Honesty Party

[marshwiggle]

The "civil war" thread made me think about the party I'd really like to see, but never will: the Honesty
Party.

The Honesty Party would tell the complete truth to everyone, (which is why they'd never get elected).
Am I too cynical on this? Would it be a bad idea?

What kinds of procedures could they have? For instance:

• Make all government-collected data, barring personal information, public.
• When reporting or acting on projections, use the median value of several. (Kind of like in various sports, throwing out the highest and lowest judges' scores.)
• Not take "positions" on anything; only have policies. (Or, if you will, have the principles they state only follow from the policies they enact. So they don't have a "position" on climate change; they have policies which have specific goals and timelines for things like carbon emissions, waste reduction, etc.) No talk of what they are "committed to"; just explanation of what they have done.
• Make policies based on surveys of popular support, rather than ideology. The goal is to represent the most of the electorate, rather than any specific "base". (Of course, for this to work, surveys will need to ask more complex questions, such as balancing short-term and long-term goals. Lowering taxes and/or increasing spending in the short-term will be popular, but long-term increases in the tax burden won't, so surveys have to explicitly and honestly address this.)

[Ruralguy]

Its not a bad set of ideals, but what about the first time one of them has to run for office and do opposition research, and such? I think some people might want to ascribe to these ideals, but they would likely fail in getting representatives who would win elections.

[marshwiggle]

Its not a bad set of ideals, but what about the first time one of them has to run for office and do opposition research, and such? I think some people might want to ascribe to these ideals, but they would likely fail in getting representatives who would win elections.

Of course! What I'm interested in is what ways could politicians act that would be in the best interest of the country and the democratic system, rather than any particular party? (Which would unfortunately prevent them being elected.)

I believe the "ideal" politician for the public good would be worth voting for, regardless of party affiliation, and the worst aspects of politicians have to do with "getting elected", rather than their particular ideology. (i.e. The most annoying practices aren't limited to any one party or place on the political spectrum.)

[mahagonny]

Maybe add, for emphasis, there are very few solutions in life, mostly tradeoffs, and with government that's even more true.

The Honesty Party would tell the complete truth to everyone, (which is why they'd never get elected).

I think DJT proved you can get elected while appearing to never have met a profession politician handler, which is form of honesty. Some voted for him because his faults made him seem more like a person. Whereas most politicians speak like attorneys.

How about a debate where neither candidate is permitted to state a position of ideology, only a concrete policy.  A candidate might say "it has always been extremely important to me to honor the..." (voice trailing off, microphone cut).

[pink_]

Ben Winters's novel Golden State explores this idea.

[smallcleanrat]

[...]

• Make policies based on surveys of popular support, rather than ideology. The goal is to represent the most of the electorate, rather than any specific "base".

[...]

[...]
How about a debate where neither candidate is permitted to state a position of ideology, only a concrete policy.  A candidate might say "it has always been extremely important to me to honor the..." (voice trailing off, microphone cut).
[...]

I'm not seeing how chucking "positions" and "ideology" completely is some sort of ideal. This kind of talk reminds me of when people complain about political parties having "agendas" (not hidden agendas, just "agendas").

Ideology provides a framework for decision-making. Real life government may requiring 'trading off' among various interests, but ideology is still required to even identify what those interests are.

Without some set of ideological positions, what's to stop 'popular support' from running roughshod over the democratic process or any other ideal?

Or would you be content if it can be shown that popular opinion supports 'woke' policies, regardless of whether you think such policies devalue free speech or meritocracy or anything else 'ideological'?

[marshwiggle]

Maybe add, for emphasis, there are very few solutions in life, mostly tradeoffs, and with government that's even more true.

The Honesty Party would tell the complete truth to everyone, (which is why they'd never get elected).

I think DJT proved you can get elected while appearing to never have met a profession politician handler, which is form of honesty.

But it was decidedly uninformed, such as when he promised to bring back coal. Even people in the coal industry knew that wasn't going to happen.

So that's not really honesty as much as just being completely unfiltered.

How about a debate where neither candidate is permitted to state a position of ideology, only a concrete policy.  A candidate might say "it has always been extremely important to me to honor the..." (voice trailing off, microphone cut).

This would result in a lot less radical decisions. All kinds of votes to "Get rid of X" can get passed because "get rid of" is vague enough that lots of people can be "for" the idea even when they have completely incompatible visions of what that means (like Brexit). Being able to only discuss concrete proposals would force much more productive (i.e. realistic) debate.

[marshwiggle]

I'm not seeing how chucking "positions" and "ideology" completely is some sort of ideal. This kind of talk reminds me of when people complain about political parties having "agendas" (not hidden agendas, just "agendas").

