|
The might kallipolis, but only because Mike Huckabee hates it.
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
Trent posted:Lol say what, now? During the last debate, Huckabee decried recent actions of the Supreme Court and accused them of transforming democracy into rule by "philosopher-kings." CLEARLY, if Huckabee had read The Republic he would know that democracy is the lowest form of government as it is subject to the momentary passions of the mob. It is only through the kallipolis that we can achieve eudaimonia.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:Politics has always infuriated me, as it seems to be largely based on ideology and intuition, rather than evidence. Example - in the UK, there are certain conditions you have to meet in order to claim unemployment benefit. If you fail to turn up at the job centre, or an appointed interview, you can have your payments temporarily stopped. I haven't been taking this thread seriously, but I do find it important to address this post. Evidence-based policymaking is actually one of the few issues that has bipartisan support in the United States. Everyone from the Heritage Foundation to President Obama agree that more needs to be done to evaluate the effectiveness of government programs. Its really a win-win for Democrats and Republicans. For Democrats, evidence-based policymaking promises to give them hard numbers which they can use to promote reforms to existing social welfare programs. For Republicans, evidence-based policymaking allows them to more accurately target their government cuts. While in theory, everyone can support these measures, practically it tends to be a little more complicated. Data and research agencies tend to get tarred by their subject matter, turning what are intended to be non-partisan institutions into partisan issues, especially for the Republican Party. This fact is most evident in climate research and gun crime. For the Republican Party's base, it is difficult to distinguish between legislation that sets out funds to evaluate extreme weather events and legislation that commits the United States to combating climate change. They see a few buzzwords, believe that their lawmakers are conceding to the Democratic Party, and have a conniption. This reaction, in turn, discourages Congressional members from supporting policy research, which can be construed as them not being "conservative enough." The House recently passed H.R. 1831, The Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act, which forms a 15-member commission to "study how to integrate this data and use it to perform evaluations that could help policymakers improve programs" but, assuming the Senate passes the bill, it is difficult to imagine this board affecting the situation. Any recommendation would almost certainly entail specialization, which in turn primes voters. Short of hiding research-based policymaking inside of a larger appropriations bill, an act which is already being used to defund these institutions, I don't know how you can resolve the problem in today's Congress. As for the proposals in the thread, they are, almost without exception, totally divorced from reality. I can't tell which people are making serious proposals, which people are disguising their serious proposals as ironic jokes, and which people are just joking. Regardless, there seems to be an unstated assumption that there is a universal "best political system." I don't think that has been established. The "best political system" is going to depend on the social, geographic, and economic circumstances of whatever group is being governed. The "best political system" will also depend on whatever qualities are being prioritized, which no one has said outright yet. Should a government represent the views of the public, refine them, or ignore them? Are we putting value on responsiveness and undiluted policy or stability and compromise? Is government even the political endgame for the purposes of discussion, or will states, as we know them, cease to exist in the next fifty years? The question needs to be better defined before it can be answered.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 14:03
|
|