Is Political Arrogance dragging Europe to the Right?

[Husar]

The UK has allready recovered from the initial blows. It's the funniest thing ever all these doom-scenarios, it's not the UK that has a problem but the eurocrats, they look even more useless than they already did. Juncker who is never not completily drunk as the ultimate embaressment, who does he likes wetkissing people so much really it's disgusting he basicly licks them, vulgair vulgair guy

There hasn't actually been a Brexit and a lot depends on how brexity it will actually be.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37270372

Japan's government has warned that Brexit could result in the country's firms moving their European head offices out of Britain.

Looks lime the immigrants are willing to leave after all.

[Fragony]

Sure there are consequences, but let's compare them to the consequences that the EU-scaremongers furiously screamed. The pound made a hugh drop. For a while. Now it's doing fine again. It's business as usual. And I know there hasn't actually been a Brexit yet.

[Pannonian]

Can't answer that and I won't cheat with googling

gonna do it now

edit latest I could is France on 6 and the UK on five, but it's based on GDP, ead somewhere else that it switched. Hardly the 28 days later thing

It switched on the day of the referendum result.

[Fragony]

It switched on the day of the referendum result.

That was to be expected no? Even the biggest optimists did

[Gilrandir]

Sure there are consequences, but let's compare them to the consequences that the EU-scaremongers furiously screamed. The pound made a hugh drop. For a while. Now it's doing fine again. It's business as usual. And I know there hasn't actually been a Brexit yet.

So let's wait until the advent of real Brexit and see what will happen to the pound and other things.

[Husar]

Sure there are consequences, but let's compare them to the consequences that the EU-scaremongers furiously screamed. The pound made a hugh drop. For a while. Now it's doing fine again. It's business as usual. And I know there hasn't actually been a Brexit yet.

A company wants to make business in the EU, they put their EU HQ in the UK.
Now the UK leaves the EU and that HQ can't do business in the EU anymore because it is not in the EU anymore.
What could they possibly do? The question isn't just valid for Japanese companies though.

And it is relatively pointless to say not much has happened yet because not much has happened yet. It doesn't make any more sense if you repeat it either.

[Pannonian]

A company wants to make business in the EU, they put their EU HQ in the UK.
Now the UK leaves the EU and that HQ can't do business in the EU anymore because it is not in the EU anymore.
What could they possibly do? The question isn't just valid for Japanese companies though.

And it is relatively pointless to say not much has happened yet because not much has happened yet. It doesn't make any more sense if you repeat it either.

Frag's fond of talking about consequences and how it's all for the greater good. Because he's in Holland and doesn't have to face those actual consequences. A bit like those hardcore neoliberals who prescribed no pain no gain solutions for Yeltsin's Russia, while they're safely in New York and elsewhere.

[Viking]

That's why people in representative democracies are represented by their elite representatives whom they can expect to make a better decision than the plebs would themselves. Because those elites have the time and intelligence to analyse the topics in ways the plebs can't be bothered because they're too busy standing next to conveyor belts doing the same things over and over day in, day out to keep the economy growing.

It seems to me that what the elected 'elites', on average, are first and foremost elites in, is the understanding of their party's platform and ideology, not how to run the country the best - neither in the short nor long term.

I don't see much of a reason to assume a priori that the average citizen's gut feeling about the right course of action is less wise than the ideologically correct and much more elaborate course of action proposed by the average elected representative, though the latter may of course be much easier to translate into action given the political system in place.

The AfD gets most votes in the German states with the least immigrants so far... Clearly showing that the people don't even really know why they vote for something, they just vote based on knee-jerk reactions to arbitrary fears. The people who actually live among these immigrants largely don't seem to agree with those who hardly ever met an immigrant...

This reasoning may appear sound at first glance, but it is not warranted without further evidence to back it up as there are other models that can explain the voting pattern.

Examples:

• People vote conservatively - for what they know. If people are familiar with a multicultural society, they may vote for its continuation and/or expansion. If they are not, they will vote against it.
  
• People may dismiss out of hand that there are issues with the society or place that they live in if it goes against their experience in everyday life.
  
