tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post2533490233700488454..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: How Can There Be Any Sin in Sincere?Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-29760671575434770782011-05-17T01:24:53.997-05:002011-05-17T01:24:53.997-05:00Thanks, Jonathan, and as you note, I'm totally...Thanks, Jonathan, and as you note, I'm totally being the philosopher.Neil Sinhababuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-88847598977937883062011-05-17T00:25:19.204-05:002011-05-17T00:25:19.204-05:00I wish I had time to respond to more of these -- g...I wish I had time to respond to more of these -- great comments, all (including the ones I disagree with; they're all interesting and worth reading).Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-33283565714964045582011-05-16T23:42:07.422-05:002011-05-16T23:42:07.422-05:00It just seems like you assume more electoral effic...It just seems like you assume more electoral efficiency here than what actually exists in the real world. Policy commitments made during an election for a two-year House term seem more valid than those made for a six-year Senate term. And, even for two-year terms, it seems that the perks of incumbency would matter.<br /><br />Given the stickiness of our political system, I think that I would prefer an intellectually-honest pol.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-31302834923094834652011-05-16T23:40:43.859-05:002011-05-16T23:40:43.859-05:00Hey, who let the philospher in?
OK, Neil, here...Hey, who let the philospher in?<br /><br />OK, Neil, here's how I'd go about thinking about that. I'd go to Richard Fenno's (observed) cycle of promises->interpretation->action->explanation. A good pol would be careful about what her promises were; would interpret those promises honestly; would act with that interpretation in mind; and then would go back to the district and explain her actions based on all of that. In doing so, presumably she would find some way to distinguish between the "cuts spending" and the "jobs" portions of the promise.<br /><br />Remember too that policy promises are only one type of promises; it may be that your Senator also promised to be a Republican, or to vote with or against the president, or some other such identity-based promise, and that too may give her some guidance in how to proceed.<br /><br />So while I can't prove anything, I'm going to say that my strong intuition is that in real life, good reputation makes that dilemma resolve itself.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-49581732087380740612011-05-16T18:20:43.611-05:002011-05-16T18:20:43.611-05:00Do you distinguish between instrumental and nonins...Do you distinguish between instrumental and noninstrumental preferences here, Jonathan?<br /><br />Let's say every voter in Ohio really cares about exactly one thing: more jobs. Fox News convinces every voter that the way to get more jobs is to cut spending, even though that's totally wrong. The voters don't want spending cuts for their own sake -- they're just confused and think it creates jobs.<br /><br />Their two Senators both ran on a pro-jobs, low-spending agenda, but they're the only Ohioans who understand Keynesian economics and know that spending cuts will actually destroy jobs. Senator Cutter follows the instrumental preferences of Ohio and votes for spending cuts, even though he knows it'll destroy the jobs that Ohioans really care about. Senator Jobs follows the noninstrumental preferences of Ohio and votes against spending cuts, knowing he'll face the wrath of Ohio's voters at the polls for casting a vote they disapprove of.<br /><br />Who's the better representative?Neil Sinhababuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-62249560312235006072011-05-16T17:46:00.568-05:002011-05-16T17:46:00.568-05:00I agree with Arendt here, and our founders would a...I agree with Arendt here, and our founders would as well. As usual, she holds up a mirror to our modern society and finds something very at odds with her classical republican ideal. In today’s culture we expect Presidential candidates to be faithful to their own “true selves” (whatever that is) as much as we expect them to be faithful to the Constitution. Read some self-help books or watch some sermons and you get the sense that the average American is truly tortured by internal struggle and doubt -- it’s absurd that people subject their President to a similar evaluation, but they do.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-69488409824489456032011-05-16T17:42:04.636-05:002011-05-16T17:42:04.636-05:00Jonathan,