Ideology provides a framework for decision-making. Real life government may requiring 'trading off' among various interests, but ideology is still required to even identify what those interests are.

Without some set of ideological positions, what's to stop 'popular support' from running roughshod over the democratic process or any other ideal?

Or would you be content if it can be shown that popular opinion supports 'woke' policies, regardless of whether you think such policies devalue free speech or meritocracy or anything else 'ideological'?

(Apologies for the double post.)

John McWhorter argues that all kinds of woke initiatives actually hurt the people they are supposedly intended to help.
So politicians, businesses, etc. can hide behind their apparent ideology (wokeness or whatever else) and be hypocritical or completely abandon it the moment it becomes in their interest to do so. The vagueness of what it means to be "anti-racist" or "inclusive" allows a vast amount of wiggle room. On the other hand, a specific policy proposal of "doing X for people who fit criterion Y" will prevent that kind of hedging about what it means to be in favour of some principle.
People have to either be for or against the proposal, and then say precisely why. If the proposal gets defeated, then any new proposal produces a clean slate since people will now have to decide about this alternative concrete proposal.
There will be a much smaller range of specific things someone will favour, than what they will imply by their supposed ideology.

[smallcleanrat]

There's a difference between saying 'Ideology is insufficient' and 'Ideology should play no part.'

Eliminating discussion of ideology wouldn't make policy debate any more transparent or informative.

[marshwiggle]

There's a difference between saying 'Ideology is insufficient' and 'Ideology should play no part.'

Eliminating discussion of ideology wouldn't make policy debate any more transparent or informative.

But it gets out of calling people names for their being for or against specific proposals. In the real world, consequences are rarely entirely on one side or the other; evaluating proposals on their merits rather than on the perceived motivations of the people presenting them would produce much less heat and much more light.

[Ruralguy]

I wouldn't say that being gabby and (apparently) forthright is quite the same as being honest, particularly if you are also being accused of dishonest business practices at the same time or after (or before).

[mahagonny]

I'm not seeing how chucking "positions" and "ideology" completely is some sort of ideal. This kind of talk reminds me of when people complain about political parties having "agendas" (not hidden agendas, just "agendas").

Ideology provides a framework for decision-making. Real life government may requiring 'trading off' among various interests, but ideology is still required to even identify what those interests are.

Without some set of ideological positions, what's to stop 'popular support' from running roughshod over the democratic process or any other ideal?

Good point. It may be already too late, since the radical left has twisted words so they are no longer usable. For example, racism gets called antiracism.
I guess there's no solution.

I wouldn't say that being gabby and (apparently) forthright is quite the same as being honest, particularly if you are also being accused of dishonest business practices at the same time or after (or before).

How about being gabby and scattered, your views contradicting each other. For example, one year Biden is law-and-order and a few years later he's 'looting is patriotic.'
Compared to that, the unfiltered guy resembles a person much more.

[jimbogumbo]

I'm not seeing how chucking "positions" and "ideology" completely is some sort of ideal. This kind of talk reminds me of when people complain about political parties having "agendas" (not hidden agendas, just "agendas").

Ideology provides a framework for decision-making. Real life government may requiring 'trading off' among various interests, but ideology is still required to even identify what those interests are.

Without some set of ideological positions, what's to stop 'popular support' from running roughshod over the democratic process or any other ideal?

Good point. It may be already too late, since the radical left has twisted words so they are no longer usable. For example, racism gets called antiracism.
I guess there's no solution.

I wouldn't say that being gabby and (apparently) forthright is quite the same as being honest, particularly if you are also being accused of dishonest business practices at the same time or after (or before).

How about being gabby and scattered, your views contradicting each other. For example, one year Biden is law-and-order and a few years later he's 'looting is patriotic.'
Compared to that, the unfiltered guy resembles a person much more.

You don't mean President Trump with the above, right? He had tons of contradicting views over time.

[Wahoo Redux]

The answer is to get rid of political "parties" altogether.

Their purpose has always been to separate demographics and provide ready-made voting blocks for politicians to manipulate.

And this tendency has turned into an agitprop-fueled hysteria, at least in America and, I believe, in Britain. 

[marshwiggle]

The answer is to get rid of political "parties" altogether.

Their purpose has always been to separate demographics and provide ready-made voting blocks for politicians to manipulate.

Well, in principle the idea of national parties means that a party has to consider what's good for the whole country, whereas if there were no parties everyone would just be out for what was good for their constituents. Of course, over time parties do develop regional strongholds, but I can't think of a good way to get independent members to place a high priority on the national interest.