How true is "the public don't want this at the moment" with regards to laws being passed?

unimportant

I am in the UK but I suppose similar principles would apply to other so called democratic societies.

I read that title quote claimed online recently when people were applauding the euthanasia law getting passed through one of the first phases of parliament I believe. That was not what was being stated the public didn't want but another responder said something to the effect of "soon drugs will be legalized" and the reply to that was "the public don't want this at the moment".

What gets passed in parliament seems to have very little to do with what the general public wants so how true is that statement? The average member of public has very little interest in politics at all from my general experience and there is just the idea that they leave the politicians to sort things out who are generally a law unto themselves passing laws which usually are not in the interest of the public and usually in the interests of themselves.

I do not claim to be any kind of expert on how policy or government works and would count myself as one of those who had very little interest in the workings of politics through most of my life until not long ago when I came to the realization just how far reaching politics actually is in terms of how your life is affected. I now do believe the statement "everything is political". Maybe everything is a bit of hyperbole but it gets the idea across that it is far more than you would believe and if you don't believe it you probably just haven't looked deep enough.

It applies in 'society' so if you are not interacting with people then sure it has less of an effect, although your identity would still have been shaped by them, but wherever you are interacting with others politics probably has a greater or lesser part in how the dynamics are. Those are my current thoughts anyhow.

That latter part could be a thread in itself but just mentioned here to let the reader see how I came to think about these questions more.

I suppose I accept there is the general idea that politicians only do things that will make them popular with voters so in that sense it could be seen as true.

I can only think of a few extreme examples like the Poll Tax where politicians were obviously swayed by public outcry for something. So maybe it is true then and if there was a similar uproar about drug prohibition it would soon be made legal. It is just that the average voter has little appetite for that.

unenlightened

Thou and I, of course are independent minded, and make up our own minds about what we want or don't want. But "the public" are so easily swayed by the media, that 'what they want' at any moment is largely whatever they are told they want at the moment.

So more or less whatever you hear about what the public wants or doesn't want becomes true by being said a few million times. They are not interested in politics, until they are told that politics is important and everyone is interested in politics. And then they demand a referendum on whatever topic is so important suddenly; and aren't we all so much happier and better off now we have escaped the terrible clutches of the EU?

Except that for some reason governments still cannot control our borders, and Johnny Foreigner is still coming here and spoiling everything for us. Fortunately there is a wonderful new party that the public are getting behind that will be able to sort this out as soon as we elect them. Hurrah for the earnest wants of the public that they have all thought through for themselves and decided on; and boo to all the foreigners making us poor and miserable.

The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. — Adolf Hitler

unenlightened

Everyone should have an 'unname'. You unheard it here first!

unimportant

unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. — Adolf Hitler

This is what I tried to tell boethius to perhaps allow his points to get across better but he dismissed it and continues with is disjointed ramblings. :) There is gold in the ramblings but they are not easy to pick through at all and the reader is left to sort the wheat from the chaff themselves. A task most would not wish to undertake.

BC

↪unimportant

The US Congress passed the "Big Beautiful Bill" yesterday. The public didn't want this bill which extends previous tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts Medicaid but it passed anyway. Why?

Because there is a disconnect between individual politicians, the parties to which they belong, and the several segments that compose "the public". The system is rigged to maintain the disconnection.

Why do the parties, who require the public's votes, ignore the public's wishes?

Because the parties are funded by the most wealthy segment of the public (whether liberal or conservative) and that funding determines the parties' politics.

Currently the dominant conservative party (the Republicans) are able to pursue a right-wing agenda. In other decades the dominant liberal party (the Democrats) were able to pursue a left-wing agenda, which has included such programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Does that mean that the Democrats are really 'in tune' with the public's desires? Yes, but only so far. The Democrats are no more interested in slashing defense spending or raising the tax rates on the wealthy to 70% and above than the Republicans? Why not?

Because the Democratic Party collects the bulk of its funds from the same wealthy class as the Republicans, and both local and national economies are wedded to military spending whether one likes it or not.

The balance of more leftist / less leftist vs. less right wing / more right wing varies over time. We are currently in a time when a less leftist Democratic party is opposite a more right wing Republican Party which controls a majority of seats in congress.

unimportant

↪BC

Yes that sounds like a good summation of the milieu in the states. I wonder how it contrasts with the UK.