  For example, if 1 in every 25,000 inhabitants in city A has been robbed at some point in their lives compared to merely 1 in every 250,000 in city B (10 times fewer), the average inhabitant of city A might still reject any notion that it is more dangerous to live in their city compared to city B, because the vast majority of them have indeed never been robbed.
  
  If no statistics existed, it would also be difficult for even observant inhabitants to accurately compare the two cities in terms of robberies; certainly so if the differences are relatively small (e.g. a 20% difference rather than 1,000%).

[Legs]

So let's wait until the advent of real Brexit and see what will happen to the pound and other things.

Exactly. All the predictions were based on certain actions being taken, none of those actions have been taken, listening to the brexiteers it appears they are in no hurry to take any of those actions in the near future , if ever at all.

[Fragony]

Frag's fond of talking about consequences and how it's all for the greater good. Because he's in Holland and doesn't have to face those actual consequences. A bit like those hardcore neoliberals who prescribed no pain no gain solutions for Yeltsin's Russia, while they're safely in New York and elsewhere.

Oh it had consequences for me but sometimes you just have to take a risk. Greater good, yeah, the EU is a monster. I hope the Netherlands will join your misery very soon, unlikely it will happen but the EU isn't exactly popular here

[Husar]

It seems to me that what the elected 'elites', on average, are first and foremost elites in, is the understanding of their party's platform and ideology, not how to run the country the best - neither in the short nor long term.

So do you agree that all the idiots mostly just elect other idiots or would you perhaps say you're generalizing a bit and there are politicians who work hard to do their jobs well and those who don't?
I wasn't the one who called them elites by the way, I was going with other peoples' terminology.
And if you're saying that politicians should be willing to try things that are not part of their platform, then I guess Merkel is the perfect politicians, but then why are her voters going to the AfD? Perhaps the voters want those party ideologies? Perhaps voters always complain about the status quo and then vote against change? And we're right back to the stupid plebs, you see...

I don't see much of a reason to assume a priori that the average citizen's gut feeling about the right course of action is less wise than the ideologically correct and much more elaborate course of action proposed by the average elected representative, though the latter may of course be much easier to translate into action given the political system in place.

You also don't see radio waves...

This reasoning may appear sound at first glance, but it is not warranted without further evidence to back it up as there are other models that can explain the voting pattern.

Examples:

People vote conservatively - for what they know. If people are familiar with a multicultural society, they may vote for its continuation and/or expansion. If they are not, they will vote against it.

I agree, people may not be able to cope with change, which is what I said...they have this arbitrary fear of change and vote based on that...
"Fear is a bad advisor" is an old German idiom...

People may dismiss out of hand that there are issues with the society or place that they live in if it goes against their experience in everyday life.

For example, if 1 in every 25,000 inhabitants in city A has been robbed at some point in their lives compared to merely 1 in every 250,000 in city B (10 times fewer), the average inhabitant of city A might still reject any notion that it is more dangerous to live in their city compared to city B, because the vast majority of them have indeed never been robbed.

If no statistics existed, it would also be difficult for even observant inhabitants to accurately compare the two cities in terms of robberies; certainly so if the differences are relatively small (e.g. a 20% difference rather than 1,000%).

This reasoning may appear sound at first glance, but it is not warranted without further evidence to back it up as there are other models that can explain the crime pattern.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Which country has the 6th biggest economy in the world?

California.

[Viking]

So do you agree that all the idiots mostly just elect other idiots or would you perhaps say you're generalizing a bit and there are politicians who work hard to do their jobs well and those who don't?
I wasn't the one who called them elites by the way, I was going with other peoples' terminology.
And if you're saying that politicians should be willing to try things that are not part of their platform, then I guess Merkel is the perfect politicians, but then why are her voters going to the AfD? Perhaps the voters want those party ideologies? Perhaps voters always complain about the status quo and then vote against change? And we're right back to the stupid plebs, you see...

My point is that their job is to a great extent to work for the party (line), whether they work hard or not.

If you have politicians that are bucking the party line, that may not be ideal if their knowledge of the party ideology was what that allowed them to rise in the ranks in the first place (i.e. that's the skill they have been evaluated for; maybe their gut feeling as independent individuals is horrible).

