The Political Process Is Unmanagable

[nemorathwald]

From sarahmichigan's blog post.

---

nemorathwald: I voted to ban Affirmative Action, although I had not given it thought before. It's difficult for me to conceive of voting in favor of Proposal 2 out of racism or sexism. I think most people were like me, and said, "if we're not going to discriminate, then let's not discriminate."

I wish I had read tlatoani's LJ post about it, and then I would have voted the other way. Of course we keep hearing we should feel guilty if we don't vote, even though we know we're not qualified, don't recognize any names, and are pretty much using the ballot for a dartboard; then we still get in trouble when we vote wrong. There's no winning.

---

davehogg: Why not take a couple hours and become qualified?

---

nemorathwald: That proves you're not qualified.

---

davehogg: You lost me. Taking a few hours to find out about the candidates and issues proves you aren't qualified?

---

nemorathwald: Yes. It's because you took only a few hours and now you know just enough to be dangerous. Everybody on every side of an issue with a sandwich sign ranting on a street corner does that. According to a paper appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, incompetent people don't know how incompetent they are, but super-competent people know how incompetent they are. As it turns out, political issues are too complex for anyone but an expert in sociology, and I have a life to live rather than become one.

By contrast, philosophy-- determining what you value-- is easy. The problem arrives when you support policy on that basis and have no idea they are actually undermining those values in the real world. Believe me, I've wandered my imagination and thought in the abstract about political philosophy without appealing to observational evidence. I ended up a cross between an anarcho-libertarian and a radical socialist. I am well aware those are at incompatible extremes.

Then I read Mark Rosenfelder's "What's Wrong With Libertarianism" and it kicked my butt with facts. Another very humbling experience has been reading David Brin's website and blog in which he extols the virtues of a pragmatic effects-based observational approach over ideology.

Values are one thing, policies that can achieve them are quite another. Statistics and studies are just too overwhelming to keep up with, without making a major hobby out of being a policy wonk. And even then I don't know if the other side has studies I missed that cast the whole thing in an opposite light.

Comments

[rachelann1977.livejournal.com]

It's good to try to understand these things better, but I don't think you have to be a sociology or political science major to understand the potential outcomes of the various proposals.

It helps to do a little research, but there is a reason we vote on these things instead of just letting one person randomly make laws that we would then have even less knowledge of.

It's true that politicians have worked to make everything we vote on much less accessible in the time up until the actual vote occurs, but that's all the more reason to fight that process, and find out as much as you can.

[http://users.livejournal.com/jer_/]

I wish I could convince libertarians that the extremely wealthy don't need them as their unpaid advocates. Power and wealth don't need a cheering section; they are-- by definition-- not an oppressed class which needs our help. Power and wealth can take care of themselves. It's the poor and the defenseless who need aid and advocates.

God do I hate to hear this liberal argument. It is as dangerous as the libertarian "taxation is theft" mantra. They are not "by definition" an unoppressed class. They are "by definition" wealthy and/or powerful, which does not rule out, "by definition" oppression. It just means they have the financial and/or political means to escape the negatives of much of the oppression, but when they have to spend a great deal of money in an only vaguely successful attempt to prevent the government from redirecting their money to another source, that is oppression.

Sorry, that quote just hit a nerve, because I hear it so often and, the worst part is, if you don't pay much attention it sounds correct. It sounds logical. It isn't.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I cannot begin to express my frustration at trying to explain to people why Prop 2 should fail (or, at this point, should have failed). I tried explaining it from a sociological perspective, but the problem is that it took hours of instruction and analysis when I was in college. How does one distill hours, months, years of information into a paragraph or two in LJ-banter? I found that it cannot be done (or, if it can be done, I could not do it).

It's difficult for me, because despite being in an online forum, I openly identify as a black woman, so when I make arguments about affirmative action, I can be seen as being apologetic about it. However, I speak about this not only with anecdotal evidence but with the information and knowledge that I've accumulated through my studies in social science. I try to dispense this information as dispassionately as possible, but again my frustration shows through when I display historical evidence of discrimination and people are like, "Well, that happened in the past, so it's not relevant." I want to tear my eyes out.

[paranthropus.livejournal.com]

Human beings are genetically pre-disposed to fascism. We like to defer our decision making ability to strong leaders. It's easier that way. Your argument is that you would rather live your life than become an expert in sociology. While it may seem that this argument comes from a rational worldview and a sane, logical, assessment of priorities it is, in fact, genetically programmed. You are placing yourself in the role of subordinate male in a large family of human primates.

Democracy was designed to allow us to move beyond our genetically programmed roles. Instead of a single, powerful leader, we have the power of the collective rational mind. It's not unlike the consensus that is reached through the progress of science and has, in fact, developed alongside it. As a way of allowing each of us to have influence over this collective mind, we delegate our decision making ability to like-minded peers who can devote their full energies to the task, and we simplify issues through debate. By the time issues such as Proposal 2 reach us, they have been distilled such that the strongest arguments on either side are brought to the forefront. Yes, strong arguments make our decision more difficult, but to not do the minimum of work that is needed in order to cast a vote is really unacceptable.

There is more at stake here than a simple proposal. Ultimately, this is about fascism - rule by means of the amygdala, and democracy - rule by means of the neocortex. The human species has struggled for centuries to find a means of a more enlightened rule, a means of governance that is more humane than simply deferring to authority figures as our religions want us to do. I choose to participate, rather than insult those who have struggled and died to give humanity a better life.

[phecda.livejournal.com]

It's kind of amusing to consider that American politics is subject to the Peter Principle.

But this is the whole burden of a democracy -- that it is the responsibility of the electorate to educate themselves on the issues so that they can make an informed decision at the ballot box.

To quote Heinlein -- democracy is based on the fallacy that the majority is right. Autocracy is based on the fallacy that one man is wiser than the majority.

Both systems are flawed.

[wolfger.livejournal.com]

While tlatoani's entry is certainly the best argument against Prop 2 that I have ever seen, I still see nothing there that makes me change my mind. Racism and sexism are wrong, and they are wrong regardless of which group(s) are being discriminated for or against. Furthermore, tlatoani's assertion that this proposal will be used to go after Safe House and similar programs is what we in the Linux geek community refer to as FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Nothing in the wording of Prop 2 can lead one to the conclusion that Safe House is in jeopardy, and we should vote based on the wording of the proposal, and not how some future politician or judge may or may not interpret it. The only way Safe House could even possibly be targetted is if it is run by the state government... in which case I am sure there are similar programs which are not government-run which will continue unmolested. uh... pardon that unintended pun.