Pete Buttigieg

[Brian63]

Or we could actually try to inform them.

Not "or" we could try doing so. We can try doing both---informing people to the best our abilities but also recognizing that we will not be sufficiently successful. We should rely on experts who have more specialized education, more resources, more technology, more experience with various subject matters to make better choices than we would have the ability to ourselves.

Let's look at your setup where the politicians should just do whatever the people desire (even if what the people desire would lead to their own detriment and the detriment of others). You also earlier warned us about an "an existential threat to millions of lives,..." (I assume you refer to climate change, please correct me if you refer to something different). What should the elected government officials do when 99% of climatologists tell those representatives that this is the real deal, we need to act on it now, this is serious, this is grave, this is an existential threat to life, period. Yet, roughly half of the ignorant populace thinks it is all a giant hoax, a giant scam and since the weather outside today feels a bit chilly that disproves that global warming nonsense those dumb enviro-wackos cooked up.

Yes, you can try to convince the latter people that they are wrong. You do not have the luxury of a lot of time left to do that, however. In the meantime, because of the stubborn stupidity of those people, millions of others will suffer.

Should the elected government officials, right here and right now, act in accordance with what the small subset of the most knowledgeable people and experts say they should do, or what the largely ignorant voters say they should do?

As stated earlier, I have mixed feelings and undecided opinions on that matter of when the government should favor one side versus the other. It is a difficult dilemma. Which way would you favor though, particularly on this looming climate change threat?

 

[PyramidHead]

Or we could actually try to inform them.

Not "or" we could try doing so. We can try doing both---informing people to the best our abilities but also recognizing that we will not be sufficiently successful. We should rely on experts who have more specialized education, more resources, more technology, more experience with various subject matters to make better choices than we would have the ability to ourselves.

Let's look at your setup where the politicians should just do whatever the people desire (even if what the people desire would lead to their own detriment and the detriment of others). You also earlier warned us about an "an existential threat to millions of lives,..." (I assume you refer to climate change, please correct me if you refer to something different). What should the elected government officials do when 99% of climatologists tell those representatives that this is the real deal, we need to act on it now, this is serious, this is grave, this is an existential threat to life, period. Yet, roughly half of the ignorant populace thinks it is all a giant hoax, a giant scam and since the weather outside today feels a bit chilly that disproves that global warming nonsense those dumb enviro-wackos cooked up.

Why do you assume that's the case, when poll after poll shows a populace that is MORE concerned about global warming than their government?

These are some numbers from 2018: https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1198a1Global-Warming.pdf

And this is more recent: https://morningconsult.com/2019/04/17/voters-embrace-tenets-of-dueling-climate-resolutions/

Both show strong majority support for action on climate change among the voting populace that is increasing year after year, especially among the younger generation, who aren't likely to be in the running for Supreme Court seats anytime soon. The playing field is already tilted in favor of the government doing "a great deal/a lot" to combat climate change, and giving equal voice to the minority faction that thinks it's a hoax (i.e. Republicans in bed with oil companies) is what would actually doom us.

Yes, you can try to convince the latter people that they are wrong. You do not have the luxury of a lot of time left to do that, however. In the meantime, because of the stubborn stupidity of those people, millions of others will suffer.

Should the elected government officials, right here and right now, act in accordance with what the small subset of the most knowledgeable people and experts say they should do, or what the largely ignorant voters say they should do?

As stated earlier, I have mixed feelings and undecided opinions on that matter of when the government should favor one side versus the other. It is a difficult dilemma. Which way would you favor though, particularly on this looming climate change threat?

I still think you have a highly skewed and uncharitable opinion of what the average person thinks about climate change and a great deal of other topics. If you're talking about your generation, maybe. But the future belongs to the young, and they are wiser than you think.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Put them in the position of coming over to our side or facing political irrelevance.

Uh huh. And how exactly do you plan on doing that to people who don't give a flying fuck about "our side" and don't give a shit about being politically irrelevant in your estimation?

Again, you frame this as if we have a choice in the matter to not compromise. Like this whole time we've just been spineless jellyfish, helpless and demure when we had the power to go home all along!

