Judge Napolitano was apparently fired from Fox News for explaining Indian Bicycle Marketing:
He asks: "What if the whole purpose of Democratic and Republican parties was not to expand voters' choices, but to limit them? What if the widely perceived differences between the parties was just an illusion?... What if those vaunted differences between Democrat and Republican were just minor disagreements?"
In case there's any wavering doubt, he then gives lots of good examples of US politicians saying one thing to get elected and then merrily continuing exactly the same policies as their predecessors once in government:Via Captain Ranty who got it from Fausty.
Quick update
7 hours ago
7 comments:
Co-op's handcrafted crisps are pretty good - but the tat ties come from Tyrrells Court Farm. Indian crisp marketing?
Probably get fired for this too
http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=28858
AC1
What if it's not a conspiracy at all and the government spends all its time reconciling the absurd wishes of the voters with economic reality?
The normal functioning* of FPTP is that you have 2 parties with similar policies, but each sending 2 types of signals:-
1) A signal to the floating voters. This will look very similar to what the other party promises and also typically reflect the reality of what they will do.
2) A signal to their "base". This is vague promises of doing something that pushes the buttons of the base. In the US, this might be abortion or banning flag burning. Typically, very little of this will be done because it's what floating voters won't go for, and the politicians know that the base rarely go elsewhere because the system makes 3rd party votes worthless.
Quite often, the signals end up with policies that look quite different. A politician will talk up how liberal they are in the week, while making vague pro-religious noises at the weekend.
This is why politics under FPTP is more of a beauty contest than about policies. The people who decide things are floating voters who are typically the least politically engaged people who will judge politicians based on vague promises, slogans and how they look.
But the big thing under FPTP is that the 2 parties DO NOT WANT to upset the apple cart of the 2 parties. Even in opposition, they enjoy power because people know that eventually they'll get back in. That's what keeps donations rolling in, even when they're not doing at all well. If Labour started pointing out that the Cons are actually not very right-wing, they'd get the same back and would risk being undermined and replaced by another party.
This is also why FPTP is a corrupt system. A system where the opposition party can be more easily replace isn't going to get such big bucks as companies are making a more risky investment.
*The main reason Thatcher could get away with what she could is that Labour were such an utter mess in the early 80s
D, I've finally chewed my way through the last packet of Aldi passions as recommended by you at Xmas, and I'm not really that impressed. I'd buy some Co-op's if I shopped there but I don't even know where the nearest one is.
AC1, what's that got to do with Napolitano?
BE, possible but highly unlikely.
The whole point is to "narrow the debate". So the Tories will pay lip service to lower income tax rates; Labour will call for higher income tax rates (in practice, their policies are very, very similar) but the whole point of this false battle is to cloud the bigger question of "Should we be taxing incomes at all? How about taxing land values instead?"
TheS: "But the big thing under FPTP is that the 2 parties DO NOT WANT to upset the apple cart of the 2 parties..."
Thanks, your comment in general and that paragraph in particular is an excellent summing up of why we get Indian Bicycle Marketing and how it works. I'm glad it's not just me who's noticed this.
Oddly enough, I knew what FPTP was without looking it up (I belong to an election methods email list -- we talk about this, IRV, Range, Approval, Condorcet, Schulze, and a bunch of others), but I don't know what Indian Bicycle Marketing is.
In context, it sounds like an allusion to our two party system brought about via the economic equivalent of Duverger's law, but that's just a guess. :)
Snarf, yes, Duverger's Law applies, but I use IBM to refer to the bizarre phenomenon that neither party ever tells the truth about the other party, they prefer to lie, and worse still a party does not defend itself when the other party tells lies about it.
As The Stigler explained:
If Labour started pointing out that the Cons are actually not very right-wing, they'd get the same back and would risk being undermined and replaced by another party.
The Cons would prefer Labour to paint them as cold-blooded hard-hearted blood thirsty capitalists (which is a lie) than for Labour to tell the truth (that the Cons are 99% the same as Labour).
Post a Comment