tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post112523124422706850..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Dishonesty in PoliticsRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-3449320394348172832011-11-29T11:25:04.728-05:002011-11-29T11:25:04.728-05:00Demagogue?Demagogue?Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-88416003124877705322011-11-29T09:23:19.584-05:002011-11-29T09:23:19.584-05:00What ever is that word that describes for example ...What ever is that word that describes for example a"poitician that only tells the people what they want to hear?" I'm sure there is one...I just cant think of it right now..It is an actual legitimate word, anybody help?Davidovitch Devlinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16550594258865431177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125709586610226002005-09-02T21:06:00.000-04:002005-09-02T21:06:00.000-04:00It is actually possible that 5 x 10% parties might...It is actually possible that 5 x 10% parties might actually tend to do better than 1 x 50% party (long run) in as far as if any scandals come out they only risk 10% of their vote each and the other parties can pick up the other 10%. There are also arguments for economies of scale of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125397703375890962005-08-30T06:28:00.000-04:002005-08-30T06:28:00.000-04:00You've taken that quote out of context. I was clea...You've taken that quote out of context. I was clearly talking about National losing the <I>same number</I> of seats that ACT gains.<BR/><BR/>I did agree that one can make arguments based on the threshold. (Though one might just as well argue the opposite: given that ACT is likely to miss out, best not to waste your vote on them.) My point is that Hide did not make such an argument. He was <B>not</B> arguing that one could boost the total size of the centre-right bloc by helping ACT over the threshold. As I described in the post, he was instead arguing that you should vote for ACT because MMP requires coalitions, and "National cannot govern alone". As if the sheer <I>number of parties</I> (rather than the total number of seats) in a bloc had any intrinsic importance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125396746115022882005-08-30T06:12:00.000-04:002005-08-30T06:12:00.000-04:00You said:"If National loses seats to ACT, that wil...You said:<BR/><BR/>"If National loses seats to ACT, that will do nothing at all to make a National government more likely."<BR/><BR/>This is not true because of the threshold. If National has enough party votes for 50 seats and ACT enough for only 5, then ACT will miss out and National will get 2 seats redistributed to it for a total of 52. The other three seats will probably go to parties of the left. If enough National supporters vote ACT then the combined ACT/national total would be 55.<BR/><BR/>This is not a far-fetched example. There is a strong possibility that something very like this will happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125357066355879152005-08-29T19:11:00.000-04:002005-08-29T19:11:00.000-04:00Sure, like I say, one can make threshold arguments...Sure, like I say, one can make threshold arguments here. But that's not what Hide said, and having a true conclusion does not "itself justify" making a bad argument. (Compare: "the moon is made of green cheese, therefore grass is green." <I>Not</I> a good argument.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125351007749910922005-08-29T17:30:00.000-04:002005-08-29T17:30:00.000-04:00ACT passing the 5% threshold and/or winning Epsom ...ACT passing the 5% threshold and/or winning Epsom is incredibly important to the centre-right. It is sufficient by itself to justify what Hide said. National supporters giving ACT enough of the party vote to ensure they stay above 5% can never diminish the likelihood of a centre-right government and does a great deal to increase it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125304279473911192005-08-29T04:31:00.000-04:002005-08-29T04:31:00.000-04:00It seems the easiest way, confusingly, is to deman...It seems the easiest way, confusingly, is to demand less and to be les critical; of slipupsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125295377956629382005-08-29T02:02:00.000-04:002005-08-29T02:02:00.000-04:00Politicians should be capable of thinking clearly....Politicians should be capable of thinking clearly. Otherwise they have no business running the country.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that honesty and clarity are "probably a hindrance" to succeeding in our current political culture. In fact, that's precisely what my post was about. This is something we ought to change!<BR/><BR/>The aim of politics should be to achieve what is best for our country (and humanity in general). That doesn't need to be 'groovy'. It <I>does</I> need to be reality-based. Closing your eyes won't make suffering go away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125294724868759102005-08-29T01:52:00.000-04:002005-08-29T01:52:00.000-04:00Being a trained philosopher/mathematician, and alw...Being a trained philosopher/mathematician, and always uttering logically consistent statements, is not a prerequisite to enter politics. It's probably a hindrance most of the time, unless you are a highly charismatic philosopher. <BR/><BR/>I'm with <A HREF="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html" REL="nofollow">Solzhenitsyn</A> on this one -- in popular culture, perception is way more relevant and 'groovy' than objective Truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125265519630307002005-08-28T17:45:00.000-04:002005-08-28T17:45:00.000-04:00One reason many politicians do not answer question...One reason many politicians do not answer questions with directness is that they are trying to hold together coalitions of people (the public, their own party, other MPs) with very different views. Often they do this in order to attempt to create a new consensus, and they need to keep everyone together while this is done, ie to gain time. The verb used for this behaviour is not "temporize" for nothing! <BR/><BR/>Equivocation is not necessarily evidence of duplicity or stupidity. It can be evidence of great leadership.<BR/><BR/>An example: When Winston Churchill became leader of the Conservative & Unionist Party and Prime Minister of the UK in May 1940, he was not the unanimous choice of his own party. Indeed, he faced strong oppositions from some senior party figures, including in the Cabinet he inherited. Some of these people favoured entering peace negotiations with Hitler to allow Britain to leave the war. Churchill adamantly opposed a separate peace deal, but if he had said this loudly and often at the time, he could have easily not remained leader very long. Accordingly, he pretended to his Cabinet to entertain the possibility of peace negotiations, while making sure such negotiations would never happen. In the meantime, he was able to shift his main protagonist and strengthen his support in the party, and in the country at large, to create the consensus at the top in favour of continuing to fight the war.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com