How do you imagine Congress works? Take your candidate, Sanders, aka, the "amendment king." You know that he got almost nothing of consequence done on his own, right? That the way he became the "amendment king" was to suckerfish his pet projects onto other's bills, right? And you know how he did that? By giving his vote to the originator of that bill if they would permit his pet amendment to their bills. It's a quid-pro-quo compromise; he gets what he wants and the originator of the bill gets his vote on the bill.

Btw, Sanders was, ironically, significantly responsible for sealing the fate of single-payer on Obama's ACA. And what did he do once he had no choice? Compromised:

Including a public option in the bill, as Sanders very vocally supported, was a flashpoint of the debate surrounding the legislation. Progressive supporters of a public option — which would have provided users of the exchange the option of a government-run insurance plan — argued that it would have been cheaper than private insurance. But the idea was vehemently opposed by many in Congress and ultimately didn’t go anywhere.

Likewise, Sanders’ push that there be a vote on a single-payer plan — a symbolic vote on an amendment to the ACA that would have replaced the entire legislation with a single-payer model — also threatened to put some Democrats in a tricky position.

“There were people who felt like, here was one of their colleagues spotting them on a politically difficult vote,” McDonough said. “It wasn’t a difficult vote for any Republicans, but it was a vote that would have been tough for a lot of [Sanders’] Democratic colleagues.”

The aide critical of Sanders called the move to get a vote on the single-payer model “deeply irresponsible,” arguing it made Democrats vulnerable to attacks from their left. But a former aide to another Democratic lawmaker defended it.

“The Democratic base, in a million ways, was pushing hard for single-payer, and Sen. Sanders was not creating a political problem that didn’t already exist,” the aide said. “He was doing what he thought was right for the country and it was absolutely welcomed as part of the discussion.”

Sanders ultimately withdrew the single-payer amendment from the floor, once Sen. Tom Coburn (OK) — a Republican who opposed the health care overhaul effort — insisted the 700-plus page measure be read aloud.

Having lost the battles on the public option and single-payer, Sanders put his full weight behind the community health centers provision.

“He said to Harry Reid, ‘I’m not going to vote for this bill unless I get a gargantuan sum of money for community health centers,’” McDonough told TPM.
...
In some ways, Sanders’ involvement in the ACA mirrors the larger debate evolving in the Democratic primary: He was reaching for the impossible, in this case, in the form of the single-payer plan. But when he was forced to give up on that front, he settled for the influence he could pragmatically wield.

"He settled for the influence he could pragmatically wield."

Welcome to Politics 101.

 

[Brian63]

PH,

Let's say that some person is an elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives from a deep-red district in very conservative Alabama. They are not there to represent what the majority of the national population of voters wants, and they are not there to represent what only the younger voters in their district want. They are there to represent what all of their voters in just their particular district want, which happens to be INACTION on climate change. Even though that person agrees with all the warning signs presented by knowledgeable experts and scientists, still the voters in that district disagree with it. When a bill comes before Congress to take dramatic measures to fight climate change, should that single elected official vote to represent what her (ignorant) constituents want, or what is deemed to be the best approach by those with the most expertise but who are not (for the most part) constituents in that district?

 

[PyramidHead]

PH,

Let's say that some person is an elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives from a deep-red district in very conservative Alabama. They are not there to represent what the majority of the national population of voters wants, and they are not there to represent what only the younger voters in their district want. They are there to represent what all of their voters in just their particular district want, which happens to be INACTION on climate change. Even though that person agrees with all the warning signs presented by knowledgeable experts and scientists, still the voters in that district disagree with it. When a bill comes before Congress to take dramatic measures to fight climate change, should that single elected official vote to represent what her (ignorant) constituents want, or what is deemed to be the best approach by those with the most expertise but who are not (for the most part) constituents in that district?

I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion. An elected official is not bound by any laws or responsibilities to vote according to the wishes of their constituents. If the person in your example got elected fairly, and was not lying about their agreement with climate science, then clearly the voters in their district have given their permission to be represented by someone who agrees with climate science. If the constituents change their mind and dislike the representative because of the vote, then they can vote for someone else next time. I don't see how this situation would be improved by making sure that every pro-climate reform representative is balanced out by an anti-climate reform one, who both get to select a "neutral" third representative.

