives" still have little to do with what voters actually want, but instead with the career and power of each politician.
Hypocripsy != Comprimise (Score:2)
While I do think hypocrisy is (unfortunately) politically essential it is not what Barney Frank is defending.
A legislator is perfectly able to vote for bills they personally don't think are good for the sake of political capital without being hypocritical. Yes, voters are dumb (and rationally ignorant) but voters understand the need for political compromise and legislators can certainly explain that they voted as they did as a compromise to achieve some more important goal. Indeed, this is exactly what Fr
His explanation is correct. (Score:2)
1) Dictatorship - where one side wins completely and orders the other side to obey or be punished. Ha ha ha, cry you fools! Your tears are my joy!
2) Compromise - where neither side completely wins, but both sides get some of what they want. Now BOTH sides cry, but neither side laughs.
Democracy is entirely based on Compromise. When you come across an idea that neither side is willing to compromise - such as slavery
But yelling and screaming trumps all (Score:2)
These days, the people who yell and scream the loudest appear to be the ones winning political debate. Not because they're correct (they're usually wrong) but because the opposing side just wants them to shut the eff up.
There are other nations in the world (Score:2)
Every statement in this post should be postfixed with "in the US" or some variant thereof. I can't speak for Europe, but I know that here in Canada very very little of this applies. For instance...
"Legislators do not pay each other for votes."
This assumes your political system allows any sort of free voting and thus trading of votes. As far as I can tell, this is generally very rare.
In systems descended from the UK parliament, representatives are expected to vote along the party line, and there is a party w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you, sir, need to get a /. account, so your useful comment won't be rated so low, when it should be higher.
It is indeed as you say, and properly quote for context.
Re: (Score:2)
I see your definition of 'right winger' is 'agrees that people can own property', and anyone who has that belief cannot be left-wing.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much the rest of the developed world is to the left of the US center, and I'm unaware of any of those in which people don't own property. Since all modern societies agree that people can own things, your definition is completely useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I ask what sets the American left to the right side of the mysterious dividing line, that is the only thing that is pointed to - right wingers believe people can own property and have control of it, rather than communal ownership or control. Being left wing means at the very least believing in communal control of capital, no other topic or agenda qualifies.