Slashdot Mirror
Barney Frank Defends Political Hypocrisy, Game Theory Explains It
HughPickens.com writes with a link to Steven I. Weiss's Atlantic article which says game theory can shed light both on what is happening in Washington and on how the bargaining power of its negotiating parties may evolve over time and comes to the conclusion that hypocrisy is essential to the functioning of Congress -- in fact, it's the only tool legislators have after they've rooted out real corruption. "Legislators do not pay each other for votes, and every member of a parliament in a democratic society is legally equal to every member," writes Congressman Barney Frank in his new memoir, Frank: A Life in Politics From the Great Society to Same-Sex Marriage. For legislators, cooperation is a form of political currency. They act in concert with other legislators, even at the expense of their own beliefs, in order to bank capital or settle accounts."
Game theory sets out conditions under which negotiating parties end up cooperating, and why they sometimes fail to do so. It does so based on analyzing what drives individuals in the majority of bargaining situations: incentives, access to information, initial power conditions, the extent of mutual trust, and accountability enforcement. Instead of seeing political flip-flopping as a necessary evil, Frank suggests it is inherent to democracy and according to Frank if there's any blame to be doled out in connection with political hypocrisy, it's to be placed on the heads of voters who criticize legislators for it, instead of accepting it as a necessary part of democratic politics.
Game theory sets out conditions under which negotiating parties end up cooperating, and why they sometimes fail to do so. It does so based on analyzing what drives individuals in the majority of bargaining situations: incentives, access to information, initial power conditions, the extent of mutual trust, and accountability enforcement. Instead of seeing political flip-flopping as a necessary evil, Frank suggests it is inherent to democracy and according to Frank if there's any blame to be doled out in connection with political hypocrisy, it's to be placed on the heads of voters who criticize legislators for it, instead of accepting it as a necessary part of democratic politics.
my words will ring in your ears for miles
Frank suggests it is inherent to democracy and according to Frank if there's any blame to be doled out in connection with political hypocrisy, it's to be placed on the heads of voters who criticize legislators for it, instead of accepting it as a necessary part of democratic politics
yes... lets blame the voter for the person they voted for not doing the things that he was voted in for
I dont disagree with the fact that voters share blame for voting the same people in over and over and seeing nothing change, however for a politician to blame the voter, and even worse make the argument that his hands are tied is pretty pathetic IMO.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Frank suggests it is inherent to democracy and according to Frank if there's any blame to be doled out in connection with political hypocrisy, it's to be placed on the heads of voters who criticize legislators for it, instead of accepting it as a necessary part of democratic politics.
A lot of other politicians would call it horse-trading. They aren't doing anything that is hypocritical to being a politician, though they may on occasion be making decisions (or casting votes) that are counter to their campaign promises.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
ain't MY fault.
You don't have left wingers in you'r congress. You have right wingers and ultra right wingers.
Rationalizations. As explained in "The Big Chill":
Michael: I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.
Sam Weber: Ah, come on. Nothing's more important than sex.
Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?
Gotta admire/despise the chutzpah of Frank on placing the "blame" for politicians' corruption on the voters.
Yeah that attitude is helpful.
I dont see hypocrites. I see no one in the congress who wants to compromise. AT ALL. Basically it is we vs they. You get dumb ass sweeping statements like 'lets pass this and see what we get'. That is not compromise. That is my way or shut the fuck up. This current congress I have seen lots of swing voting. I am much more happy with that. It means the monied interests are losing their grip. The parties can not bully the congressmen and senators around as much. It still happens. But it does not seem to be as bad.
When I see party line votes I just shake my head. It means the congress is not doing its job at all. Which is actually pretty damn simple. Is this bill in the best interest of my constituents. Or did I compromise on something else to get someone else to vote on this a particular way. It seems more and more it is to the parties and not the people that our leaders are beholden to. They run multi billion dollar campaigns and that money comes with strings attached.
Mr Frank is one of the ones that lead the charge of we vs they. Looks like he wants to back it up with that idea and blame me for it. I for one am glad he is not in charge any more.