The point I'm trying to make is that, for every issue, there is a gulf between public opinion and actual reality that sometimes causes people to vote against their interests. My take on this problem is to place the blame squarely at the feet of the political establishment and the moneyed interests they serve, who collaborate with media outlets and educational institutions to saturate public discourse with business-friendly perspectives. As such, I abhor the suggestion that what we need is to further remove this establishment from popular accountability by enshrining a deadlocked supreme court into law. I have the same reaction to the "cabinet of rivals" romanticism that some candidates are portraying, and especially Biden's astonishing ignorance about Republicans being willing to play ball once Trump is out of office (hint: Obama said exactly the same about Republicans playing ball after Bush leaves office). So, I am in favor of a political theory and approach that disproportionately favors educating and activating the populace, placing more and more of the levers of society under their direct control, making the lines of representation more transparent and subject to recall, and removing the pillars of support for any institutions that are contrary to these goals.

 

[Brian63]

PH,

Let's say that some person is an elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives from a deep-red district in very conservative Alabama. They are not there to represent what the majority of the national population of voters wants, and they are not there to represent what only the younger voters in their district want. They are there to represent what all of their voters in just their particular district want, which happens to be INACTION on climate change. Even though that person agrees with all the warning signs presented by knowledgeable experts and scientists, still the voters in that district disagree with it. When a bill comes before Congress to take dramatic measures to fight climate change, should that single elected official vote to represent what her (ignorant) constituents want, or what is deemed to be the best approach by those with the most expertise but who are not (for the most part) constituents in that district?

I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion.

Because you said the following:

"Both [polls] show strong majority support for action on climate change among the voting populace that is increasing year after year, especially among the younger generation, who aren't likely to be in the running for Supreme Court seats anytime soon. The playing field is already tilted in favor of the government doing "a great deal/a lot" to combat climate change, and giving equal voice to the minority faction that thinks it's a hoax (i.e. Republicans in bed with oil companies) is what would actually doom us."

An elected official is not bound by any laws or responsibilities to vote according to the wishes of their constituents.

(emphasis added)

That bolded part is what I have been looking for, at least somewhat. I was wanting to know what your take was.

In my previous hypothetical I referred to some other person who was an elected official in the U.S. House of Representatives who represents a deep-red district in very conservative Alabama. Should she vote on a climate change bill according to what her (ignorant) constituents want, or according to what the best course of action (as argued by the experts and scientists who are the most familiar with the field)?

If the constituents change their mind and dislike the representative because of the vote, then they can vote for someone else next time.

So in approximately 1 or 2 years, they can vote her out of office and elect a climate change-denier. Multiply those election results x100 in the U.S. House and x20 in the U.S. Senate, for instance. That election result would be catastrophic and pose a greater existential threat to the existence of millions of lives, however. Is that the better outcome according to you, and you would prefer that result over having a climate change activist in office who was voting against what their own constituents want from their representative? Even though it was the voters themselves who were just stupid, ignorant, misinformed, biased, etc. for denying climate change even existed? Yes, various groups can try to persuade those voters that climate change is real. That time is a luxury we just do not have an abundance of. In the meanwhile, while we all try to persuade the rest of the population to our own views, other people will suffer.

This is related to the Dunning-Kruger effect where (basically) people who are uninformed about a topic overestimate their own expertise, while those who actually are more knowledgeable are better aware of how little or much they know. If a person thinks that climate change is a giant hoax and they believe so because today is particularly chilly compared to how they remember it being last year, and they vote based on that shitty level of analysis, then all will suffer. That is a case for relying on the knowledge of experts in the field, rather than ignorant simpletons of it.

I can see merit in your position as well, but I happen to see merit in the opposing position to yours (and I am overall undecided) while you seem to categorically dismiss the opposing argument (prematurely).

