the story of people failing to account for compelling evidence is by itself a familiar, >ubiquitous, low-status specimen of political propaganda.
In fact, one of the most frequent arguments you encounter as you read political >discussions is the argument that the other side are ignoring obvious facts, and so >failing to behave rationally, because they’re blinded by their ideology. To a first >approximation, everyone believes that about everyone else.
It seems to me that many of the arguments made on this site based on or referring to the Politics is the Mind-Killer article are based on extrapolations from a single well-known highly-polarized (essentially) 2-party system, i.e. the USA.
I am from a country with many political parties. No party ever gets more than 50% of the votes, in fact it is rare for any party to get over 20% of the votes. The parties are always forced to form a coalition to make a majority government. This system is not without its flaws, and far be it from me to argue that it is superior to the American system.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that many of the failure modes of ‘politics’, as often described of this site, are actually failure modes of present-day American politics, and not of politics in general.
For example, I encounter the argument described above, that “other side are ignoring obvious facts, and so failing to behave rationally, because they’re blinded by their ideology” very rarely, even in political discussions. Politicians saying such things would find it hard to negotiate with other politicians to form a government, and are mostly smart enough to not say such things. They would have no difficulty admitting that other politicians/parties behave differently simply because they have different goals (they represent the interests of a different set of voters), while still acting on almost the same set of evidence.
For example, I encounter the argument described above, that “other side are ignoring obvious facts, and so failing to behave rationally, because they’re blinded by their ideology” very rarely, even in political discussions. Politicians saying such things would find it hard to negotiate with other politicians to form a government, and are mostly smart enough to not say such things. They would have no difficulty admitting that other politicians/parties behave differently simply because they have different goals (they represent the interests of a different set of voters), while still acting on almost the same set of evidence.
I would expect that some parties know that they will never form a coalition with certain other parties. If so, do these “incompatible pairs” show more inclination to accuse each other of ideological blindness?
It sounds like people within your country are pretty ideologically homogeneous. But you must differ ideologically from other countries. Your homogeneity leads me to expect that your country is relatively small. This, in turn, means that, relative to a larger country, you probably have less control over the policies of other countries, but those policies have a greater effect on your country’s interests. Does the “ideological blindness” explanation sometimes get invoked when talking about why people in other countries chose those policies? (For example, I have seen some people in European countries blame some of their economic problems on a world-wide economic meltdown caused by the free-market ideology of the United States.)
I would expect that some parties know that they will never form a coalition with certain
other parties. If so, do these “incompatible pairs” show more inclination to accuse
each other of ideological blindness?
There is a party that is shunned by most other parties because it is almost universally agreed upon to be a racist party (even by themselves in some cases). To a certain extent, the answer to your question is yes. Nevertheless, the present attempt to form a government involves negotiations between a somewhat right-wing separatist party in one part of the country (got almost 30% of the votes in that part) and a somewhat left-wing socialist (yes they call themselves socialists. It’s not an insult in Europe) party. The negotiations have been going on for many months, and many colourful analogies have been used (yesterday I heard the separatists compared to Hannibal, and the socialists to the Romans), but I have yet to hear either of them accuse the other of ideological blindness.
It sounds like people within your country are pretty ideologically homogeneous.
Perhaps the ideology here is closer to mono-modal than the ideology in the USA.
But is this ideological inhomogeneity in the USA a cause or a consequence of the political system? Politicians in a 2-party system have an incentive to polarize : it ensures they get a large amount of voters for their party, and then they just have to focus on the small amount of “swing voters” remaining in the center.
Your homogeneity leads me to expect that your country is relatively small.
True. I’m sure the Netherlands have a similar system. I don’t know what the largest country with a true many-party system is.
Does the “ideological blindness” explanation sometimes get invoked when talking about why people in other countries chose those policies?
But is this ideological inhomogeneity in the USA a cause or a consequence of the political system?
It’s a good question, and the polarizing effect of political parties certainly does work the way you describe.