I am not really sure how it works here if anyone else can chime in?

I don't know that things are so based on funding as the states or if so at least it is not as out in the open? Just guessing. All these alien terms like 'cpac' and 'caucuses' in the states and elon giving 250 million to the trump campaign.

Perhaps things just go under different names here in the uk.

BC

↪unimportant

According to Google's AI, the UK does not use the caucus system, whereby voters in precincts (small sub-units of congressional districts) nominate candidates for consideration in district conventions. Precinct elections are ostensibly very democratic, but party officials oversee the caucuses. Candidates can run outside the party as independents, and sometimes independents form a loosely structured new party. These new parties usually die an early death, though a few have endured as minor participants (like the Green Party).

The US is, of course, geographically much much larger than the UK and has a much larger population (330 million vs. 68.3 million). Hence, it costs a lot more to campaign for national and state offices here. Minnesota, the state I live in, ranks 12th in area among the 50 states. From north to south the state measures 653 km (406 mi), and from east to west it measures 576 km (358 mi) at its maximum extent and about 290 km (about 180 mi) at its narrowest point. Reaching the 3,678,000 registered voters scattered across the 225,171 square kilometers of the state is expensive. Much more so for larger state and the country as a whole. Most elections campaigns (except for governors, senators, and presidents) are at the district level; in my case, the 5th district is basically Minneapolis.

I don't know much about the UK's political system beyond its parliamentary nature, Tory vs. Labor, and the stupidity of Brexit.

unimportant

↪BC

Well to add a little to your knowledge there is another man named Nigel Farage, maybe you knew the name already, who is very pally with Donald Trump and was the one who championed the Brexit cause.

He has had various parties of his own, the most notable being the Brexit party until we voted to leave and now he is continuing similar xenophobic caused and is very appealing to that type of demographic. I think he does fancy himself as Britain's Donald Trump.

BC

↪unimportant

I have heard of Nigel Farage and it was much like hearing of Donald Trump -- bad news.

I never understood the enthusiasm for Brexit. Who did it actually benefit? Was it the wealthy class? Did it actually promote home rule? Did it actually enhance the British economy (doesn't seem like it)?

Donald Trump's tax bill that just passed is a major gift to the "haves and the have yachts" and an attack on poor people (bonafide citizens) who depend on medicaid for medical care. The Texas flash flood is terrible, but I was happy to hear a Democratic Senator from Texas pointing out that this is the sort of thing that happens when you slash the weather service's budget and cut 600 staff from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He wasn't claiming that the cuts literally and immediately caused the deaths.

unimportant

↪BC

It isn't that it benefits people but it is like the popularity of Trump that it panders to the xenophobic types who think immigrants are ruining their 'Britishness'.

What you mentioned about the politicians pandering to the wealthy class rather than the people that voted them in I think also applies here.

Shame that no one else seems interested in this thread who also knows more about British politics than you or I!

This is probably more suited to politics and current affairs subforum than political philosophy as the content is more pop culture in substance.

BC

This is probably more suited to politics and current affairs subforum than political philosophy as the content is more pop culture in substance. — unimportant

Maybe, but I don't think the subform location is all that significant. You could ask a moderator to move the thread to the Politics and Current Affairs forum.

I've never understood why one discussion takes off and another one doesn't. Most of the threads I've started have died shortly after birth. Just a few of mine have been "successes" -- meaning a lot of people participated.

If there are forum members you would like comments from you can ask them using the format @their name like @ " unimportant " but with no space after @ or ". A note will show up in their e-mail that "Unimportant mentioned you in such and such a thread". That doesn't always work, but it sometimes gets more people to comment.

BC

politicians pandering to the wealthy class — unimportant

Politicians are attracted to wealth like fleas are attracted to warm blooded mammals. It's the greatest source of nourishment!

unimportant

If there are forum members you would like comments from you can ask them using the format their name like @ " unimportant " but with no space after @ or ". A note will show up in their e-mail that "Unimportant mentioned you in such and such a thread". That doesn't always work, but it sometimes gets more people to comment. — BC

I am new here so don't know who would. Isn't it that this forum is just relatively quiet overall, probably in large part to the fact that it is invite only - not that I am complaining about that as the other forums I perused before this one had much lower quality content with front pages mostly filled with rants.

