Right or left wing populism have the same effect. Populism is bad. Period.
The problem lies in that populist governments essentially make irrational decisions just to stay in power (appease the public), which makes most forms of government populist in one form or another and democracy in particular extremely susceptible to it.
This usually manifests as short-term actions with negative long term effects (i.e. taking too much debt, rather than being fiscally sound).
I always wondered if a random-cracy wouldn't be better in the end, just pick anyone that cares to have a position by lottery and have a limited term and basic checks and balances.
At least it statistically makes a mediocre government more likely, not just as an upper bound.
some of the problem the Democrats have is that they’re supposed to be a left wing party that is responsive to those kind of concerns but they’ve gotten trapped in a “protect institutions no matter what the cost” mentality which has the cost of losing.
For instance people really want to believe that the recent spike in house prices has been caused by private equity or a monopoly of home builders or some other “other”. I don’t know what the truth is but when so many people feel this way politicians have to do something about it and I can tell you one of the things I learned about activism early on is that if you tell people that they’re feeling the wrong way they will react even more violently against you than if you tell them they are thinking the wrong way.
> I always wondered if a random-cracy wouldn't be better in the end, just pick anyone that cares to have a position by lottery and have a limited term and basic checks and balances.
This seems like a pretty decent idea to me. Instead of making it the main legislative body though Id have it like the house of lords. Expected to pass laws passed by the democratic body but with the ability to say no if things get crazy. No duty to engage with politics, they just get paid to focus on whether the laws actually make sense.
39% of US adults think they live in the end times, and 10% think Jesus will definitely show up in their lifetime. Given those priors, planning ahead probably seems like the less rational choice for them.
Most rational people where I live also consider the wellbeing of others and will make decisions (and even vote) to make sure others live well besides them.
Is you defition of rationality basically "maximum selfishness and extraction of benefits from others"?
I also consider the wellbeing of others (hence I don't harm them but more importantly - I didn't bring them to life), but I see rational voting as voting for myself - since others can also vote for themselves.
Individual rational self interest is for the country to optimize for GDP per capita. It's in the interest of corporations and their lobbyists to optimize only for top line GDP. The former would probably be called populism.
The problem lies in that populist governments essentially make irrational decisions just to stay in power (appease the public), which makes most forms of government populist in one form or another and democracy in particular extremely susceptible to it.
This usually manifests as short-term actions with negative long term effects (i.e. taking too much debt, rather than being fiscally sound).
I always wondered if a random-cracy wouldn't be better in the end, just pick anyone that cares to have a position by lottery and have a limited term and basic checks and balances.
At least it statistically makes a mediocre government more likely, not just as an upper bound.