The complexity of politics that these arguments demonstrate (and the “error of the crowds” itself) makes democracy a seemingly futile solution to government. It would take an enormously skilled tactician to win the vote by selling actually useful policies to a population that prefers simple rhetoric aligning with their color.
They would need:
Knowledge and skill at creating policies.
Sufficient background in all areas that the policies affect (weighted by importance and enough to make proper use of their advisors).
Ability to raise money without making promises that severely limit them once elected.
Excellent rhetorical abilities. Skilled enough to convince people of varying degrees of intelligence and differing allegiances to side with you despite your lack of focus on the “sexy” (but meaningless) topics.
Excellent negotiating abilities. Fair-representation means you will always have significant opposition once elected. Getting anything done will require tactical negotiating and efficient compromises.
...lots of other things.
But someone who wants power really only needs rhetoric and a PR team that can find them the correct issues to align with. There is something wrong here.
Teenage me, with rather too much confidence, would say that we need a benevolent dictator. Now, with rather less confidence in my world-organizing abilities, I prefer voluntarism in some form. It is… less of a lottery and far more elegant. I just need to figure out if it’s too idealistic to work.
makes democracy a seemingly futile solution to government
I am not sure what does “solution to government” mean, but there is a well-known Churchill quote: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”.
“solution to government” means “solution to the problem of how organise society”.
If “except for all the others” only includes those that have been tried, then I mostly agree. But if it includes all possible forms of social organisation, I strongly disagree. The idea that we’ve reached the best solution and it barely works is similar to the idea that we will never solve death. Either of those could be true, but there is not nearly evidence to stop us from trying.
With the death problem, we can characterize the nature of the problem, list out subproblems, list out causal contributors, and attack them one by one.
With “how to organize society”, people disagree on the criterion for forming a component of the problem. Conflicting interests are the basic building-block of politics.
If “except for all the others” only includes those that have been tried, then I mostly agree.
The original wording of that quote indeed was “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
The word “solution” has too much of engineering / hard sciences connotations for my liking.
Organising society is a process and the criteria of what can be considered a successful one are not stable on historic time scale unless you want to take the social darwinism approach.
The point of the Churchill quote wasn’t to proclaim democracy the best evah! The point was to hint at the danger of the nirvana fallacy—you need to have some method of organising society, so relative metrics are more important than absolute. You pick the best out of what’s available.
It would take an enormously skilled tactician to win the vote by selling actually useful policies to a population that prefers simple rhetoric aligning with their color.
That presupposes that you have to win election by explaining the policies that you honestly want to enact. In reality that’s not how modern representative democracy work.
Neither how it works in practice nor how it works in theory.
True, but you do need a platform that promises, at the very least, a direction that your policies are taking you. If, during your term, you completely neglect everything you talked about while running, you’ll take a hit in the next election (unless you’ve miraculously been so effective during those 4⁄5 years that everyone is convinced you know better than them).
And if the point is to be the best liar and then do what you want in office, uh, why even have elections?
Obama never talked about how children’s IQ would be higher in the future because his administration calculated the dollar value of children’s IQ’s and opposed it to the costs of reduces mercury pollution. The policy was done by the EPA with very little public debate.
On the other hand the EPA didn’t get done much on global warming where there’s massive media attention.
why even have elections?
To allow voters to refuse to reelect politicians with bad track records. If democracy is done right, politicians who mess up don’t get reelected.
If it comes to decide whether to vote for a politician’s you don’t focus on what he promises for the future but what he did in the past. That provides for democratic accountability.
To choose representatives and not to choose policy.
If I look at Bernie Sanders I know that he engaged in good policy for decades.
He voted against the Iraq war and the patriotic act. That tells me much more about him than any promise he makes before the election.
If, during your term, you completely neglect everything you talked about while running, you’ll take a hit in the next election
Bush campaigned on “no statebuilding” and then went to do very expensive statebuilding in Iraq or Afghanistan without the Republican base complaining.
The Republican didn’t like Clinton’s intervention against Kosovo, so it made sense for Bush to run with “no statebuilding”.
Obama promised to clean up Wall Street but did nothing substantial. He engaged in busywork and passed laws but they are more symbolic than real reform.
