How true is "the public don't want this at the moment" with regards to laws being passed?

unimportant

I am in the UK but I suppose similar principles would apply to other so called democratic societies.

I read that title quote claimed online recently when people were applauding the euthanasia law getting passed through one of the first phases of parliament I believe. That was not what was being stated the public didn't want but another responder said something to the effect of "soon drugs will be legalized" and the reply to that was "the public don't want this at the moment".

What gets passed in parliament seems to have very little to do with what the general public wants so how true is that statement? The average member of public has very little interest in politics at all from my general experience and there is just the idea that they leave the politicians to sort things out who are generally a law unto themselves passing laws which usually are not in the interest of the public and usually in the interests of themselves.

I do not claim to be any kind of expert on how policy or government works and would count myself as one of those who had very little interest in the workings of politics through most of my life until not long ago when I came to the realization just how far reaching politics actually is in terms of how your life is affected. I now do believe the statement "everything is political". Maybe everything is a bit of hyperbole but it gets the idea across that it is far more than you would believe and if you don't believe it you probably just haven't looked deep enough.

It applies in 'society' so if you are not interacting with people then sure it has less of an effect, although your identity would still have been shaped by them, but wherever you are interacting with others politics probably has a greater or lesser part in how the dynamics are. Those are my current thoughts anyhow.

That latter part could be a thread in itself but just mentioned here to let the reader see how I came to think about these questions more.

I suppose I accept there is the general idea that politicians only do things that will make them popular with voters so in that sense it could be seen as true.

I can only think of a few extreme examples like the Poll Tax where politicians were obviously swayed by public outcry for something. So maybe it is true then and if there was a similar uproar about drug prohibition it would soon be made legal. It is just that the average voter has little appetite for that.

unenlightened

Thou and I, of course are independent minded, and make up our own minds about what we want or don't want. But "the public" are so easily swayed by the media, that 'what they want' at any moment is largely whatever they are told they want at the moment.

So more or less whatever you hear about what the public wants or doesn't want becomes true by being said a few million times. They are not interested in politics, until they are told that politics is important and everyone is interested in politics. And then they demand a referendum on whatever topic is so important suddenly; and aren't we all so much happier and better off now we have escaped the terrible clutches of the EU?

Except that for some reason governments still cannot control our borders, and Johnny Foreigner is still coming here and spoiling everything for us. Fortunately there is a wonderful new party that the public are getting behind that will be able to sort this out as soon as we elect them. Hurrah for the earnest wants of the public that they have all thought through for themselves and decided on; and boo to all the foreigners making us poor and miserable.

The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. — Adolf Hitler

unenlightened

Everyone should have an 'unname'. You unheard it here first!

unimportant

unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. — Adolf Hitler

This is what I tried to tell boethius to perhaps allow his points to get across better but he dismissed it and continues with is disjointed ramblings. :) There is gold in the ramblings but they are not easy to pick through at all and the reader is left to sort the wheat from the chaff themselves. A task most would not wish to undertake.

BC

↪unimportant

The US Congress passed the "Big Beautiful Bill" yesterday. The public didn't want this bill which extends previous tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts Medicaid but it passed anyway. Why?

Because there is a disconnect between individual politicians, the parties to which they belong, and the several segments that compose "the public". The system is rigged to maintain the disconnection.

Why do the parties, who require the public's votes, ignore the public's wishes?

Because the parties are funded by the most wealthy segment of the public (whether liberal or conservative) and that funding determines the parties' politics.

Currently the dominant conservative party (the Republicans) are able to pursue a right-wing agenda. In other decades the dominant liberal party (the Democrats) were able to pursue a left-wing agenda, which has included such programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Does that mean that the Democrats are really 'in tune' with the public's desires? Yes, but only so far. The Democrats are no more interested in slashing defense spending or raising the tax rates on the wealthy to 70% and above than the Republicans? Why not?

Because the Democratic Party collects the bulk of its funds from the same wealthy class as the Republicans, and both local and national economies are wedded to military spending whether one likes it or not.

The balance of more leftist / less leftist vs. less right wing / more right wing varies over time. We are currently in a time when a less leftist Democratic party is opposite a more right wing Republican Party which controls a majority of seats in congress.

unimportant

↪BC

Yes that sounds like a good summation of the milieu in the states. I wonder how it contrasts with the UK.

I am not really sure how it works here if anyone else can chime in?

I don't know that things are so based on funding as the states or if so at least it is not as out in the open? Just guessing. All these alien terms like 'cpac' and 'caucuses' in the states and elon giving 250 million to the trump campaign.

Perhaps things just go under different names here in the uk.