 

[PyramidHead]

Because you said the following:

"Both [polls] show strong majority support for action on climate change among the voting populace that is increasing year after year, especially among the younger generation, who aren't likely to be in the running for Supreme Court seats anytime soon. The playing field is already tilted in favor of the government doing "a great deal/a lot" to combat climate change, and giving equal voice to the minority faction that thinks it's a hoax (i.e. Republicans in bed with oil companies) is what would actually doom us."

An elected official is not bound by any laws or responsibilities to vote according to the wishes of their constituents.

(emphasis added)

That bolded part is what I have been looking for, at least somewhat. I was wanting to know what your take was.

In my previous hypothetical I referred to some other person who was an elected official in the U.S. House of Representatives who represents a deep-red district in very conservative Alabama. Should she vote on a climate change bill according to what her (ignorant) constituents want, or according to what the best course of action (as argued by the experts and scientists who are the most familiar with the field)?

What the experts say, of course. Once someone is in office, they can vote for whatever they want to. My point was simply that a constituency too ignorant to understand the gravity of climate change would in all likelihood not elect a person who would be motivated to take that course of action, so it's not a very illustrative example.

If the constituents change their mind and dislike the representative because of the vote, then they can vote for someone else next time.

So in approximately 1 or 2 years, they can vote her out of office and elect a climate change-denier. Multiply those election results x100 in the U.S. House and x20 in the U.S. Senate, for instance. That election result would be catastrophic and pose a greater existential threat to the existence of millions of lives, however. Is that the better outcome according to you, and you would prefer that result over having a climate change activist in office who was voting against what their own constituents want from their representative? Even though it was the voters themselves who were just stupid, ignorant, misinformed, biased, etc. for denying climate change even existed? Yes, various groups can try to persuade those voters that climate change is real. That time is a luxury we just do not have an abundance of. In the meanwhile, while we all try to persuade the rest of the population to our own views, other people will suffer.

This is related to the Dunning-Kruger effect where (basically) people who are uninformed about a topic overestimate their own expertise, while those who actually are more knowledgeable are better aware of how little or much they know. If a person thinks that climate change is a giant hoax and they believe so because today is particularly chilly compared to how they remember it being last year, and they vote based on that shitty level of analysis, then all will suffer. That is a case for relying on the knowledge of experts in the field, rather than ignorant simpletons of it.

I agree with all this. Specialists are important and should be consulted on matters that not everybody is well-versed in. The difference in our views is as follows: we agree that climatologists are authority figures in the facts about climate change and what needs to be done about it. We disagree that politicians are authority figures in what a woman should be able to do with her body, how much money a person should be able to earn, whether corporations should have more control over public policy, which countries are deserving of sustained bombing campaigns or economic warfare, whether children should be separated from their families and kept in concentration camps, and 90% of the other political topics that you might mention. You deliberately picked one that is scientific in nature to highlight the difference between experts and laypeople, but the situation is not analogous to basic social governance, which is more akin to morality than science. Political officials may certainly be more experienced in the nuances of law and policy negotiation, but they can claim no high ground as far as the basic tenets of civilized life, human compassion, and justice are concerned. Where they are more well-versed than their constituents in these matters, they are just as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. We should absolutely leave science to the scientists, but that's not an argument for leaving politics to the politicians.

 

[Brian63]

What the experts say, of course. Once someone is in office, they can vote for whatever they want to.

Yes, and in that case that would result in millions of other people (not even in that district, but elsewhere around the world) suffering because of the ignorance of these particular voters in this particular district.

Specialists are important and should be consulted on matters that not everybody is well-versed in. The difference in our views is as follows: we agree that climatologists are authority figures in the facts about climate change and what needs to be done about it. We disagree that politicians are authority figures in what a woman should be able to do with her body, how much money a person should be able to earn, whether corporations should have more control over public policy, which countries are deserving of sustained bombing campaigns or economic warfare, whether children should be separated from their families and kept in concentration camps, and 90% of the other political topics that you might mention. You deliberately picked one that is scientific in nature to highlight the difference between experts and laypeople, but the situation is not analogous to basic social governance, which is more akin to morality than science. Political officials may certainly be more experienced in the nuances of law and policy negotiation, but they can claim no high ground as far as the basic tenets of civilized life, human compassion, and justice are concerned. Where they are more well-versed than their constituents in these matters, they are just as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. We should absolutely leave science to the scientists, but that's not an argument for leaving politics to the politicians.

