It is Wednesday and so a short blog. I am working on a number of things at present but getting the material sorted for my next book with Thomas Fazi is a priority at the moment. My snippet today though is about a study that has just come out in the American Political Science Review – Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion among Political Elites – by two US academics. The title is indicative. They explore what they argue is a disjuncture between what the politicians think voters want and what the voters actually want. This lack of congruence is also biased towards right-wing views. So, the politicians “believed that much more of the public in their constituencies preferred conservative policies than actually did”. They trace this bias to biases in the way the politicians get their information. The takeaway is that the progressive side of the debate has to be more active in framing distinctive messages and using multiple ways and avenues to communicate those messages to the candidates seeking election and the politicians that have been elected. And it must refrain from using conservative frames which advisors think neutralise difficult concepts etc. I think this sort of research provides some hope. I will be writing more about this in the weeks to come. And after that listen to some really classic minimalism from the C19th, which you might suspect on listening is very contemporary such was the genius of the composer....There is a discrepancy between public opinion and policy. The question is why and what can be done about it if it is a failing of democracy.
Note that this is not necessarily a failing of democracy in a democratic republic where the people elect a few to represent interests in government.
It is possible, for example, that politicians are better informed than the public and so are acting the public interest when it may appear they are not from the polling.
Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Politicians think the public is more right-wing and conservative than it actually is
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
6 comments:
BULLSHIT. The discrepancy between public opinion and policy has NOTHING to do with the perception of public opinion by political elites.
BULLSHIT. The discrepancy between public opinion and policy has NOTHING to do with the perception of public opinion by political elites.
I agree, but it needs to be shown for the reason I stated above to be accepted wisely as true. Otherwise it is an opinion and the objection to it is "sour grapes" or "envy" on the part of losers, or else failure to understand what a democratic republic is about politically.
The objection to the objection is, "Cui bono? Follow the money."
"wisely" should be "widely."
Bill is being far too charitable by taking politicians at their word. As Noah and Tom have essentially said, the politicians couldn't care less what the public think. They have their own agendas. It's all very simple.
Kalecki said something along the lines of economics being the science of confusing stocks and flows. Similarly, political science is the "science" of intentionally confusing the obvious and painting politicians and countries as angelic beings. How anyone can live through a four years of political science is beyond me. You come out literally stupid. Friends of mine who read international relations at university came out knowing less than they had when they went in. It's a credit to the discipline that they can churn out morons who mouth clownish imbecilities by the thousands with such ease.
Kalecki said something along the lines of economics being the science of confusing stocks and flows. Similarly, political science is the "science" of intentionally confusing the obvious and painting politicians and countries as angelic beings. How anyone can live through a four years of political science is beyond me. You come out literally stupid. Friends of mine who read international relations at university came out knowing less than they had when they went in. It's a credit to the discipline that they can churn out morons who mouth clownish imbecilities by the thousands with such ease.
It's called "credentialing. It's about certification of fitness as an agent of the ruling class.
“political science is the "science" of intentionally confusing the obvious and painting politicians and countries as angelic beings. How anyone can live through a four years of political science is beyond me. You come out literally stupid. Friends of mine who read international relations at university came out knowing less than they had when they went in. It's a credit to the discipline”
Consider that the relevant level of delineation may be above that of the discipline .... It may be at the level of the degree program and the associated methodology used thereunder...
Post a Comment