Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
To what degree should the politicians do what the general population wants, when what the general population wants is stupid? The most clear cut case of the general population wanting stupid stuff I think is price controls- the idea of keeping rent or gasoline below a certain hard cap is very popular with a lot of ordinary people. But it of course would be counter-productive- it'll only result in a lower supply of something people desperately want, and force them to start paying with their time in long lines instead of paying just with their wallets. So if 90% of the population say they want a cap on prices of something, does their elected representative have a responsibility to say "No you guys are stupid, I know what you really want" and not implement price controls?
Another example would be nationalism. A lot of times, people will be chauvinistic about their culture, and want to oppress minority cultures. Not really so much in the US recently despite all the fuss about race relations, but there are many extreme cases internationally. The majority will try to inflict on the minority restrictions on using their minority language in schools, prevent access to elected and civil service jobs, take children away from families, forcibly expel people, even execute the minorities with roving firing squads or death camps, in a brief list from least bad to worst actions chauvinism often leads to. Does a politician have any obligation to say, "No, I will not implement this policy. Not only is it immoral, it won't actually make life better for you" to the people who elected him if the 90% majority population wants to inflict those degradations on the 10% minority?
The obvious slippery slope is a politician thinking he knows better in a case where he doesn't actually know better, or deciding laws based on his own personal values instead of the general population's in a case where there is no option that's better on all metrics. E.g, abortion laws always have a trade off between the preferences and health of the mother against the fetus, and where you want abortion laws to be at depends on the ratio of which you value mother:fetus.
Seconding Avocado.
I haven’t seen anyone argue that gas needs to stay below X $/gallon. Or $/barrel, since that’s insulated from actual gas pump and heating bill prices already. What shows up in the news is the clearing price for what is basically a fixed quantity demanded.
“I can’t believe it cost $80 to fill up my truck.”
“I can barely afford the kids’ school supplies.”
“Why are a dozen eggs so expensive?”
The big exception is rent control, where the normal supply and demand rules are already incredibly distorted. Then people start throwing around hard caps.
As for actually answering your question—the only winning move is not to play. Reneging on a popular promise is suicide. A politician ought not to make ones he thinks are stupid or immoral. He should run on a positive platform that just happens to deprioritize or counter the popular thing; it’s much easier to be ignored than be told you’re a dumb idiot.
Compare the mainstream Democrat response to “defund the police.” The low hanging fruit (body cams, diversity statements) gets picked. The expensive and counterproductive stuff is less likely outside of areas which made it a single issue.
Sure, but say 2 years into a 5 year term there's a massive gasoline shortage, and the majority of people start calling for price caps like in the 70s. What do the politicians do then?
Lower speed limit, 55 max on the highway.
Remove tariff and / or sanctions on oil producing states.
Rationing
Drill baby, drill!
Start a war / Organize a democratic revolution in a country that is mean to women and / or homosexuals but has oil.
Those might be better options, but that dodges the question of what responsibility the politician has when their voters say they really want price controls but would in reality prefer one of those options, or even doing nothing, over price controls.
The responsibility is to advocate for actions that will make improvements, and oppose actions that will lead to increased scarcity.
So how does a politician apply that rule when it comes to an issue that's a values judgement, like abortion, or the best amount to redistribute from the rich to the poor, or gun rights, or freedom of speech vs hate speech?
A politician's constituents are less likely to be as unified on these issues as they would be on abundant and affordable housing and energy.
Can you define hate speech?
Gun rights in what context?
Freedom of speech in what context? I believe the current standard is Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Abortion; the best likely scenario is to do nothing and make no specific advocacy.
Can you define rich and poor? Getting into the weeds on issues like this is likely best.
Across a nation? Sure. But I'm certain you can find some smaller constituencies where the voters are quite unified in what they want their representative to do.
I can't, and the voters might not be able to either, but that won't necessarily stop them from demanding something be done. I have a similar response to the rest of your questions: I am not trying to argue for specific policies, I am asking what a politician has the obligation to do when their voters start angrily making demands that something should be done, but what they say they want is not what they really want long term.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link