Do politicians actually know the state of the nation?

[BH]

Hello,

As much as politicians lie and are lied to by people working for them, or interest groups telling them lies, ect. is it even possible for a politican to ascertain the true state of the nation?

 

[rousseau]

Yes, when they're a competent human being it shouldn't be much of a problem.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except for may the current ones, they do. But remember will have a diverse country so there are no single answers and the politicians believe they have answers.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Politicians are like everyone else. Their perceptions are filtered through their biases and the groups of people that they have around them, as well as their having the general tendency to assume that whatever opinions and positions that they have are basically the mainstream and sensible view.

I remember that Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman (who likely has an actual name of her own) was once on the Bill Maher show and she was going on about how she travels around the country and finds that Americans everywhere tend to be conservative people of faith, despite how the media accounts of the country would tell us differently. Maher responded that this is just because those are the people who tend to talk to her and it's no different than he finds that the country is populated by sarcastic liberals, except that he doesn't make the mistake of thinking he's getting a representative sample.

It's the same with politicians. GOP ones tend to interact with the Republican voters in their districts more often and Dem ones tend to interact with the Democratic ones, along with their having hired people who share their political philosophies so they get a bubble effect in the office. They all probably think they know the state of the union, but their perception of that state is generally a skewed one.

 

[rousseau]

Politicians are like everyone else. Their perceptions are filtered through their biases and the groups of people that they have around them, as well as their having the general tendency to assume that whatever opinions and positions that they have are basically the mainstream and sensible view.

I remember that Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman (who likely has an actual name of her own) was once on the Bill Maher show and she was going on about how she travels around the country and finds that Americans everywhere tend to be conservative people of faith, despite how the media accounts of the country would tell us differently. Maher responded that this is just because those are the people who tend to talk to her and it's no different than he finds that the country is populated by sarcastic liberals, except that he doesn't make the mistake of thinking he's getting a representative sample.

It's the same with politicians. GOP ones tend to interact with the Republican voters in their districts more often and Dem ones tend to interact with the Democratic ones, along with their having hired people who share their political philosophies so they get a bubble effect in the office. They all probably think they know the state of the union, but their perception of that state is generally a skewed one.

But if you're a competent politician you recognize that you have biases and attempt to see situations objectively despite your bubble.

You might not get the correct picture, but you'll get far closer than the politician who doesn't even realize he's in a bubble.

Then there are politicians who have no motivation to see things clearly, they just want to look out for special interests.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Politicians are like everyone else. Their perceptions are filtered through their biases and the groups of people that they have around them, as well as their having the general tendency to assume that whatever opinions and positions that they have are basically the mainstream and sensible view.

I remember that Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman (who likely has an actual name of her own) was once on the Bill Maher show and she was going on about how she travels around the country and finds that Americans everywhere tend to be conservative people of faith, despite how the media accounts of the country would tell us differently. Maher responded that this is just because those are the people who tend to talk to her and it's no different than he finds that the country is populated by sarcastic liberals, except that he doesn't make the mistake of thinking he's getting a representative sample.

It's the same with politicians. GOP ones tend to interact with the Republican voters in their districts more often and Dem ones tend to interact with the Democratic ones, along with their having hired people who share their political philosophies so they get a bubble effect in the office. They all probably think they know the state of the union, but their perception of that state is generally a skewed one.

But if you're a competent politician you recognize that you have biases and attempt to see situations objectively despite your bubble.

You might not get the correct picture, but you'll get far closer than the politician who doesn't even realize he's in a bubble.

Then there are politicians who have no motivation to see things clearly, they just want to look out for special interests.

But what if that special interest lies with your belief? It's more of an issue when you don't go with what you said but are bought or influenced.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Politicians are like everyone else. Their perceptions are filtered through their biases and the groups of people that they have around them, as well as their having the general tendency to assume that whatever opinions and positions that they have are basically the mainstream and sensible view.

I remember that Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman (who likely has an actual name of her own) was once on the Bill Maher show and she was going on about how she travels around the country and finds that Americans everywhere tend to be conservative people of faith, despite how the media accounts of the country would tell us differently. Maher responded that this is just because those are the people who tend to talk to her and it's no different than he finds that the country is populated by sarcastic liberals, except that he doesn't make the mistake of thinking he's getting a representative sample.

It's the same with politicians. GOP ones tend to interact with the Republican voters in their districts more often and Dem ones tend to interact with the Democratic ones, along with their having hired people who share their political philosophies so they get a bubble effect in the office. They all probably think they know the state of the union, but their perception of that state is generally a skewed one.

But if you're a competent politician you recognize that you have biases and attempt to see situations objectively despite your bubble.

You might not get the correct picture, but you'll get far closer than the politician who doesn't even realize he's in a bubble.

Then there are politicians who have no motivation to see things clearly, they just want to look out for special interests.

Yes, I imagine that pretty much all of them want to see things objectively despite their bubble, just like pretty much everyone on this site wants to see things objectively, despite their bubble. Sometimes they fail spectacularly at that, though, and sometimes they only fail a little bit, which still gives them a skewed view of things.

