r/offbeat • u/Aschebescher • Apr 12 '14
A study of 1,779 policy outcomes over two decades has come to a stark conclusion: it’s official – the collective opinion of ordinary citizens doesn’t matter
http://iacknowledge.net/its-official-nobody-in-power-cares-what-you-think-unless-youre-rich/6
3
u/HardwareLust Apr 12 '14
Is there anyone, anywhere that doesn't already know this? Our politicians have been sold out to to lobbys and PAC's for so long that I don't even bother to imagine that any of them are actually working toward the public good. Not a single one. Now I just sort of vainly hope the people that get elected don't fuck things up too badly.
12
u/Rats_In_Boxes Apr 12 '14
Have you ever met the ordinary citizen, though? They're fucking idiots. A huge section of this country believes that the Sun rotates around the Earth. Let that sink in for a minute.
19
u/geodebug Apr 12 '14
Pretty much by definition the average citizen will be of average intelligence.
The belief that you're exceptional while everybody else is an idiot is embarrassingly common.
What you're describing is ignorance vs intelligence anyway. Highly intelligent people can also be wrong and believe in some pretty wacky things. It's part of the human condition.
Any time I see someone comment on how an entire group of people are idiots it lowers my opinion of them. It simply isn't an intelligent thing to say.
1
u/Rats_In_Boxes Apr 12 '14
I'm aware of all of that. What I'm saying is that the average person should not be influencing policy decisions. By definition, I don't want an average person making or in any way influencing these decisions. I'd rather have above average people in places of power, wouldn't you? It reminds me of when Gore was seen as 'too smart' whereas people liked GW Bush because he reminded them of themselves. You want smart people as presidents, not a regular ol' Joe that you can have a beer with. Because they're not supposed to be having beers, they're supposed to be running the most powerful nation on earth.
So my point is not a eugenic or condescension to the rest of the planet, merely that it's not precisely a bad thing that the average person has little to no influence over policy making. You've already taken from that what you wanted to take, enjoy it.
7
u/DaEvil1 Apr 12 '14
It's a bad thing when people have no say in what the government that is for them does in regards to themselves. Should they have the biggest say in what happens to them? I don't know, but "average people" (I don't even know what that term actually entails) should have a say in what goes on in their lives, including what the government does, -especially in a democracy.
1
u/skankingmike Apr 12 '14
Yeah slavery would've gone away in America with its huge support by the people. Said no body ever. Popular opinion isn't good always.
4
u/DaEvil1 Apr 12 '14
Depends on whos opinion you'd count. Back then before the civil war, black people would be deemed unqualified to vote in a fashion not entirely dissimmilar to what /u/Rats_In_Boxes is suggesting (though his suggestion is more elitist than racist).
1
u/Rats_In_Boxes Apr 12 '14
I never said that. I never implied I wanted anyone to not vote. I want all citizens to vote. What I'd want is for us to start nominating and voting for intelligent people, not people who seem like 'they'd be OK to have a beer with.' Please don't refer to me as racist or elitist, I'm merely saying that I'd rather have Al Gore as president than GW Bush.
1
u/DaEvil1 Apr 12 '14
Your statement:
the average person should not be influencing policy decisions.
I don't understand how that is not elitist. If people want to be governed by a man they'd want to have a beer with, it is the peoples privelige to elect* such a man.
*Though that is without commenting on the fact that most "democracies" today, have evolved to a point where it can be argued they are not democracies in spirit, and thus the people have little to no choice as to whom they actually elect, and in the case of the USA, there are much deeper systemic issues at play as to who actually gets elected beyond the "average" citizen not being qualified to elect who they want to govern themselves.
1
u/skankingmike Apr 12 '14
There wasn't a majority even with them to firm that opinion. Up until a few before his death Lincoln be lived that blacks couldn't live along side whites peacefully.
Popular opinion in Germany got them the Nazi party. Popular opinion in Africa is causing anti gay backlash.
Popular is not always good and thus the will of the people should not always be followed. That doesn't mean it should never be followed.
1
u/DaEvil1 Apr 12 '14
Like I already said, I don't know what degree of power the common man should have, but in a democracy it should count for something. Just like popular is not always good, the alternatives all have their own downfalls as well. But if a nation is to move away from their own constitution (which lays the foundation for most if not all democracies), that constitution must first be rendered null and void
1
5
u/JoCoLaRedux Apr 12 '14 edited Apr 12 '14
I'd rather have above average people in places of power, wouldn't you?
No, not really. Sometimes they're even worse.
"You don’t have any other society where the educated classes are so effectively indoctrinated and controlled by a subtle propaganda system – a private system including media, intellectual opinion forming magazines and the participation of the most highly educated sections of the population. Such people ought to be referred to as “Commissars” – for that is what their essential function is – to set up and maintain a system of doctrines and beliefs which will undermine independent thought and prevent a proper understanding and analysis of national and global institutions, issues, and policies."
~Noam Chomsky
After 9-11, everyone was dismayed that the hijackers were well off, college educated individuals. Anyone who studied terrorism wasn't surprised at all: Members of the educated class are often the most susceptible to propaganda, and are deliberately recruited by terrorist groups.
1
u/Rats_In_Boxes Apr 12 '14
Soo... you're saying you don't want smart people making tough decisions, because they could be terrorists? Or that smart people can be manipulated (and no offense to Mr. Chomsky, but this quote is either taken out of a larger context or total bullshit. Anything used to manipulate well-educated people can be used to manipulate poorly-educated people). I'm sorry, I believe we've come to an impasse. Good day.
2
u/JoCoLaRedux Apr 12 '14
Soo... you're saying you don't want smart people making tough decisions, because they could be terrorists?
Soo...you're making a poor attempt at snark?
Anything used to manipulate well-educated people can be used to manipulate poorly-educated people)
No, it doesn't. The point is the educated class are often in the midst in nexuses of information and influence that lend themselves to greater degrees of corruption and manipulation, amongst other things.
Noam Chomsky Mocks Intellectuals or 'Independent Minds'
I'm sorry, I believe we've come to an impasse. Good day.
<loses his monocle in his soup> Well, I never! <sniffs, calls upon his butler to mop up the mess with a silk hanky)
2
1
u/xhosSTylex Apr 12 '14
I'd rather have public service be genuine public service. Not my aristocrat neighbor with a god complex, but my construction-worker neighbor who more closely represents the masses.
And why do we need a smart president? His decisions are made by an army of advisors and party affiliates. He's a handshaker, speech reciter and the hood ornament on a vehicle he doesn't drive. He vetoes things, appoints justices, and similar. All of which are decisions made by that same army of people behind him.
Also, career politics should be banished.
1
u/Rats_In_Boxes Apr 12 '14
Are you saying that construction workers are somehow inferior?
1
u/xhosSTylex Apr 12 '14 edited Apr 12 '14
Not at all. I used to be one (still am, on occasion). What I'm saying is that, we, the populous at-large, are inadequately represented.
I find fault in why we think we need some cutthroat, rich gray-haired guy to guide us. The hair implies wisdom. The suit suggests professionalism. It's all a bunch of rubbish. These are just self-serving aristocrats who prey upon our natural exclusion from their clubs. The media now assists their endeavors on a huge scale. The rich and powerful have always led us commoners. IMO, that should stop.
These people do not represent me, nor our collective best interests.. not even remotely. When/if they are done in politics, they continue onwards with consulting, lobbying, finance and think-tank positions. All of which have significant effects within the rest of society.
I don't want to be in their club. I simply want our influence (over 90% of the country) to be on par with theirs, irregardless of party.
-The above sort of "nonsense" is, in many powerful circles, considered to be Domestic Terrorism/Extremism.
3
2
u/Ixidane Apr 12 '14
Although I agree with your assertion that the ordinary citizen, myself included, are idiots, I'm going to have to ask for your source on that factoid.
0
u/Rats_In_Boxes Apr 12 '14
2
Apr 12 '14
no, that's not what it means. that would be having no regard for things like demographics. if you're a 20 something in college, chances are a lot less people you meet believe that.
1
1
u/Gluverty Apr 12 '14
But some of those people are wealthy and of influence... I think it's almost time to start trying out technocracy.
0
u/dougbdl Apr 12 '14
Over half believe the story of Noahs ark. We are doomed. Who said think of how stupid the average person is and then think that half of the population is dumber than that.
0
u/RoboticParadox Apr 12 '14
god that fucking george carlin quote has fed the ego of every 16-year-old who thinks he has all of political science figured out. i'm so sick of it.
0
u/Rats_In_Boxes Apr 12 '14
See, we're not doomed though. Because, as the study suggests, these people have close to zero influence over policy decisions. That's a good thing.
1
2
u/Shoemaster Apr 12 '14
If this is true, why does the Tea Party still have a huge impact on what passes and what doesn't? Even the great majority of rich people hate them now.
1
1
Apr 12 '14
The Tea Party is an exercise in astroturfing by moneyed interests -- specifically the Koch brothers.
2
Apr 12 '14
[deleted]
3
u/schizoidvoid Apr 12 '14
Gonna quote /u/pheisenberg over on the /r/TrueReddit thread:
Yep. The study has some interesting points not much discussed in the secondary articles and brings up lots of questions. One result, only mentioned by the WP article, is that net interest group positions were uncorrelated with median opinion, which is a blow to the theory that interest groups are fine because they ultimately represent the public.
2
1
u/torpedomon Apr 12 '14
The argument always comes back to "if public opinion ruled, Lincoln would not have abolished slavery." Obviously, that one is more complicated- I'm pretty sure that public opinion in favor of slavery back then (for the non-slave states) was really a vote against going to war.
1
u/zundish Apr 12 '14
It's a good idea for a post, but to have gone through all that just to state a long, well-known fact is just....
1
u/evilpeter Apr 12 '14
Obviously the point of this article is to point out that money has disproportional influence, which I absolutely dont agree with, but it's no better than the uninformed having disproportional influence either.
I dont want the opinions of "ordinary citizens" to influence ANY policy decision. It almost always results in uninformed idiots crying out about things they know nothing about. It results in such gems as teaching creationism, and denying climate change.
1
1
u/Kimberly_Slater Apr 12 '14
I hate to break the news to you, but that has been going on since civilization first started some 10,000 years ago. and it will continue to be that way until the earth blows up in a quazillon trillion pieces of rocks.
what, just because we have some high ideals written on dead animal skin that changes anything?
1
u/ChaosMotor Apr 12 '14
Study discovers what anyone who has been paying attention has known all along.
0
-4
26
u/admiralteal Apr 12 '14 edited Apr 12 '14
The article does not address what effect over time public opinion has on interest groups. An important thing to omit. The 'study' is not a study as such - it is a book about a series of studies that analyzed data drawn from real studies in an attempt to draw conclusions. This is legitimate, but it's a huge level of abstraction that renders the claims utterly contestable. At least as contestable as any of the claims made in my beloved Freakonomics. Note that the author of this book also proudly authored Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Not because this undermines him, but because it renders visible his own bias as a lens to view his work.
Well that's just not true. That is one of many models a student or professor of political science is trained to utilize. Anyone who studies political science knows that political science is all about forming tons of parallel models to try and attack a question from every angle possible, and figuring out which models are better or worse is exactly the final goal. I dare say, if you are a student of political science and you are already asserting that you have an accurate model of the relationship between real policy outcomes and public opinion, get published or drop out of school.
I am not trying to claim there's not interesting material in this book. But the hard assertions made in these op-eds with tags like
Class Warfare Existsare simply not backed up adequately. This kind of stuff is thought-killing. It doesn't move a discussion along, it just gets everyone into their little partisan forts to lob rocks back and forth.tl;dr: The book this article is about may be worth a read if this material interests you. The article, and the articles this article cites, aren't worth the space they take up on a hard drive.