That is a general target of where we should draw some sort of line---when an issue is a matter of morals, the elected officials should vote according to the morals of the constituents. When it is a matter of factual expertise, the elected officials should vote according to the knowledge of the experts. The trouble is that the distinction is often blended and not so clear-cut for us. As an example, their views on abortion are based partly on their moral views, and also partly on shallow misunderstandings of the facts of life itself.

 

[PyramidHead]

What the experts say, of course. Once someone is in office, they can vote for whatever they want to.

Yes, and in that case that would result in millions of other people (not even in that district, but elsewhere around the world) suffering because of the ignorance of these particular voters in this particular district.

Specialists are important and should be consulted on matters that not everybody is well-versed in. The difference in our views is as follows: we agree that climatologists are authority figures in the facts about climate change and what needs to be done about it. We disagree that politicians are authority figures in what a woman should be able to do with her body, how much money a person should be able to earn, whether corporations should have more control over public policy, which countries are deserving of sustained bombing campaigns or economic warfare, whether children should be separated from their families and kept in concentration camps, and 90% of the other political topics that you might mention. You deliberately picked one that is scientific in nature to highlight the difference between experts and laypeople, but the situation is not analogous to basic social governance, which is more akin to morality than science. Political officials may certainly be more experienced in the nuances of law and policy negotiation, but they can claim no high ground as far as the basic tenets of civilized life, human compassion, and justice are concerned. Where they are more well-versed than their constituents in these matters, they are just as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. We should absolutely leave science to the scientists, but that's not an argument for leaving politics to the politicians.

That is a general target of where we should draw some sort of line---when an issue is a matter of morals, the elected officials should vote according to the morals of the constituents. When it is a matter of factual expertise, the elected officials should vote according to the knowledge of the experts. The trouble is that the distinction is often blended and not so clear-cut for us. As an example, their views on abortion are based partly on their moral views, and also partly on shallow misunderstandings of the facts of life itself.

Indeed, and no morality in politics is possible without class analysis, which always puts the lie to technocratic solutions.

Given the foregoing, and given the fact that Supreme Court justices are more often than not charged with making decisions that have political/moral/class implications rather than scientific ones, do you still think a permanent Republican voice in equal proportion to the Democrat voice, regardless of how the country votes, is a reasonable suggestion? Do you think that an "apolitical" justice is something that exists outside of mythology?

 

[Brian63]

...given the fact that Supreme Court justices are more often than not charged with making decisions that have political/moral/class implications rather than scientific ones, do you still think a permanent Republican voice in equal proportion to the Democrat voice, regardless of how the country votes, is a reasonable suggestion?

I am undecided. The political/moral/class winds can sway from year to year and generation to generation, making it difficult to establish precedent or interpret law consistently, so having an arrangement that is less susceptible to partisanship has its advantages. For some of the reasons you outline, I can see advantages in the current setup as well, of having the executive branch nominate justices which then must be approved by another segment of the government (U.S. Senate).

Do you think that an "apolitical" justice is something that exists outside of mythology?

No. Who exactly said those justices would be "apolitical" though? Was it the article writer you cited, Buttigieg himself, or some staffer on the Buttigieg campaign? Regardless, it is a misleading label, but not a significant flaw to the underlying idea itself. In our government we regularly use terms like "nonpartisan" when really everyone has partisan opinions on various issues. It is just a label. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Brian63]

Curious---suppose the voters/constituents in a very deep-red district treated climate change as not just a scientific issue. They (somehow and mistakenly) thought the more valid MORAL stance was to not take action against climate change, because they (for whatever reason) thought that would mean that imply that the dirty concept of socialism would be right around the corner. Climate change is not a subject that they have just not studied any scientific literature on, it is something they are morally opposed to fighting against through economic means. How should a representative of that district vote---according to what the scientific consensus say is the most valid and factually-based conclusion, or according to what the (stupid) voters of that district morally value? Keep in mind that voting according to the latter would jeopardize the welfare of millions of others, even those not in that district.

