How Politics Currently Works

 

This is probably all in Ibsen (and surely is in Christopher Buckley) but it bears repeating every once in awhile.
  

Suppose you're in a position of power and you want to do something that is either unpopular or only marginally popular—say raise taxes, or entirely "open up the economy" during a virulent pandemic, or allow banks to redline. Whatever. You're hellbent to do this thing. It doesn't matter whether you want this because you think it's the right thing to do, because you want to make some lobbyists happy, or because you've been convinced by an economist you believe to be brilliant. The thing is, you want to do it, and you think you have the power. 

Do you make the case for your position?  Maybe win over some of the populace (or legislature) who are on the fence?  You could I suppose, but even if you win out, it might be very divisive. I mean, if a free market economist you trust has convinced you that not just a segment of the business community, but the population as a whole will benefit from letting banks either reject minority applicants or charge them higher interest rates, even if you can convince half the populace (or a little more) of this miracle, you will have wildly alienated the remainder. There could be angry editorials, sit-ins, maybe even riots! Certainly you will have decreased your chances of keeping this power indefinitely. This is "the intensity problem of majority rule" that I discuss at some length in my book. 

https://www.amazon.com/Democratic-Theory-Naturalized-Foundations-Distilled/dp/179362495X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1QXRB534GVIVZ&dchild=1&keywords=democratic+theory+naturalized&qid=1603542155&sprefix=democratic+theory+%2Caps%2C164&sr=8-1 

But the suggestions I give for handling it there are structural, theoretical and admittedly fantastic, things like switching to a system involving both Approval Voting and the Single Non-Transferable Ballot. What about concrete, functional advice for you--the powerful politician--right now? Should you forget about the whole thing and just go back to ribbon-cutting? Again, you certainly could, but that would just contradict our original premise—that you really really want to accomplish this change. (Maybe there's a bribe involved, or a promise of huge future support in any attempt of yours for even greater power/authority. Or maybe you think getting this important change through is the only sure road to heaven--especially after your sinful life.) Is there another option? 

Absolutely. As the affairs maven (Robert Morse) tells his eager student (Walter Matthau) in Guide For the Married Man (and as Joey Bishop hilariously demonstrates), if there's a complaint you just deny everything. Think of President Trump's claims these days that COVID-19 is now "turning the corner."

How does that work here? Simple. Have your press person simply deny that these are actually taxes, or claim that the effective marginal rates for most people will actually go down under your proposal. Insist that you Simply Will Not Tolerate Any Redlining—PERIOD--So of course that can't be what this is!! All the while, you do exactly the opposite of what you're saying.

Sure, a half dozen people and maybe a journalist or two might see what's really going on and try to call you on it. (That's certainly true with the Trump COVID example, but that's only because stripped down, as I have it here, it doesn't include throwing in any codicils about testing, co-morbidity, asymptomatic cases, or any number of other of complicating variables or even errant nonsense.) But the idea is the same: you just calmly insist that naysayers don't understand your proposal, because you actually agree with them. It is their (only apparent) objections that are misguided, confused, and would themselves be harmful to taxpayers, minorities, or families trying to stay healthy, as the case may be. If you do this well, the objections will eventually dissipate sufficiently, particularly if your proposal is complicated enough and/or your defense particularly convoluted and uttered with righteous indignation. And, of course, you need to be suave and believable. I mean, in the movie, the Joey Bishop character's wife actually catches him in bed with another woman, but he's able to completely deflect her concerns with just a few remarks like "Who?" and "What are you talking about?" And throughout this loving colloquy his mistress is getting dressed, making the bed, and leaving.

That's how people in power can (and often do) get what they want without wasting much political capital. This is cynical, certainly, but the minorities can (and do) also try to make significant policy changes using this method. After all, it's just simple advice on how not to be too divisive, whether or not you currently have the votes to get what you want. 

In a word, this is how politicians GET THINGS DONE. And, after all, isn't that the one promise that most of us really want our candidates to keep if we put them in office? 

In his early Confessions of a Conservative, Garry Wills reminds us that the most important thing a politician can ever do is defer to whichever constituent he or she is talking to at any moment. He says, “Each time a politician indulges his or anyone else’s single opinion or principle” is an example of “losing an opportunity to ingratiate oneself with those who hold different views or standards—a criminal waste."

That manner of representation no doubt makes for a vapid kind of populism. But it's all--indeed the best--that the present system of representation in the U.S. can provide. What I try to demonstrate in my book is that it is only to the extent that real populism or authentic democracy begins to take precedence in a politician’s pantheon of goals that the sort of political machinations described above become feeble, and representation stops being absurd.