It's called compromise, not hypocrisy. That's common to all negotiations. You not supposed to pretend to like what you're voting for; you just have to say to yourself, "OK, I'm not getting what I want here, but I am getting what I want over there." Of course, compromise is impossible when one side absolutely refuses to compromise.
Hypocrisy is where you claim to represent "family values," while sleeping with someone other than your wife, or soliciting men in the men's room.
Frank suggests it is inherent to democracy and according to Frank if there's any blame to be doled out in connection with political hypocrisy, it's to be placed on the heads of voters who criticize legislators for it, instead of accepting it as a necessary part of democratic politics
yes... lets blame the voter for the person they voted for not doing the things that he was voted in for
I dont disagree with the fact that voters share blame for voting the same people in over and over and seeing nothing change, however for a politician to blame the voter, and even worse make the argument that his hands are tied is pretty pathetic IMO.
Yes, but, voters are even more pathetic for, as you say, voting for the same politicians over and over.
Basically party loyalty is the root of the problem. Its the trap that makes a voter irrelevant, both parties may ignore a loyal party voter. The voter's party because they already have that vote, the other party because they cannot get that vote.
The only way to make politicians accountable is to be a disloyal party member. (1) To consider the other candidate and be willing to vote for that candidate if he/she looks like they will do a better job, which may be will do less damage, "better" is a relative thing. (2) To punitively vote against an incumbent, even from your own party, if they choose to represent interests other than the people's. Honest disagreement over how to accomplish a goal is fine, but acting absolutely contrary to the people's interests must be punished. Failure to do so is encouraging such behavior.
The currency of politics is votes, as Frank admits, but that currency is primarily held by the voters. In a one person one vote system the 99% have the power, the money of the 1% can only buy influence when the 99% permit it. And we permit it by re-electing incumbents that fail to protect our interests. A politicians greatest goal is to get re-elected and that is in the hands of the 99% not the 1%.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time
they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." --- Frédéric Bastiat
Everyone understands that, in the current system in the USA, politicians have to give and take. The problem that people have with this is twofold:
1. Because the whips have much less power than in other countries (such as the UK), politicians in the USA can blame others when they don't do what their votors want them to do.
2. People get upset when politicians abandon core issues in the name of "horsetrading".
People understand that they won't get everything their representative promised, but when they get only token, minor changes, that's when things are wrong.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
...that essentially, when you get down to it, all political decisions are the same.
Voting in slavery or declaring a war or a rehaul of a transportation system... same shit.
It's all just the stuff politicians do.
They act in concert with other legislators, even at the expense of their own beliefs, in order to bank capital or settle accounts.
Ergo, it is perfectly fine to give up one's own principles and voters in order to curry favor with one's peers and accumulate personal political prestige, which can then be further traded.
So, giving up one's principles to accumulate prestige, and giving up one's voters to accumulate even more...
Clearly, the only thing that matters is the prestige itself - i.e. staying in the game by keeping your seat.
Thus, political system exists solely to supply politicians with jobs and entertainment.
As for voters...
It's politics, stupid. Don't you people know that it is all the same?
Raising taxes, lowering taxes, gay marriage, voting rights, prohibition, segregation, no guns, guns for everyone, free abortions, 1 child per family, mass sterilization of men and women, secular state and a theocracy, war on this or that, war here or there, death camps and summer camps...
You just keep votin like your daddy did, ok? Good.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The core issue for American politicians is raising money for the next election. Compared with that, other motivations are secondary. To the extent that this book ignores this issue, it's rather silly...
Voters would rather have a hypocrite in office who does what they want, rather than a principled person who does what they don't want. As long as voters prefer hypocrites, that's what we'll get.
Think about it......would you rather vote for someone who supports gay marriage, or one who would change the constitution to make it illegal? Most politicians opposed gay marriage not long ago.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
it's the only tool legislators have after they've rooted out real corruption
Uhm... are you sure you're talking about the US? That's the only country in the world that outright legalized corruption, in the guise of "campaign donations".