A more ideal reality may be one where the politicians who both know the party ideology the best as well as the most probable consequences of as many relatively common policies as possible in a wide range of scenarios rise to the highest ranks; and where political parties would advertise to potential voters the society that they could realistically achieve given the principles of their ideology and current realities, as well as the compromises they would be willing or not willing to make in these scenarios.

There should somehow be a much larger focus on to what degree the politicians seem capable of understanding cause and effect in the world. Someone who doesn't understand relevant cause and effect would be less likely to deliver on their promises, whatever they may be.

I agree, people may not be able to cope with change, which is what I said...they have this arbitrary fear of change and vote based on that...
"Fear is a bad advisor" is an old German idiom...

Fear is not necessary, a mere preference for the status quo is enough; whether that status quo is multicultural or not. When you use word fear, I get the feeling that you are primarily thinking about one side.

This reasoning may appear sound at first glance, but it is not warranted without further evidence to back it up as there are other models that can explain the crime pattern.

Whatever the explanation for the robbery pattern would be is beside the point here, which is that it can be very difficult for ordinary people to know based on everyday experience e.g. whether something has improved, gotten worse or largely stayed the same (a very slow and gradual change may also be difficult to notice).

[Pannonian]

My point is that their job is to a great extent to work for the party (line), whether they work hard or not.

If you have politicians that are bucking the party line, that may not be ideal if their knowledge of the party ideology was what that allowed them to rise in the ranks in the first place (i.e. that's the skill they have been evaluated for; maybe their gut feeling as independent individuals is horrible).

A more ideal reality may be one where the politicians who both know the party ideology the best as well as the most probable consequences of as many relatively common policies as possible in a wide range of scenarios rise to the highest ranks; and where political parties would advertise to potential voters the society that they could realistically achieve given the principles of their ideology and current realities, as well as the compromises they would be willing or not willing to make in these scenarios.

There should somehow be a much larger focus on to what degree the politicians seem capable of understanding cause and effect in the world. Someone who doesn't understand relevant cause and effect would be less likely to deliver on their promises, whatever they may be.

In a functional parliamentary democracy, the high ranking politician is a combination of someone who is capable of dealing with exceptionally complex portfolios, and someone who is aware of the consequences on the ground, or at least a balance of the two. That's why the top political elite are either people who have been educated to an extremely high level (David Cameron), or who have gone up through the ranks whilst being tested and found capable at every level (John Major). It's rare that you have someone who has not gone through either route, but has caught the wind of a current movement (Jeremy Corbyn). The Labour Party has a tradition of the self-educated John Major route, unlike other parties which tend to go for the social elite, but from Attlee onwards Labour too has been led by said elite. There's still a good number of working mums in the PLP though, who by definition are people capable of dealing with exceptionally complex portfolios.

[Husar]

My point is that their job is to a great extent to work for the party (line), whether they work hard or not.

If you have politicians that are bucking the party line, that may not be ideal if their knowledge of the party ideology was what that allowed them to rise in the ranks in the first place (i.e. that's the skill they have been evaluated for; maybe their gut feeling as independent individuals is horrible).

A more ideal reality may be one where the politicians who both know the party ideology the best as well as the most probable consequences of as many relatively common policies as possible in a wide range of scenarios rise to the highest ranks; and where political parties would advertise to potential voters the society that they could realistically achieve given the principles of their ideology and current realities, as well as the compromises they would be willing or not willing to make in these scenarios.

There should somehow be a much larger focus on to what degree the politicians seem capable of understanding cause and effect in the world. Someone who doesn't understand relevant cause and effect would be less likely to deliver on their promises, whatever they may be.

What Pannonian said. And also consider that it is not black and white because cause and effect in a system that includes millions of humans are not always very clear. If we could definitely prove that one party is right and all the others are wrong, there'd be no need for democracy. Of course there are also different interests that different parties and politicians try to work for. If curbing some corporate freedoms is good for the country but some of the corporate owners also own newspapers, you can guess what happens. Suddenly you have "two opinions" in the country.
And then you have people who complain about legislation they don't even seem to fully understand. Like the ban on advertising that drinking lots of water makes you healthier or so, which looked stupid on a superficial look but actually made sense as the ad was highly misleading to make more profit.

a mere preference for the status quo

That's a euphemism for fear of change.