Stupendous post! We need so much more ...Jonathan,<br /><br />Stupendous post! We need so much more political science / institutional perspectives in such discussions. And I'm with you and not with commenter Matt on what we should wish for in our legislators. However it's hard for me to see how this is politically sustainable -- particularly in this day and age of Internet megaphones and transparency. Matt will crush the other approach politically, no?<br /><br />The part you didn't completely address was the gap between one position and another and how one might feel, as a fellow human, about some leaps (whatever the motivations). It just feels strange to see these former supporters, for example, of what was the market solution to global warming, "cap and trade," and see them preen before an electorate that considers such support bordering on left Wong socialism. However, I didn't like Klein's phrasing of "flip-flops" which stacks the argument in the opposite direction from his explanation. <br /><br />Thanks again for a marvelous post.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16818950100128912685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-14375341881566295502011-05-16T17:30:59.628-05:002011-05-16T17:30:59.628-05:00Great explanation, explains why Republicans who ra...Great explanation, explains why Republicans who ran on Mediscare platforms now face political difficulties and want to end 'Medicare' discussions in politics,zicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-37782653333487869322011-05-16T17:15:52.724-05:002011-05-16T17:15:52.724-05:00I made an argument similar (I think) to the one he...I made an argument similar (I think) to the one here once while debating a colleague who was going on and on about "integrity" in public officials. I asked, which would you prefer to see elected to Congress: (a) a sleazeball liberal Democrat who supported women's rights [the colleague I was speaking to happened to be female] merely as a cynical play for support from NARAL or NOW or other such special interests; or (b) a bow-tied, conservative gentleman of the old school, a man of impeccable integrity, whose very integrity required that he stick to his deeply principled view that women should never have been given the right to vote? <br /><br />If I remember right, my interlocutor in that debate -- who, to her credit, said she took the point -- had launched her "integrity" rap as a way of bashing Clinton. This was in 2000. I've lost touch with her since, but I wonder how she would now rate Slick Willie by contrast with the steadfast (and mostly sincere) pro-war neocons and antigovernment Randians who made the first decade of this century such a delightful one for all concerned.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-75646879118820906142011-05-16T17:15:14.257-05:002011-05-16T17:15:14.257-05:00I agree with the argument, but disagree on the cho...I agree with the argument, but disagree on the choice of MC.<br />I'd rather have the thoughtful MC who agrees with me than the sycophant, because there's nothing magical about my positions vis-a-vis the public. If I have been catered to at time 1 because my position is popular, there's nothing saying that my position will be popular at time 2. Yes, opinions aren't likely to change, but seeing as they are really top-of-the-head opinions, and they appear to be easily swayed, then there's not much assurance there. Plus, this line of logic feeds into the idea of mandates, and that just makes my skin crawl. How is a politician to KNOW the reasons for my vote? As you've noted, words are different than motives. The REASON why Republicans got more votes in 2010 is the economy sucked and people punished the incumbent. The reason they SAY is because they liked GOP ideas.<br /><br />Now, what's better about the the politician who has come to this opinion? Every additional piece of information has a smaller chance of affecting their opinion. If they've done research, then they've accumulated info. Every additional piece of info is a smaller proportion of the info they have. Moreover, if flip-flopping is seen as a sin, then they'll need overwhelming evidence to flip, say a 55% or 60% likelihood that the new position is better than the old. If we add stickiness to opinions (well documented in psychology, and with many incentives for it that we political scientists can think of), then I'd prefer them to be voting on their own opinions. <br /><br />Another great benefit is that doing research should, over time, produce better policies. Wrong-headed ideas can be disproven. This is much more likely the case in doing research on issues with intelligent & able people assisting you than in the public, where rumors quickly become truths. Yes, an insular group might produce a closed-information loop problem (see: conservatives over the last 10 years), but I would still expect that equilibrium to tend towards valid ideas more than an uninformed and unruly public. <br /><br />Finally, there's Madison's classic defense: the cream rises to the top. One of his defenses of elections was: don't worry, the rabble won't win elections.<br /><br />But, we've already established that I'm a Burkean.....Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-48793227023143971992011-05-16T16:30:50.597-05:002011-05-16T16:30:50.597-05:00But that assumes that your faction will always hav...But that assumes that your faction will always have the same control over the politician that it does as the current moment. In a system where politicians run first in a primary and then a general, and where incumbents are almost always renominated, it's not at all crazy to worry about a politician drifting away from views he espoused when he was running in a hot primary. You'd rather have someone who holds those views prior to running.Dan Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12947782079761530102noreply@blogger.com