The academics see the rise of anti-politics as a problem. The inherent premise being that more politics will be good for us. Therefore the low popular opinion of politicians makes political action more difficult. Guido thinks this is a good thing, that the low esteem in which politicians are held is reasonable, people have made a more realistic appraisal of the nature of those who seek to rule over us. Politicians complain that they feel beset by the media and hostile voters because 72% of people see them as self-serving. Good. People should not be afraid of politicians, politicians should be afraid of the people.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayMay 19th, 2016 |
 29 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
The rise of anti-politics is good, but it hasn’t yet resulted in… anything. Public spending continues to rise, taxes are still high, legislation continues to be pumped out at a rate of knots, power continues to leach away from us, with no prospect of an end in sight unless there are big changes. And we don’t have our hands on the levers. And those who do have no intention of letting go.
The problem with a declining interest in politics is that it leaves the field open for the fanatics who almost inevitably are interested in it so as to fulfil their statist and dirigiste urges. The lack of interest simply gives the socialists more room for manoeuvre.
It takes time and effort to confront the statists, like the Krikkit Wars: “They care, we don’t, they win” as Ford Prefect put it.
Ed, the topic is ‘anti-politics’, ie. being against government, and wanting government to get out of our lives more,. Not ‘uninterest in politics’.
“In a contest of cynicism between the electors and their representatives, the representatives will win.” Edmund Burke (quoted from memory). Burke did not mean that the representatives would always be even more cynical than the voters; he meant that when the voters are convinced that _all_ politicians lie, those politicians who depend on lies benefit, and when the voters are convinced that _all_ politicians steal then those who depend on stealing will benefit.
It’s good when voters see through specific propaganda lies, and become more wary of them. It is not so good if they are not so much doing that but merely dismissing every candidate without the least discrimination. So while I agree with Guido that it is good if more voters see through the fraud of the mainstream chattering classes, I also hope for evidence that they are seeing sense, not falling for other frauds. Labour voters choosing Corbyn doubtless indicates rejection of Blairite spin but emphatically not avoidance of other and even worse frauds.
Politics is what replaced Religion in the West. For that to be possible it has got journalism that exists to do political proselytism. Journalism don’t put in first page human achievements except if it is sport. We know nothing about new drugs, new engines, other technology. Everything that improved our lives much more than Politics. For example Journalists started to talk about fracking only when it was already established to change the oil market.
Journalists are the todays priests of a religion called Politics and their mass is the TV news. They exist to make people believe that Politics is the only hope.
I recall Samizdata being describe in a Guardian article some years back as discussing “the politics of anti-politics”
Cal,
There is no ‘topic’, this is a ‘Samizdata quote of the day’, which has a theme, and presents an opportunity for comment.
‘uninterest in politics‘ is part of the problem, as those who loathe politics (which is now effectively the rewarding of failure, and the penalising of success, by State power) do not enter the arena, and there is less scope for a check on the advance of politics. The political class only listen to themselves and their echo chambers.
In the last GE in Wellingborough, the Labour candidate got just under 10,000 votes, despite being convicted of a fraud offence not long before polling day. There is an element in the population who care naught who they vote for, only what they vote for. They remain, as scorn for politics grows, but scorn for politics does not advance liberty. It may be a step towards advancing liberty, but only a step.
Not at all, it makes it easier, if no one is interested in voting the worst out, and the scum still vote them in, the situation deteriorates.
Okay Ed, but I wanted to make it clear that what Guido and these academics were on about was not political apathy, but being anti-government in general, although obviously there is a close but complex relation between them.
Story today (Telegraph):
>Labour’s shadow Europe minister [Pat Glass] has reportedly described a voter she met in Sawley, Derbyshire this morning as a “horrible racist”.
According to Radio Derby, she also vowed to boycott his neighbourhood, describing it as “wherever this is”.
I’d be happy if they’d all boycott our neighbourhoods and piss off and leave us alone. But of course when they say they’ll boycott a neighbourhood that doesn’t mean they’ll give up their power over it. They just retreat further into their bunkers and devise more legislation to outlaw free speech.
This clash has been intensifying over the years, and I fear it isn’t going to end well.
Not having been on the ground in the U K or France for about 16 years now, this comment is vulnerable by reliance on vicarious information in part.
Nonetheless, the practice of “politics” here in the U S and apparently in the U K and France has become principally, if not totally, the “art” of creating and maintaining perceptions.
Many in academia are engaged in the same efforts.
The languages and jargons are indicia.