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Could be. But what it is NOT is hypocrisy since both the initial claim to support/oppose X and the vote to oppose/support X are in the public eye.
Hypocrisy is when a PUBLIC virtue is claimed while practising the associated vice in PRIVATE.
This could be horse trading (regular politics). This could be corruption. This could be a two-faced lying politician.
But it would not be hypocrisy.
Make legislators only accountable to their own consciences by re-instituting secret ballot. I know - it sounds crazy but it might work.
"if there's any blame to be doled out in connection with political hypocrisy, it's to be placed on the heads of voters who criticize legislators for it, instead of accepting it as a necessary part of democratic politics."
Nah, fuck that.
If you don't like it, Mr Frank, you should not be getting into fucking politics, you retard.
You have to consider the source when you see someone like Barney Frank saying "oh, sweetie, that's just how it's *done*".
http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1721111_1721210_1883878,00.html
Nope.
As others have said; horse-trade and compromise all you want, but flat out hypocrisy is unnacceptable. Period.
Make all of the seats "at large," and give every representative power proportional to the number of votes received -- basically, each representative casts a proxy vote for everyone who voted for him. A representative voted in with twice as many votes would have twice as much power in the legislative body, and making the seats at large would eliminate gerrymandering.
(For those interested in history, something similar was proposed by William Simon U'Ren of Oregon back in 1912. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_representation )
Must it be HELPFUL? It's TRUE. That's all that really matters.
You have a smattering of "moderate left", but they're pretty much hounded out of public view. Look at Bernie, Sanders, who elsewhere would be a centrist rather than left. And everyone in politics and the MSM treat him as some sort of unelectable socialist joke.
The GGP was accurate and true. What the hell is "it isn't helpful" doing? That's entirely not helpful itself to say! Ergo shot down by your own metric.
The entitlement out of these people is pretty fucking revolting. I mean, they think they earned something. They got elected - sure... people voted for them - sure... but if you get elected to do X and then do Y... fuck you. The voters might have been stupid to trust you but you're still a slimeball for fucking them over, aren't you shithead?
Who has any faith in these people at this point.
We seem to have no one choose from besides slime balls and crazy people.
On the left you've got a choice between Hillary and Bernie... Slime ball versus crazy person. And then on the right you have a collection of slimeballs versus a collection of crazy people. I can't really think of any one on either side that doesn't fit neatly into one of those categories.
Like... Trump... the republicans think that is a good idea right now for reasons that can only be attributed to fucking madness. he's a crazy person. Then you have Jeb and Cruz... slimeballs.
Its a race to see if we are ruled by corrupt lying shitheads... or people that probably should have butterfly nets thrown over their heads and carted off to a nice quiet place with a life time supply of jigsaw puzzles to chew on.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
We would execute politicians whenever they lied about something.
Maybe that would give them some different incentives and tools.
The voters are people. Every voter is equal.
Blame the corporate lobby groups. Lobby groups have more power than voters, limited only by how much money they have.
It's discredited utter crap. It's Anti Vaxx kind of stupid.
Game theory does have a lot to say about why people hold their noses and vote for X, no doubt. What's more, all those crazy asshole congresspeople Michelle Bachman, Jim Inhofe, are very often representing the actual wishes of their constituents- Congress is divided because, largely the nation is divided.
If you want Congress to act like adults, it's up to YOU to find some way to engage people with opposing viewpoints and convince them or find a compromise on things that are important to you. If 75% of a district is telling Inhofe that global warming is a conspiracy, what do you think he's going to do on the Envrionmental Comittee?
That's in defense of the system. On the other hand...
Any argument that attempts to assert, or steers you to the "reasoned" conclusion, that the system HAS to be as dysfunctional as it is, however dysfunctional THAT is, is totall bogus. It's tantamount to saying "well, whatever goes down, it was inevitable anyway!"
We don't have to fund our elections in a way that gives virtually unlimited power to big political donors. We could set aside an amount, and make all candidates live on that amount and that's that.The SCOTUS decision equating money with free speech was just a symptom of the diseaseand nothing more.