That said, I do think the rural/urban divide in the US is a real split in terms of the kinds of public services and private contributions different communities value and expect, and the political parties have exacerbated that rather than created it.
Regardless, I agree with your main point about the polarizing effects of bicamerality.
Thanks for pointing out another perspective, there could be something to it. Which country are you from, if you don’t mind me asking?
(Note that I think politics is always a mind killer, however I usually think of the problem more in terms of social politics and moral wrangling in general than governmental politics specifically.)
This is an interesting theory and the two-party system may exacerbate the problem. Great Britain, however, has essentially a two party system (Clegg’s relatively new, barely relevant, ideologically indistinct party doesn’t really count) and they seem to have about the same level of rationality in their politics as most of multi-party Europe. As others suggested, I suspect the difference has much more to do with the United States cultural, economic and racial diversity than anything else. America is a single tribe to a far lesser extent than other countries- even our white majority, which is smaller than it is in most of Europe consists of four genetically and culturally distinct traditions (and that isn’t including Hispanic). This kind of diversity means that we have less in common to start from and have resolved fewer basic issues. We’ve never gotten around to European style social welfare for much the same reason- that kind of altruism isn’t supported for those outside of the tribe. We’re also large enough and wealthy enough to support more fractured news media environment- which lets people insulate themselves from opposing view points.
This does suggest that discussion of politics could be more successful on Less Wrong (given how much we all have in common) but having to work over the internet involves other difficulties.
I would be interested to see, however, whether the differing political climates influence the way people talk about politics. We could select some posters from Northern Europe and some posters from America. Have them discuss a series of emotional and controversial political issues. Have another group evaluate their comments (with the anti-kibitzer on) and grade them by degree of motivated cognition and mind-killing rhetoric. See if the Europeans do better.
The US is essentially a zero party system. Passing laws in the senate requires 2⁄3 of the votes with usually means that politicians from both parties have to support the legislation.
US politicians have no problem with having discussions in private. They all believe in doing realpolitik. It’s their public rhetoric that differs.
The US is essentially a zero party system. Passing laws in the senate requires 2⁄3 of the votes with usually means that politicians from both parties have to support the legislation.
Not true; laws can pass with as few as 1⁄2 of the votes (51). However, this is increased to 60 if the opposing side chooses to filibuster (which non-selectively blocks all legislation), and it’s increased to 2⁄3 if the President chooses to veto it. Use of the filibuster was rare before Obama came into office, at which point the Republican party adopted a policy of using it constantly.
It seems to me that many of the arguments made on this site based on or referring to the Politics is the Mind-Killer article are based on extrapolations from a single well-known highly-polarized (essentially) 2-party system, i.e. the USA.
I am from a country with many political parties. No party ever gets more than 50% of the votes, in fact it is rare for any party to get over 20% of the votes. The parties are always forced to form a coalition to make a majority government. This system is not without its flaws, and far be it from me to argue that it is superior to the American system.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that many of the failure modes of ‘politics’, as often described of this site, are actually failure modes of present-day American politics, and not of politics in general.
For example, I encounter the argument described above, that “other side are ignoring obvious facts, and so failing to behave rationally, because they’re blinded by their ideology” very rarely, even in political discussions. Politicians saying such things would find it hard to negotiate with other politicians to form a government, and are mostly smart enough to not say such things. They would have no difficulty admitting that other politicians/parties behave differently simply because they have different goals (they represent the interests of a different set of voters), while still acting on almost the same set of evidence.
I would expect that some parties know that they will never form a coalition with certain other parties. If so, do these “incompatible pairs” show more inclination to accuse each other of ideological blindness?
It sounds like people within your country are pretty ideologically homogeneous. But you must differ ideologically from other countries. Your homogeneity leads me to expect that your country is relatively small. This, in turn, means that, relative to a larger country, you probably have less control over the policies of other countries, but those policies have a greater effect on your country’s interests. Does the “ideological blindness” explanation sometimes get invoked when talking about why people in other countries chose those policies? (For example, I have seen some people in European countries blame some of their economic problems on a world-wide economic meltdown caused by the free-market ideology of the United States.)