We all think that our positions are the sensible and mainstream ones and we're all subject to a confirmation bias where we, even unconsciously, pay more attention to those things which reinforce our beliefs. When there is so much diversity of thought and opinion out there and it's very hard, if not impossible, to truly nail down what an actual mainstream opinion on a topic might be and strong arguments could be made that any one of several conflicting ones are that, there's no real reason to assume that one of the non-sensible choices is the mainstream one as opposed to it being the sensible one that you already have because you're just so darned smart and level-headed.

 

[rousseau]

But if you're a competent politician you recognize that you have biases and attempt to see situations objectively despite your bubble.

You might not get the correct picture, but you'll get far closer than the politician who doesn't even realize he's in a bubble.

Then there are politicians who have no motivation to see things clearly, they just want to look out for special interests.

Yes, I imagine that pretty much all of them want to see things objectively despite their bubble, just like pretty much everyone on this site wants to see things objectively, despite their bubble. Sometimes they fail spectacularly at that, though, and sometimes they only fail a little bit, which still gives them a skewed view of things.

We all think that our positions are the sensible and mainstream ones and we're all subject to a confirmation bias where we, even unconsciously, pay more attention to those things which reinforce our beliefs. When there is so much diversity of thought and opinion out there and it's very hard, if not impossible, to truly nail down what an actual mainstream opinion on a topic might be and strong arguments could be made that any one of several conflicting ones are that, there's no real reason to assume that one of the non-sensible choices is the mainstream one as opposed to it being the sensible one that you already have because you're just so darned smart and level-headed.

I don't think this is true.

Most politicians key skills are social performance and lying to get what they want, not being genuinely thoughtful. If you can get a cross of the two consider yourself lucky.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think this is true.

Most politicians key skills are social performance and lying to get what they want, not being genuinely thoughtful. If you can get a cross of the two consider yourself lucky.

I agree with you that they're very good at lying to get what they want. However, there is a reason that they want these things. For a large number of them, that reason is because they think that they are good things. The drive to lower tax rates is not simply because they are bought off by rich people who want to keep more of their money but also because they believe that the argument that this will stimulate the economy and help out everybody. The drive for affirmative action laws is not simply because a bunch of politicians have been put on the NAACP's payroll but because they honestly believe that minorities are disadvantaged in the workplace and need a leg up simply to even the playing field (Asians not included - check your local regulations).

They think that these are good positions. When there are strong arguments being made both for and against those positions and it's difficult to sway people from one side to the other, the tendency is focus on the arguments which confirm what you already believe. As objective as one wants to be, if looking at something objectively still leaves one with inconclusive results, another way of viewing that is that you haven't been given a good reason to change your mind and what you thought before has things to validate how correct you were.

 

[rousseau]

I don't think this is true.

Most politicians key skills are social performance and lying to get what they want, not being genuinely thoughtful. If you can get a cross of the two consider yourself lucky.

I agree with you that they're very good at lying to get what they want. However, there is a reason that they want these things. For a large number of them, that reason is because they think that they are good things. The drive to lower tax rates is not simply because they are bought off by rich people who want to keep more of their money but also because they believe that the argument that this will stimulate the economy and help out everybody. The drive for affirmative action laws is not simply because a bunch of politicians have been put on the NAACP's payroll but because they honestly believe that minorities are disadvantaged in the workplace and need a leg up simply to even the playing field (Asians not included - check your local regulations).

They think that these are good positions. When there are strong arguments being made both for and against those positions and it's difficult to sway people from one side to the other, the tendency is focus on the arguments which confirm what you already believe. As objective as one wants to be, if looking at something objectively still leaves one with inconclusive results, another way of viewing that is that you haven't been given a good reason to change your mind and what you thought before has things to validate how correct you were.

I feel you're giving politicians too much credit for their likely intentions.

If these people had genuinely good policy in mind, and not political points, or whatever special interest, then they would seek out and discover what good policy was.

In the U.S. we have an entire federal party attempting to repeal health-care law for really.. no reason at all. If they were committed to discovering effective bipartisan solutions they could easily do so.

It's because they're either demagogues or idiots, not because they're blinded from finding the truth.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

OK, fair point. I can't actually defend the Republicans and I'm going to stop trying.

 

[rousseau]

OK, fair point. I can't actually defend the Republicans and I'm going to stop trying.

I wonder if the issue is one of incentives. If these people are career politicians and their livelihood depends on being elected, then their decisions are contingent on re-election, and not being smart.

 

[coloradoatheist]

OK, fair point. I can't actually defend the Republicans and I'm going to stop trying.

I wonder if the issue is one of incentives. If these people are career politicians and their livelihood depends on being elected, then their decisions are contingent on re-election, and not being smart.

Huh. If they are trying to get re-elected then how is not smart staying with policies that will get you re-elected?

But it's also your bias and your opinion on what the best solution for health care is. Do they have different opinions on what health care is? Politicians also have to worry about all the groups that involved in the decision, not just one group.

 

[TV and credit cards]

We know we're all different on the outside. Why is that not so readily carried over to how we all think? We're all snowflakes, inside and out.