The fact is that heedless, reckless greed can and will destroy the nation. The quintessential example is action on climate change being forestalled merely because Bil Oil and Big Coal control the purse strings Senators need to get elected.
In that scenario, it really doesn't matter how you compromise or connduct yourself because there's a direct line from how elections are financed to legislative outcomes to mass extinction. Try compromising with climate reality- see how far that gets you Barney.
There are other examples where greed and money are clearly the driving force irrespective of "compromise". Eric Holdre very cleary decline to prosecute Wall Street because
a) he's from Wall Steet and those are his bros
(sympathy and identification)
b) The Democratics Party is 100% dependent on Wall Street money, especially if the alternative is that same money switches sides
c) he's cashing in now - to the tune of millions of dollars a year- working for by the same people he should have prosecuted as Attorney General.
What does "compromise" have to do with that kind of sheer in-your-face corruption?
The system can become so diseased that the specifics and overarching context of any negotiations - which is what Frank is talking about- are totally irrelevant to the goodness of legislative outcomes.
That diseased system is in fact what we have. It owes largely to how campaigns are funded and the revoloving door.
pointing out turds in a septic tank
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
in fact, it's the only tool legislators have after they've rooted out real corruption.
By that definition they will never have a need for that tool.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Game Theory is an academically sanctioned tabloid fascination with soiled brown underwear, thinly disguised as a tool for analyzing base motives.
Great things have been accomplished by those with brown underwear though they would rather not fixate on it and most historians tend not to record it, because brown underwear it is boring. Game Theory can precisely describe the motivations of Spherical Cows in a vacuum. To use it to describe complicated human beings is a gross insult -- indeed so much of an insult that what you actually reveal in your subjects is tolerance for being insulted in this manner.
Most of modern day ills cannot be described by 'Game Theory' so easily as a simple lack of meaningful consequences from a group's unpopular or immoral actions. Their underwear is clean, and GT's attempt to imply that it is soiled because these people are dancing on the edge of some arcane equation of morality is, needlessly dramatic.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
"it's the only tool legislators have after they've rooted out real corruption." They've rooted out real corruption! Really? So... what's that other stuff? Imitation corruption?
Oh wait.... Game Theory. Um, I'm being gamed. Again.
The New World Order - it's not a mindset, it's an instruction. Thou shalt believe that hypocrisy is the logical result of the elimination of corruption. [sigh]
In my opinion, all professionals are obliged to have an opinion of the system within which they operate, and a sense of whether dysfunctions exist which could be better resolved than endured.
The excessive influence of money on the American Congress was well understood. What did the politicians do? They went ahead and made the whole problem worse.
All too often politicians fail to publicly criticize the dysfunctional nature of the political system, preferring instead to revel within the obvious dysfunction, because the game-theoretic Frank solution (as the system is presently constituted) is paved in rivers of green.
I'm impressed by a heroine addict doing a good job at keeping the worst of their heroine addition at bay. I'm fundamentally more impressed by a heroine addict making any kind of progress at not remaining a heroine addict in the first place.
Politicians style themselves as leaders (leaders of the free world if an aircraft carrier is visible in the backdrop), and as such they deserve to be judged in the largest available frame.
From what I've read, a great number of politicians in Lincoln's era regarded avoiding a civil war as the business-as-usual Frank solution. Does that make him the worst American president?
Blame voters because they do not want liars?
French first revolution had other fixes for liars (including the famous guillotine). I hope we will not go that wild, but carry on blaming voters and perhaps they will find the need for fixes.
I see your definition of 'right winger' is 'agrees that people can own property', and anyone who has that belief cannot be left-wing.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving. It's interesting that a veteran of the United States Congress just let the cat out of the bag. We've been seeing this behavior for over two hundred years; yet we're still living in denial about it. They must be emboldened by the fact that the voters are easily swayed through television ads purchased by loosely tied allies. Whether or not they can keep their word is no longer important in American politics. My prediction is that the United States' Congress will continue to lose its relevance in the American political process as its reputation continues to decline. Statements like Frank's seek only to blame the victims of political corruption.