It is probably the practice of that “art,” particularly as currently conducted, from which there has been increasing public detachment.
I wouldn’t say interest in politics has declined in the least. It’s risen if anything. Indicated by the rise in dissatisfaction with politicians.
Politicians are reading the signals wrongly. What’s declined is tribal voting patterns & allegiances. Was a time when people identified with & voted for parties because that’s what their families, workmates, neighbours & everyone they associated with did. Working class voted labour. Middle class voted Tory. The actual political issues the parties espoused were almost irrelevant. Their supporters were inclined to feel, if their party supported or opposed it then that was good enough reason for them to do so too.
All started to change around Thatcher’s time. The workers in the Working Class found this “Great Movement of Ours'” wasn’t so much theirs’ as belonging to the miners & the rest of the unions. Now it’s got to the point where the parties have ceased to be representative of anyone other than their client groups*. The politics of the ordinary voter are almost ignored.
*The one flaw in my argument. The Tories don’t seem to be representative of anyone. Fcuk knows why anyone votes for them, apart from to keep Labour out.
Even if it is off-topic in the Original Intent of the posting, or of the quotee, I will still mention yet again the problem with political apathy or ignorance or disengagement, or whatever you call it:
.
Meanwhile, our Academic betters are happy to take it for granted — while yet missing no opportunity to reiterate — that to remain ignorant of politics is “rational.” In other words, don’t bother your little head about it if you’re too busy cleaning the groove in the patio door to find out about, let alone to try to influence, the nature of the regime under which you live your life.
Yes yes, I understand that allegedly that’s not what the catch-phrase “rational ignorance” is supposed to mean; but the phrase certainly suggests that ignorance is in itself rational, which of course it almost never is. And in the contexts I’ve seen, that viewpoint, at least vis-á-vis politics, is supported by the preacher. The effect is to validate the choice of remaining ignorant. Especially when this is immediately followed by the statement “Why bother to vote anyway? The chances that your vote will make a difference are minuscule.”
I have ranted about the stupidity and shallowness and downright ignorance (irrational!) of the misapplication of statistical terminology in such pronouncements before, so I will skip it now.
Since our time in this ghastly but beautiful place is distinctly limited, and every second of it irretrievable, it is perfectly rational to prioritize our activities, including political activities; such as learning about the history and the philosophies of politics, as well as about current political affairs. This includes learning about candidates and their records, their philosophies both as stated and as exemplified by their actions, and their agendas ditto.
But to make the blanket statement that “ignorance is rational” is plain foolishness, even when limited to the political sphere.
However, here’s another aspect of the issue that hadn’t occurred to me before. Stated by commenter “vanderleun,” at
http://neoneocon.com/2016/05/18/reflections-on-the-primaries-and-the-2016-election/#comment-1174479:
Could we have that as David Cameron’s epitaph?
Mr Ed, at 1:36 pm: By George, I think you’ve got it! And on all fours too. :>))
Julie, I understand the point of the comment by “vanderleun” which you quoted, but I’m not sure I agree. Low voter turnout does make it easier for the scum to vote themselves in (as Mr Ed noted), but a large turnout gives the appearance of a “mandate” for the winner. Or at least he can infer and/or proclaim such, as Obama did despite winning by the slimmest of margins. If you’re going to encourage voter turnout, it would seem best to encourage voting for a third-party candidate, or a write-in vote, which at least has the virtue of demonstrating a dislike of both candidates and provides an unmistakable refutation of any claim of a “mandate”. The scum is still going to win, but he knows that he lacks broad-based support. That should count for something, right?
Of course, the best solution would be to have a binding “none of the above” on all ballots, but that’s not going to happen during my lifetime.
@ Julie,
I think that the problem is that the politicians are so ensconced in their little bubble that the signal or message isn’t getting through. To take an extreme example, if only three people voted in the entire country, the winner would announce “We got 66% of the vote” and the loser would say “We lost by one vote”. The message that no one wants any of it would be lost in the post election spin and hype.
I would like the option of a negative vote, as an alternative to a positive vote, i.e. vote for either your candidate or against the one you wish to stop, the net highest number winning. It might throw up some surprises with fringe loonies scraping through though.
Laird, the (usually ginned-up) perception of a “mandate” is based on the percentage of votes cast, not the percentage of votes available to the totality of eligible voters. Either a low or a high turn-out can result in such a “mandate.” The point is, that the Side (whichever Side) cannot lose by “getting out [its] vote.” That’s why the Dims always put their back into it, canvassing devotedly in certain neighborhoods (and note how Star Parker keeps repeating that the GOP needs to canvass heavily there too), not to mention adding more power to the punch by roping in dead people and their dogs, as well as all the ineligibles they can bribe into the polling place.