The complexity of politics that these arguments demonstrate (and the “error of the crowds” itself) makes democracy a seemingly futile solution to government. It would take an enormously skilled tactician to win the vote by selling actually useful policies to a population that prefers simple rhetoric aligning with their color.
They would need:
Knowledge and skill at creating policies.
Sufficient background in all areas that the policies affect (weighted by importance and enough to make proper use of their advisors).
Ability to raise money without making promises that severely limit them once elected.
Excellent rhetorical abilities. Skilled enough to convince people of varying degrees of intelligence and differing allegiances to side with you despite your lack of focus on the “sexy” (but meaningless) topics.
Excellent negotiating abilities. Fair-representation means you will always have significant opposition once elected. Getting anything done will require tactical negotiating and efficient compromises.
...lots of other things.
But someone who wants power really only needs rhetoric and a PR team that can find them the correct issues to align with. There is something wrong here.
Teenage me, with rather too much confidence, would say that we need a benevolent dictator. Now, with rather less confidence in my world-organizing abilities, I prefer voluntarism in some form. It is… less of a lottery and far more elegant. I just need to figure out if it’s too idealistic to work.
I am not sure what does “solution to government” mean, but there is a well-known Churchill quote: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”.
In general if someone tells you they have found “the solution” in politics: “Run!”
“solution to government” means “solution to the problem of how organise society”.
If “except for all the others” only includes those that have been tried, then I mostly agree. But if it includes all possible forms of social organisation, I strongly disagree. The idea that we’ve reached the best solution and it barely works is similar to the idea that we will never solve death. Either of those could be true, but there is not nearly evidence to stop us from trying.
With the death problem, we can characterize the nature of the problem, list out subproblems, list out causal contributors, and attack them one by one.
With “how to organize society”, people disagree on the criterion for forming a component of the problem. Conflicting interests are the basic building-block of politics.
The original wording of that quote indeed was “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Hmm, yeah, I thought I remembered that quote having such a clause.
The word “solution” has too much of engineering / hard sciences connotations for my liking.
Organising society is a process and the criteria of what can be considered a successful one are not stable on historic time scale unless you want to take the social darwinism approach.
You’re right, “solution” has too much finality to it. How about “approach” as a replacement word that doesn’t break the grammar above?
Sure, “approach” will work.
There is probably a similar quote from Plato about slavery.
The point of the Churchill quote wasn’t to proclaim democracy the best evah! The point was to hint at the danger of the nirvana fallacy—you need to have some method of organising society, so relative metrics are more important than absolute. You pick the best out of what’s available.
That presupposes that you have to win election by explaining the policies that you honestly want to enact. In reality that’s not how modern representative democracy work. Neither how it works in practice nor how it works in theory.
True, but you do need a platform that promises, at the very least, a direction that your policies are taking you. If, during your term, you completely neglect everything you talked about while running, you’ll take a hit in the next election (unless you’ve miraculously been so effective during those 4⁄5 years that everyone is convinced you know better than them).
And if the point is to be the best liar and then do what you want in office, uh, why even have elections?
Obama never talked about how children’s IQ would be higher in the future because his administration calculated the dollar value of children’s IQ’s and opposed it to the costs of reduces mercury pollution.
The policy was done by the EPA with very little public debate.
On the other hand the EPA didn’t get done much on global warming where there’s massive media attention.
To allow voters to refuse to reelect politicians with bad track records. If democracy is done right, politicians who mess up don’t get reelected.
If it comes to decide whether to vote for a politician’s you don’t focus on what he promises for the future but what he did in the past. That provides for democratic accountability.
To choose representatives and not to choose policy.
If I look at Bernie Sanders I know that he engaged in good policy for decades. He voted against the Iraq war and the patriotic act. That tells me much more about him than any promise he makes before the election.
Bush campaigned on “no statebuilding” and then went to do very expensive statebuilding in Iraq or Afghanistan without the Republican base complaining. The Republican didn’t like Clinton’s intervention against Kosovo, so it made sense for Bush to run with “no statebuilding”.
Obama promised to clean up Wall Street but did nothing substantial. He engaged in busywork and passed laws but they are more symbolic than real reform.