 

[PyramidHead]

Curious---suppose the voters/constituents in a very deep-red district treated climate change as not just a scientific issue. They (somehow and mistakenly) thought the more valid MORAL stance was to not take action against climate change, because they (for whatever reason) thought that would mean that imply that the dirty concept of socialism would be right around the corner. Climate change is not a subject that they have just not studied any scientific literature on, it is something they are morally opposed to fighting against through economic means. How should a representative of that district vote---according to what the scientific consensus say is the most valid and factually-based conclusion, or according to what the (stupid) voters of that district morally value? Keep in mind that voting according to the latter would jeopardize the welfare of millions of others, even those not in that district.

Again, you're making a strange assumption here, namely that the representative in such a district would even be likely to vote for environmentally friendly policy in the first place. Our exchange can be summed up as follows.

PH: The political class does not have any special authority on political topics, especially those with a social, economic, or moral dimension, when compared to the general populace.

B63: I dispute that claim by inventing an example where the populace are all morally depraved morons and the politician is an enlightened scholar.

It's not instructive, because one of the conditions of your thought experiment is that everybody in the community is dumb and evil, and the representative they voted for is smart and good. What I'm saying is that never happens; usually a dumb and evil populace elects a dumb and evil representative. We should tailor our governmental structures around what actually occurs, right? So given the enormously higher likelihood of en elected Republican being a corrupt reactionary who doesn't care about the environment, rather than a rare person of conscience who respects climate science, why should we create a situation in which they can never actually lose on the Supreme Court?

 

[Brian63]

Again, you're making a strange assumption here, namely that the representative in such a district would even be likely to vote for environmentally friendly policy in the first place.

That representative would be more likely to hear from actual experts on the fields, and base their legislative votes accordingly. So while they representative themselves may have stepped in the first day in their office thinking climate change is a joke, as they learned more about it through discussions with organizations, scientists, etc. that they interact with they would be more likely to be better informed about it than does the average-Joe voter who does not invest an ounce of energy into learning about the subject.

Our exchange can be summed up as follows.

PH: The political class does not have any special authority on political topics, especially those with a social, economic, or moral dimension, when compared to the general populace.

B63: I dispute that claim by inventing an example where the populace are all morally depraved morons and the politician is an enlightened scholar.

Enlightened scholar? When did you ever hear/read me say that? Please cut that exaggerated, misleading hyperbolic crap. A person (including an elected office holder) can be better informed than another person on aa particular subject without being an "enlightened scholar."

It's not instructive, because one of the conditions of your thought experiment is that everybody in the community is dumb and evil, and the representative they voted for is smart and good. What I'm saying is that never happens; usually a dumb and evil populace elects a dumb and evil representative.

You have just done a key switch in terms though---at first you say "that never happens" and then you say "usually [the opposite happens]" (emphases added).

What my hypotheticals are referring to are those exceptions. In those cases where the elected official ACTUALLY IS more knowledgeable (though not an "enlightened scholar" themselves, they still have better information exposure by dialoguing with actual experts) than the voters in their district---how should that politician vote? According to what the experts say is the best factually-informed rationale, or according to what the relatively ignorant voters value?

We should tailor our governmental structures around what actually occurs, right? So given the enormously higher likelihood of en elected Republican being a corrupt reactionary who doesn't care about the environment, rather than a rare person of conscience who respects climate science, why should we create a situation in which they can never actually lose on the Supreme Court?

(emphases again added)

You have shifted away from your previous description of saying such scenarios never manifest where the elected official is smarter and better than the constituents she represents, to now saying it is just "rare." What about those rare cases though? Before proceeding any further, let's get that answer clarified.

 

[Elixir]

If one partner in a relationship was abusive, sociopathic, and only cared about himself, I would not recommend compromise with this individual, no.

It might be useful to recognize that while individuals are loathe to change themselves in any way whatsoever, populations are known to sometimes turn on a dime. I'm not ready to declare war on 37 - or even 27 percent of Americans. Yet.