Whatever the explanation for the robbery pattern would be is beside the point here, which is that it can be very difficult for ordinary people to know based on everyday experience e.g. whether something has improved, gotten worse or largely stayed the same (a very slow and gradual change may also be difficult to notice).

Eh, yes, and? That justifies taking to the streets to demonstrate against the islamization of the occident, which is not really happening, or to vote for a party that declares homosexuality a mental illness? Your argument is besides my point that some people are merely idiots who don't think but put a lot of effort into voicing their badly-thought-out ideas. If there is an increase in crime rates that noone really notices, then maybe the entire rhetoric of the end of the western world as we know it is also incredibly stupid?
The other question is why do you seemingly argue that you trust the majhority of AfD voters to have made a sensible choice and at the same time you seem to argue that the people who don't vote for them are not sensible enough to notice the crime increase? So basically the effect of a policy is easier to see from afar than if you're actually affected by it? Are you making an argument that all voting laws should be changed so that only people from neighboring countries can vote and citizens can't?

[Viking]

In a functional parliamentary democracy, the high ranking politician is a combination of someone who is capable of dealing with exceptionally complex portfolios, and someone who is aware of the consequences on the ground, or at least a balance of the two. That's why the top political elite are either people who have been educated to an extremely high level (David Cameron), or who have gone up through the ranks whilst being tested and found capable at every level (John Major). It's rare that you have someone who has not gone through either route, but has caught the wind of a current movement (Jeremy Corbyn). The Labour Party has a tradition of the self-educated John Major route, unlike other parties which tend to go for the social elite, but from Attlee onwards Labour too has been led by said elite. There's still a good number of working mums in the PLP though, who by definition are people capable of dealing with exceptionally complex portfolios.

In any country that has been at least somewhat functional, I would expect that the art of running the country with a certain level of skill would be embedded in the the party structure and program in some sense of any political party that has been active in the governance of that country.

Thus, in a 'well-run' country, becoming part of the party elite is likely to indicate that some level of skill in running the country has been gained along the way.

Yet, even if a country is what we could call functional or well-run, the potential for improved governance may still be substantial. Perhaps more importantly, if some part of a party program has been optimal for most of a political party's history, a change in the (e.g. geopolitical) environment may leave such policies outdated and inefficient, maybe even dangerous.

This latter part is where there could be a significant difference between the idealistic scenario I am describing and current reality. Although perhaps many political parties and leaders already are at this level of pragmatism, I contend that many parties and politicians are leaning heavily on the dogmatic side and adapt to new realities inconveniently slowly, if at all. The ideology and platform of a party tend to in practice to place taboos on the implementation of or change in certain policies that perhaps should be changed or implemented.

If we could definitely prove that one party is right and all the others are wrong, there'd be no need for democracy.

Not quite. You may for instance be of the opinion that either capitalism or socialism should be implemented regardless of outcome, as your preferred ideology is morally good in and of itself.

Similarly, different people may think differently on what compromises are acceptable and which ones are not despite agreeing on many or most fundamental principles, and different political parties could represent different compromises.

That's a euphemism for fear of change.

No. If you prefer pizza over hamburger, it's not necessarily because you fear hamburgers.

Eh, yes, and? That justifies taking to the streets to demonstrate against the islamization of the occident, which is not really happening, or to vote for a party that declares homosexuality a mental illness? Your argument is besides my point that some people are merely idiots who don't think but put a lot of effort into voicing their badly-thought-out ideas. If there is an increase in crime rates that noone really notices, then maybe the entire rhetoric of the end of the western world as we know it is also incredibly stupid?
The other question is why do you seemingly argue that you trust the majhority of AfD voters to have made a sensible choice and at the same time you seem to argue that the people who don't vote for them are not sensible enough to notice the crime increase? So basically the effect of a policy is easier to see from afar than if you're actually affected by it? Are you making an argument that all voting laws should be changed so that only people from neighboring countries can vote and citizens can't?

Different people can vote for the same party despite having very different world views. Some might vote AfD because they fear Islamisation, some because they worry about crime or immigration in general, but not so much about Islam. Some might vote for it because they consider it the lesser of many evils.