BC

↪unimportant

The membership by invitation is fairly recent, and I think Jamal (the owner) instituted it to maintain quality. There are fewer trolls, ranters, extremists, and so on now than before. Moderators help, but it's a thankless volunteer job.

The Philosophy Forum has been around for around 15 - 20 years; its first incarnation was sold and then died soon after. The current incarnation was started by regulars from the former site. We have always aimed to have more or less serious philosophy discussion.

True, "this forum is just relatively quiet overall". Which topics will take off and run for many weeks is hard to predict.

Glad you are here.

AmadeusD

One problem I see, is that people vote for what's on the table. Not what they want. It's almost assured that any vote does not give us actual public opinion. Therefore, lawmakers have to be quite reticent, in lieu of a binding referendum, to give a piss about it.

Leontiskos

One problem I see, is that people vote for what's on the table. Not what they want. It's almost assured that any vote does not give us actual public opinion. — AmadeusD

According to Aristotle, prescribing which candidates are on the ballot is central to determining what kind of regime one has. For example, if voters are choosing from a pre-selected pool of candidates, then Aristotle would say that you do not have a true democracy. A regime where oligarchs decide who makes it onto the ballot is, for example, an oligarchy (although ballot selection is not the only criterion for governmental regime).

Therefore, lawmakers have to be quite reticent, in lieu of a binding referendum, to give a piss about it. — AmadeusD

The one who controls the pre-selection of the candidates would lose enormous amounts of power and control if they were to yield up that prerogative.

AmadeusD

↪Leontiskos

and who is that?

Leontiskos

The one who controls the pre-selection of the candidates would lose enormous amounts of power and control if they were to yield up that prerogative. — Leontiskos

and who is that? — AmadeusD

Were you responding to that?

It is usually not a single person. I don't know if you follow American politics, but supporters of Bernie Sanders know the ballot gatekeeping well, particularly after the 2016 and 2020 Democratic presidential primaries.* In that sense the political parties control the ballot, and in particular they exert a great deal of influence over their own candidate. In fact you could read American politics since 2016 as the incursion of populism into the presidential scene, where on the one hand the Democrats were able to exclude Sanders from the nomination and on the other hand the Republics were unable to exclude Trump from the nomination. It's likely true that if the DNC were set up like the RNC then Sanders would have won the Democratic primary, and that if the RNC were set up like the DNC then Trump would have lost the Republican primary.

All of that is indicative of the way that partisan interests control the ballot, and in fact this isn't altogether unintentional in our system.

* In 2024 the Democrats held no primary at all in order to nominate Harris.

AmadeusD

↪Leontiskos

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah fair enough - didn't quite grok the subtext, sorry. I do now.

Leontiskos

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah fair enough - didn't quite grok the subtext, sorry. I do now. — AmadeusD

:up:

Two of Aristotle's basic criteria in identifying the kind of regime in question are: "Who votes/decides on the rulers?" and "Who is eligible to be voted for?"

Election is always of some people by some people, but everything depends on who chooses whom and how. The fundamental options (to follow Aristotle) are that all may choose from all or from some or from both; or some may choose from all or from some or from both; or all and some may choose from all or from some or from both. When all choose from all, the election may be called democratic; when some from some, oligarchic; when mixed, aristocratic or political. — Peter L. P. Simpson, Political Illiberalism, p. 30

and:

...One might conclude from this analysis that the system of elections in the United States would, by this classification, count as aristocratic or political. With respect to form, it may be so. With respect to practice, it is not. For an element of political sophistry here intervenes, since there are at least two ways of understanding what is meant by election. We mean by elections choosing between candidates whose names are on the ballot and who have, before the election, been going about soliciting people for their votes. Others, by contrast, have meant choosing from among candidates who are not named on any ballot and who have not been going about soliciting votes. — Peter L. P. Simpson, Political Illiberalism, p. 31

So the idea is that you identify the set of people who choose or cast votes, and then you identify the set of people who are chosen from, and at that point you have the first criterion for determining regime (at least in the common case of electoral regimes).

