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.
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...
Goddamn right blame the voter! With 98% reelection rates there is nobody else to blame. I don't care who does it. There is nothing wrong with a thief calling you stupid if you let him rob you over and over. He would be correct in that assessment!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.