Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Mac1958, Dec 22, 2017.
The word "mandate" is simply used as a way to create an impression of support greater than that which actually exists. It is an appeal to popularity used in such a way that one's own agenda is backed up by an entire army of like-minded.
I'm reminded of the way the ultra-conformist wingers here use the term "we" as often as they do. They are too terrified to speak as an individual, as they need the safety in numbers. If you watch their sophistry, they inevitable try to validate the soundness of a position by resorting to these appeals to popularity (or authority).
Yep, that's the bottom line.
Every win is an absolute mandate, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Again and again the old groupings of left and right no longer seem helpful. Sloganeering and dogmatizing settle nothing, nor do emotional tirades and protests really help us sort things through in a thoughtful, biblical fashion.
-- Arthur F. Holmes, Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions
What concerns me is that many of "The 545" are polemics and that one of those individuals has sanctioned wantonly gratuitous polemicists by himself unabashedly and inveterately being one. One expects that sort of vulgarity from members of the hoi polloi for many of them know no better. Upon one's gaining entrée into "The 545," one is expected to not only know better but also do better. When "The 545" don't better comport themselves, the hoi polloi construe that they too need not do better.
So, you see, what kept me from rushing in with an answer to you was not the difficulty of so doing, nor pressure of other work, nor the grandeur of your eloquence, nor fear of you, but simply disgust, disinclination, and distaste -- which, if I may say so, express my judgment of your Diatribe.
-- Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will
Have you ever considered writing intelligently rather than spending so much effort constructing all this unwieldy verbiage calculated to give the appearance of such?
Yes, it concerns me as well. I never used to care much about politics, but the last general election jarred me a bit by the amplified magnitude of bitterness and animosity it aroused in people (and which hasn’t seemed to have subsided at all). Only in the last year or so have I really started investigating the issues and problems at hand, and the potential solutions. My natural inclination has been to adopt a “federalist” perspective. And I mean that in the modern sense of decentralizing many responsibilities out of the nation’s capital and back to the states. I think as smaller more culturally cohesive groups, the states would be able to enact policy less contentiously.
But of course, I’m aware that this may be more of a product of my own particular perspective. The idea of “I’ll handle my business, you handle yours” fits nicely with my personality. I could also use the latest tax bill that passed as an example. Now people from my state would look at the data on the following table, and say “hey, we’re getting ripped off!”:
And yet, there are “swamp creatures” in the federal government that have decided we need to be “milked” even more. It causes a feeling of resentment, especially since Washington DC has so much power over our affairs. If States had more control over their own affairs, I think the animosity would shrink.
Looking that chart, it's hard to see any sense in "red staters' " griping about how government spending most benefits blue states or that "blue staters" somehow leach federal resources from "red staters."
Will Grinch Dem's Steal Trump Tax Cuts?
Wealthy Republican Congressmen vote to slash their own taxes
I cannot seem to find it, but there is a somewhat recent thread on USMB about how Californians will, as a result of the GOP's tax changes, now pay their fair share. Well the chart you've shared show that to be the opposite of so.
Never thought of it from that angle, thanks. My impulses are towards federalism as well, but we're right now at a very binary place. "Impulses towards federalism" for me doesn't mean "100% decentralization", or anywhere near it, as it seems to for some in this environment. I'll have to give some thought to your point, good stuff.
Governments are supposedly elected on a manifesto that would contain a policy position on all areas. People tend not to read all of them and will base their votes on the headline policies or something that is very dear to them.
So you might feel that stopping immigration is the big issue and vote for the party that stops that. But you are also voting in a raft of other stuff that you are not so keen on.
For any politician to claim a "mandate" is disingenuous at the very least. Common sense tells you that it is a load of bollocks.But having said that I cant think of a workable alternative. Unless we vote on issues rather than for people.
As a rule of thumb the "mandate" defence is only used when the policy is unpopular.
I took some time to see what research I could find that might militate for "mandates" of some sort being an affliction, that is, literally a psychological malady/disorder, even if just slightly so. I found the following document, and it does allude to the possibility that there's at least some "mental illness" component. I wouldn't go so far as to say they establish a "full-on" physiological/mental imbalance, but they leave the door open for that to be so.
The Psychological Advantage of Unfalsifiability: The Appeal of Untestable Religious and Political Ideologies
The short of what they researchers found is that bias functions like a disease.
I don't know that the study's findings alter my line of argument -- I'd have to review the whole of our discussion to know that, and I haven't yet done that; I merely remembered that we were having the discussion -- but it does compel me to give more credence to your "affliction" idea. It certainly isn't as "off base" as I'd initially thought.
Separate names with a comma.