And during elections a lot of things are thrown around. Uninformed or misinformed voters mistake those as promises, after all they're listed on a party platform, right?
But students of political science know that each of those initiatives are presented during an election in order to determine which are popular and which are not.
NO POLITICIAN WILL EVER DELIVER ON EVERY IDEA THEY PITCH DURING AN ELECTION, NOR SHOULD THEY?
In 2004 the McGinty Liberals (Ontario) pitched an idea to build more but cleaner coal plants. Their support in the community they planned to put it plummeted. Their support in the communities around it plummeted. Rather than lose the election they listened to the voters and then retracted the idea.
But students of political science know that each of those initiatives are presented during an election in order to determine which are popular and which are not.
NO POLITICIAN WILL EVER DELIVER ON EVERY IDEA THEY PITCH DURING AN ELECTION, NOR SHOULD THEY?
In 2004 the McGinty Liberals (Ontario) pitched an idea to build more but cleaner coal plants. Their support in the community they planned to put it plummeted. Their support in the communities around it plummeted. Rather than lose the election they listened to the voters and then retracted the idea.
IF YOUR BOSS INTRODUCED A DUMB IDEA - SUCH AS MAKING YOU WORK 6 DAYS A WEEK BUT FOR 5 DAYS A WEEK PAY - YOU'D WANT THEM TO RECONSIDER IT.
Yet in our partisan environment, McGinty was attacked for listening to the electorate. Think about that a minute. A democratically elected leader was attacked for listening to what the voters in a democratic society were telling him.
That anyone saw that as a negative boggles the mind because seriously, what's the alternative? Totalitarianism?
Of course, the attacks were largely coming from the party that wanted to replace him so that alone should've made their criticisms suspect. But drama gets airplay and those attacks made the rounds like the Song of the Summer.
The point is, an election platform is filled with SUBJECTIVE ideas. Some aren't possible but the party doesn't know that yet because until they're government they won't have all the facts they need. Some aren't popular.
Smart parties retract those ideas, dogmatic ones will stick with a burning building until the embers cool.
The best example of SUBJECTIVE that I can give you is with this image:
That anyone saw that as a negative boggles the mind because seriously, what's the alternative? Totalitarianism?
Of course, the attacks were largely coming from the party that wanted to replace him so that alone should've made their criticisms suspect. But drama gets airplay and those attacks made the rounds like the Song of the Summer.
The point is, an election platform is filled with SUBJECTIVE ideas. Some aren't possible but the party doesn't know that yet because until they're government they won't have all the facts they need. Some aren't popular.
Smart parties retract those ideas, dogmatic ones will stick with a burning building until the embers cool.
The best example of SUBJECTIVE that I can give you is with this image:
ONE PARTY may look at this shape on the orange side and see a SQUARE, and because of that their perceptions and ideas will reflect the fact they see a Square.
ANOTHER PARTY may look at this shape on the blue side and see a CIRCLE, and because of that their perceptions and ideas will reflect the fact they see a Circle.
Neither is necessarily wrong, it's just SUBJECTIVE.
Subjective opinions are easier to argue because they're simpler than Objective ones.
Subjective opinions are easier to argue because they're simpler than Objective ones.
OBJECTIVE looking means investigating the situation, looking at it from both perspectives, thinking about what both might mean, figuring out where the truth is and then using that broader perspective to make a decision.
WHO HAS TIME FOR THAT?
Well, that's the problem. No one does. So we end up finding "news" sources that don't upset us and sort of agree with our world view and that's why we end up being uninformed, then mis-informed and then manipulated.
BECAUSE IN THE 21st CENTURY IF YOU ONLY HAVE A LIMITED WORLD VIEW THEN THOSE WHO WANT CONTROL ARE USING METRICS ABOUT YOU TO MANIPULATE YOU.
This by the way, is what they mean when they say Russians were interfering in the 2016 US Election. I've noticed many times on Twitter the accounts trolling one leader or the next have been active for less than a month, have almost no followers, use horrible English and except for trolling have made no posts. That may not be a "bot", but it sure acts like one, and it's trying to stir up emotions for some sort of manipulation.
STATISTICALLY LIBERALS HAVE FIVE TIMES AS MANY BOT/TROLLS ATTACKING THEM AS CONSERVATIVES HAVE ATTACKING THEM.
Why? Well, if they can't control the Liberals (they being Corporations and such) then they're going to manipulate you to vote for the party they do control. Which takes us to the third and most dangerous point of view.
If it's not Objective and it's not Subjective then is POPULIST.
If it's not Objective and it's not Subjective then is POPULIST.
Using the above image as an example, where one side sees a Circle and the other sees a Square, a POPULIST approach says, "What shape will get me the most votes?" And if the answer is "TRIANGLE" then the Populist attacks the Circle and Square people for being liars and promotes their view of the world as being a TRIANGLE.
But don't kid yourself, they know the only options are Circle and Square. They also know it doesn't matter if they're not the ones in control, so TRIANGLE it is.
And because polls showed more people like Triangles than Squares and Circles (or at least have come to distrust the Circle and Square people) then the POPULIST gets control.
And because "news" sources are so fragmented all they need to do is then keep repeating the Triangle philosophy while they either ignore the shape, or do whatever is cheapest and easiest to do with a Circle or Square.
The problem with all this is I'm not over-simplifying things. Most Conservatives supporters of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper believe he was tough on crime, fiscally responsible, transparent, and accountable. At least more so than the Liberals.
But on every point Harper was more secretive, wasted the entire $100 Billion that Martin/Chretien paid on the debt in half the time, and dodged responsibility every time he got into trouble through successive proroguings of Parliament, snap elections. and shortened Parliamentary sessions (so he could manage Canada through Cabinet as though he was a President).
The problem with all this is I'm not over-simplifying things. Most Conservatives supporters of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper believe he was tough on crime, fiscally responsible, transparent, and accountable. At least more so than the Liberals.
But on every point Harper was more secretive, wasted the entire $100 Billion that Martin/Chretien paid on the debt in half the time, and dodged responsibility every time he got into trouble through successive proroguings of Parliament, snap elections. and shortened Parliamentary sessions (so he could manage Canada through Cabinet as though he was a President).
And Harper pushed through "tough on crime" legislation that any Grade 8 Social Study students knew would get killed by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutionally excessive yet NEVER ONCE tried to replace them, or even reinstate the laws he created that were struck down.
By repeatedly passing unconstitutional laws Harper made Gay Marriage and Marijuana legal in Canada through a legislative approach more Libertarian than Conservative.
But his supporters didn't know it, because they only listened to the man who kept saying TRIANGLE.
No comments:
Post a Comment