There is a party that is shunned by most other parties because it is almost universally agreed upon to be a racist party (even by themselves in some cases). To a certain extent, the answer to your question is yes. Nevertheless, the present attempt to form a government involves negotiations between a somewhat right-wing separatist party in one part of the country (got almost 30% of the votes in that part) and a somewhat left-wing socialist (yes they call themselves socialists. It’s not an insult in Europe) party. The negotiations have been going on for many months, and many colourful analogies have been used (yesterday I heard the separatists compared to Hannibal, and the socialists to the Romans), but I have yet to hear either of them accuse the other of ideological blindness.
Perhaps the ideology here is closer to mono-modal than the ideology in the USA. But is this ideological inhomogeneity in the USA a cause or a consequence of the political system? Politicians in a 2-party system have an incentive to polarize : it ensures they get a large amount of voters for their party, and then they just have to focus on the small amount of “swing voters” remaining in the center.
True. I’m sure the Netherlands have a similar system. I don’t know what the largest country with a true many-party system is.
Yes.
Doesn’t India have a many-party system? And since they’re the largest democracy, I think we’re done :P
This is true. Last 5 governments have been coalition governments.
It’s a good question, and the polarizing effect of political parties certainly does work the way you describe.
That said, I do think the rural/urban divide in the US is a real split in terms of the kinds of public services and private contributions different communities value and expect, and the political parties have exacerbated that rather than created it.
Regardless, I agree with your main point about the polarizing effects of bicamerality.
Some people in this country are more inclined to criticize certain failures to implement the free-market ideology.
Thanks for pointing out another perspective, there could be something to it. Which country are you from, if you don’t mind me asking?
(Note that I think politics is always a mind killer, however I usually think of the problem more in terms of social politics and moral wrangling in general than governmental politics specifically.)
Belgium
This is an interesting theory and the two-party system may exacerbate the problem. Great Britain, however, has essentially a two party system (Clegg’s relatively new, barely relevant, ideologically indistinct party doesn’t really count) and they seem to have about the same level of rationality in their politics as most of multi-party Europe. As others suggested, I suspect the difference has much more to do with the United States cultural, economic and racial diversity than anything else. America is a single tribe to a far lesser extent than other countries- even our white majority, which is smaller than it is in most of Europe consists of four genetically and culturally distinct traditions (and that isn’t including Hispanic). This kind of diversity means that we have less in common to start from and have resolved fewer basic issues. We’ve never gotten around to European style social welfare for much the same reason- that kind of altruism isn’t supported for those outside of the tribe. We’re also large enough and wealthy enough to support more fractured news media environment- which lets people insulate themselves from opposing view points.
This does suggest that discussion of politics could be more successful on Less Wrong (given how much we all have in common) but having to work over the internet involves other difficulties.
I would be interested to see, however, whether the differing political climates influence the way people talk about politics. We could select some posters from Northern Europe and some posters from America. Have them discuss a series of emotional and controversial political issues. Have another group evaluate their comments (with the anti-kibitzer on) and grade them by degree of motivated cognition and mind-killing rhetoric. See if the Europeans do better.
The US is essentially a zero party system. Passing laws in the senate requires 2⁄3 of the votes with usually means that politicians from both parties have to support the legislation.
US politicians have no problem with having discussions in private. They all believe in doing realpolitik. It’s their public rhetoric that differs.
Not true; laws can pass with as few as 1⁄2 of the votes (51). However, this is increased to 60 if the opposing side chooses to filibuster (which non-selectively blocks all legislation), and it’s increased to 2⁄3 if the President chooses to veto it. Use of the filibuster was rare before Obama came into office, at which point the Republican party adopted a policy of using it constantly.
Okay 60 isn’t 2⁄3 but it’s still the votes that you need to prevent a filibuster.
To prevent the opposing site from filibustering you need to be able to speak with them.