Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:43:47 AM
There are a few political questions which trouble me. I have mentioned some before, but it was a long time ago, so please forgive me for mentioning them again.
First, as large, paternalistic government is based upon the premise that people are unable to recognize their own best interests and need the government to take care of them, how can they justify popular government? After all, if people are not competent to make decisions about their own lives, how can they be trusted to make good decisions about who should run the government?
Second, along the same lines, how can paternalistic government even work? If the assumption is that individuals are not able to make good decisions, then how can those same individuals decide not only for themselves, but for the whole nation once elected to office? Does election grant them some sort of special knowledge they lacked while private citizens?
Third, changing topics, why would you want to elect someone claiming to be a "pragmatist"? Since most mean by that designation that they have no firm beliefs, but will simply deal with each situation as the whim strikes them, why would you want to elect them? The reason we ask what politicians believe is to find out how they will respond to various situations. If a politician claims to have no firm beliefs, how is electing him better than simply electing any random individual?
Fourth, if two pragmatists are running against one another, how could you decide? Since neither has any fixed rules by which he decides things, does it matter which one you elect?
Fifth, I understand that compromise is necessary in politics, and it is not shameful, but should we make a virtue of compromise? To claim one's greatest virtue is being a "uniter", doesn't that really say "my beliefs are so unimportant that my greatest accomplishment is frequently selling them out"? Isn't claiming to be a "uniter" really saying you have never won without compromise? (Or else boasting that you have deceived everyone you ever met into doing what you want, which is not exactly a desirable trait in a politician.)
Sixth, do we really want a politician who "listens to his constituents"? Even assuming there is a single opinion among his constituents, isn't representative government intended to somewhat moderate the passions of the populace? To keep them from making bad decisions while caught up in a sudden, exciting cause? So wouldn't we be better served by a politician who sometimes ignored the will of his constituents? At least one who did so and then showed why to the satisfaction of the voters.
I am sure there are many more questions I could post, but the list is growing long already, so I will cut it off there.
Of course many of these are somewhat rhetorical questions. For example, those believing in paternal government don't really believe all people are incompetent, just most of them. They believe there is some elect, an elite group which can decide for everyone else, but I still don't understand how they think election by an incompetent public will put this elect into office. It seems that the only position consistent with paternalism is a dictatorship of the elect, those who know better than everyone else.
But that is material for another essay. For the moment, I will simply leave my readers with those six questions.
UPDATE
There was one more question I wanted to mention, one raised by an earlier post.
By incorrectly calling anyone who fails to live up to their standards a "hypocrite", aren't we just giving an unfair advantage to the openly amoral? If anything short of perfect adherence to one's own moral code is viewed as hypocrisy, doesn't that mean that only someone without a moral code is safe from such charges? Do we really want to promote the idea that politicians should be amoral?