Get volunteers, perhaps 2-3 thousand of them from every walk of life, put them on a ship and float them around in the ocean for six months or so. Then every would-be politician should go on deployment and live the life of an enlisted man in the navy for six months. It would be an immersion course in social science.

 

[Elixir]

I wonder if the issue is one of incentives. If these people are career politicians and their livelihood depends on being elected, then their decisions are contingent on re-election, and not being smart.

Huh. If they are trying to get re-elected then how is not smart staying with policies that will get you re-elected?

But it's also your bias and your opinion on what the best solution for health care is. Do they have different opinions on what health care is? Politicians also have to worry about all the groups that involved in the decision, not just one group.

The tragedy du jour is the recent discovery that lying your face off, making impossible promises and declaring your own turds to be blueberry muffins, can get you elected. The next cycle will show us all how far that tactic can take you. It would be inconceivable that there are not those who are now thinking "hey, if a bumbling incompetent moron like Donald can get elected President, then surely a bright guy like me can do the same thing, to even greater effect!"

 

[coloradoatheist]

Huh. If they are trying to get re-elected then how is not smart staying with policies that will get you re-elected?

But it's also your bias and your opinion on what the best solution for health care is. Do they have different opinions on what health care is? Politicians also have to worry about all the groups that involved in the decision, not just one group.

The tragedy du jour is the recent discovery that lying your face off, making impossible promises and declaring your own turds to be blueberry muffins, can get you elected. The next cycle will show us all how far that tactic can take you. It would be inconceivable that there are not those who are now thinking "hey, if a bumbling incompetent moron like Donald can get elected President, then surely a bright guy like me can do the same thing, to even greater effect!"

Policians have always been knowing for lying off your face. But 2018 elections will be interesting.

 

[Elixir]

The tragedy du jour is the recent discovery that lying your face off, making impossible promises and declaring your own turds to be blueberry muffins, can get you elected. The next cycle will show us all how far that tactic can take you. It would be inconceivable that there are not those who are now thinking "hey, if a bumbling incompetent moron like Donald can get elected President, then surely a bright guy like me can do the same thing, to even greater effect!"

Policians have always been knowing for lying off your face.

Ah, but this is epic. Trump's cabal is running like a well-grea$ed machine, don'tcha know? That is asserting that one's turds are in fact blueberry muffins (with the biggest electoral margins since Reagan!).

But 2018 elections will be interesting.

Indeed. (Assuming that there ARE elections in 2018.)

 

[rousseau]

I wonder if the issue is one of incentives. If these people are career politicians and their livelihood depends on being elected, then their decisions are contingent on re-election, and not being smart.

Huh. If they are trying to get re-elected then how is not smart staying with policies that will get you re-elected?

But it's also your bias and your opinion on what the best solution for health care is. Do they have different opinions on what health care is? Politicians also have to worry about all the groups that involved in the decision, not just one group.

That's exactly my point.

If politicians need to be politicians to survive, then they are going to be more focused on making their electorate happy in the short-term, rather than safe in the long-term.

We elect politicians as chosen experts to make important decisions for an uninformed populace, we don't elect them to act at the whims of the uninformed populace.

But because politicians are disincentivised to piss off the dumb-ass people who voted for them, then they are forced to make stupid decisions instead of good ones.

 

[Ford]

Hello,

As much as politicians lie and are lied to by people working for them, or interest groups telling them lies, ect. is it even possible for a politican to ascertain the true state of the nation?

To a certain extent, the true state of the nation doesn't matter when you're on a campaign.

Take our current President. Does he know the true state of the nation? Unlikely. People who live in golden penthouses and only interact with people when they attend his rallies aren't going to get a clear picture of what's really going on, but that was irrelevant.

Things were, by just about every metric, better at the end of Obama's term than they were at the beginning. Unemployment was down. Housing had rebounded. Crime (despite upticks in a few cities) was continuing to fall. Immigration was flat or down. Gas prices at historic lows. Stocks at record highs.

But if you're the opposition candidate, you can't just admit to the nation that everything is going pretty good. You've got to look for the negatives and make them seem worse than they actually are. Trump took that a step further and just made up negatives all on his own. He painted a bleak picture of a broken America that needed to be made "Great" again, and he kept hammering that miserable message over and over again. Did he really believe everything was as bad as he said? It doesn't matter. He had to sell the American people on the idea that everything sucks and their lives are miserable, because "things are going great, so let's change course" is a lousy campaign slogan.

 

[Elixir]

Things were, by just about every metric, better at the end of Obama's term than they were at the beginning. Unemployment was down. Housing had rebounded. Crime (despite upticks in a few cities) was continuing to fall. Immigration was flat or down. Gas prices at historic lows. Stocks at record highs.

Trump's astonishing accomplishment is that when polled about that, his supporters resoundingly opine that since Obama stole the election:

• Unemployment is UP.
• Housing has yet to rebound.
• Crime is way up.
• Immigration is WAY up.
• Gas prices are high.
• Stocks were in the tank prior to Cheato's election.

Say what you want about Cheato - it is truly impressive that he can convince tens of millions of people of such a dazzling galaxy of lies.