May the force be with you.
Nowhere in TFAs can I see any evidence that Barney Frank actually used the word "hypocrisy."
Well, did he? From what I can see, that word is used by the writers of TFAs, not Frank.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
And the principle is, never act on principle.
And all communists too. Using game theory they just cooperated with the most murderous person who ever lived. And if you've read the 1936 USSR Constitution you know every single word of Stalin and the Soviet government was a lie. Barney. Can rot in hell
Hypocrisy is the only sin for a moral relativist -- failing one's own moral code, a universal sin that can always be pointed out by anyone to anyone. However, it is incredibly dangerous to demonize hypocrites -- because they can become non-hypocrites by embracing the bad thing, and that is worse yet seems to be overlooked. So someone who smokes and admits it's bad and you shouldn't do it, is a hypocrite. But someone who says you ought to smoke too is worse. These days, it seems to take more courage to be a hypocrite and speak out against something even though you have a personal failing, rather than safely promoting that thing because you truly believe in it.
Also, hypocrisy is different from flip-flopping, different from changing one's mind as new facts become known, and different from compromising as necessary to actually achieve one's goals as opposed to merely making a show of unyielding yet worthless support.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"In fact, it's the only tool legislators have after they've rooted out real corruption." AFTER. After. Is the author even suggesting we've rooted out all the real corruption, and that hypocrisy is now "acceptable"? Are we there, yet? What these game theorists forget, is that in their "game", hypocrisy is only "acceptable", because it's in a "game" where the rules do not consider it a virtue...in a "game" where it's considered a virtue, it gets a lot worse for the average citizen.
Isn't game theory, it's manipulation by fascists
see http://www.progressive.org/new...
The Koch bros are Birchers, and the John Birch society was a organization founded to spread paranoid racist lies, and attempt to do it in secret.
And their money funded the tea party.
The society's organization was based on the communist party or a cult. People met in secret, spun off other groups. The idea was to indoctrinate but not to do it entirely openly and not to expose the people involved.
What Frank isn't telling you is that "those larger objectives" still have little to do with what voters actually want, but instead with the career and power of each politician.
While I do think hypocrisy is (unfortunately) politically essential it is not what Barney Frank is defending.
A legislator is perfectly able to vote for bills they personally don't think are good for the sake of political capital without being hypocritical. Yes, voters are dumb (and rationally ignorant) but voters understand the need for political compromise and legislators can certainly explain that they voted as they did as a compromise to achieve some more important goal. Indeed, this is exactly what Frank is doing.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
That money is given in the expectation of a return on investment. It doesn't matter if someone would get in despite that money. Having accepted it, they will be beholden to those biggest donors who paid up.
It doesn't matter how much you claim that it's overrated, the result is absolutely poison to democracy and central to the production of hypocrisy in politics.
Or is this "Chief animal welfare officer, Podunk County" that "won"? And who were they running against? An atheist or ISIS bomber?
you're either talking bollocks knowingly or you're blind.
Congress was gridlocked from 2008 through 2014 because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refused to compromise. For the first couple of years they thought they could push through whatever legislation they wanted without even inviting the other side to the table. After the Republicans took over the House, Reid stonewalled everything in the Senate; it's not clear if he was protecting Obama from having to sign or veto legislation that was a compromise, or whether Obama was too weak to push things through - bu t he end result was the same.
Using the wrong goal for the "game".
If the goal of the "game" is get the mostest for yourself (as represented by the "local voters"), then this is the result.
If the goal of the "game" is to get the mostest for all (as represented by the "nation") then this is a failure.
The goal (as currently defined by the oath of office) is:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
NOWHERE does it say "local voters" come first. The Constitution is front and center. And the constitution is for ALL.
Therefore game theory shows that Congress is not obeying the rules.
lets blame the voter for the person they voted for not doing the things that he was voted in for
So you think that legislators should have no room to compromise whatsoever when making legislation? You've just explained why our current congress is unable to get anything done. You've also explained the reason we continue to see more fringe tea-party candidates who would rather shut the government down rather than pass necessary legislation even though it isn't their ideal version of a bill.
