The Political Process Is Unmanagable
Nov. 9th, 2006 11:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nemorathwaldFrom ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 readtlatoani'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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 07:41 pm (UTC)It's kind of ironic. The same way it's ironic that I loudly support the freedom to modify software, but I would rather jump naked into a swimming pool full of thumbtacks than do so.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-10 05:16 am (UTC)Wow. I have far too vivid of an imagination. After giving this some late-night thought, I've come to the conclusion that it would hurt badly, but much less than one would initially think.
Speaking of think, I think I need to go to sleep now.