For Aristotle this is practical, not theoretical. Even if everyone can vote in a theoretical sense, and everyone can be voted for in a theoretical sense, in a practical sense not everyone votes and not everyone can be voted for. A big part of politics is controlling who votes and who can be voted for.

unimportant

I don't know if you follow American politics — Leontiskos

I know little about either uk or american politics. I would say I see more of american politics just because it is more of a show and on the news more with trump's antics but it reminds me of around the 2016 period when an equivalent lefty to Bernie in the uk who was a very outside 'back bencher' as they call them got in as the main candidate for the Labour party. He was voted in by other member's who would never have voted for him but from what my mother told me it was their protest votes to block other real rivals that ended up getting him elected from all the protest votes. Oh yes, that is his name. Had forgotten it as he has been out of the media for some years now...Jeremy Corbyn.

He is really far Left and stirred up Corbynmania in the country for a time with quite some enthusiasm for actual change in a real socialist flavour but the powers that be seemed to see to it that he didn't get anywhere in the end and he has since faded back into obscurity on the back benches from whence he came.

Leontiskos

↪unimportant

- Yes, that is a good parallel in the UK context. :up:

unimportant

↪Leontiskos

To resurrect this I just found this nice snippet about Corbyn by long time anarchist Noam Chomsky:

“I think if Corbyn had been elected, Britain would be pursuing a much more sane course. I think his general positions were very reasonable. And I think that’s probably the reason for the extraordinary attack on him pretty much across the spectrum, with mostly fabricated charges of antisemitism. Anything that could be thrown at him was, it was a major assault. Again, pretty much across the spectrum, The Guardian, right-wing press, ‘we got to get rid of this guy’.

“I think that’s a sign, a reflection of the fact that he had very reasonable proposals. He was also doing something dangerous, he was trying to turn the Labour Party into an authentic political party, one that’s based on its constituents, not some bureaucracy somewhere that runs it and tells people how to vote. That’s scary. We don’t want to have authentic, popular based political parties around, they could be out of control.”
-https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/chomsky-if-corbyn-had-been-elected-britain-would-be-pursuing-a-much-more-sane-course-266056/

I came to that after reading that Corbyn has started his own political party. I must say, while I have stated that the current 2 big parties are both sides of the same coin, he is someone who would make me enthused about mainstream politics.

Good luck to him. A great counterbalance to the Reform party.

boethius

This is what I tried to tell boethius to perhaps allow his points to get across better but he dismissed it and continues with is disjointed ramblings. — unimportant

I'm not a propagandist, I'm first and foremost here to subject my own analysis to critical scrutiny. The worlds of ethics, concepts and facts is quite varied, diverse and complex and so any one thing is often related to a great many other things; and so maybe literally Hitler literally describing his propaganda methods of choice isn't the best guide to explore and understand matters.

But I guess thank-you for outing yourself as a self described propagandist following Hitler's advice and footsteps.

Also notable, you confirm your unwillingness to engage in critical debate by mentioning and criticizing me but not using the forum's mention link that would automatically inform me of your comment. You want to criticize me without being sure I have the opportunity to address your criticism and yet you call me bad faith?

Remarkable.

unimportant

↪boethius

Huh, interesting, so that is why you went silent on the other thread all of a sudden. I did wonder why you suddenly stopped commenting.

Didn't realize you were angry.

Not sure why you are taking umbrage at it. I said the exact same early on in the original thread on communism/anarchism, which you replied to at the time, and was just repeating the same as I wrote there publicly which you didn't get mad at then so isn't like I was 'talking behind your back' as you are asserting here.

It was just a comment that you have good points but you limit your audience by being too verbose except for the most determined of readers. I was interested in the subject matter so I would study your posts whereas most will not bother.

If you want your views to have an effect I think that is constructive criticism.

There is a large tract of land between propagandist and nearly impenetrable walls of text. It isn't one extreme or the other. What is the point of having discourse at all if you don't care if you are understood or not?

boethius

↪boethius Huh, interesting, so that is why you went silent on the other thread all of a sudden. I did wonder why you suddenly stopped commenting.

Didn't realize you were angry. — unimportant

The silence is not voluntary, and I mean to get back to that thread.

Certainly not angry about anything here.

I encountered this insane data breach that enables child trafficking globally, which I posted about in the lounge. Child trafficking does indeed make me angry, but I'm fairly confident no one here is a child trafficker.

Criticizing me for not following Hitler's advice I just find amusing.