That's a shame, because they declared war on you long ago

I was recently attacked online by a friend of a trumpsucker friend. My trumpsucker friend lit into the guy who attacked me, because she (as a former employee) knows me and he doesn't. Not a lukewarm defense, either - I was actually embarrassed by her effusive praise and the strength of her admonition against attacking me...

... you know who's into politics? Your boss, your landlord, your police force, and your school board.

You left someone out - ME. I don't have a boss, I don't have a landlord, I know the chief of police, the county sheriff and most of their hires, and the school board members who are "into politics" are all (afaik) democrats - there are republicans, but they're ranchers and not at all fond of national politics. So your view might be accurate from where you sit, but it's not universal.

I'm not saying we have to slaughter these people or ignore their votes.

Then we're much closer to agreement than your contrarian nature wants you to admit. Most mornings I'd delight in disenfranchising (at the very least) anyone oblivious enough to have voted for Trump, would like it if someone shot the fucker dead and had all his minions from Mitch the Turtle on down, buried in his tomb with him. But I recognize that those visceral impulses rarely if ever convert to constructive action. So no, I'm not ready to entirely write off 20-40% of the populace. Yet.

 

[PyramidHead]

That representative would be more likely to hear from actual experts on the fields, and base their legislative votes accordingly. So while they representative themselves may have stepped in the first day in their office thinking climate change is a joke, as they learned more about it through discussions with organizations, scientists, etc. that they interact with they would be more likely to be better informed about it than does the average-Joe voter who does not invest an ounce of energy into learning about the subject.

Again, I have to disagree with your characterization here because it's disingenuous. The reverse is what tends to be the case: well-meaning citizens who want to do the right thing enter politics and are swayed by discussions with businesses, lobbyists, and their fellow politicians to stop caring about anything except corporations. You can't factor in the discussions politicians may have with scientists (which are relatively infrequent) without taking into account the barrage of anti-environmentalist pressure they also receive (which is relatively more frequent). So in effect, an elected anti-Green New Deal representative probably has a lower likelihood of being converted to a pro-GND one as the average person does for the same conversion.

Enlightened scholar? When did you ever hear/read me say that? Please cut that exaggerated, misleading hyperbolic crap. A person (including an elected office holder) can be better informed than another person on aa particular subject without being an "enlightened scholar."

It's not instructive, because one of the conditions of your thought experiment is that everybody in the community is dumb and evil, and the representative they voted for is smart and good. What I'm saying is that never happens; usually a dumb and evil populace elects a dumb and evil representative.

You have just done a key switch in terms though---at first you say "that never happens" and then you say "usually [the opposite happens]" (emphases added).

What my hypotheticals are referring to are those exceptions. In those cases where the elected official ACTUALLY IS more knowledgeable (though not an "enlightened scholar" themselves, they still have better information exposure by dialoguing with actual experts) than the voters in their district---how should that politician vote? According to what the experts say is the best factually-informed rationale, or according to what the relatively ignorant voters value?

We should tailor our governmental structures around what actually occurs, right? So given the enormously higher likelihood of en elected Republican being a corrupt reactionary who doesn't care about the environment, rather than a rare person of conscience who respects climate science, why should we create a situation in which they can never actually lose on the Supreme Court?

(emphases again added)

You have shifted away from your previous description of saying such scenarios never manifest where the elected official is smarter and better than the constituents she represents, to now saying it is just "rare." What about those rare cases though? Before proceeding any further, let's get that answer clarified.

I've answered your question many times already. I don't know what more you want from me, to be honest. Representatives should vote for measures they support based on whatever knowledge or belief they may have, and face the consequences of that vote and others in the next election cycle. If their constituents don't like the vote, they can either pressure the representative to have a change of heart (if they are otherwise okay with the representative's positions) or put their support behind somebody else. It's simple parliamentary politics. On a large scale, the will of the people is somewhat reflected in the relative dominance of one faction over another in matters of national interest, so sometimes you can have one party with a clear majority and others are more deadlocked.

My only point in this whole discussion is that these variations should not be preemptively smoothed out to remove the last remaining democratic element in the Supreme Court, and give people even less power over their lives.

