tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post6356582655054278050..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Shhhhhh! (A Little Cold Water)Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-75897788261635674002010-09-14T00:14:23.900-05:002010-09-14T00:14:23.900-05:00Matt,
I don't think anyone disagrees about th...Matt,<br /><br />I don't think anyone disagrees about there being some issues that present tricky problems such as future vs. present, or issues that pit small but real interests of most of the nation against intense interests of a small slice of the country. But at least in my reading that's not what people such as Rousseau or Woodrow Wilson are talking about. That's what I don't think really exists.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-43080216512622858062010-09-13T23:43:20.454-05:002010-09-13T23:43:20.454-05:00I replied over there, but I recommend that everyon...I replied over there, but I recommend that everyone check out Seth's full post, linked in his comment above.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-46084350554913145712010-09-13T22:26:54.025-05:002010-09-13T22:26:54.025-05:00Unsurprisingly, I have a few objections, which I&#...Unsurprisingly, I have a few objections, which I've posted <a href="http://enikrising.blogspot.com/2010/09/now-whos-being-naive-kay.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Here's a quote from that post:<br /><br /><i>I take issue with Jon's contention that we can't separate the good kind of ephemera from the bad. To go off one of his examples, I really doubt that most members of Congress attend committee meetings because they're concerned that voters are watching the hearings on C-SPAN and taking roll. They attend because they know it's part of the job, because they're socialized into it, because they'll catch grief from their colleagues if they don't attend, because their party might get rolled on an important vote if they don't show up, and because their colleagues might not be there for them the next time around if they aren't there for their colleagues. I also doubt that exposing politicians to political science would cause them to shirk their districts. After all, there are a number of solid studies showing that members of Congress who don't vote their districts have a harder time getting reelected, even if no one individual roll call vote particularly matters. Members would still know this, and if they didn't, they'd eventually be replaced by people who did.<br /><br />I recognize we're in the realm of political science fantasy here, but I believe that elected officials would still have plenty of motivation to actually represent their constituents and do their jobs even if they didn't go on audience-less Sunday talk shows or poll-test their vacation destinations. I'm not sure how we get to that point, but I think Ezra's column is a start.</i>Seth Maskethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178036016555722068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-9964638562240123802010-09-13T16:39:53.332-05:002010-09-13T16:39:53.332-05:00I'm definitely in the "there exists a Pub...I'm definitely in the "there exists a Public Interest" camp, and not particularly high on the likelihood that adding up preferences aggregated through districts and states leads us to people who would have that at heart. All the incentives they face are local. <br /><br />Now, I don't mind freeing some members from their misperceptions. If they DO get too much into "the public interest" and not into their own, they end up losing: I like Al Ullman as an example here. But, he's also an example for my larger point: he moved into making national policy as he saw fit. Eventually, his national policies hurt him in his district, and he lost. But, not only did that check exist, but he also had to contend with others: some of whom were also pushing their national visions, and others of whom had local visions that either conflicted or supported his. <br /><br />Relentless competing parochialisms don't allow us to ever see the big picture. We NEVER deal with global warming, going to space, or even wars. Sure, some localities are going to value their opinions on these questions that are really bigger than their district. And perhaps most politics should be local. But, I think informing politicians of the actual lay of the land is better than not. Allow politicians to make their own Burkean choice (trustee vs delegate) with full information. And if they make a choice that their district can't live with, they don't come back.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-27643536553855721122010-09-13T16:12:53.421-05:002010-09-13T16:12:53.421-05:00Excellent counterpoint to Klein's column, and ...Excellent counterpoint to Klein's column, and I think there's something deeper you're objecting to--or at least that I am!--without being totally explicit about it. I agree that the findings are indeed worth knowing, but grouping them all together and presenting them as Klein does carries with it a whiff of anti-democratic beliefs. Regular people should not run for Congress because they'll just be corrupted, and we shouldn't worry too much about lobbyists because they are not that successful (I second Jazzbumpa in seeing a bit of a contradiction there). I'm certain Klein does not mean that to come off sounding anti-democratic (small d obviously), but to me it does.<br /><br />As someone who does history and is particularly interested in politics in the U.S., I find some of the findings of political scientists quite interesting (and some political scientists have written excellent history books, e.g. Elizabeth Sanders' Roots of Reform). But the overall argument from some of the polisci blogs strikes me as far too mechanistic at times--either the economy is good or bad and either the people like what you do or they don't and that's all there is to it. It actually reminds me, in certain respects, of the more vulgar, reductionist forms of Marxian theory that were predominant in social history going back to the 60s and 70s (and I think there's been a lot of good Marxian theory, but much of it took the base vs. superstructure distinction to absurd extremes, but that's a side topic).<br /><br />Complex social phenomena cannot be reduced solely to class or economic performance or anything else, and to do so suggests that humans don't actually have much influence and agency in the world. Obviously there's some real truth to that, but I think political scientists (and some of their denizens) can overstate that argument, and there are some possibly anti-democratic implications to the argument that I find troubling. Very smart bloggers like Klein and Matt Yglesias seem to be picking up on that strain somewhat and I think it's important to point that out.Geoff Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04492873513809715748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-89671876686778375502010-09-13T11:31:11.781-05:002010-09-13T11:31:11.781-05:00If, on the other hand, you believe that the public...<i> If, on the other hand, you believe that the public interest is mostly (if not entirely) made up of lots and lots of individual and group interests </i><br /><br />Yeah. I'm in this camp, which is why I believe democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-87978506203780796382010-09-13T10:58:53.843-05:002010-09-13T10:58:53.843-05:00Either Klein's column lacks coherence, or I ju...Either Klein's column lacks coherence, or I just don't get it. Term limits turn control over to lobbyists, but lobbyists don't have any power. Huh?<br /><br />Meanwhile, I guess all the billions of dollars spent on the sprawling lobbying industry's efforts is so much wasted capital, by a bunch of damned fools, then.<br /><br />I usually read Karl Smith, but I missed that entry until you pointed it out. It's the most poorly thought-through thing I've ever seen from him. Is the idea that policy doesn't matter even worthy of mention? And he makes the classic economist's mistake of thinking that complex, chaotic systems can be simply modeled.<br />It looks like he's reduced election choices to the prisoner's problem.<br /><br />The "invisible hand" idea - so central to classical economics - is just so much magical thinking.<br /><br />And conflating swing voters with low information voters seems totally off base.<br /><br />Oh, well - Happy Monday!<br />JzBJazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.com