But sure, the Hitler's criticism is fair if the goal is propaganda, which one is free to argue that all political persuasions should be simply focused on propaganda all the time; of course, I disagree with that, and would provide the counter-argument that propaganda (in the sense of manipulating public opinion) is always counter productive.

However, it obviously has some drawbacks citing Hitler as a role model generally speaking.

unimportant

↪boethius

I guess you are deliberately pushing the Hitler narrative to illustrate the problems with propaganda.

Lol! I forgot others had been discussing Hitler above. My mistake. I had not viewed this thread in a while since it did not 'take off'.

I was not relating the comment I made about you to the Hitler comments above. Well it might seem like that ok since I quoted it in the same post. :) Hitler was a great orator though.

I will await your picking up the other thread when you are ready.

unimportant

↪boethius

I had not seen your thread until you pointed it out now. Indeed I see you have been busy with that.

boethius

↪boethius I guess you are deliberately pushing the Hitler narrative to illustrate the problems with propaganda. — unimportant

Maybe just accept what happened.

You saw something you liked in a citation literally Hitler, original citation being:

The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. — Adolf Hitler

And your use of this Hitler wisdom being:

unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention.
— Adolf Hitler

This is what I tried to tell boethius to perhaps allow his points to get across better but he dismissed it and continues with is disjointed ramblings. — unimportant

Which I get it: Hitler doesn't say only false things, and what he says here is true enough as far as propaganda is concerned. Most people in the West would agree with Hitler on this point and definitely the PR people of every major Western political party are going to harp on about "staying on message" exactly as Hitler prescribes.

However, I disagree with the effectiveness of propaganda and so make the rebuttal ... as well as point out the clear fact that you're citing Hitler to make your point, as more a basic debate tactic.

But if we're talking about fundamentals, not caring what Hitler thinks about the subject, the problem with propaganda is that people resist being manipulated.

By definition you cannot want to be manipulated on the whole. By that I mean the difference between manipulation that is part of an overall consent, such as the manipulation of perception in seeing a movie, and a "manipulation overall" such as being tricked into seeing a movie that you don't want to see.

So, insofar as propaganda is manipulating public opinion, people resist that and so even if the cause really is good (which is difficult to tell if it's soaking in propaganda), and the propaganda achieves some actually good objectives, people will realize the methods of manipulation and undo the effect as well as lower their trust in your movement.

For, if people are going along with something because they've been manipulated then it's not because they are actually convinced, and sooner or later the contradictory beliefs will rise to the surface and all that time spent manipulating them will have far worse effects than having done nothing.

unimportant

↪boethius

Tbh I didn't even remember the quote or the thread above it, which I just skimmed again now.

Yes sure I agree now I read it again that I was agreeing with the point Hitler made and I did mean to agree with the point at the time now I reread the context.

As above, Hitler was a fantastic orator.

I think there is discussion to be had about charisma vs propaganda or if they are indeed one and the same. I don't think they necessarily are the same thing. There are charismatic people that do not speak propaganda but charismatic people often do speak propaganda.

boethius

Yes sure I agree now I read it again that I was agreeing with the point Hitler made and I did mean to agree with the point at the time now I reread the context.

As above, Hitler was a fantastic orator. — unimportant

Yes, the Hitler role in this conversation is more ironic than essential to the debate.

I think there is discussion to be had about charisma vs propaganda or if they are indeed one and the same. I don't think they necessarily are the same thing. There are charismatic people that do not speak propaganda but charismatic people often do speak propaganda. — unimportant

My criticism of propaganda is specifically insofar as we're referring to the sense that it is manipulative.

"Good propaganda", in the sense of effective in controlling public opinion in the short term, will also have plenty of elements that are in themselves elements of "good communication", by which I mean both good and effective (and not manipulative). Good propaganda will use plenty of actual facts, elements of logic and reasoning, clarity and well-spokenness, charisma and so on, insofar as it serves the overall manipulative objective.

We have an example of good propaganda with Hitler.

I'd propose an example of good communication as Feynman, exemplified in the Feynman lectures.

Both Hitler and Feynman are charismatic and use many of the same rhetorical methods. The difference being Hitler is trying to manipulate public opinion to conquer the whole world and liquidate whole classes of people he dislikes and breed a race of supermen, whereas Feynman is trying to convey actual truths about physics to those who are interested.

How true is "the public don't want this at the moment" with regards to laws being passed?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions