Ok, not really. I mean he goes way too far in talking about things like an education requirement for who votes.
But if today's polls are too believed-and we'll get more later-then maybe the ignorance of other voters are a real threat.
"Are those Q-polls real or outliers? We'll be releasing new NBC/WSJ/Marist polls on IA/OH/PA at 5pm ET. (And no, haven't seen numbers yet.)"
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-luxury-of-not-caring-about-politics.html
But supposedly there are all these folks who believe that Hillary is a liar while Trump is honest and trustworthy.
Part of this, may be the media's false equivalence. The media literally never can interview Hillary or someone on her team without mentioning the emails. Even last Friday after the tragedy in Dallas, the talking heads of cable insisted on asking Hillary as many email questions as about the tragedy in Dallas and of racial polarization.
Yes, the media has reported on Trump U. But does it mention it every time he or anyone in his campaign are interviewed?
That's the difference. For people who don't pay close attention to this, all they know is the media talks about the emails constantly. Trump U is not a regular, every day topic of conversation.
So I am thinking about Caplan's-anti democratic-theories of politics. Most voters don't have an interest in being rational-as their individual vote is not going to be decisive.
Chris Hayes in his review of Caplan:
But then, this is a problem with democracy that goes back to Socrates.
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/greek/philosopher/trial_death_socrates.html
But if today's polls are too believed-and we'll get more later-then maybe the ignorance of other voters are a real threat.
"Are those Q-polls real or outliers? We'll be releasing new NBC/WSJ/Marist polls on IA/OH/PA at 5pm ET. (And no, haven't seen numbers yet.)"
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-luxury-of-not-caring-about-politics.html
But supposedly there are all these folks who believe that Hillary is a liar while Trump is honest and trustworthy.
Part of this, may be the media's false equivalence. The media literally never can interview Hillary or someone on her team without mentioning the emails. Even last Friday after the tragedy in Dallas, the talking heads of cable insisted on asking Hillary as many email questions as about the tragedy in Dallas and of racial polarization.
Yes, the media has reported on Trump U. But does it mention it every time he or anyone in his campaign are interviewed?
That's the difference. For people who don't pay close attention to this, all they know is the media talks about the emails constantly. Trump U is not a regular, every day topic of conversation.
So I am thinking about Caplan's-anti democratic-theories of politics. Most voters don't have an interest in being rational-as their individual vote is not going to be decisive.
Chris Hayes in his review of Caplan:
"The Myth of the Rational Voter is best understood in the context of a long-standing academic debate over whether democracy works. It's a question that has two related, but distinct, sub-components: Do democracies produce optimal policies for its citizens? And do democracies produce policies that accurately reflect the will of the majority?"
"The most sanguine observers say “yes” on both counts. But given that surveys consistently show that voters are distressingly ignorant about both the rudiments of policy (whether we spend more on foreign aid or social security) and politics (how many senators each state has), it's a difficult case to make. Another strain of thought is the so-called Public Choice school, which answers “no” to both questions. Public Choice theorists tend, like Caplan, to be free market enthusiasts and argue that democracies inevitably lead to bloated bureaucracies, trade protectionism and inefficient subsidies. These sub-optimal economic policies occur not because of their widespread popularity, but rather because the state's agenda is so easily manipulated by special interests looking to make easy money by regulating their competitors or getting their hands on taxpayer dollars."
Caplan disagrees: Democracy fails to produce good policies precisely because it reflects the will of the majority. Or, as H.L. Mencken once put it: “Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”
"The most sanguine observers say “yes” on both counts. But given that surveys consistently show that voters are distressingly ignorant about both the rudiments of policy (whether we spend more on foreign aid or social security) and politics (how many senators each state has), it's a difficult case to make. Another strain of thought is the so-called Public Choice school, which answers “no” to both questions. Public Choice theorists tend, like Caplan, to be free market enthusiasts and argue that democracies inevitably lead to bloated bureaucracies, trade protectionism and inefficient subsidies. These sub-optimal economic policies occur not because of their widespread popularity, but rather because the state's agenda is so easily manipulated by special interests looking to make easy money by regulating their competitors or getting their hands on taxpayer dollars."
Caplan disagrees: Democracy fails to produce good policies precisely because it reflects the will of the majority. Or, as H.L. Mencken once put it: “Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”
http://inthesetimes.com/article/3185/whos_afraid_of_democracy
Not that I agree with Caplan on much of his economic theories-I'm no raving libertarian. But I do agree that often we are the victim of voter ignorance-rational ignorance?-as much as anything.
But then, this is a problem with democracy that goes back to Socrates.
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/greek/philosopher/trial_death_socrates.html
Trump's lies about his charitable giving are perhaps the most disgraceful. He sucks up the attention it gives him to brag about how generous he is, but then he doesn't actually give in the end. Even his son in law had to walk back his full throated defense of Trump's giving when he couldn't actually produce any evidence of it (other than Trump's bragging about it).
ReplyDeleteYes. Yet, you don't have the media feeding frenzy over this they have over Hillary's emails.
ReplyDeleteThey report it, but it's a one news cycle story then they move on