The primary purpose of what I wrote was to illustrate how different models are capable of explaining the phenomenon that people from places with many immigrants are less sceptical of immigration than people from places with few or no immigrants. It simply does not have to mean that people from the first group are better informed on the consequences of immigration.

A weak but relevant analogue is that one could expect to find fewer people sceptical of coal mining and its consequences in a city were coal mining employs many or most people, compared to a city that does not benefit from coal mining in an way.

[Pannonian]

In any country that has been at least somewhat functional, I would expect that the art of running the country with a certain level of skill would be embedded in the the party structure and program in some sense of any political party that has been active in the governance of that country.

Thus, in a 'well-run' country, becoming part of the party elite is likely to indicate that some level of skill in running the country has been gained along the way.

Yet, even if a country is what we could call functional or well-run, the potential for improved governance may still be substantial. Perhaps more importantly, if some part of a party program has been optimal for most of a political party's history, a change in the (e.g. geopolitical) environment may leave such policies outdated and inefficient, maybe even dangerous.

This latter part is where there could be a significant difference between the idealistic scenario I am describing and current reality. Although perhaps many political parties and leaders already are at this level of pragmatism, I contend that many parties and politicians are leaning heavily on the dogmatic side and adapt to new realities inconveniently slowly, if at all. The ideology and platform of a party tend to in practice to place taboos on the implementation of or change in certain policies that perhaps should be changed or implemented.

It doesn't always happen though; see the current state of the British Labour party for example. Those who have had any kind of experience of government, administration, or even real world work have been written off for their connotations with the "Blairite" (ie. business friendly) ideology. The rump that is left, especially those in the inner core who direct the party, have no experience except participating in protests and writing about them. There is actually a fair amount of administrative and political talent in the PLP that could form a formidable shadow or even government cabinet. However, the direction of the party is such that that talent is being squeezed out by purist ideologues, with the support of the fanatical new membership (members who voted Labour in the 2015 election back Smith 2:1, but the new members back Corbyn in far greater numbers). One sadly illustrative banner from one of Corbyn's rallies read, "I'd rather have principles than power". Not the best approach to have when you're the only viable opposition.

[Husar]

Not quite. You may for instance be of the opinion that either capitalism or socialism should be implemented regardless of outcome, as your preferred ideology is morally good in and of itself.

Similarly, different people may think differently on what compromises are acceptable and which ones are not despite agreeing on many or most fundamental principles, and different political parties could represent different compromises.

With the first thing we're back to idiot plebs, which was my point, that the plebs vote for something without actually knowing whether it will help or not. If they think their ideology is good just because it's their ideology, then that is exactly what they do.

As for the second part, that has nothing to do with right or wrong, it's about different interests and preferences. Some interests can still be morally wrong if the moral goal is to let everyone have a good life, i.e. the supposed goal of most western democracies and economic systems.

No. If you prefer pizza over hamburger, it's not necessarily because you fear hamburgers.

It is, you fear that the hamburger will not make you as happy as the pizza.
You also forgot to mention that you demonstrate on the streets about the hamburgerization of pizza places just because some pizza places put a single hamburger on a menu with 50 options.

Different people can vote for the same party despite having very different world views. Some might vote AfD because they fear Islamisation, some because they worry about crime or immigration in general, but not so much about Islam. Some might vote for it because they consider it the lesser of many evils.

A lot of 'mights' there, mate. And the numbers disagree with you:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/w...-14415882.html

The voters say themselves that immigration is an important reason for them to vote AfD, there's no reason for you to make BS-reasons up when they freely admit that this is why they vote AfD...

The primary purpose of what I wrote was to illustrate how different models are capable of explaining the phenomenon that people from places with many immigrants are less sceptical of immigration than people from places with few or no immigrants. It simply does not have to mean that people from the first group are better informed on the consequences of immigration.

A weak but relevant analogue is that one could expect to find fewer people sceptical of coal mining and its consequences in a city were coal mining employs many or most people, compared to a city that does not benefit from coal mining in an way.

You're basically saying that the guy who screams from a distance that you should pour lots of water into the burning oil might know more about fire than the firefighter who has been close to a lot of fires.
Of course this 'might' be the case, but all evidence says you're wrong, how about that?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/19/wo...st-immigrants/
You tell me how likely it is that they become strangers in their own country, i.e. actually know what they're talking about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sebast...b_9829578.html
If you think they know more about immigration, prove that immigration is indeed fundamentally flawed.

Or you might just be using what ifs that have nothing to do with reality because you have no real point to make and may not know enough about the AfD despite living further away from it than I do. Shocking...

[Montmorency]

For example, if 1 in every 25,000 inhabitants in city A has been robbed at some point in their lives compared to merely 1 in every 250,000 in city B (10 times fewer), the average inhabitant of city A might still reject any notion that it is more dangerous to live in their city compared to city B, because the vast majority of them have indeed never been robbed.

If no statistics existed, it would also be difficult for even observant inhabitants to accurately compare the two cities in terms of robberies; certainly so if the differences are relatively small (e.g. a 20% difference rather than 1,000%).

Just to mention, the difference between the cities would then be statistically insignificant as 1/25000 (or several hundred individuals for most large cities) is a vanishingly-low figure not achieved anywhere.

For City B, it might as well be worth considering whether those dozens who claim to have been robbed are mistaken. Robbery like the rarest genetic disorders or somatic anomalies known to man, but less serious. Anyway...

There should somehow be a much larger focus on to what degree the politicians seem capable of understanding cause and effect in the world. Someone who doesn't understand relevant cause and effect would be less likely to deliver on their promises, whatever they may be.

But, why politicians? This is a fundamental philosophical question, whether and how humans can judge causality. Notably, this is one of the things that cuts the floor out of discussions about "right" governance.

This latter part is where there could be a significant difference between the idealistic scenario I am describing and current reality. Although perhaps many political parties and leaders already are at this level of pragmatism, I contend that many parties and politicians are leaning heavily on the dogmatic side and adapt to new realities inconveniently slowly, if at all. The ideology and platform of a party tend to in practice to place taboos on the implementation of or change in certain policies that perhaps should be changed or implemented.

There's a distinct element you've missed here, and it is that politicians have to acutely juggle the interests and demands of various societal stakeholders. Crucially, what I mean by this is not simply subsumed by "electorate" or "lobbyists". Politicians must be attuned to the attention and behaviors of individuals, groups, and abstractions existing only in the past or future, all possibly representing the same thing but in opposing ways. In fact, I would suggest that these considerations play a much larger role in the actual activities of legislatures and their members than either "policy" or "dogma/ideology". This is why politics rarely flows according to either pragmatism or ideology.

A weak but relevant analogue is that one could expect to find fewer people sceptical of coal mining and its consequences in a city were coal mining employs many or most people, compared to a city that does not benefit from coal mining in an way.

Probably good for later comment.

[Gilrandir]

You're basically saying that the guy who screams from a distance that you should pour lots of water into the burning oil might know more about fire than the firefighter who has been close to a lot of fires.
Of course this 'might' be the case, but all evidence says you're wrong, how about that?

Or you might just be using what ifs that have nothing to do with reality because you have no real point to make and may not know enough about the AfD despite living further away from it than I do. Shocking...

According to Sarmatian, moving away from the event location (combined with google search) is the only way to get an objective picture of it. The further you move, the more you know about the society in question.

[Fragony]

According to Sarmatian, moving away from the event location (combined with google search) is the only way to get an objective picture of it. The further you move, the more you know about the society in question.

A very devided one. Can we at least just agree on being some seriously twisted people being there. Ukraine is way too complicated for simple solutions.

[Gilrandir]

A very devided one. Can we at least just agree on being some seriously twisted people being there. Ukraine is way too complicated for simple solutions.

He gave a universal recipe for obtaining a true to life picture.

As for the complicated Ukraine, can you name countries just fine for simple solutions?

[Viking]

With the first thing we're back to idiot plebs, which was my point, that the plebs vote for something without actually knowing whether it will help or not.

Not necessary. My focus was on the idea/fact that outcomes can be intentionally be disregarded by people. For example, a pacifist may refuse to use violence even if it is the only means to save someone they care for.