You cannot have an effective legislature AND have members who cannot compromise unless you live in a one party dictatorship.
No, that's what the career politicians tell themselves to validate their own hypocrisy.
I'm guessing you've never been involved in any elected office where voting was part of the job description. The post you were replying to is right and it isn't a self justification on the part of the politicians. No elected official in a democracy can get their way all the time. What's important to them is usually not important to others. The only (legal) currency they have to trade with other legislators is their votes on issues. So if they have an issue that is really important to them they necessarily will have to trade their vote on other issues they consider less important in order to get something done. If they are unwilling to compromise like this then very little legislation will get passed. This is EXACTLY what is happening in our current legislature. The thing you aren't considering is why those people got elected in the first place. In particular you aren't considering the effects of gerrymandering.
Tea Partiers not knowing how the "cooperation currency" works, just sitting on their "currency" and making no use of it, and thus raising it's value - it would be prime time to both cash in AND to make big deals for the future.
You're not considering the whole equation. The ENTIRE reason these tea party folks got into office was because they were the most ideologically pure candidate in a gerrymandered district. If they compromise and do something actually useful that involves compromise they get voted out of office during the next election cycle by another Tea Partier who promises to never compromise. This happens even if the legislation is objectively in the best interest of the country. This in spite of the fact that it is almost literally impossible to do anything useful in a legislature without trading votes unless you have a one party supermajority. This happens on the left too in many places - it's not just one side or the other. (though the tea party provides probably the clearest example it isn't the only one)
I agree with Barney on almost everything he has ever said but this time I don't like it. I like leftest politicians who will not compromise one little bit and will gather 51% of the vote and crush the right wing forever. Compromise with the right is simply not acceptable under even the most dire conditions. I would rather the whole planet be turned into a nuclear cloud with extermination of all life than allowing the right wing to have one tiny bit of an opinion in this world.
While giving President Obama everything he asks for. You are right, that isn't compromise, it's fellatio.
They have given him almost nothing he has asked for. In fact they routinely and almost universally oppose all things he proposes even when they are actually republican ideas in origin. They refuse reasonable compromise legislation constantly even when it has significant features that should appeal to the right. Give Obama "everything he asks for"? What planet are you living on that you think that has happened?
Congress was gridlocked from 2008 through 2014 because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refused to compromise.
Horseshit. The only people who actually believe that are republicans who have drunk the cool-aid from Fox news. While I won't pretend Pelosi and Reid were paragons of bipartisanship (they haven't been), the right (esp tea party) has been by far the least willing to compromise in our legislature in the last 10 years or so. There is a difference between being unwilling to compromise and being unwilling to utterly capitulate. When the other side refuses to negotiate in good faith then it really doesn't leave many options. Neither side is pure here but blaming Pelosi and Reid without pointing the finger across the aisle as well is just ridiculous.
After the Republicans took over the House, Reid stonewalled everything in the Senate;
And since pretty much the only thing the house actually did was vote to repeal the ACA OVER 30 TIMES (with no serious alternative legislation proposed either), exactly what was he supposed to do? Go along with their lunacy? Very little legislation that came out of the house was even remotely bipartisan in nature and the republicans (esp tea party) have been utterly uninterested in compromise. The ones that do get voted out of office during their next election for being insufficiently ideologically pure in their gerrymandered district.
With 535 players...
1) Dictatorship - where one side wins completely and orders the other side to obey or be punished. Ha ha ha, cry you fools! Your tears are my joy!
2) Compromise - where neither side completely wins, but both sides get some of what they want. Now BOTH sides cry, but neither side laughs.
Democracy is entirely based on Compromise. When you come across an idea that neither side is willing to compromise - such as slavery - you get civil war.
I like compromise. We may hate our congressmen for doing it, but it is better than having one side be beaten into the pulp and being forced to obey. Everyone that wants their side to win - think of what the country would be like if your opponent won all the arguments over the past decade. Now shudder and be glad they only won some.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Or letting your boyfriend run a gay escort service out of your office.
