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.
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.
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
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...
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.
No, the thing that matters is to execute those actions which keep the machine of government moving along
Sometimes you work against your immediate interests in order to promote your long-term interests
The Tea Party members of Congress are unable to do this, that is why were only see small bits of legislation being originated in the House and most of it has to do with killing the ACA, which at this point is little more than an old campaign platform that has little bearing on the current issues that the country faces
Wherever You Go, There You Are
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.
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.
No, the thing that matters is to execute those actions which keep the machine of government moving along
Sometimes you work against your immediate interests in order to promote your long-term interests
No, that's what the career politicians tell themselves to validate their own hypocrisy.
And if the Tea Partiers were the only issue, and compromise and cooperation really are "currency", then rest of the Republicans would be closing deals hand over fist and legislation would be passing like shit through a goose.
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.
Cooperation earned earlier is now worth more cause there is none to get on the market.
Same for the cooperation made now, which can be bargained for more future deals than usual.
Same goes for the other side.
Democrats would be banning gayness and abortion, making guns mandatory for anyone older than 3 and bringing both death penalty and torture across the nation.
Nope...
Just an old white guy trying to rationalize all those times he had no balls or integrity with bullshit from game theory.
Which works only with perfectly rational actors.
Which no human (other than a psycho here and there) ever is and no group of humans can ever be.
E.g. Tea Partiers and "killing the ACA, which at this point is little more than an old campaign platform that has little bearing on the current issues that the country faces".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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)
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?
In 2014 House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his seat in the Republican primary to economics professor David Brat.