As for the second part, that has nothing to do with right or wrong, it's about different interests and preferences. Some interests can still be morally wrong if the moral goal is to let everyone have a good life, i.e. the supposed goal of most western democracies and economic systems.

Weighing compromises can very much have to do with concepts of right and wrong.

It is, you fear that the hamburger will not make you as happy as the pizza.

I think the definition of 'fear' that you seem to be using is far too trivial. I am thinking of fear as something connected to a (significant) physiological response, not the mere presence in the mind of the idea that something is less preferable than something else.

The voters say themselves that immigration is an important reason for them to vote AfD, there's no reason for you to make BS-reasons up when they freely admit that this is why they vote AfD...

That's one of the items in my list. The list was not supposed to cover the most common reasons, because that was not what was interesting in that particular context (which was whether or not it was justified to vote AfD). If most people eat shellfish because they are worried they'll get skewered by Neptune's trident otherwise, you can still eat shellfish for your own personal and very different reasons.

You're basically saying that the guy who screams from a distance that you should pour lots of water into the burning oil might know more about fire than the firefighter who has been close to a lot of fires.
Of course this 'might' be the case, but all evidence says you're wrong, how about that?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/19/wo...st-immigrants/
You tell me how likely it is that they become strangers in their own country, i.e. actually know what they're talking about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sebast...b_9829578.html
If you think they know more about immigration, prove that immigration is indeed fundamentally flawed.

Or you might just be using what ifs that have nothing to do with reality because you have no real point to make and may not know enough about the AfD despite living further away from it than I do. Shocking...

My point was not specific to AfD (it's not the first time I have heard about such voting patterns), but to the reasoning you implicitly used in the paragraph I earlier quoted.

It is ultimately a mix of the ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies. You can have a parachutist who knows nothing about why parachutes work, and you can have someone who has never parachuted who knows everything about why they work. While personal experience certainly is relevant, it is easy use to it fallaciously in argumentation.

Now, a big part of your argument seems to be that these people are 'stupid'. If we accept that, then chances are they'd still be stupid if they had grown up in a city with more immigrants and therefore had been less sceptical of immigration. They don't understand what they are talking about, whether they support or oppose immigration.

But, why politicians?

They are at the core of the topic of this thread.

There's a distinct element you've missed here, and it is that politicians have to acutely juggle the interests and demands of various societal stakeholders. Crucially, what I mean by this is not simply subsumed by "electorate" or "lobbyists". Politicians must be attuned to the attention and behaviors of individuals, groups, and abstractions existing only in the past or future, all possibly representing the same thing but in opposing ways. In fact, I would suggest that these considerations play a much larger role in the actual activities of legislatures and their members than either "policy" or "dogma/ideology". This is why politics rarely flows according to either pragmatism or ideology.

Not quite sure what you are talking about here; but there's not just what politicians actually do (implement), but also what they say they want to implement. It is through which policies they say they would like to have in place (given current realities) many politicians strike me as dogmatic.

[Husar]

Not necessary. My focus was on the idea/fact that outcomes can be intentionally be disregarded by people. For example, a pacifist may refuse to use violence even if it is the only means to save someone they care for.

Like I said, idiots.
Why do you want to find something to disagree when we are actually in constant agreement?

I think the definition of 'fear' that you seem to be using is far too trivial. I am thinking of fear as something connected to a (significant) physiological response, not the mere presence in the mind of the idea that something is less preferable than something else.

Or maybe your example was far too trivial and had nothing to do with the actual problem of people fearing immigrants. You were comparing hamburgers and immigrants.

That's one of the items in my list. The list was not supposed to cover the most common reasons, because that was not what was interesting in that particular context (which was whether or not it was justified to vote AfD). If most people eat shellfish because they are worried they'll get skewered by Neptune's trident otherwise, you can still eat shellfish for your own personal and very different reasons.

Not if they vote for a politician who bans shellfish.

It is ultimately a mix of the ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies. You can have a parachutist who knows nothing about why parachutes work, and you can have someone who has never parachuted who knows everything about why they work. While personal experience certainly is relevant, it is easy use to it fallaciously in argumentation.

Of course you can, you can also have a world that rests on the backs of four giant elephants who stand on the back of a turtle that flies through space. How does that help the argument that takes place on our planet?

