Isn't it obvious that the democratic system forces people to be liars?

[thekaje]

Doesn't it only make sense to say one thing and do another?

Let's analyze this collection of Obama's comments on health care reform over the past decade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=related

In the primaries and as a liberal darling, he was for a single-payer system and the elimination of private health insurance. This was necessary for him to be elected and popular in that arena.

In supporting the new legislation, he was against a single-payer system and against the elimination of private health insurance. This was necessary for him to maintain support for the new legislation.

People accused him of using this bill to "let that little bit of socialism in," starting a process that would undercut private health insurance and ultimately outlaw it. He admits to as much in one of the clips in the collection above.

Is it possible to have an honest, consistent American politician? Does it make sense to expect one? Doesn't every president have to play the mushy middle, in which he tweaks the status quo, largely putting a varnish on the same old thing, while he pretends that something is changing?

Can anyone name a politician who is able to do what he believes in? Who is never inconsistent?

Is the problem that most people are simply wrong about almost all complex issues, and so it becomes politically necessary to lie or bribe them while you work towards what is really necessary? For example, stimulus packages are unpopular---but the alternative is unemployment, deep recession, and more unpopularity. Taxes are necessary to fix the deficit while maintaining programs---but people don't want taxes and they don't want fewer programs (some claim to, but in reality?). Bailouts are also necessary in a dangerous recession to prevent unemployment, deeper recession, and more unpopularity---but people hate the idea of using tax dollars to save "worthless companies".

And the most relevant point: you cannot say, as a candidate, that you are going to spend like f-ing crazy and bail out failing companies and raise taxes. But that is nonetheless what you need to do. Hence, you have to lie.

Does anyone know if it matters?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No.

The people who vote and only want to hear happy things instead of the truth are responsible for politicians being liars. Nothing wrong with the democratic system, except maybe we're not ready for it.

(edit: and I use the word "maybe" far to liberal there)

 

[thekaje]

No.

The people who vote and only want to hear happy things instead of the truth are responsible for politicians being liars. Nothing wrong with the democratic system, except maybe we're not ready for it.

Would you vote for someone who is in favour of stimulus and bail-outs and taxes?

Because these are actually your only realistic choices. Sorry.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh, you were talking about the democratic system in America? No, I'd move to a country which doesn't limit my choices to two failures. I want at least 5-6 failures to chose from.

But to 'answer' your 'question', yes, in fact I would vote for stimulus, bail-outs and taxes. I have my reasons which go beyond knee-jerk rejection.

edit: By the way, thanks for illustrating my point

 

[LightFang]

Obviously it's not obvious.

 

[thekaje]

Oh, you were talking about the democratic system in America? No, I'd move to a country which doesn't limit my choices to two failures. I want at least 5-6 failures to chose from.

But to 'answer' your 'question', yes, in fact I would vote for stimulus, bail-outs and taxes. I have my reasons which go beyond knee-jerk rejection.

edit: By the way, thanks for illustrating my point

LOL, okay. I think we basically agree. But you don't blame democracy itself; you think that people ought to really understand things better than they do, and then democracy would not produce liars. Right?

Well, I'm glad that you support these things. I have yet to see a candidate for national public office argue that it's necessary for the USA to bail out AIG and take over GM.

I'm mainly talking about America, but these are the realistic policy options nearly everywhere! The only difference is that everyone else is relying on America to improve so that American demand will boost their own economies again.

 

[Berzerker]

govt is for sale to the highest bidders, sometimes thats a majority of the voters.

 

[Munch]

I want at least 5-6 failures to chose from.

Ah, democracy.

 

[Tee Kay]

Can anyone name a politician who is able to do what he believes in? Who is never inconsistent?

This is not a problem unique to democracies.

 

[thekaje]

This is not a problem unique to democracies.

Okay, but politicians are more immediately responsible to the people in a democracy, and ironically, in a democracy, this (I argue) provides incentives to lie.

 

[Janusi]

Well, I think its more a problem of the media really. They just aren't really willing to use the l-word or are merily lying themselves like Fox who are screaming the end is coming and that the sky is about to fall down.

 

[Arwon]

At least they have to say something to the people. AND they have to make their lies plausible and acceptable and at least try to make their actions acceptable and congruent with their lies.

That's a step up on any other governmental system.

 

[Verbose]

Quite.

Democratic systems tends to have publicly accountable people in charge, who have icentive to lie when they screw up.

Non-democratic systems tends to have unaccountable people in charge, who don't have to tell you about their screw-ups. Better?

 

[Angst]

It doesn't force people to be liars; but if the population of the nation is too nondiverse, one voting segment becomes too big, and career politicans have it way too easy getting elected by simply equalizing their ideology with the lowest denominator.

Technically, though, this isn't a problem, since the voices and needs of the population can be easier passed and fulfilled; therefore it is the population that rules the nation, and that career system serves the population most directly, the people not needing to vote for ideologies they don't support.

That's what we experience here in Denmark.

However, I don't like the career system myself. It's preserves the ideals of the lowest denominator of the population, but most commonly it only serves a part of the population's people, fx 40%, the remaining 60% having opinions too diverse to have a career party specifically adapting its policies towards them; in Denmark we have a lot of parties, but in between them, only two parties have policies different enough from the remainder to be considered independent in my opinion. Therefore, the strength in career politicians is significantly reduced; 60% of the population is forced to vote on a party that mostly resemble their needs, and can't vote for a party that actually agrees with their needs.

It doesn't matter much anyways, of course, if the population isn't very diverse. But I just don't feel comfortable with it.

 

[Defiant47]

No.

The people who vote and only want to hear happy things instead of the truth are responsible for politicians being liars. Nothing wrong with the democratic system, except maybe we're not ready for it.

(edit: and I use the word "maybe" far to liberal there)

Ziggy kind of captured what I wanted to say.

The problem isn't in the way we choose our politicians (i.e. the democratic system). The problem is that a lot of the voting people are idiots.

 

[Munch]

The problem is that a lot of the voting people are idiots.

Devil's advocate: and who is to decide who the idiots are, and that that is indeed a problem?

 

[Defiant47]

Devil's advocate: and who is to decide who the idiots are, and that that is indeed a problem?

The intellectual elite of the society.

 

[Rashiminos]

It isn't so much forcing as it is rewarding politicians for vague and misleading speech. Being honest and having integrity limits the votes that will he will obtain both during elections and during the politician's term in office.

The (more likely to be) honest ones aren't as popular, but they're around.

 

[Angst]

The only difference is that everyone else is relying on America to improve so that American demand will boost their own economies again.

Wait, ot, but where did you hear that? We had plenty of stimulus in Denmark. Not as much as in America, of course, but then again, it wasn't us who screwed up our economy.

 

[thekaje]

Wait, ot, but where did you hear that? We had plenty of stimulus in Denmark. Not as much as in America, of course, but then again, it wasn't us who screwed up our economy.

Right. I'm just saying that it's less imperative for other countries to do anything, because the whole world isn't counting on you.