Phil B makes the point perfectly. His main point is good too, but there’s more to it than that. A large turnout for the Side, even if the Side loses, builds grass-roots voters’ morale, and with intelligent, knowledgeable, patient activism, this can encourage others to join them in (1) curing irrational ignorance and (2) doing something about it at the voting booth.
This is true even in winner-take-all states.
But it can’t happen as long as people are so defeatist as to preach non-voting as a strategy of some sort! It’s like saying, why take amoxycillin for this foul disease, I’m gonna die anyway.
In terms of the situation since 2008 anyway, the Dems are professionals at getting out the Dem vote; the GOP is strictly amateur hour. (The Dems are also awfully good at recounts for some reason.)
Voting libertarian might help in a winner-take-all state, but even in a state that’s thought fairly reliably Blue the voters sometimes surprise us. Personally, I will always cast a potentially meaningful vote against the one I think is likely to do the greater damage — in this case, Shrill, although it’s close.
And by a “meaningful” vote, I mean a vote that offsets one of hers AND replaces it with one for Hair (Isn’t there somebody intelligent, experienced, up for defending the Const., per the Presidential Oath, possessed of good political skills, and eligible?)
. . .
Mr Ed, that’s an awfully tempting idea, but it seems to me it would have the same problems as a third-party system, one of which you suggest.
Namely, in the 2-party system at least the majority of those actually voting should be in favor, at least relatively, of the candidate for whom they vote. In a 3-party system, you can get 33%, 33%, 34%, where the winner is one whom the majority of those voting — 66% — absolutely HATE.
The current system surely needs some tweaking, but I don’t think enshrining a third-partly system is the way to go.
There is no point in having a low opinion of politicians if someone still wants government to do everything.
“The politicians are corrupt”.
“The politicians are stupid”.
“The politicians are lazy – they have not given us the stuff we want”.
“We want Strong Leaders who will Get Things Done”.
Fascism.
Donald Trump and all that.
The belief that the government could give people all they want – if only it was not for corrupt and weak democratic politics.
The time of the politician is over.
The time of the Leader is to come.
Not good.
One can make a principled case for smaller government – on both economic and moral grounds.
But the politicians are weak, stupid, lazy and corrupt is not that case.
It will just get people wanting Strong Leaders – and the state (if anything) will be bigger.
As for contempt for “establishment opinions” – that can be a good contempt, but it can also be a bad contempt.
The British appear to be less prone to wild conspiracy theories than some Americans (9/11 “Truthers” are common tin the Trump campaign), but they are not immune to wild and false theories.
Or to being manipulated.
I often come upon opinions among “ordinary people” which one can trace back to disinformation campaigns.
People who hold themselves to be cynical – to believe nothing the “establishment” say, end up following what Mr Putin’s people say.
It is essential that there are empty seats in parliaments representing people that don’t vote or that nullify, blank their vote.
Paul, excellent points both.
Julie, I’ll submit that abstaining from voting is not automatically defeatist at all. To me, that decision is purely tactical – just as if I were a slave on a plantation, and could vote on a choice of plantation masters.
Julie says “(The Dems are also awfully good at recounts for some reason.)”. I assume it’s the same reason Hillary is so good at coin tossing and card drawing. 🙂
Laird and luckylucky, the problem with empty seats in parliament, or a binding ‘none of the above’ option is that an empty seat offers little resistance to the occupants of those that are filled, and embarrassment (e.g. at lacking a mandate) can only restrain people more honest than those we wish were affected by it. Remember Montesquieu: “Only power arrests power” (re-quoted by Hannah Arendt as “Only power arrests power – without putting impotence in its place”, which I find less poetic but more effective at clarifying what is meant). Your proposals would at best replace power with impotence, which is then a standing temptation to those who want “a strong leader”.
