j.r. leonard

They don't literally round up homeless people, but there are services though which you can hire someone to wait in line for you. Don't really see the problem. It's decent wage work for people who need work.

There's a thing called optics.

Sure. There's also a thing called moral intuition, which sometimes leads to snap judgments. But upon reflection, there are lobbyists who don't have time to wait in line and people who don't have any higher paid employment options. Who's better off if we ended that practice?

Eeeeeeeeeveryone.

I'm with @J_RtheWriter on the notion that if the only change you make is to prevent lobbyists from hiring homeless people and don't change anything else, then you've greatly improved the optics while leaving everything that isn't optics worse off

Oh, I agree with that part. It's the "and also don't criticize it or even show it and in fact maybe do show it and praise it" part that makes me dubious.

There is this notion, near-universal among people who are political junkies, that is totally divorced from reality: that TERRIBLE optics on your side mean nothing and if you just explain to people your intellect will win them over and there will be no price to pay down the road.

1/ I'm something quite other than a political junkie. I love policy, but hate politics. I'd shrink the government in a moment and leave the important stuff to the technocrats and that would cut down on lobbying. But that's not going to happen, so this is what democracy looks like