There are lots of religious conservatives who don't care about family values. They just take religion as an excuse to push children around. The church teaches them, so I don't have to. The good book says so, so do what you're told. Put up with the other kids in Sunday school because they're part of the congregation. Mrs. Smith is having a bad day, so pray for her even though she treats you awfully.
I would argue that the GOP is still very pro-family and I think that they align a lot more in their concerns with the normal family. I would also argue that precisely because of this they don't give a damn about individualism or competition as they tend to support the largest American firms much more than small businesses.
Yep. I don't think the problem is the parties or politicians though- it is more just bad incentives. And to change those incentives, we need a much more informed public that puts more pressure on changing said incentives. I'm not holding my breath right now.
True. Inevitably the politicians and policies that a nation receives are the ones which the nation itself votes for.
With this said I'd argue that the incentive problem inherent in a democratic government, the fact of uneducated and unmotivated voters is basically unsolvable. While the conditions which would solve the problem are blatantly obvious (more educated and better motivated voters) the fact that it's hard to point to any sort of society which could achieve this, and for good reason.
The fact is that unless you actually enjoy taking part in politics then you have no incentive to spend a large amount of time looking up and understanding issues when in a democracy of any significant size there's not going to be a situation in which you command more than .01 percent of the vote. If you are interested in politics then there's actually also practically no incentive to become educated on issues when you can go and spout your mouth off about something that you know practically nothing about, a phenomenon I'm sure all of us here can attest to, and still be equally respected within normal discussion, because in the end people tend to respect whoever A. Agrees with their preexisting ideas, or B. is most convincing, something which usually comes down much more to body language, appeals to presupposed values, and apparent certainty about what they're saying (it's amazing how far you can get by just stating your values as facts).
Democracy ultimately suffers from the collective goods problem. It makes sense for the entire group to be well educated on political matters, but it makes no sense for any individual to be educated upon political matters because he has such a limited effect upon who is voted in. This is one of the greatest ironies in all of political economy. The government is supposed to be the one institution that can solve problems involving collective goods, yet the government itself suffers from this problem, and the effects of this are becoming ever more evident as time goes on and state power expands.
EDIT
It's important to note that there are other incentive problems involved in the government, all of which disappear if we assume a perfectly informed and voting populace, but all of these problems are worsened by the absence of this. These incentive problems involve the fact that politicians have a much greater incentive to act for short term benefit, even if it means long term ruin, because he receives benefits of policies which are beneficial in the short term, but he experiences no negative repercussions for his failure in the long term. This can be seen, for instance, with the modern social security system, where in the short run the elderly get a steady source of income at what is (in our day) a relatively young age, but which is in the long run unsustainable. Politicians also suffer from the prisoners dilemma as a result of a short sighted and ill-informed constituency. It makes sense for politicians as a whole to address tough issues, such as the current budget crisis, because if they don't America is basically bound to collapse, but it makes no sense for any one politician to stick his own neck out when he knows that he will probably be voted out, either because people don't want to pay high taxes or because people don't want to experience the negative effects of spending cuts.
There are many more problems involved with government action but those usually come down to problems of the specific act itself, rather than inherent failures of incentives.
With this said I'd argue that the incentive problem inherent in a democratic government, the fact of uneducated and unmotivated voters is basically unsolvable. While the conditions which would solve the problem are blatantly obvious (more educated and better motivated voters) the fact that it's hard to point to any sort of society which could achieve this, and for good reason.
The fact is that unless you actually enjoy taking part in politics then you have no incentive to spend a large amount of time looking up and understanding issues when in a democracy of any significant size there's not going to be a situation in which you command more than .01 percent of the vote. If you are interested in politics then there's actually also practically no incentive to become educated on issues when you can go and spout your mouth off about something that you know practically nothing about, a phenomenon I'm sure all of us here can attest to, and still be equally respected within normal discussion, because in the end people tend to respect whoever A. Agrees with their preexisting ideas, or B. is most convincing, something which usually comes down much more to body language, appeals to presupposed values, and apparent certainty about what they're saying (it's amazing how far you can get by just stating your values as facts).
Democracy ultimately suffers from the collective goods problem. It makes sense for the entire group to be well educated on political matters, but it makes no sense for any individual to be educated upon political matters because he has such a limited effect upon who is voted in. This is one of the greatest ironies in all of political economy. The government is supposed to be the one institution that can solve problems involving collective goods, yet the government itself suffers from this problem, and the effects of this are becoming ever more evident as time goes on and state power expands.
EDIT
It's important to note that there are other incentive problems involved in the government, all of which disappear if we assume a perfectly informed and voting populace, but all of these problems are worsened by the absence of this. These incentive problems involve the fact that politicians have a much greater incentive to act for short term benefit, even if it means long term ruin, because he receives benefits of policies which are beneficial in the short term, but he experiences no negative repercussions for his failure in the long term. This can be seen, for instance, with the modern social security system, where in the short run the elderly get a steady source of income at what is (in our day) a relatively young age, but which is in the long run unsustainable. Politicians also suffer from the prisoners dilemma as a result of a short sighted and ill-informed constituency. It makes sense for politicians as a whole to address tough issues, such as the current budget crisis, because if they don't America is basically bound to collapse, but it makes no sense for any one politician to stick his own neck out when he knows that he will probably be voted out, either because people don't want to pay high taxes or because people don't want to experience the negative effects of spending cuts.
There are many more problems involved with government action but those usually come down to problems of the specific act itself, rather than inherent failures of incentives.
Last edited:
Similar threads