BC

↪unimportant

According to Google's AI, the UK does not use the caucus system, whereby voters in precincts (small sub-units of congressional districts) nominate candidates for consideration in district conventions. Precinct elections are ostensibly very democratic, but party officials oversee the caucuses. Candidates can run outside the party as independents, and sometimes independents form a loosely structured new party. These new parties usually die an early death, though a few have endured as minor participants (like the Green Party).

The US is, of course, geographically much much larger than the UK and has a much larger population (330 million vs. 68.3 million). Hence, it costs a lot more to campaign for national and state offices here. Minnesota, the state I live in, ranks 12th in area among the 50 states. From north to south the state measures 653 km (406 mi), and from east to west it measures 576 km (358 mi) at its maximum extent and about 290 km (about 180 mi) at its narrowest point. Reaching the 3,678,000 registered voters scattered across the 225,171 square kilometers of the state is expensive. Much more so for larger state and the country as a whole. Most elections campaigns (except for governors, senators, and presidents) are at the district level; in my case, the 5th district is basically Minneapolis.

I don't know much about the UK's political system beyond its parliamentary nature, Tory vs. Labor, and the stupidity of Brexit.

unimportant

↪BC

Well to add a little to your knowledge there is another man named Nigel Farage, maybe you knew the name already, who is very pally with Donald Trump and was the one who championed the Brexit cause.

He has had various parties of his own, the most notable being the Brexit party until we voted to leave and now he is continuing similar xenophobic caused and is very appealing to that type of demographic. I think he does fancy himself as Britain's Donald Trump.

BC

↪unimportant

I have heard of Nigel Farage and it was much like hearing of Donald Trump -- bad news.

I never understood the enthusiasm for Brexit. Who did it actually benefit? Was it the wealthy class? Did it actually promote home rule? Did it actually enhance the British economy (doesn't seem like it)?

Donald Trump's tax bill that just passed is a major gift to the "haves and the have yachts" and an attack on poor people (bonafide citizens) who depend on medicaid for medical care. The Texas flash flood is terrible, but I was happy to hear a Democratic Senator from Texas pointing out that this is the sort of thing that happens when you slash the weather service's budget and cut 600 staff from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He wasn't claiming that the cuts literally and immediately caused the deaths.

unimportant

↪BC

It isn't that it benefits people but it is like the popularity of Trump that it panders to the xenophobic types who think immigrants are ruining their 'Britishness'.

What you mentioned about the politicians pandering to the wealthy class rather than the people that voted them in I think also applies here.

Shame that no one else seems interested in this thread who also knows more about British politics than you or I!

This is probably more suited to politics and current affairs subforum than political philosophy as the content is more pop culture in substance.

BC

This is probably more suited to politics and current affairs subforum than political philosophy as the content is more pop culture in substance. — unimportant

Maybe, but I don't think the subform location is all that significant. You could ask a moderator to move the thread to the Politics and Current Affairs forum.

I've never understood why one discussion takes off and another one doesn't. Most of the threads I've started have died shortly after birth. Just a few of mine have been "successes" -- meaning a lot of people participated.

If there are forum members you would like comments from you can ask them using the format @their name like @ " unimportant " but with no space after @ or ". A note will show up in their e-mail that "Unimportant mentioned you in such and such a thread". That doesn't always work, but it sometimes gets more people to comment.

BC

politicians pandering to the wealthy class — unimportant

Politicians are attracted to wealth like fleas are attracted to warm blooded mammals. It's the greatest source of nourishment!

unimportant

If there are forum members you would like comments from you can ask them using the format their name like @ " unimportant " but with no space after @ or ". A note will show up in their e-mail that "Unimportant mentioned you in such and such a thread". That doesn't always work, but it sometimes gets more people to comment. — BC

I am new here so don't know who would. Isn't it that this forum is just relatively quiet overall, probably in large part to the fact that it is invite only - not that I am complaining about that as the other forums I perused before this one had much lower quality content with front pages mostly filled with rants.

BC

↪unimportant

The membership by invitation is fairly recent, and I think Jamal (the owner) instituted it to maintain quality. There are fewer trolls, ranters, extremists, and so on now than before. Moderators help, but it's a thankless volunteer job.

The Philosophy Forum has been around for around 15 - 20 years; its first incarnation was sold and then died soon after. The current incarnation was started by regulars from the former site. We have always aimed to have more or less serious philosophy discussion.

True, "this forum is just relatively quiet overall". Which topics will take off and run for many weeks is hard to predict.

Glad you are here.

AmadeusD

One problem I see, is that people vote for what's on the table. Not what they want. It's almost assured that any vote does not give us actual public opinion. Therefore, lawmakers have to be quite reticent, in lieu of a binding referendum, to give a piss about it.

How true is "the public don't want this at the moment" with regards to laws being passed?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions