2/ It's like a variant of Goodhart's law. The order of operations distorts perspective. Expression & derivation of your ideal policy should come first. The distance between that position and those in the feasible set gets evaluated next.
1/ Obviously, there are game-theoretic aspects to politics. Strategy matters. But, if you first derive the space of feasible outcomes given extremely loose assumptions subject to considerable noise and uncertainty; then, afterwards, evaluate the outcomes, you've lost the plot.pic.twitter.com/BtFiOBTZMr
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/ The institutional integrity purchased by partisan compromise is real. But, I think it's near-sighted. If the distances from ideal are unacceptable, then satisficing / compromise comes at the expense of legitimacy. And that cost accrues quickly and decays slowly.
Show this thread -
4/ Does anyone trust US government anymore? Our institutions? Our political parties? For too long, the feasible space was constrained by an increasingly small set of motivations.
Show this thread -
5/ There are lots of quantitative reasons to say "special interests" are a canard -- they aren't really influential. But, that misses the territory for the map. The feasibility map is limited to the area that returns a satisfactory answer to: How will this affect my 401(K)?
Show this thread -
6/ Because people who care about that question are the ones with substantial political power. They constrain the space. They fund both
@TheDemocrats and@GOP. That's the bipartisan calculus. Of the set of outcomes, which one's will be acceptable to the donor class?Show this thread -
7/ Does that seem like a legitimate system if your not in the donor class? People aren't disillusioned. They're structurally disenfranchised.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.