Here is how politics, in most cases, works: Rich and powerful interests, whether in fossil fuels, finance, big tech, media, meat, pharma or foreign governments, make a demand, and use their sophisticated tools to persuade a government to adopt it. The government adopts it. Please read whole🧵 Then the government must find a find of selling this policy, which might be very harmful. It will argue that it’s essential for “growth”, “jobs”, “international standing” etc. Opponents will then argue these claims, engaging in the great democratic tradition of “debate”. But debate is irrelevant. That’s because the decision has already been made. The issue being debated is merely the post-hoc justification. Where decisions happen and where debate happens are different places. The idea that debate leads to policy outcomes is a fiction designed to create an impression of democratic consent. We can spend our lives debating the justifications (I more or less have); but we are wasting our time. What we need is a massive clampdown on the influence of money over politics, including lobbying transparency, campaign finance reform, an end to the revolving door between politics and lobbying. Then we might have a chance of policy-making that reflects the public interest, of the dog wagging the tail, of discussion and argument leading to better outcomes, rather than being used as a distraction from the real nature of power. Thank you. The thread on one page: skywriter.blue
skywriter.blue