1/6 I don't like political moderation. I accept that (a) democracy requires, within limits, one accepts that even though one may truly others are doing tremendously harmful things, one still lets them have their turn at governing - because the alternative to this is far worse...
2/6 and (b) democracy also requires that, even in power one make certain compromises on what one would actually want, in order to prevent competition for power becoming zero sum. These I both think are true, and important, and I think we ought do the things democracy requires....
-
-
3/6 But. Folk I know who self-identify as moderates or centrists seem to do more -- they come to actively like the things which are the result of the messy compromises of democracy in its present configuration, they see this sort of `pragmatism' as a kind of goal in itself...
Show this thread -
4/6 They come to consciously aim for the compromise position. Stuff that has nothing to recommend it beyond the fact that it's what one likely has to put up with ends up their first order desire *and then the outcome will inevitably be a compromise from this starting point*...
Show this thread -
5/6 I think these people are wrong on politics, wrong on bargaining, and wrong for America. Immoderate principles, arrived at independently of anticipating the democratic compromise and sincerely advocated for, helps the Condorcet process and lets us avoid information cascades...
Show this thread -
6/6 (Let's not worry about incentive compatibility because it's hard - and in any case won't make the moderates' position any better, I suspect that thinking harder about incentives would lend arguments in favour of playing games of extremist chicken and political grandstanding.)
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.