Or giving your boyfriend control of Fannie Mae and directing legislation to drive business to Fannie Mae.
Barney is an expert on being compromised.
These days, the people who yell and scream the loudest appear to be the ones winning political debate. Not because they're correct (they're usually wrong) but because the opposing side just wants them to shut the eff up.
Every statement in this post should be postfixed with "in the US" or some variant thereof. I can't speak for Europe, but I know that here in Canada very very little of this applies. For instance...
"Legislators do not pay each other for votes."
This assumes your political system allows any sort of free voting and thus trading of votes. As far as I can tell, this is generally very rare.
In systems descended from the UK parliament, representatives are expected to vote along the party line, and there is a party whip to ensure they do. Horse trading takes place though the whip, and involves party positions and goals, not votes. There is little or no ability for benchers to arrange this amongst themselves, and they will find themselves out of the party if they try it. There are votes that do not follow these rules, the "free votes", in which case the member has to vote according to their own personally feeling or their constituent's wishes, and again the trading of votes for favors is explicitly not allowed.
Although there is still considerable gamesmanship and jockeying for positions, for cabinet positions for instance, but there is very little of the sort of rider-attachement and "hypocrisy" you see in the US system. You may not like the ruling party's decisions, but typically they at least follow party lines and pass without compromise.
"Legislators do not pay each other for votes, and every member of a parliament in a democratic society is legally equal to every member,"
Legally perhaps, but I'm unaware of any system, the US or otherwise, where this is even remotely true in practice.
Your argument is severely flawed. That corporate job is a consolation prize that offers little of the things the politician sought by gaining office. Power chief among these. Politicians want to be leaders not minions, even a well paid minion.
In 2014 House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his seat in the Republican primary to economics professor David Brat.
Political Hypocrisy: The Mask of Power, from Hobbes to Orwell and Beyond Paperback – August 1, 2010 by David Runciman, Cambridge political scientist.
Probably tangental to the actual argument he is presenting, but the seniority system implemented in the US congress (combined with the lack of term limits) creates a large amount of inequality between various members of congress.
Replacing an multi-term idiot incumbent is made much harder when unseating said idiot will result in a real loss of power for the district (via a lost committee position) vs. electing someone of unknown or lesser idiocy that will have no seniority. This is one of the major reasons that there is little turnover in primary elections in the US.
Pretty much the rest of the developed world is to the left of the US center, and I'm unaware of any of those in which people don't own property. Since all modern societies agree that people can own things, your definition is completely useless.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Wait a sec - the developed world is to the left of the US center? How does that relate to the US left being left or right?
As far as "all modern societies agree that people can own things", that only goes so far for the left. You can own one small parcel, but you better not own a second house that you charge someone rent to live in. Or you own the land, but can't do anything with it that isn't approved by the government. If you own a factory, you better make sure the employees have a say in how it runs, and a share of the profit over and above their wages. I have seen all these arguments by people on the left, especially those who are from Europe.
That doesn't fit my definition of ownership, that is more akin to being allowed to call it yours as long as you don't get uppity. Do you remember the case of eminent domain in New London, Connecticut? The liberal side of the Supreme Court decided people can lose their property to benefit the local tax office. That is how I consider the left's view "that people can own things".
Besides the single point of ownership, what of the other primary Democrat/liberal policies? Here are the agenda points of the American left:
Abortion
Unions, public and private sector
Regulation of industry and banking
Environmental regulation
National health care (Obamacare being a first stage)
College tuition support / Free college
Gay marriage
Equal rights / Non-discrimination
Prison reform / Abolish death penalty
Drug legalization
Gun control
Which of those are to the right of the dividing line? What position do the Democrats/liberals have that is on the right side of that line, other than ownership of property?
This isn't the first, or even the tenth, time I've asked this question. And the only answer I get back (if any at all) is property ownership and control. Every other issue the Democrats have is either left, far left, or neutral (such as 'support our troops').
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Everybody does it, so it must be ok... Right???
Says the robber waiting to kill the next unsuspecting passer-by... 8-(