 

[PyramidHead]

Then we're much closer to agreement than your contrarian nature wants you to admit. Most mornings I'd delight in disenfranchising (at the very least) anyone oblivious enough to have voted for Trump, would like it if someone shot the fucker dead and had all his minions from Mitch the Turtle on down, buried in his tomb with him. But I recognize that those visceral impulses rarely if ever convert to constructive action. So no, I'm not ready to entirely write off 20-40% of the populace. Yet.

Surely you can see the difference between "writing off 20-40% of the populace" and "giving 20-40% of the populace a permanent 50% stake in all Supreme Court decisions forever"

 

[Brian63]

The reverse is what tends to be the case: well-meaning citizens who want to do the right thing enter politics and are swayed by discussions with businesses, lobbyists, and their fellow politicians to stop caring about anything except corporations. You can't factor in the discussions politicians may have with scientists (which are relatively infrequent) without taking into account the barrage of anti-environmentalist pressure they also receive (which is relatively more frequent). So in effect, an elected anti-Green New Deal representative probably has a lower likelihood of being converted to a pro-GND one as the average person does for the same conversion.

(emphasis again added)

Note how in a previous post you referred to such scenarios "never" happening and then later said "usually" they do not happen and now say they "tends to be" (not happening). Which of those very different phrases most accurately describes your actual view---that it never happens, that it happens only rarely, or that it happens a minority of the time but the general trend is otherwise? This discussion can be very fruitful if we get that established as an early premise.

I've answered your question many times already. I don't know what more you want from me, to be honest.

You have given several different and conflicting answers, so I am l hoping to get something more definitive. You can change your mind later about what your view is, but just do not try to simultaneously hold multiple positions that contradict each other.

I will pose that key premise again:

Which of those very different phrases most accurately describes your actual view---that it never happens, that it happens only rarely, or that it happens a minority of the time but the general trend is otherwise?

If you can pick a single position among the mix, then we can progress forward to the implications of that position.

 

[PyramidHead]

The reverse is what tends to be the case: well-meaning citizens who want to do the right thing enter politics and are swayed by discussions with businesses, lobbyists, and their fellow politicians to stop caring about anything except corporations. You can't factor in the discussions politicians may have with scientists (which are relatively infrequent) without taking into account the barrage of anti-environmentalist pressure they also receive (which is relatively more frequent). So in effect, an elected anti-Green New Deal representative probably has a lower likelihood of being converted to a pro-GND one as the average person does for the same conversion.

(emphasis again added)

Note how in a previous post you referred to such scenarios "never" happening and then later said "usually" they do not happen and now say they "tends to be" (not happening). Which of those very different phrases most accurately describes your actual view---that it never happens, that it happens only rarely, or that it happens a minority of the time but the general trend is otherwise? This discussion can be very fruitful if we get that established as an early premise.

I've answered your question many times already. I don't know what more you want from me, to be honest.

You have given several different and conflicting answers, so I am l hoping to get something more definitive. You can change your mind later about what your view is, but just do not try to simultaneously hold multiple positions that contradict each other.

I will pose that key premise again:

Which of those very different phrases most accurately describes your actual view---that it never happens, that it happens only rarely, or that it happens a minority of the time but the general trend is otherwise?

If you can pick a single position among the mix, then we can progress forward to the implications of that position.

Hard pass. You're fixating on a tendency that is at best a minuscule factor in politics and using it to justify a complete removal of democratic oversight to an entire branch of government. If you think the merits of that position hinges on whether appointed leaders with fixed ideological commitments are never better than democratically accountable ones or only almost never better, I think this has been a waste of time.

 

[Brian63]

So you are not sorry for holding conflicting opinions and expressing contradictory statements, and you will not even acknowledge doing so? Just pass the blame off? Okay.

I will have to disagree with you on the last point as well, this has not been a waste of time. It has been time well spent learning this about you. Cheers.

 

[PyramidHead]

So you are not sorry for holding conflicting opinions and expressing contradictory statements, and you will not even acknowledge doing so? Just pass the blame off? Okay.

I will have to disagree with you on the last point as well, this has not been a waste of time. It has been time well spent learning this about you. Cheers.