In Britain, we could rule that the custom of the queen’s paying attention to the PM’s advice was reduced or eliminated if the said PM spoke for a parliament elected on less than 50% voter turnout. Thus the rule of those who loved power would occasionally be replaced with the rule of one who was merely born to it, so has a statistical chance of not loving it. (IIRC, Blair’s middle election saw 56% turnout, he himself getting his parliamentary majority from 25% of the available voters and the Tories their opposition status from 17% of them; that was unusually low for Britain. Thus the occasion would happen rarely – unless its being offered made it more popular.) However Burke (quoting Bolingbroke, whom he otherwise despises) remarks that it is much easier to graft republican forms onto a monarchy than it is to graft monarchic forms onto a republic. I have a hard time thinking of a US equivalent: replacing the “not 50% of the voters” presidential election with someone selected at random from the electorate would be a complete unknown, so probably much more scary to consider and with a very real possibility of being not merely unpalatable but disastrous. So the end of the thought-exepriment of this paragraph is to decide that “don’t vote – it only encourages them” does not offer any obvious way forward for the western world in general.
As regards, “except to keep labour out” (and the natz from having the balance of power): these were, alas, compelling reasons to vote, and since the advent of Corbyn they have only become more so. If I read her aright, Julie is reaching a similar conclusion across the pond – as, doubtless, will others.
Niall, exactly. One has no intention of voting FOR the Hairy Trumpet, who one thinks a contemptible jackass, except in the purely physical sense; but one does think it quite important to do what one can to keep the Shrill one where the WH silver won’t leap into her hands and hurt her. And hopefully where we won’t be subjected to her endless braying.
Alisa, this ties in to your objection. First, I never said that abstention is automatically defeatist. What I said was,
There are various reasons to abstain. One is that one has to wash one’s hair on Election Day. That may be foolish, but it’s not defeatist. Another is that one truly finds the candidates evenly balanced for wonderfulness or awfulness. In that case the would-be voter has no (pertinent) criterion on which to base a judgment, so for him the right thing to do, IMO, really is to abstain (or vote for somebody with no chance).
But in any case, I spoke specifically about “those who preach non-voting as a strategy.” These are people who are (intentionally or not) speaking in a way that will spread the idea that voting in general, or at least in some particular contest, is useless. For one of three reasons:
1. “The chances that your vote will make a difference are virtually zero.” That is defeatism on steroids. It’s also stupid and the sign of a very shallow thinker, and I don’t care if he’s just a wonderful guy and a Prof of Phil at Boulder (U. of Colorado). We hear entirely too much of this sort of nonsense from people who should know better.
2. “How do you know Y won’t turn out to be even worse than X?” You don’t. But so what. You, the prospective voter, have reached a conclusion as to who YOU think will be worse, and that’s all you can go by in the end. You may be right, you may be wrong, and most likely time will not tell for sure until long after you’re dead: People are still arguing about whether X was an awful President or a great one, even when X has been dead for 200 years. So abstaining on those grounds is the paralysis that results from the fear that the Universe will collapse and YOU will be the cause of it!, which is an open door to “the councils of defeat,” as Alan Drury put it.
3. “We’re screwed either way, so why bother to vote.” If that’s not defeatism (when promoted as a positive act — or even in the mustier corridors of one’s own mind) then I don’t know what is. It assumes that both candidates are so awful that the Universe (or at least the Republic) is going to collapse for sure: In other words, it argues on the very basis that defeat is inevitable.
.
It’s one thing if you’re talking over the issue with a friend or your teddy bear, in the spirit of unburdening yourself or of trying to think things through. It’s another thing entirely if you are actively promoting abstention on one of the bases above. Then, it is promoting inaction out of the fear of defeat, or of what one thinks is the certainty of it; which is, indeed, defeatism.
That’s why I wrote what I did, and put it as I did.
Julie, far be it from me to preach for or against voting on this or that – but if I were to so preach, my reason would be no. 4: “You don’t need a master, as you shouldn’t be working on the plantation against your will to begin with. By voting on who will be your master you legitimize your very enslavement, and the institution of slavery in general. So unless you have a reason to believe that one of the candidates is going to take at least some steps towards the eradication of this institution, you probably should just sit on your hands”.
Empty seats remind everyone and everytime they don’t have the power of whole population. It will also if in a well designed Republic to block reaching quorum for several laws to be implemented.
*Just to clarify, no. 1, 2 and 3 do not apply to me at all.
Just some random musings from a guy”too old to rock and roll but too young to die…” from our Canadian Peartian-Randian rockers-” If you choose to decide, you still have
made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness thst will kill. I will choose a path that’s clear-I will choose free will….”Rush'”Free Will”. Maybe something for the electorate (specially the under 60’s) to think of ?
Major gaffe-it should be IF YOU CHOOSE TO NOT DECIDE YOU STILL HAVE MADE A CHOICE ! ! ! which was supposed to be my point. ..