Now, a big part of your argument seems to be that these people are 'stupid'. If we accept that, then chances are they'd still be stupid if they had grown up in a city with more immigrants and therefore had been less sceptical of immigration. They don't understand what they are talking about, whether they support or oppose immigration.

Exactly, that is why we need a political elite to show them the way.
It would be preferable though if all the idiots were on the "right" side of history.

[Pannonian]

Like I said, idiots.
Why do you want to find something to disagree when we are actually in constant agreement?

Or maybe your example was far too trivial and had nothing to do with the actual problem of people fearing immigrants. You were comparing hamburgers and immigrants.

Not if they vote for a politician who bans shellfish.

Of course you can, you can also have a world that rests on the backs of four giant elephants who stand on the back of a turtle that flies through space. How does that help the argument that takes place on our planet?

Exactly, that is why we need a political elite to show them the way.
It would be preferable though if all the idiots were on the "right" side of history.

Liberal democracy isn't functional when the sovereign people believe too much in the liberalism and democracy without taking on any of the responsibilities that should come with these rights. They theoretically have the right to disregard the advice of experienced experts and go with a meme-based movement. But the practical results would not be good.

[Viking]

You were comparing hamburgers and immigrants.

The principle is the same.

Of course you can, you can also have a world that rests on the backs of four giant elephants who stand on the back of a turtle that flies through space. How does that help the argument that takes place on our planet?

People having much experience but little (correct) insight into their experience is really the norm. Do you e.g. expect that most people with a certain disease understand their disease? Its biochemistry and pathology?

[Sarmatian]

According to Sarmatian, moving away from the event location (combined with google search) is the only way to get an objective picture of it. The further you move, the more you know about the society in question.

Just when I begin to think there's hope for you... Oh, well...

[spmetla]

Liberal democracy isn't functional when the sovereign people believe too much in the liberalism and democracy without taking on any of the responsibilities that should come with these rights. They theoretically have the right to disregard the advice of experienced experts and go with a meme-based movement. But the practical results would not be good.

That's when we have the problem of the tyranny of the masses as in ancient Athens. The representative part of the older American system was its great strength; yes, there was more backroom dealings and corruption but at the end of the day competent technocrats made things happen.
Remember Themistocles that had to trick the Athenians into building a fleet to counter the hated rivals in Aegina so that they could actually have a fleet for the far off Persian threat.

I actually wish that the US no longer elected Senators directly in order to remove that part of Congress from the threat of ignorant populism. Unfortunately the problem of democracy is that you get the government you deserve, not necessarily the one you need.

[Pannonian]

That's when we have the problem of the tyranny of the masses as in ancient Athens. The representative part of the older American system was its great strength; yes, there was more backroom dealings and corruption but at the end of the day competent technocrats made things happen.
Remember Themistocles that had to trick the Athenians into building a fleet to counter the hated rivals in Aegina so that they could actually have a fleet for the far off Persian threat.

I actually wish that the US no longer elected Senators directly in order to remove that part of Congress from the threat of ignorant populism. Unfortunately the problem of democracy is that you get the government you deserve, not necessarily the one you need.

The problem is that anti-technocracy has become a virtue in and of itself, seen most clearly in Michael Gove's remark, "We think we've had enough of experts", but also seen in the virulent anti-Blairism of the Labour party, which has purged the executive parts of all experience of any kind of government and administration, and replaced them with people with experience of nothing except protest marches. To return to the Athenian parallel, Socrates has lost the argument after Arginusae, and no one with any kind of talent will be interested in leading after the generals have been purged.

[spmetla]

The rise of the anti-expert is a strange thing of the times. Holistic medicine which has merits in preventative health has become the voque thing for the overly educated liberated anti-corporate feminists. Same thing with politics, immigration isn't a problem right now in the US but someone building a wall to keep the Mexicans out has become a warcry.
Thanks to people being able to 'research' on wikipedia/google they all think they know enough to discredit actual experts.

It's another reason that I wish we also had run-off ballots in the US, that way everyone could vote for the wingbat they want and also for the lesser of two evils without having to throw their vote away. Would prevent some of the swing to the fringes (left and right) that's happening on both sides of the Atlantic.