Comments on: Parties, Government Capture, and Poverty

By: Are Political Parties Bad for the Poor? « Sapien Games

Are Political Parties Bad for the Poor? « Sapien Games — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:51:01 +0000

[...] Political Parties Bad for the Poor? Will Wilkinson argues that Political Parties are bad for the [...]

By: Virtual Hebrides

Virtual Hebrides — Mon, 25 May 2009 14:02:54 +0000

Boswell: Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides

Just a quick note to say that this is an excellent book which is out of copyright and can be read online – just search in Google. Boswell wrote a small number of books and his biography of his travel companion is said to be the finest biography ever written in the English language (this is also out of copyright).

By: The Hope and Horror of Liberaltarian Alignments

The Hope and Horror of Liberaltarian Alignments — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:59:38 +0000

[...] on what is essentially an intellectual project, and I know Will, like many libertarians I admire, prides himself on not thinking in terms of partisanship. But for anyone who cares about political outcomes, I [...]

By: annu283

annu283 — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:38:10 +0000

thanks!

By: mk

mk — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:31:40 +0000

One question is what are the alternatives.

A highly fragmented system of parties (say, 10-20 parties) might allow such fine control over signalling that people don't change their opinions due to social indoctrination. If social indoctrination becomes less effective at driving consensus, you might have to have more "real debates" to achieve consensus. Maybe that's a good thing.

But there is plenty of substantive argument already within a coalitional party like the Dem. or Repub. party. When Obama makes a FISA decision or whatever, the blogosphere is all atwitter.

Alternatively, you could have two parties but just make people feel bad about being partisan. We already sort of do that, but partisanship is effective for members of a coalition, at least in the short run, so I don't think "make people feel bad" is a route to a desired stable equilibrium.

By: christraveler

christraveler — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:04:54 +0000

You are absolutely spot on Dain!

By: Amicus

Amicus — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:05:44 +0000

Coalitions aren't, by definition, populist? That takes 1,000 words to say?

"that each major party must rule out of bounds some policies that would be best for the poor"
------
They cannot forever, and continue to hold together, right?

What was once out-of-bounds, sooner or later, must come into bounds, or the party coalition fails (except to the extent that someone is trying a coalition with truly irreconcilable values/goals).

And, so as long as 'special interests' may or may not be in the public interest, the 'perils' of hardcore party identification are contingent, not absolute.

By: Dain

Dain — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:36:05 +0000

The odd thing about strong party identification is that at the level of realpolitik being a Democrat or Republican means compromise, as Don says – there aint no other parties at the table (despite the uptick in partisanship in Congressional voting in recent years). At the grassroots level it means the most rah-rah superficial cheerleading, as if the high ranking Ds and Rs don't compromise constantly to produce the very system their respective loyalists believe is dominated and directed (or obstructed) by their enemies (the superior virtue of the oppressed).

By: Don the Libertarian Democrat

Don the Libertarian Democrat — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:27:50 +0000

Dr. Johnson now said, a certain eminent political friend of ours [Burke] was wrong, in his maxim of sticking to a certain set of men on all occasions. "I can see that a man may do right to stick to a party," said he; "that is to say, he is a Whig, or he is a Tory, and he thinks one of those parties upon the whole the best, and that to make it prevail, it must be generally supported, though, in particulars, it may be wrong. He takes its faggot of principles, in which there are fewer rotten sticks than in the other, though some rotten sticks to be sure; and they cannot be well separated. But, to blind one's self to one man, or one set of men (who may be right to-day and wrong to-morrow), without any general preference of system, I must disapprove."
Boswell: Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides

I used to be more of a Johnson man, although even he is not negating parties entirely. Now I'm a Burke man. The reason is that being in a party habituates one to compromise. Believe me, in order to be a Democrat, I have had to learn to compromise. This can facilitate compromise between the parties in order to ensure the slow and steady movements of political change, as opposed to uneasy lurches. As Burke says:

"All government—indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act—is founded on compromise and barter."

Edmund Burke (1729–1797)
Second Speech on Conciliation with America (1775)