British and US politics do have some equivalency. Thatcher and Reagan are quite stark but Clinton and Blair both represent the reactions of left-wing parties who embraced neoliberalism.
creshiell Yeah. When learn this in politics and social science. The Third Way basically gives into globalisation and neoliberalism, however, was slightly more progressive in regards to identity politics. All this privatisation and lower taxes - mixed with budget expenditure is becoming ever harder to maintain. And, the centre-left don't challenge the status-quo enough to make a difference. However, it doesn't help misinforming everyone with the MSM, another consequence of privatisation and deregulation. Where, in Australia, any ambitious social program is responded with *budget emergency*. And, now that the Conservatives are in power and massively increases the budget deficit, the MSM is quiet.
creshiell worse actually.Clinton wasn't that terrible,he deregulated a bit and this made the economy less stable but it still wasn't unstable enough to crash.He also had a government surplus,the last we had in ages.He obviously was no saint,but I would consider him better than Mr.Blair
@@mansamusa1743 Tony Blair seems worse because he was very public about his crimes while Bill kept his on the DL. But as horrific as the Iraq War was, Clinton's role in the Rwandan and Congolese genocides is far worse
That's generally how these things work. "Right wing" movements tend to be anti-intellectual, while "left wing" is generally more educated people who understand the issues better. That's not to say there's no intellectual force in right wing politics, but it's based on a misunderstanding of facts and moving emphasis to experience. This is especially true in the US and UK.
Yeah, the same intellectuals who pandered to communism and the Soviet Union during most of the Cold War (ahem Corbyn ahem). I hope you're not going to defend that. The idea that intellectuals have a much better grasp on the truth is your own fantasy. They're moved by emotions just as much as everyone else, they just deceive themselves better in thinking that isn't so.
I was referring to the Oli's improving speaking ability and confidence, I guess that come's with the territory now that he's pursuing topics that he has a interest in.
Going to defend what? What is the problem with supporting the USSR? People who outright dismiss it with no argument simply don't actually know what was going on at the time. And intellectuals DO have a better grasp on truth. In both of your major points in this comment, you demonstrate exactly the problem Conservatives have (whether you're conservative or not): you don't care about the truth and just think your opinion is right based on poor reasoning and misinformation. The thing is - your assertion that intellectuals don't understand the world around us any better than the layman is a part of YOUR fantasy. Yet, because you are you and inherently infallible, there's no way that this could be true. I, on the other hand, realise this cognitive dissonance and instead rely on facts, statistics and cogent reasoning. I would wager a large sum of money on the fact that I am more familiar with the USSR's politics, economy and history than you are. But the anti-intellectuals hear that and dismiss it as though it's not even a factor in understanding the world. Your high school teacher who told you the USSR is evil isn't really a credible source of information unless you're looking for lies and propaganda.
I personally know a German MP for the green party and she is nothing if not honestly dedicated to her cause. So no, I don't like to think all politicians are dishonest and just in it for themselves. Because I know it's not true in at least one case and I have the strong impression, even from the media if you care to look, that there are many more politicians like that. They are quietly giving it their all and they don't seek spotlight nor riches.
So, post-actually-watched-the-video addendum: you're saying there are honest politicians and there are politicians that try to cater to the masses, while those same masses complain about the politicians they vote for not being honest. And it's those masses that you referred to with your collective "we" right at the beginning of the video, not actually those of us who do take a closer look at the politicians we vote for and how much they seem to be driven by their cause and how much we share this cause instead of how catchy the slogans are they produce, right?
It's exactly that. We all know that there just MUST be good people. There certainly are. But the average person is not interested in them, but rather in... *coughs* Trump (and/or Trump-like douches).
I think following what's electable will inevitably lead to a vicious cycle. If the public perception shifts to the right, let's say, Social Democrats may also decide to adapt their stances, not alienate anyone. Then, the Conservatives would have to shift right as well to distinguish themselves. The discourse (TM) would gradually move to the right bit by bit, so the parties again have to move right as well to keep being electable. Political parties often act like what they do and say does not affect the perception of certain topics in the public. Adding to that, I would like to live in a system where losing votes is not always necessarily seen as a bad thing. Say, you have 10 different parties, representing 10 quite different world views. If a majority goes in one direction, I wouldn't want the others to also change and pander to them. If only 4% are having the world view that this certain party has, so be it, they shouldn't change and became more electable because of it. To properly display what the population actually thinks and believes, we probably would also need something like alternative voting, really badly.
In my opinion the two are not at odds. What has been "electable" has been defined by an ever dwindling level of voter engagement due to the very apparent lack of honesty amongst politicians.
That's because nobody understands that honesty would discourage you even more from voting for a specific candidate than just being dishonest. Dishonesty may bother you but if you had the choice between a politician who is lying to you and a politician who is honest but doesn't represent your will at all you would most likely still vote for the dishonest one.
I just wanted to say to you that I love your work here. I listen to you while I'm at work at my graveyard shift security job. It makes me feel pretty connected intellectually in an otherwise simple job. Thank you so much
I really enjoy people like Nerdwriter. I feel like a format that has more visuals would be really beautiful along with these in depth issues that people don't think about often.
That's a fair point, and I'm filming a batch of videos at the moment that definitely is more visually stimulating! They'll be out in the coming weeks/months once this batch is all published! :)
@@itzakhywell7668 is it slander to not like corbyns brexit stance? I was a big Corbin supporter, and I voted labour in both of the recent elections. But I think its fair to say that those failures rest firmly on his shoulders. I won't blame brexit and the current state of affairs on anyone but the tories, but god damn corbyn made it hard to vote for him. His stance (or lack therof) on brexit was his undoing. He never supported remain, he never supported leave, he sat on the fence until far too late and the tories cleaned his clock. Now nothing is quite so simple of course, but I really think its ALMOST that simple. The last election was a single issue election: brexit, and labour didn't choose a side.
Electability is only as useful as the influence that individual politician will have, I think. One person out of 3 can make a big change, but 1 out of 100 - better to support those who display similar morals, and not just through voting, so that it won't be 1 out of 100, but 50 or 70 or more, you know?
Very good video, as always. Your channel is a great and reliable source of information, and as a political science student it is very useful to me when I don't understand parts of my lectures, or just want to satisfy my curiosity. Thanks!
I am currently reading Zizek's In defence of lost causes which makes some interesting points regarding how the rhetoric of major parties is shifting quickly to the right. There he claims (among many many other things) that propositions that 30 years ago would be considered modest are now considered radical leftist (and the book was written about a decade ago). It's a great read, I encourage you to take a look. Great video! Please keep it up!
In my experience one can in most cases not draw a line between a wing that aims for electability and a wing that supports adherence to ideals. More often it depends on the topic who supports which of the two. For example one representative could try to be electable by supporting a hard crackdown on crime while supporting left wind economics while others act the other way around.
I think two of the issues that arises from not sticking to your principals for an election are one: false advertising, if you don't do what you say you will do when you get into power you will be seen as untrustworthy and two by not mentioning issues that are important to your party e.g. the enviroment as a concern then it means that the other party doesn't need to also address those issues which means they don't need to curtail their proposals and those issues dissapear from the political discourse.
Oh Jeremy Corbin... Oh Jeremy Corbin... If you'll pardon me, as an citizen of the US, for saying something about your politics in the United Kingdom. I didn't, but our general public (excluding the rigging from the Democratic Party) voted against Bernie Sanders, who was our version of Jeremy Corbin. Please don't make the mistake that we did.
I'm very glad you made this video - too often British politics seems to be devoid of any iota of logic. One of the fundamental issues you've touched on, which you may wish to consider exploring in another video, is what to do when a democracy starts democratically engaging with and warming too ideas that tend to be less associated with liberal democracy (i.e. illiberal democracy). The American founding fathers decided that they needed to address the inconvenient problem of tyranny of the majority by introducing a web of restrictions and limitations through their constitution. A bill of rights or entrenched freedoms are an easy way to escape the ugly truth that a lot of people have some pretty horrible views and ideas. And it is great that Jeremy Corbyn is trying to address this by tackling the issue in certain ways, but after an election he may lose the critical mass required to lend credibility to his views. This could be more dangerous for the left than the short term costs of pandering to some anti-immigrant policies, as certain liberal views may get completely wiped out in British politics. If the harder-left drag Labour away from the median voter then it could be the perfect way of shooting themselves in the foot. But a little bit of realism/pragmatism could get their foot in the door of No10 so that they can engage in a more effective campaign to address anti-immigration and the anti-globalisation sentiment sweeping the West at the moment. So at what point do we accept that a large section of the electorate hold some pretty ghastly views and won't relinquish them? And furthermore, is it our democratic duty to represent these views?
Interestingly enough, Ed Milliband wasn't even really an example of Labour going right, he was actually seen as too left wing compared to Blair and Brown by many of the Blairite establishment. That's not me saying he was left wing, I'm pretty much an Anarcho-Communist (Plz do anarchism video) so I still see him as a right wing figure. I think it really goes to show how much labour shifted during Blair, which is really what this entire debate rests upon. Although great video overall. Extremely relevant. It's good to have a high volume of politics videos right now, considering the political events unfolding in the western world.
When I was taking a pol sci class a lot of people assumed that I wanted to become a politician, when in truth I only took it because I'm interested in political philosophy, so I just figured "hey why not take a class on political science?" but because people assumed that I was an aspiring politician, that did encourage me to reflect on how a person with my political beliefs could even fair out on that career choice in the first place, and I realized that I have to become a good liar. If I want to be altruistic, I have to make myself look like I have other intentions that benefits the upper class.
The idea that you have to tell people what they want to hear in order to get elected and have the opportunity to do some actual good doesn't make much sense. Assuming you are elected, you are faced with two options: 1) You do what people want you to do, which might not be as morally acceptable or helpful as the alternative from the honest politician; 2) You ignore people's wishes and do what you genuinely believe to be the better option, and while this may be 'good' when looking at outcomes, it is also uncomfortably undemocratic to ignore the people who voted for you. It ultimately depends on everyone making an effort to think more about politics and what we might really want our politicians to do, rather than going with the instinctive part of our nature that is so easily riled up by faulty arguments.
In politics its called "pivoting". You get the support of your base with w/e issues your party usually supports. Then you change / pivot / soften your stance to appeal to a wider group.
+dothedeed I think the subtext of their point was that this puts you and/or party at greater risk of losing next time. At least, unless you use a massive propaganda campaign to disguise the fact that you pivoted, which is what usually happens (democracy? what name so?)
A big complication in this talk that you forgot is that some people think a politician should do what the people they represent want them to do, not what they believe they should do.
The trouble with voting Labour is that they're on morally shaky ground. Like you said, we can't predict the future, so we don't know if the next leader will be to the right or left. However, the green party, for example, has never had a right wing leader (to my knowledge). Voting green would be voting for long term morral correctness as opposed to short term gains.
In political science (I'll look the sources up later), there is the idea that there is a major difference between small parties and big parties, such as labour or tories in UK. Big parties are more likely to engage in vote seeking. Thus, their behavior is highly influenced by strategies of political competition. Often, we can see that those assumptions work well in the left-right spectrum. You can easily see this behavior in how the democrats behaved in the previous election. The republicans decided for a candidate that was very far right. Thus, it was a promising strategy for the democrats to go for the candidate that is closer to the center. After all, even people on the far left who are willing to vote at all will most likely rather vote for a centrist candidate than for someone they consider a fascist. Due to this behavior, and especially in very bipolar party systems, it is assumed to be pragmatically reasonable to go for the center as this is where the switch voters are.
I find the question of whether we want politicians to be honest or electable rather odd. The answer is clearly that we want them to be electable, as electable politicians are, by definition, politicians we are inclined to support. If it were true that we prefer honest politicians, then they would be the electable ones. The odd conclusion here is that regardless of what the answer actually is, in all cases, it ultimately is 'electable'.
Yeah, the question in the title posits a false dichotomy. But it allows Olly to wear his colours for the rest of the video under the assumption that the word "honest" equates to the moral concept "good". Bit of a mess linguistically, and rueful philosophically, though I agree with his politics, despite it all being nonsense speak. :-) Ironically, it kinda proves how hard it really is to be "honest" about something as emotive as politics.
I think "..and then ACT on it" should be in all your videos! Recently been pondering on philosophy without action, and kept getting to the point where action is essential to good philosophy
I think electablity is missing one huge factor. Relatablity, Charisma and Rhetoric. You can pretty much sell anything with these three if you do it right. Convince and persuade before you join the majority. It's what got every historical figure where he is today. From Hitler, Lenin and Che to the Prophets, MLK and Ghandi. And I will always be convinced that as a Leader you are First and formost Charismatic and only secondly Competent. If you can't sell yourself, your competence won't matter and if you agree to work against your intention then you've lost your cause.
I think the politicians should be voted for their honesty/morality and not their acting abilities, employing actors to run the world seems to complete madness and will only end up in what we have now running the world. Actors are trained to deceive, when you have all parties full of actors/deceivers whom got to power by deceit/acting and are not capable of completing their job role as politicians , as in this world at the moment. Politicians should just complete their job role with honesty and morality, and it seems like both these things are missing in today's politicians; which leads me to believe that they are not politicians for the people but for the corporate dream, which does not hold any morality or honesty. As my old granddad use to say " Never trust a person that tries to deceive you", always sounded like common sense to me.
I would love to see more political ones, specifically current politics. I like learning about the politics of U.K like this one, but maybe you could include U.S or other major nations. IDk though, others may not be as thrilled over political videos. who knows i bet alot would be thrilled!
Liked the video. I didn't like the background music. What is important to remeber is the memory of the UK under Ed Heath and Jim Callagahan. Pre Tatcher 'electability' was squewed to the left. Another point that seems to be neglected is the rise of the SNP. The fators behind this have nothing to do with English politics. What is working class in today's econoomy? Is "working class" a cultural construct; it is a matter of personal identification rather than determined by one's profession? There is a huge discrepancy between the protected benefits of the public workers and benefits of private workers. Part of shism in Labour is between public and private sector unions. The reason why austerity gets votes is because there is an anger that private workers are paying taxes tp pay for public sector job security. see Neath Port Talbot
In the Netherlands we don't have a two party system. I think this allows a lot more things to be electable since you don't need a majority to have serious influence in the government. It's not perfect of course, but I think it's a lot better than many other systems.
There's something missing here. That people seem to be rejecting Corbyn because he is seen as too morally principled. And people want politicians to do morally wrong things for our benefit, so we don't have to take responsibility for them by being cynical. That's why they describe Corbyn as, "Not able to make the hard decisions." And therefore, "Not serious about the job."
Perhaps the worst thing about "Electability" politics is that it invites the principal-agent problem. Representative democracy is premised on representatives accurately portraying their political platform so that voters can judge them on that basis and in turn be represented by someone whose values most accurately represent their own. What we are calling electability is a lie, and one that almost hurts everyone but the liar more than the liar, because that pattern of misrepresentation will be generalized, and it encourages voters to make improper and even unfair assumptions about individual politicians. I also think it was a bit remiss to not mention that this issue is not nearly so prevalent on the right as it is on the left. Conservatives don't have to lie about who they are, especially in America, their platform is already a misrepresentation, namely to sell to the poor and working class that empowering economic elites will result in their salvation. Our whole discussion of philosophical morality in politics is constrained to the left. Convenient scapegoats are convenient if you don't care about ethics.
This has also happened in Spanish politics. After the general election in 2011, in which the Partido Popular (Popular Party?) won with absolute majority, the PSOE (Partido Socialista Obrero Español, Spanish Socialist Worker's Party), decided to vote on a new leader. There were two main candidates, Pedro Sánchez and Eduardo Madina. Eduardo Madina represented the left-wing spectrum of the party, while Pedro Sánchez is handsome and elegant. Guess who won? After that, an actual left-wing party was created and has gained a lot of influence, and the most left-wing people like not to say the SO in PSOE, because they have abandoned both their Socialism and their worker focus.
People like to make really grand proclamations about what does or does not win elections based on paltry data sets. Even if I was willing to go with the idea that "electability" matters more than honesty, no one can say for sure what "electability" means. Better to at least address the world like it really is.
Are honesty and electability necessarily mutually exclusive? In the U.S., Bernie Sanders ran a grassroots campaign against a Clinton and nearly won, and his one and only tactic was honesty about his values. Perhaps the definition of electability changes depending on whether or not people vote in accordance with their values, and whether or not the playing field is even.
"addressing real concerns" is not jargon for shifting to the right. its addressing real concerns. a lot of people think that nationalising the railway is a good idea, but its not a vote winner on its own, because no-one comes home and says to themselves "shit, I wish the bloody railways were nationalised, that would make everyone better". They want to know about how their children will be taught, how they will get a house, a good job, and a good leader should understand which issues to campaign heavily on and which ones to leave in the manifesto as further reading. being electable in my opinion should not be dialectically opposed to being honest. the task of the statesman is to do both, to put things in a way that pulls people to your side. to offer real, implementable, fully costed solutions, not slogans. Anti-Austerity is not a policy that you can write into a bill. The biggest issue that the labour party face is that to a lot of ordinary Britons, that don't care much about politics, Tory rule is the default setting. Tony Blair, who has become reviled for his actions in the Iraq war, quite reasonably has been utterly demonised to the extent that no-one bothers to try to understand why he won elections so confidently, and was able to implement some excellent policies.Theres a moral argument there too, if you decide to say, I will not compromise my beliefs, at all, with the knowledge that it will cost you the election, and the opposition get in and Implement some really horrid policies, you have to accept a degree of responsibility for that. but hey what did Tony Blair ever achieve for people on minimum wage, am I right?
You seem to be mixing two issues like there is no distinction. 1. Who "party leaders" etc. are willing to put up as candidates (need ranked voting so you have more parties) 2. What those candidates do and say in order to get elected. 1. I mean some people might say X person is not electable, but actually mean these party leaders etc don't want them on the ballet because they don't like their position. So they use "unelectable" as a way of saying "please don't make this person a candidate, they might win". but more dishonest like. 2. If people follow what the candidates say and then they do something different, then people lose more trust in politicians, so how is that helpful? Besides, if you got both sides on the right so you're just choosing between bad and worse, how is that a democracy?
I think that the best course of action would be to try to educate people about the truth whilst trying to make them feel good enough about it to want to vote you into power. Therefore, being honest and true can be electable but may not always work out. I understand that the premis of the video is that they are mutually exclusive but this should be clarified.
I also think that going by the assumption that electability and honesty are mutually exclusive, Politicians should be honest rather than electable. This is due to the moral arguments made in the video. I am typing here because I cannot edit the comment I made on the device I am using (Apple Ipod).
Three years too late but, to me, 'electability' should still involve moving the country in the right direction. Right Labour and centrists are, at best, fighting for the status quo and, in some cases, trying to move the country to the right. To me, electability is supporting Corbyn because he supports partial worker ownership of businesses, rather than opposing him because he doesn't support total worker ownership.
Your earlier (non-political) videos, where you introduced famous arguments of philosophy (e.g. A time vs. B time) were excellent. Sometimes you presented arguments with holes, but it was always of the form "person X said this" or "person Y made this point". This video continues a trend where you seem to assume, a priori, that leftist policy is the best policy in seemingly every context. You are allowed to believe that, but you should understand that using this assumption in your argument immediately alienates anyone with different views. If you want to argue that leftist policy is superior, or that Jeremy Corbyn's policy is superior, that's fine too, but you have to get to that conclusion with a series of logical steps, not with an a priori assumption. I don't live in the UK and I can't say I'm informed on all of the issues affecting the UK, but I have seen some evidence that there is a policy of tolerating (if not facilitating) anti-Semitism among Corbyn and his supporters. Would you prefer to have a non-racist centrist candidate or an anti-Semitic leftist candidate? It's not as simple as what you present and I don't think you've done justice to the complexity of political issues in general and this one in particular.
Not to mention the fact that policies that will get you elected in certain constituencies, will not get you elected in others! So, then how do you craft a set of policies that will appeal to enough people in a majority of constituencies, without alienating some parts of your base! It's a tricky one.
I think there an interest "honest vs electable" discussion to be had on the side of voters as well. Both my parents *honestly* have political views that most accurately align with the Green party, however in the last few general elections my mum has chosen to vote for the Liberal Democrats, because although they do not as fully align with her views, they are more *electable* so by voting for them she is at least putting someone close to her views in more power
This is part of what's going on with Trump vs. Clinton in the US. Though it's a bit of a bizarro-mirror: Trump is seen as more "honest" by his supporters, Hillary as more "electable" by hers. This shows that the feeling of that a person is "honest" has very little fact-value in the end - who you think of as honest largely depends on where you get your information about reality.
Good video overall, but I do feel that "Honest vs Electability" is a bit of a false dichotomy here. There is a complete spectrum between only saying exactly what you believe, to hell with whether people will support you, and not paying any mind to your actual opinions and just telling people exactly what they want to hear (and that's not even factoring in international politics and economical factors). While I do agree that better politicians are located more towards the 'honesty' side, I think that politicians should pay some attention to what might help or hinder them in getting elected. As you yourself said, in the opposition, there is much less that you can do. In short, there are more positions in this issue than just the two extremes, and ignoring those might be harmful to the discussion.
"Unelectable" is very convenient descriptor for dismissing a candidate while avoiding any real discussion of their policy positions and goals. It's an intellectually dishonest accusation. It's also very snobish.
An honest politician would pretty often have to blame the public for their own problems. We all know how well that would go over. Look at Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment for example. It was brutally honest, but she was widely derided for saying it. People who say they want honest politicians should be careful what they wish for, because an honest person is not likely to stroke your ego.
The biggest reason I don't want Trump in the white house is because, like brexit, it will embolden and legitimize bigotry. I think a lot of people discount that when comparing the two main candidates.
Quite frankly, I think bigotry is kind of bottled up within a nation's people when life gets shitty. When life is getting shittier, the bigotry silently builds and builds. Electing right-wing people may expel the built up bigotry, letting it out in a "safer" environment when bigots have what they want. Those years blow over, and liberalism asserts itself again when right wingers inevitably fail enough for the left to be re-elected, as every political party eventually fails hard enough given time. But what if you never give that outlet while conditions continue to worsen under leftist rule? I fear a critical mass will form due to no outlet or representation, and then things would get REALLY bad. Let me put it like this. Would you rather have a Trump now, or a Hitler later? Not to mention that, potential bigotry aside, Trump is actually the better candidate here. Even if you disagree politically at least he isn't scandalous or a criminal.
Sol If we don't let America be bigoted, they might get even more bigoted later? That sounds like the most ridiculous rationalization I've ever heard for tolerating facism. I don't see how you can see someone who has been the subject of nigh constant controversy as not "scandalous." The only distinction I can see is that he's not doing it secretly, and I don't see how being a dick openly is better. The bottom line is that a Trump presidency would create a breeding ground for bad policy (torture, discrimination, growing economic inequality) that would put anything Clinton would do to shame. I don't like her either, but I don't even begin to see the argument that Trump is better. He's a lying, narcissistic, bigot. At least Clinton is running the more progressive party platform.
Taylor Bennett I am voicing the idea that politics, like many things, swings back and forth. Instead of holding back the pendulum and it swinging HARD back in the other direction, let things take their natural course instead and balance remains. You say that is ridiculous rationalization, but it is not an unreasonable assertion. If you are not blind the building tensions should be apparent whether in the US or Europe. Honestly I am trying to frame arguments that would be appealing to you, I am firmly in the Trump camp minus any "lesser of the two evils" business. Trump's "controversy" includes things like Trump university or "the judge should recuse himself." Hillary's controversies are putting lives on the line, cronyism, divulging top state secrets, lying under oath and to the American public from a position of power, aiding to create an environment that breeds terrorism, lying about being on the field of battle, the literal fate of nations, subverting victims of actual rape (by her husband), and a whole slew of many other things by association to her donors and foundation. The "controversy" of both candidates are as comparable as apples to oranges, with one being significantly worse than the other. An asshole is better than an outright psychopathic criminal, no? At least it is more sensible to take a chance on the asshole in HOPES that he isn't a psychopathic criminal to the same extent. In regards to bad policy, we will just simply disagree here but I do want to entertain something. Clinton is bought out by interests normal people LOATHE, and she can be trusted for about as far as you can throw her (that TPP will be signed no doubt if elected). In office, you will only get token liberalism on social issues but the system at large remains unchanged (as opposed to what Bernie would aim for, for example). Quite frankly, Bernie and Trump have very similar policy all around excluding economics so if you happened to like Bernie...Trump offers more to you than Hillary ever would. I do not know if Hillary is running the 'most' progressive platform, or why that should even matter. Trump right now is literally gunning for the black vote....also if progressiveness is your true chief concern then vote Jill Stein.
Sol Yeah, you're treating politics like it's physics. It's intuitive to the extent that we frequently go back and forth between reds and blues in power, but the fact that this has in fact happened doesn't mean that it's acting under some natural force. Going way farther to the left will not cause some catastrophic swing back towards fascism. Trump has no particular scandals under his belt, but neither does my 5yo nephew. The fact that he hasn't done much damage YET doesn't mean we should make him president. Trump is skeptical of climate change and flippant about nuclear weapons, arguably the two most important issues in the world rn. Furthermore he's explicitly suggested bringing back torture, expanding extra judicial prisons, and attacking the families of suspected terrorists. He's deep in bed with hard right Christians who want him to push back against LGBT rights and abortion rights, and prop up discriminatory religious liberty bills. His immigration policy is childish, cold, and counterproductive (the wall is stupid both because it's impossible and because it focuses the conversation on whether or not to exclude rather than addressing the issue of what to do with people already here). And back to my. Original point, he's made his stand about immigration using the most viscious, unfair, and often flatly untrue stereotypes, fanning the fires of xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia still smoldering deep in the collective American psyche. And not to mention that he likely has no interest in actually doing the work of running the country in the day to day - he's doing it for the fame and money. He would be (he has promised to be) a terrible president, and he will fail in the biggest responsibilities as hard as the smallest. I guarantee it.
Taylor Bennett eh, it's fair to accuse me over shoving politics into a science. I still find it a logical conclusion given what else I have said, but there is certainly nothing that could be found that makes such a hard shift as I propose guaranteed. Though if you are willing to speak of fascism, the far progressive left is already knee deep in those trenches. Long comment coming, sorry in advance for wall of text but I have literally nothing better to do right now. You are absolutely correct that just because Trump hasn't done anything Clinton-tier yet does not mean he won't. However, isn't it more sensible to hedge bets on a maybe compared to a guaranteed (Clinton)? Trump isn't skeptical about climate change, he is skeptical about global warming. The two terms mean different things. Honestly given recent finding (within the last decade actually) and how science has become largely propaganda due to corruption/bias in academia and vested interests I find skepticism about global warming reasonable. Everyone can agree though that cleaner energy sources are obviously better for the environment though and the development of which should be incentivized. Sensibly incentivized, not to a degree that would cripple the economy or middle-class pocket. I think there are free-market solutions anyways to the development of alternative energy so I do not see much of a reason to bash Trump here who wants to lessen our dependency on foreign oil and, now without a market dictated by foreign interests that would prevent competitive alternative energy from gaining ground by manipulation of the prices, competition and development towards alternative energy can earnestly begin. Bringing nuclear options to south korea and japan is honestly a good idea in my opinion to keep chinese and north korean aggression in check and at the same time have stronger/more faithful allies within the region. I do not generally agree with the proliferation of nuclear arms, but when a nuclear armed country and another that is developing them are essentially bullies....the options open up in my mind. He also mentioned some arab nation with that which I found retarded but he has retracted that since anyways. Bringing back torture int he case of against foreign terrorists...can't say I disagree, and personally I have wanted this for a long time. We aren't fighting a civilized nation (but savage groups) that engages within the rules of war or has enlisted people that are just there to fight for their country (and not necessarily the cause, take the nazi's for instance). The effectiveness could be argued, but in the specific case of against bonafide-beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt non-citizen-nor-endorsed-by-a-governing-body terrorists I do not see the moral dilemma. I do not know what extra-judicial prisons are and won't comment on it. And concerning attacking terrorist families, I think this is also a good idea. All is fair in love and war (when you don't have standing agreements with each other on how to conduct yourselves and abide by them). Many of these terrorists do not care about dying, and so what is one supposed to do to strike terror in their hearts? They are innocent, yes, but I am such a terrible person as that would go to any length to terrify and defeat my enemies (if there is no resulting cost to my own people of course as would be in war against a country when you decide whether to forfeit Geneva or not). I can absolutely understand being against everything that is within this paragraph, but I would be lying to myself if I said I opposed these things under these circumstances. I am terrified of the hard-right Christians too, but I am also generally conservative. This dilemma isn't new to me. I am for LGBT rights, but the supreme court decision was a gross misuse of judicial power (as is all instances of broad-constitutional reading imo) and marriage law should rightfully be determined by the states as is the powers invested in them by the constitution. My opposition is purely out of how I believe the Law should work, not by bigotry and if you yourself are a strict-constructionist I suggest you take a gander at the ruling yourself. Even if you love broad-interpretations, the vague and nebulous language used in the ruling is just begging to be abused one day. Abortion rights are of legitimate concern, although late-term abortions is wrong in my mind. The problem with the right is that they don't want sensible abortion policy, they want NO abortion policy. Religious liberty bills are also legitimate concern. I disagree that the immigration policy is bad. The wall itself could great a small economic boon if Mexico pays for it but Trump is smart enough to hire all American workers and walls generally work believe it or not (examples: Israel and Hungary whose walls have proved VERY effective). Can it actually be paid for by Mexico though? Honestly that is wait and see. I would think it is beneficial whether paid for or not at any rate so I am not deeply concerned by that. In addition the walls certainly would damper the drug trade, which drugs are also potentially the biggest problem for poor neighborhoods and would help clean them up even without the increased police presence Trump also proposes. There is some hate on strong policing for good reason, but I do earnestly think that the only way to improve inner cities is to first clean up the neighborhoods and that will inevitably need strong law enforcement rather than purely indirect niceties (although the wall would certainly contribute as one). Of course the need to vet people coming in should also not be something you completely disagree with, no? The one part of the policy that I can see legitimate disagreement with it the mass deportation. I am personally for it as I believe that there has been a negative impact overall by immigration in concern to people who were already living here, but we can go back and forth on those statistics all day so I would rather just concede you it is a legitimate disagreement there. But anchor babies seriously need to go, that I won't concede. It is flat out abused. Now about HOW he has made his points (rather than the substance). I see how it incites the flames, but I do not see the statements themselves as flames when viewed under the actual context of them being said. Regardless, as a politician it is his responsibility to avoid saying things that, even if they are alright to say, could be taken wrongly. He seems to be learning that recently if you are keeping up with him. I disagree that he has no interest in running things smoothly BECAUSE he is narcissistic and greedy. What is better for business, being a famous president or an infamous one? One of those will obviously strike much better deals than the other in the future. Also, which is more lucrative in future dealings? That would be being a good president rather than a bad. I think the negative qualities that you say would make him a bad president would actually cause him to strive to be a good president. For all the wrong reasons of course, but that doesn't concern me if the results are good.
It seems like there are a few factors to this "electability:" Ability to suppress uproar in the other party(A general consensus on a whole issue seems to be good with Blair) Practical, but not overwhelming view on change(Populists are interesting, but not stable for systemic change) Suppressing general opinion(People tend to dissect on multiple issues; forcing one opinion at a time centralizes support, builds relationships, and makes one-leader governments easier. While one-leader governments aren't ideal and this is, of course, a checked parliamentary democracy, power is effectively centralized in most ways and affects people's opinion, rather than vice versa.) (Now at least) Traditional immigration opinion(Supporting tradition gets you the conservative and at least some of the left-wing vote if you aren't seemingly iron-willed on the issue and populist ruckus is not that predictable.) Support casualties(the 1960s counterculture and extreme right-wing crime control aside, war is a non-populist opinion and seeming strong on this divisive issue can win votes from one's enemies)
I think one potential answer is actually in an episode of doctor who, The Beast Below it kind of backs up my view that even if you were perfectly honest with the electorate all the bad and all the good the electorate will just want to forget the bad and live in a world of blissful ignorance.
well this looks exactly like American politics with right and left sides and “immigration issues” i am having whiplash... and you can put this on Bernie with the “unelectable” the same way you talked about jeramy corbin. i honestly can’t comfortably talk about politics without getting serious backlash about completely different ideas that turn out to have the same values behind them.
In order to avoid giving offense, I will avoid present-day politics. An interesting example of a politician acting dishonestly in order to be appealing to the electorate leading to th opposite of his intended effect is Nikias in book 6 of Thucydides. Having failed to dissuade the Athenian assembly that th Sicilian Expedition would be inadvisable for military reasons, Nikias inflated his estimate about the cost of the expedition hoping that the assembly would refuse to support the expedition for financial reasons. Nikias' dishonestly inflated estimate had the unintended consequence of persuading the Athenian assembly to send forth a bloated and ruinously expensive expedition rather than dissuading them from sending forth the expedition at all. I think Thucydides intended for the reader to take this as an example of why it is important for politicians to be honest--a advised by Perikles in book 2. I have enjoyed the packages about political philosophy. I wonder if you have done anything investigating whether it is the responsibility of governments to do good or to do what the people want by the most expedient possible means. If good, what good and for whom? I would also love to see an exploration of goodness--whether it exists and if it is good to be good or good to do good.
I’m sorry, and I’m obviously very late to this, but the Labour Left have very real concerns about immigration and the EU’s FoM policy, which is one of the reasons why we have Brexit. Not the only reason, but one of the reasons.
Could you do a serious video/research of consercative ideals and more theology videos?? I consider myself conservative and I watch most of your videos as I think that you are the most inteligent left wing youtuber I came across. I watch you to learn about left wing ideology/philosophy, and you helped me understand and criticise better. So it would be REALLY nice to hear your criticism on the core of conservative thought, and if you have already a video on that could you please tell me which?? thanks. ps:I'm not british, so it's not like I support the conservative party.
I want politicians to be honest more than electable. it is hard to explain why I fell so in a TH-cam commentary field. but if politicians is honest no one will vote or listen them because we as voters want to take responsibility for what we do. it is sad but very understandable why it is that way if you as a politicians blame all your problems on the voters they get mad.
Did I miss the bit where you point out that, should she continue as leader into the next election, the Conservative party have one of the most left-wing Conservative leaders ever? I suspect this is likely to detract from Labour votes if the parliamentary Labour Party prove they aren't interested in listening to their grass roots supporters and succeed in ousting _their_ preferred leader Jeremy Corbyn. In most regards, I think Theresa May is far more left-wing than Owen Smith, despite the reputation of their respective parties, and that creates a very _strange_ situation where the views of the two major party leaders are more in-line with the traditions of their opposition party than their own. How's that skew the centre?
Well I have heard people say May is left wing because she knows how to talk the talk, but IMO her voting history and behaviour as Foreign Secretary indicate otherwise.
Go ahead and cross into advocacy if you want to, but I would put it into its own category expressly labelled as one's personally held opinions. It could certainly be an interesting section of your channel, where you could express your views and explain how your philosophical positions shape your perceptions and opinions, why you accept one principle or value and reject or subordinate another. But I think that extolling one's own views should be distinct from dispassionately explaining the views held by others.
Using honesty and electability as polar opposites is a bit silly don't you think? For honesty, I think politicians should have the flexibility to change their minds (hence being perceived as lying). Take Corbyn for example, despite publicly expressing eurosceptic views, he still campaigned to remain in the EU. It is of course a different issue when political campaigns like Brexit deliberately lies like the 350 million figure and that form of misleading the public is unacceptable.
You should have added a line explicitly pointing out the videos "example" was from a labour left perspective and its arguments still apply to other parties and views. Without it you appear overly biased and some people with different principles get alienated.
Constructive feedback: I really love your channel, explanations, taught and arguments. That aside, on this video specifically, the inserted background music created a distraction from the content. It made is somewhat difficult to listen to you... maybe its juts me, but again maybe not. Anyway, keep up the good work!
This is an interesting perspective, but I think it's really disingenuous to suggest that Labour have been doing well under Corbyn, and hold Miliband up as an example of people judging "Labour going right".
I think this is a false framing of the question, rather i think it would be more important to think about "what system causes honesty to unelectable" People think in interest; be it of groups or themselves. inherently both parties are patriotic and want whats best for their nation, and if what solves their issue were true and honest then the voter would vote for them, but clear something or someone has corrupted such a system of information. Now we question whether we should be honest or electable, instead of addressing the system that has destroyed honesty and truth, despite being what we truly want.
The problem I have with Corban is that he's either honest in his racism or uses pseudo-liberal as a demagogic tool to appeal to those who might hold such opinions. Either way is bad for the Labour party, and in general.
I've learned alot of philosophy on this channel over the years. He has introduced me to many philosophers and have given me there argument and counter arguments. But since his shift in focus toward acting and success of getting subscribers to donate toward his channel, I've been seeing less of a academic drive toward his videos. This video doesn't have any historical perspectives on this subject, the basis for much of the video hung on the "good" or "bad" without giving a rationale or standard to judge it from. And much of it was "well if you mean this way politically you contain the truth and the other side is pandering without giving sources for this belief.I hope this channel doesn't go video blog on us.
+shaun Brown political philosophy is academic, but yeah to be fair I have been on a politics/economics kick recently and the channel has reflected that a bit. I've got episodes and scripts coming that bring a bit more variation back :)
I think your being naive here, these politicians are in their 50s their not stupid, their not for a labour right because of beliefs, but because it gives them power, pure and simple
Referring to Tories as "those of us unfamiliar with labour" is kinda perfect??
holy shit, tony blair is the equivalent of bill clinton
British and US politics do have some equivalency. Thatcher and Reagan are quite stark but Clinton and Blair both represent the reactions of left-wing parties who embraced neoliberalism.
creshiell Yeah. When learn this in politics and social science. The Third Way basically gives into globalisation and neoliberalism, however, was slightly more progressive in regards to identity politics. All this privatisation and lower taxes - mixed with budget expenditure is becoming ever harder to maintain. And, the centre-left don't challenge the status-quo enough to make a difference. However, it doesn't help misinforming everyone with the MSM, another consequence of privatisation and deregulation. Where, in Australia, any ambitious social program is responded with *budget emergency*. And, now that the Conservatives are in power and massively increases the budget deficit, the MSM is quiet.
creshiell worse actually.Clinton wasn't that terrible,he deregulated a bit and this made the economy less stable but it still wasn't unstable enough to crash.He also had a government surplus,the last we had in ages.He obviously was no saint,but I would consider him better than Mr.Blair
Michael Parenti used to say that Tony Blair was just Bill Clinton in drag
@@mansamusa1743 Tony Blair seems worse because he was very public about his crimes while Bill kept his on the DL. But as horrific as the Iraq War was, Clinton's role in the Rwandan and Congolese genocides is far worse
The videos on this channel have been getting noticeably better lately. Keep it up.
+
That's generally how these things work. "Right wing" movements tend to be anti-intellectual, while "left wing" is generally more educated people who understand the issues better. That's not to say there's no intellectual force in right wing politics, but it's based on a misunderstanding of facts and moving emphasis to experience. This is especially true in the US and UK.
Yeah, the same intellectuals who pandered to communism and the Soviet Union during most of the Cold War (ahem Corbyn ahem). I hope you're not going to defend that. The idea that intellectuals have a much better grasp on the truth is your own fantasy. They're moved by emotions just as much as everyone else, they just deceive themselves better in thinking that isn't so.
I was referring to the Oli's improving speaking ability and confidence, I guess that come's with the territory now that he's pursuing topics that he has a interest in.
Going to defend what? What is the problem with supporting the USSR? People who outright dismiss it with no argument simply don't actually know what was going on at the time. And intellectuals DO have a better grasp on truth. In both of your major points in this comment, you demonstrate exactly the problem Conservatives have (whether you're conservative or not): you don't care about the truth and just think your opinion is right based on poor reasoning and misinformation.
The thing is - your assertion that intellectuals don't understand the world around us any better than the layman is a part of YOUR fantasy. Yet, because you are you and inherently infallible, there's no way that this could be true. I, on the other hand, realise this cognitive dissonance and instead rely on facts, statistics and cogent reasoning.
I would wager a large sum of money on the fact that I am more familiar with the USSR's politics, economy and history than you are. But the anti-intellectuals hear that and dismiss it as though it's not even a factor in understanding the world. Your high school teacher who told you the USSR is evil isn't really a credible source of information unless you're looking for lies and propaganda.
If education was of quality and accessible for everyone, we would not need to choose between "electable" and "honest"
I personally know a German MP for the green party and she is nothing if not honestly dedicated to her cause. So no, I don't like to think all politicians are dishonest and just in it for themselves. Because I know it's not true in at least one case and I have the strong impression, even from the media if you care to look, that there are many more politicians like that. They are quietly giving it their all and they don't seek spotlight nor riches.
So, post-actually-watched-the-video addendum: you're saying there are honest politicians and there are politicians that try to cater to the masses, while those same masses complain about the politicians they vote for not being honest. And it's those masses that you referred to with your collective "we" right at the beginning of the video, not actually those of us who do take a closer look at the politicians we vote for and how much they seem to be driven by their cause and how much we share this cause instead of how catchy the slogans are they produce, right?
The problem I find it that the structure of the system is really shit to begin with, and its foolish to say one can solve it by entering into it.
It's exactly that.
We all know that there just MUST be good people.
There certainly are.
But the average person is not interested in them, but rather in... *coughs* Trump (and/or Trump-like douches).
***** Which system, the German or the British one?
Bernie Sanders. Another example of untainted integrity.
I think following what's electable will inevitably lead to a vicious cycle. If the public perception shifts to the right, let's say, Social Democrats may also decide to adapt their stances, not alienate anyone. Then, the Conservatives would have to shift right as well to distinguish themselves. The discourse (TM) would gradually move to the right bit by bit, so the parties again have to move right as well to keep being electable. Political parties often act like what they do and say does not affect the perception of certain topics in the public.
Adding to that, I would like to live in a system where losing votes is not always necessarily seen as a bad thing. Say, you have 10 different parties, representing 10 quite different world views. If a majority goes in one direction, I wouldn't want the others to also change and pander to them. If only 4% are having the world view that this certain party has, so be it, they shouldn't change and became more electable because of it. To properly display what the population actually thinks and believes, we probably would also need something like alternative voting, really badly.
How is it a vicious cycle that the choices for elected officials remain constantly on bith sides of the general stance of the population?
Yea what you're describing is the ratchet effect and it's very real in western democracies.
Very interesting! Great video mate
In my opinion the two are not at odds. What has been "electable" has been defined by an ever dwindling level of voter engagement due to the very apparent lack of honesty amongst politicians.
That's because nobody understands that honesty would discourage you even more from voting for a specific candidate than just being dishonest. Dishonesty may bother you but if you had the choice between a politician who is lying to you and a politician who is honest but doesn't represent your will at all you would most likely still vote for the dishonest one.
Kazuya Mishima
Wrong. I would vote for the honest one. I will never, ever, vote for someone who is a liar.
*****
You do know that if he doesn't lie to you now he will be forced to later. If he doesn't he'll bring chaos on the entire nation.
Kazuya Mishima
What a load of twaddle... the sort of thing a liar would say to justify themselves..
*****
alright then, stay ignorant.
I bet the comments on this one are going to be thoughtful and contributive
Oh God, we got another optimist about humanity. Reality program activate. Send in the alt-right!!!!!!! :)
i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/101/860/ea3.jpg
Rory O'Kane
that's one of the greatest things i've ever seen
Rory O'Kane
the poor doctor's face when he realises the terror he's wrought upon the world
TinyTachyon "My God... what have I done!?" i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/003/011/ohgod.jpg
So sad looking back at this 5 years later
As soon as I got a notification for this video I jumped to watch this. Love this channel!
lol I just watched this and got a Biden ad
*Palpatine_ironic.gif*
The core problem that I see is that there's very little apparent overlap between "honesty" and "electability".
I just wanted to say to you that I love your work here. I listen to you while I'm at work at my graveyard shift security job. It makes me feel pretty connected intellectually in an otherwise simple job. Thank you so much
Good video Olly. As a brief aside about the production, I quite enjoyed your use of sound in this video to set the mood at a few points. 😄
The fact that you don't tell us who you support sums up the whole essence of this channel. Keep up the good work!
2:35AM 05/26/2023 I am watching all of Abby's videos
You just levelled up in your background music abilities. Congrats Olly.
I really enjoy people like Nerdwriter. I feel like a format that has more visuals would be really beautiful along with these in depth issues that people don't think about often.
That's a fair point, and I'm filming a batch of videos at the moment that definitely is more visually stimulating! They'll be out in the coming weeks/months once this batch is all published! :)
And this is why I support you on patreon. Great thought process, clear and confident, challenging without belittlement.
This is why I can't stand Corbyn's brexit stance.
He's willing to sacrifice so much to try and win over brexiters.
This is why I can't stand the slander of Corbyn and the constant sabotage of his attempts his election
@@itzakhywell7668 is it slander to not like corbyns brexit stance? I was a big Corbin supporter, and I voted labour in both of the recent elections. But I think its fair to say that those failures rest firmly on his shoulders. I won't blame brexit and the current state of affairs on anyone but the tories, but god damn corbyn made it hard to vote for him. His stance (or lack therof) on brexit was his undoing. He never supported remain, he never supported leave, he sat on the fence until far too late and the tories cleaned his clock. Now nothing is quite so simple of course, but I really think its ALMOST that simple. The last election was a single issue election: brexit, and labour didn't choose a side.
Amazing analysis.
I watched a couple of your videos from 2014, and with this, I can tell that you have learned alot.
Feed my brain!!
Hah, welcome to the little community!
Btw, Have you considered collaborating with the channel CollegeBinary especially since the Three Minute Philosophy series had just been "rebooted"?
Electability is only as useful as the influence that individual politician will have, I think. One person out of 3 can make a big change, but 1 out of 100 - better to support those who display similar morals, and not just through voting, so that it won't be 1 out of 100, but 50 or 70 or more, you know?
Very good video, as always. Your channel is a great and reliable source of information, and as a political science student it is very useful to me when I don't understand parts of my lectures, or just want to satisfy my curiosity. Thanks!
I am currently reading Zizek's In defence of lost causes which makes some interesting points regarding how the rhetoric of major parties is shifting quickly to the right. There he claims (among many many other things) that propositions that 30 years ago would be considered modest are now considered radical leftist (and the book was written about a decade ago). It's a great read, I encourage you to take a look.
Great video! Please keep it up!
In my experience one can in most cases not draw a line between a wing that aims for electability and a wing that supports adherence to ideals. More often it depends on the topic who supports which of the two. For example one representative could try to be electable by supporting a hard crackdown on crime while supporting left wind economics while others act the other way around.
Excellent video Olly
Haunting video. Keep up the great work!
This video aged like gold. Still relevant today.
I think two of the issues that arises from not sticking to your principals for an election are one: false advertising, if you don't do what you say you will do when you get into power you will be seen as untrustworthy and two by not mentioning issues that are important to your party e.g. the enviroment as a concern then it means that the other party doesn't need to also address those issues which means they don't need to curtail their proposals and those issues dissapear from the political discourse.
Your best video yet!
Oh Jeremy Corbin... Oh Jeremy Corbin... If you'll pardon me, as an citizen of the US, for saying something about your politics in the United Kingdom. I didn't, but our general public (excluding the rigging from the Democratic Party) voted against Bernie Sanders, who was our version of Jeremy Corbin. Please don't make the mistake that we did.
I'm very glad you made this video - too often British politics seems to be devoid of any iota of logic. One of the fundamental issues you've touched on, which you may wish to consider exploring in another video, is what to do when a democracy starts democratically engaging with and warming too ideas that tend to be less associated with liberal democracy (i.e. illiberal democracy). The American founding fathers decided that they needed to address the inconvenient problem of tyranny of the majority by introducing a web of restrictions and limitations through their constitution. A bill of rights or entrenched freedoms are an easy way to escape the ugly truth that a lot of people have some pretty horrible views and ideas. And it is great that Jeremy Corbyn is trying to address this by tackling the issue in certain ways, but after an election he may lose the critical mass required to lend credibility to his views. This could be more dangerous for the left than the short term costs of pandering to some anti-immigrant policies, as certain liberal views may get completely wiped out in British politics. If the harder-left drag Labour away from the median voter then it could be the perfect way of shooting themselves in the foot. But a little bit of realism/pragmatism could get their foot in the door of No10 so that they can engage in a more effective campaign to address anti-immigration and the anti-globalisation sentiment sweeping the West at the moment. So at what point do we accept that a large section of the electorate hold some pretty ghastly views and won't relinquish them? And furthermore, is it our democratic duty to represent these views?
Interestingly enough, Ed Milliband wasn't even really an example of Labour going right, he was actually seen as too left wing compared to Blair and Brown by many of the Blairite establishment.
That's not me saying he was left wing, I'm pretty much an Anarcho-Communist (Plz do anarchism video) so I still see him as a right wing figure. I think it really goes to show how much labour shifted during Blair, which is really what this entire debate rests upon.
Although great video overall. Extremely relevant. It's good to have a high volume of politics videos right now, considering the political events unfolding in the western world.
When I was taking a pol sci class a lot of people assumed that I wanted to become a politician, when in truth I only took it because I'm interested in political philosophy, so I just figured "hey why not take a class on political science?" but because people assumed that I was an aspiring politician, that did encourage me to reflect on how a person with my political beliefs could even fair out on that career choice in the first place, and I realized that I have to become a good liar. If I want to be altruistic, I have to make myself look like I have other intentions that benefits the upper class.
The idea that you have to tell people what they want to hear in order to get elected and have the opportunity to do some actual good doesn't make much sense. Assuming you are elected, you are faced with two options: 1) You do what people want you to do, which might not be as morally acceptable or helpful as the alternative from the honest politician; 2) You ignore people's wishes and do what you genuinely believe to be the better option, and while this may be 'good' when looking at outcomes, it is also uncomfortably undemocratic to ignore the people who voted for you. It ultimately depends on everyone making an effort to think more about politics and what we might really want our politicians to do, rather than going with the instinctive part of our nature that is so easily riled up by faulty arguments.
In politics its called "pivoting". You get the support of your base with w/e issues your party usually supports. Then you change / pivot / soften your stance to appeal to a wider group.
+dothedeed I think the subtext of their point was that this puts you and/or party at greater risk of losing next time. At least, unless you use a massive propaganda campaign to disguise the fact that you pivoted, which is what usually happens (democracy? what name so?)
Quality quick video, thank you!
A big complication in this talk that you forgot is that some people think a politician should do what the people they represent want them to do, not what they believe they should do.
The trouble with voting Labour is that they're on morally shaky ground. Like you said, we can't predict the future, so we don't know if the next leader will be to the right or left. However, the green party, for example, has never had a right wing leader (to my knowledge). Voting green would be voting for long term morral correctness as opposed to short term gains.
In political science (I'll look the sources up later), there is the idea that there is a major difference between small parties and big parties, such as labour or tories in UK. Big parties are more likely to engage in vote seeking. Thus, their behavior is highly influenced by strategies of political competition. Often, we can see that those assumptions work well in the left-right spectrum.
You can easily see this behavior in how the democrats behaved in the previous election. The republicans decided for a candidate that was very far right. Thus, it was a promising strategy for the democrats to go for the candidate that is closer to the center. After all, even people on the far left who are willing to vote at all will most likely rather vote for a centrist candidate than for someone they consider a fascist.
Due to this behavior, and especially in very bipolar party systems, it is assumed to be pragmatically reasonable to go for the center as this is where the switch voters are.
I find the question of whether we want politicians to be honest or electable rather odd. The answer is clearly that we want them to be electable, as electable politicians are, by definition, politicians we are inclined to support. If it were true that we prefer honest politicians, then they would be the electable ones. The odd conclusion here is that regardless of what the answer actually is, in all cases, it ultimately is 'electable'.
Yeah, the question in the title posits a false dichotomy. But it allows Olly to wear his colours for the rest of the video under the assumption that the word "honest" equates to the moral concept "good". Bit of a mess linguistically, and rueful philosophically, though I agree with his politics, despite it all being nonsense speak. :-)
Ironically, it kinda proves how hard it really is to be "honest" about something as emotive as politics.
I think "..and then ACT on it" should be in all your videos! Recently been pondering on philosophy without action, and kept getting to the point where action is essential to good philosophy
Are you ever going to do a video on the philosophy of !language?
Yes!
I think electablity is missing one huge factor. Relatablity, Charisma and Rhetoric. You can pretty much sell anything with these three if you do it right. Convince and persuade before you join the majority. It's what got every historical figure where he is today. From Hitler, Lenin and Che to the Prophets, MLK and Ghandi.
And I will always be convinced that as a Leader you are First and formost Charismatic and only secondly Competent. If you can't sell yourself, your competence won't matter and if you agree to work against your intention then you've lost your cause.
I think the politicians should be voted for their honesty/morality and not their acting abilities, employing actors to run the world seems to complete madness and will only end up in what we have now running the world. Actors are trained to deceive, when you have all parties full of actors/deceivers whom got to power by deceit/acting and are not capable of completing their job role as politicians , as in this world at the moment. Politicians should just complete their job role with honesty and morality, and it seems like both these things are missing in today's politicians; which leads me to believe that they are not politicians for the people but for the corporate dream, which does not hold any morality or honesty. As my old granddad use to say " Never trust a person that tries to deceive you", always sounded like common sense to me.
I would love to see more political ones, specifically current politics. I like learning about the politics of U.K like this one, but maybe you could include U.S or other major nations. IDk though, others may not be as thrilled over political videos. who knows i bet alot would be thrilled!
Liked the video. I didn't like the background music.
What is important to remeber is the memory of the UK under Ed Heath and Jim Callagahan. Pre Tatcher 'electability' was squewed to the left.
Another point that seems to be neglected is the rise of the SNP. The fators behind this have nothing to do with English politics.
What is working class in today's econoomy? Is "working class" a cultural construct; it is a matter of personal identification rather than determined by one's profession?
There is a huge discrepancy between the protected benefits of the public workers and benefits of private workers. Part of shism in Labour is between public and private sector unions. The reason why austerity gets votes is because there is an anger that private workers
are paying taxes tp pay for public sector job security. see Neath Port Talbot
In the Netherlands we don't have a two party system. I think this allows a lot more things to be electable since you don't need a majority to have serious influence in the government. It's not perfect of course, but I think it's a lot better than many other systems.
There's something missing here. That people seem to be rejecting Corbyn because he is seen as too morally principled. And people want politicians to do morally wrong things for our benefit, so we don't have to take responsibility for them by being cynical. That's why they describe Corbyn as, "Not able to make the hard decisions." And therefore, "Not serious about the job."
Perhaps the worst thing about "Electability" politics is that it invites the principal-agent problem. Representative democracy is premised on representatives accurately portraying their political platform so that voters can judge them on that basis and in turn be represented by someone whose values most accurately represent their own. What we are calling electability is a lie, and one that almost hurts everyone but the liar more than the liar, because that pattern of misrepresentation will be generalized, and it encourages voters to make improper and even unfair assumptions about individual politicians.
I also think it was a bit remiss to not mention that this issue is not nearly so prevalent on the right as it is on the left. Conservatives don't have to lie about who they are, especially in America, their platform is already a misrepresentation, namely to sell to the poor and working class that empowering economic elites will result in their salvation. Our whole discussion of philosophical morality in politics is constrained to the left. Convenient scapegoats are convenient if you don't care about ethics.
This has also happened in Spanish politics. After the general election in 2011, in which the Partido Popular (Popular Party?) won with absolute majority, the PSOE (Partido Socialista Obrero Español, Spanish Socialist Worker's Party), decided to vote on a new leader. There were two main candidates, Pedro Sánchez and Eduardo Madina. Eduardo Madina represented the left-wing spectrum of the party, while Pedro Sánchez is handsome and elegant. Guess who won? After that, an actual left-wing party was created and has gained a lot of influence, and the most left-wing people like not to say the SO in PSOE, because they have abandoned both their Socialism and their worker focus.
People like to make really grand proclamations about what does or does not win elections based on paltry data sets. Even if I was willing to go with the idea that "electability" matters more than honesty, no one can say for sure what "electability" means. Better to at least address the world like it really is.
Are honesty and electability necessarily mutually exclusive? In the U.S., Bernie Sanders ran a grassroots campaign against a Clinton and nearly won, and his one and only tactic was honesty about his values. Perhaps the definition of electability changes depending on whether or not people vote in accordance with their values, and whether or not the playing field is even.
"addressing real concerns" is not jargon for shifting to the right. its addressing real concerns. a lot of people think that nationalising the railway is a good idea, but its not a vote winner on its own, because no-one comes home and says to themselves "shit, I wish the bloody railways were nationalised, that would make everyone better". They want to know about how their children will be taught, how they will get a house, a good job, and a good leader should understand which issues to campaign heavily on and which ones to leave in the manifesto as further reading. being electable in my opinion should not be dialectically opposed to being honest. the task of the statesman is to do both, to put things in a way that pulls people to your side. to offer real, implementable, fully costed solutions, not slogans. Anti-Austerity is not a policy that you can write into a bill. The biggest issue that the labour party face is that to a lot of ordinary Britons, that don't care much about politics, Tory rule is the default setting. Tony Blair, who has become reviled for his actions in the Iraq war, quite reasonably has been utterly demonised to the extent that no-one bothers to try to understand why he won elections so confidently, and was able to implement some excellent policies.Theres a moral argument there too, if you decide to say, I will not compromise my beliefs, at all, with the knowledge that it will cost you the election, and the opposition get in and Implement some really horrid policies, you have to accept a degree of responsibility for that. but hey what did Tony Blair ever achieve for people on minimum wage, am I right?
Cheers for a great video!
Great job! in putting this together!
Libertarianism/Conservatarianism is becoming INCREDIBLY fashionable these days.
You seem to be mixing two issues like there is no distinction.
1. Who "party leaders" etc. are willing to put up as candidates (need ranked voting so you have more parties)
2. What those candidates do and say in order to get elected.
1. I mean some people might say X person is not electable, but actually mean these party leaders etc don't want them on the ballet because they don't like their position. So they use "unelectable" as a way of saying "please don't make this person a candidate, they might win". but more dishonest like.
2. If people follow what the candidates say and then they do something different, then people lose more trust in politicians, so how is that helpful?
Besides, if you got both sides on the right so you're just choosing between bad and worse, how is that a democracy?
Honest according to whom is an important question to ask. Bias is okay and all, but it was pretty intense here.
Great video and a great summary of UK politics this year, especially the coup of Jeremy Corbyn. Thanks a lot!
Great video!
I think that the best course of action would be to try to educate people about the truth whilst trying to make them feel good enough about it to want to vote you into power. Therefore, being honest and true can be electable but may not always work out. I understand that the premis of the video is that they are mutually exclusive but this should be clarified.
I also think that going by the assumption that electability and honesty are mutually exclusive, Politicians should be honest rather than electable. This is due to the moral arguments made in the video. I am typing here because I cannot edit the comment I made on the device I am using (Apple Ipod).
Three years too late but, to me, 'electability' should still involve moving the country in the right direction. Right Labour and centrists are, at best, fighting for the status quo and, in some cases, trying to move the country to the right. To me, electability is supporting Corbyn because he supports partial worker ownership of businesses, rather than opposing him because he doesn't support total worker ownership.
Your earlier (non-political) videos, where you introduced famous arguments of philosophy (e.g. A time vs. B time) were excellent. Sometimes you presented arguments with holes, but it was always of the form "person X said this" or "person Y made this point".
This video continues a trend where you seem to assume, a priori, that leftist policy is the best policy in seemingly every context. You are allowed to believe that, but you should understand that using this assumption in your argument immediately alienates anyone with different views.
If you want to argue that leftist policy is superior, or that Jeremy Corbyn's policy is superior, that's fine too, but you have to get to that conclusion with a series of logical steps, not with an a priori assumption. I don't live in the UK and I can't say I'm informed on all of the issues affecting the UK, but I have seen some evidence that there is a policy of tolerating (if not facilitating) anti-Semitism among Corbyn and his supporters. Would you prefer to have a non-racist centrist candidate or an anti-Semitic leftist candidate? It's not as simple as what you present and I don't think you've done justice to the complexity of political issues in general and this one in particular.
Not to mention the fact that policies that will get you elected in certain constituencies, will not get you elected in others! So, then how do you craft a set of policies that will appeal to enough people in a majority of constituencies, without alienating some parts of your base! It's a tricky one.
I think there an interest "honest vs electable" discussion to be had on the side of voters as well. Both my parents *honestly* have political views that most accurately align with the Green party, however in the last few general elections my mum has chosen to vote for the Liberal Democrats, because although they do not as fully align with her views, they are more *electable* so by voting for them she is at least putting someone close to her views in more power
I hope when you've dissolved everything in your mind, what you have left is faith and not a void.
faith in what?
@@curtmacquarrie You'll know that when you dissolve everything in your mind. Or not.
@@thearchive26788 oh trust me I've dissolved the shit out of my mind on a few occasions. I haven't found god there though.
@@curtmacquarrie I don't think you have.
@@thearchive26788 that's ok cause I think you're looney tunes.
This is part of what's going on with Trump vs. Clinton in the US. Though it's a bit of a bizarro-mirror: Trump is seen as more "honest" by his supporters, Hillary as more "electable" by hers. This shows that the feeling of that a person is "honest" has very little fact-value in the end - who you think of as honest largely depends on where you get your information about reality.
Good video overall, but I do feel that "Honest vs Electability" is a bit of a false dichotomy here. There is a complete spectrum between only saying exactly what you believe, to hell with whether people will support you, and not paying any mind to your actual opinions and just telling people exactly what they want to hear (and that's not even factoring in international politics and economical factors). While I do agree that better politicians are located more towards the 'honesty' side, I think that politicians should pay some attention to what might help or hinder them in getting elected. As you yourself said, in the opposition, there is much less that you can do.
In short, there are more positions in this issue than just the two extremes, and ignoring those might be harmful to the discussion.
"Unelectable" is very convenient descriptor for dismissing a candidate while avoiding any real discussion of their policy positions and goals. It's an intellectually dishonest accusation. It's also very snobish.
An honest politician would pretty often have to blame the public for their own problems. We all know how well that would go over. Look at Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment for example. It was brutally honest, but she was widely derided for saying it. People who say they want honest politicians should be careful what they wish for, because an honest person is not likely to stroke your ego.
Best just to keep it honest. What's the point in winning if you can't do the things you want when you get in office.
The biggest reason I don't want Trump in the white house is because, like brexit, it will embolden and legitimize bigotry. I think a lot of people discount that when comparing the two main candidates.
Quite frankly, I think bigotry is kind of bottled up within a nation's people when life gets shitty. When life is getting shittier, the bigotry silently builds and builds. Electing right-wing people may expel the built up bigotry, letting it out in a "safer" environment when bigots have what they want. Those years blow over, and liberalism asserts itself again when right wingers inevitably fail enough for the left to be re-elected, as every political party eventually fails hard enough given time. But what if you never give that outlet while conditions continue to worsen under leftist rule? I fear a critical mass will form due to no outlet or representation, and then things would get REALLY bad.
Let me put it like this. Would you rather have a Trump now, or a Hitler later? Not to mention that, potential bigotry aside, Trump is actually the better candidate here. Even if you disagree politically at least he isn't scandalous or a criminal.
Sol If we don't let America be bigoted, they might get even more bigoted later? That sounds like the most ridiculous rationalization I've ever heard for tolerating facism.
I don't see how you can see someone who has been the subject of nigh constant controversy as not "scandalous." The only distinction I can see is that he's not doing it secretly, and I don't see how being a dick openly is better.
The bottom line is that a Trump presidency would create a breeding ground for bad policy (torture, discrimination, growing economic inequality) that would put anything Clinton would do to shame. I don't like her either, but I don't even begin to see the argument that Trump is better. He's a lying, narcissistic, bigot. At least Clinton is running the more progressive party platform.
Taylor Bennett I am voicing the idea that politics, like many things, swings back and forth. Instead of holding back the pendulum and it swinging HARD back in the other direction, let things take their natural course instead and balance remains. You say that is ridiculous rationalization, but it is not an unreasonable assertion. If you are not blind the building tensions should be apparent whether in the US or Europe.
Honestly I am trying to frame arguments that would be appealing to you, I am firmly in the Trump camp minus any "lesser of the two evils" business. Trump's "controversy" includes things like Trump university or "the judge should recuse himself." Hillary's controversies are putting lives on the line, cronyism, divulging top state secrets, lying under oath and to the American public from a position of power, aiding to create an environment that breeds terrorism, lying about being on the field of battle, the literal fate of nations, subverting victims of actual rape (by her husband), and a whole slew of many other things by association to her donors and foundation. The "controversy" of both candidates are as comparable as apples to oranges, with one being significantly worse than the other. An asshole is better than an outright psychopathic criminal, no? At least it is more sensible to take a chance on the asshole in HOPES that he isn't a psychopathic criminal to the same extent.
In regards to bad policy, we will just simply disagree here but I do want to entertain something. Clinton is bought out by interests normal people LOATHE, and she can be trusted for about as far as you can throw her (that TPP will be signed no doubt if elected). In office, you will only get token liberalism on social issues but the system at large remains unchanged (as opposed to what Bernie would aim for, for example). Quite frankly, Bernie and Trump have very similar policy all around excluding economics so if you happened to like Bernie...Trump offers more to you than Hillary ever would.
I do not know if Hillary is running the 'most' progressive platform, or why that should even matter. Trump right now is literally gunning for the black vote....also if progressiveness is your true chief concern then vote Jill Stein.
Sol Yeah, you're treating politics like it's physics. It's intuitive to the extent that we frequently go back and forth between reds and blues in power, but the fact that this has in fact happened doesn't mean that it's acting under some natural force. Going way farther to the left will not cause some catastrophic swing back towards fascism.
Trump has no particular scandals under his belt, but neither does my 5yo nephew. The fact that he hasn't done much damage YET doesn't mean we should make him president.
Trump is skeptical of climate change and flippant about nuclear weapons, arguably the two most important issues in the world rn. Furthermore he's explicitly suggested bringing back torture, expanding extra judicial prisons, and attacking the families of suspected terrorists. He's deep in bed with hard right Christians who want him to push back against LGBT rights and abortion rights, and prop up discriminatory religious liberty bills. His immigration policy is childish, cold, and counterproductive (the wall is stupid both because it's impossible and because it focuses the conversation on whether or not to exclude rather than addressing the issue of what to do with people already here). And back to my. Original point, he's made his stand about immigration using the most viscious, unfair, and often flatly untrue stereotypes, fanning the fires of xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia still smoldering deep in the collective American psyche.
And not to mention that he likely has no interest in actually doing the work of running the country in the day to day - he's doing it for the fame and money. He would be (he has promised to be) a terrible president, and he will fail in the biggest responsibilities as hard as the smallest. I guarantee it.
Taylor Bennett eh, it's fair to accuse me over shoving politics into a science. I still find it a logical conclusion given what else I have said, but there is certainly nothing that could be found that makes such a hard shift as I propose guaranteed. Though if you are willing to speak of fascism, the far progressive left is already knee deep in those trenches. Long comment coming, sorry in advance for wall of text but I have literally nothing better to do right now.
You are absolutely correct that just because Trump hasn't done anything Clinton-tier yet does not mean he won't. However, isn't it more sensible to hedge bets on a maybe compared to a guaranteed (Clinton)?
Trump isn't skeptical about climate change, he is skeptical about global warming. The two terms mean different things. Honestly given recent finding (within the last decade actually) and how science has become largely propaganda due to corruption/bias in academia and vested interests I find skepticism about global warming reasonable. Everyone can agree though that cleaner energy sources are obviously better for the environment though and the development of which should be incentivized. Sensibly incentivized, not to a degree that would cripple the economy or middle-class pocket. I think there are free-market solutions anyways to the development of alternative energy so I do not see much of a reason to bash Trump here who wants to lessen our dependency on foreign oil and, now without a market dictated by foreign interests that would prevent competitive alternative energy from gaining ground by manipulation of the prices, competition and development towards alternative energy can earnestly begin.
Bringing nuclear options to south korea and japan is honestly a good idea in my opinion to keep chinese and north korean aggression in check and at the same time have stronger/more faithful allies within the region. I do not generally agree with the proliferation of nuclear arms, but when a nuclear armed country and another that is developing them are essentially bullies....the options open up in my mind. He also mentioned some arab nation with that which I found retarded but he has retracted that since anyways.
Bringing back torture int he case of against foreign terrorists...can't say I disagree, and personally I have wanted this for a long time. We aren't fighting a civilized nation (but savage groups) that engages within the rules of war or has enlisted people that are just there to fight for their country (and not necessarily the cause, take the nazi's for instance). The effectiveness could be argued, but in the specific case of against bonafide-beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt non-citizen-nor-endorsed-by-a-governing-body terrorists I do not see the moral dilemma. I do not know what extra-judicial prisons are and won't comment on it. And concerning attacking terrorist families, I think this is also a good idea. All is fair in love and war (when you don't have standing agreements with each other on how to conduct yourselves and abide by them). Many of these terrorists do not care about dying, and so what is one supposed to do to strike terror in their hearts? They are innocent, yes, but I am such a terrible person as that would go to any length to terrify and defeat my enemies (if there is no resulting cost to my own people of course as would be in war against a country when you decide whether to forfeit Geneva or not). I can absolutely understand being against everything that is within this paragraph, but I would be lying to myself if I said I opposed these things under these circumstances.
I am terrified of the hard-right Christians too, but I am also generally conservative. This dilemma isn't new to me. I am for LGBT rights, but the supreme court decision was a gross misuse of judicial power (as is all instances of broad-constitutional reading imo) and marriage law should rightfully be determined by the states as is the powers invested in them by the constitution. My opposition is purely out of how I believe the Law should work, not by bigotry and if you yourself are a strict-constructionist I suggest you take a gander at the ruling yourself. Even if you love broad-interpretations, the vague and nebulous language used in the ruling is just begging to be abused one day.
Abortion rights are of legitimate concern, although late-term abortions is wrong in my mind. The problem with the right is that they don't want sensible abortion policy, they want NO abortion policy. Religious liberty bills are also legitimate concern.
I disagree that the immigration policy is bad. The wall itself could great a small economic boon if Mexico pays for it but Trump is smart enough to hire all American workers and walls generally work believe it or not (examples: Israel and Hungary whose walls have proved VERY effective). Can it actually be paid for by Mexico though? Honestly that is wait and see. I would think it is beneficial whether paid for or not at any rate so I am not deeply concerned by that. In addition the walls certainly would damper the drug trade, which drugs are also potentially the biggest problem for poor neighborhoods and would help clean them up even without the increased police presence Trump also proposes. There is some hate on strong policing for good reason, but I do earnestly think that the only way to improve inner cities is to first clean up the neighborhoods and that will inevitably need strong law enforcement rather than purely indirect niceties (although the wall would certainly contribute as one). Of course the need to vet people coming in should also not be something you completely disagree with, no? The one part of the policy that I can see legitimate disagreement with it the mass deportation. I am personally for it as I believe that there has been a negative impact overall by immigration in concern to people who were already living here, but we can go back and forth on those statistics all day so I would rather just concede you it is a legitimate disagreement there. But anchor babies seriously need to go, that I won't concede. It is flat out abused.
Now about HOW he has made his points (rather than the substance). I see how it incites the flames, but I do not see the statements themselves as flames when viewed under the actual context of them being said. Regardless, as a politician it is his responsibility to avoid saying things that, even if they are alright to say, could be taken wrongly. He seems to be learning that recently if you are keeping up with him.
I disagree that he has no interest in running things smoothly BECAUSE he is narcissistic and greedy. What is better for business, being a famous president or an infamous one? One of those will obviously strike much better deals than the other in the future. Also, which is more lucrative in future dealings? That would be being a good president rather than a bad. I think the negative qualities that you say would make him a bad president would actually cause him to strive to be a good president. For all the wrong reasons of course, but that doesn't concern me if the results are good.
I honestly prefer the videos without the emotional music. Interesting video, though!
yeah it seems like he is trying to be more ''electable''
It seems like there are a few factors to this "electability:"
Ability to suppress uproar in the other party(A general consensus on a whole issue seems to be good with Blair)
Practical, but not overwhelming view on change(Populists are interesting, but not stable for systemic change)
Suppressing general opinion(People tend to dissect on multiple issues; forcing one opinion at a time centralizes support, builds relationships, and makes one-leader governments easier. While one-leader governments aren't ideal and this is, of course, a checked parliamentary democracy, power is effectively centralized in most ways and affects people's opinion, rather than vice versa.)
(Now at least) Traditional immigration opinion(Supporting tradition gets you the conservative and at least some of the left-wing vote if you aren't seemingly iron-willed on the issue and populist ruckus is not that predictable.)
Support casualties(the 1960s counterculture and extreme right-wing crime control aside, war is a non-populist opinion and seeming strong on this divisive issue can win votes from one's enemies)
I think one potential answer is actually in an episode of doctor who, The Beast Below it kind of backs up my view that even if you were perfectly honest with the electorate all the bad and all the good the electorate will just want to forget the bad and live in a world of blissful ignorance.
well this looks exactly like American politics with right and left sides and “immigration issues” i am having whiplash... and you can put this on Bernie with the “unelectable” the same way you talked about jeramy corbin. i honestly can’t comfortably talk about politics without getting serious backlash about completely different ideas that turn out to have the same values behind them.
In order to avoid giving offense, I will avoid present-day politics. An interesting example of a politician acting dishonestly in order to be appealing to the electorate leading to th opposite of his intended effect is Nikias in book 6 of Thucydides. Having failed to dissuade the Athenian assembly that th Sicilian Expedition would be inadvisable for military reasons, Nikias inflated his estimate about the cost of the expedition hoping that the assembly would refuse to support the expedition for financial reasons. Nikias' dishonestly inflated estimate had the unintended consequence of persuading the Athenian assembly to send forth a bloated and ruinously expensive expedition rather than dissuading them from sending forth the expedition at all. I think Thucydides intended for the reader to take this as an example of why it is important for politicians to be honest--a advised by Perikles in book 2.
I have enjoyed the packages about political philosophy. I wonder if you have done anything investigating whether it is the responsibility of governments to do good or to do what the people want by the most expedient possible means. If good, what good and for whom? I would also love to see an exploration of goodness--whether it exists and if it is good to be good or good to do good.
I’m sorry, and I’m obviously very late to this, but the Labour Left have very real concerns about immigration and the EU’s FoM policy, which is one of the reasons why we have Brexit. Not the only reason, but one of the reasons.
So difficult I feel like Starmer wants to do good genuinely but he has seen the devastation of a tory government and knows he had to put a stop to it
i love jez so much
I sometimes think they should be heard, but not seen.
Jeremy Corbyn makes me want to be a better person.
I mean... Never gonna happen, but being able to inspire that feeling is still a pretty big win.
Could you do a serious video/research of consercative ideals and more theology videos??
I consider myself conservative and I watch most of your videos as I think that you are the most inteligent left wing youtuber I came across. I watch you to learn about left wing ideology/philosophy, and you helped me understand and criticise better. So it would be REALLY nice to hear your criticism on the core of conservative thought, and if you have already a video on that could you please tell me which??
thanks.
ps:I'm not british, so it's not like I support the conservative party.
+zehh172 definitely got a theologically flavoured one in the works :)
thanks!
I want politicians to be honest more than electable. it is hard to explain why I fell so in a TH-cam commentary field. but if politicians is honest no one will vote or listen them because we as voters want to take responsibility for what we do. it is sad but very understandable why it is that way if you as a politicians blame all your problems on the voters they get mad.
Did I miss the bit where you point out that, should she continue as leader into the next election, the Conservative party have one of the most left-wing Conservative leaders ever? I suspect this is likely to detract from Labour votes if the parliamentary Labour Party prove they aren't interested in listening to their grass roots supporters and succeed in ousting _their_ preferred leader Jeremy Corbyn.
In most regards, I think Theresa May is far more left-wing than Owen Smith, despite the reputation of their respective parties, and that creates a very _strange_ situation where the views of the two major party leaders are more in-line with the traditions of their opposition party than their own. How's that skew the centre?
Well I have heard people say May is left wing because she knows how to talk the talk, but IMO her voting history and behaviour as Foreign Secretary indicate otherwise.
Go ahead and cross into advocacy if you want to, but I would put it into its own category expressly labelled as one's personally held opinions.
It could certainly be an interesting section of your channel, where you could express your views and explain how your philosophical positions shape your perceptions and opinions, why you accept one principle or value and reject or subordinate another. But I think that extolling one's own views should be distinct from dispassionately explaining the views held by others.
Could you do a video exploring economic philosophy at some point?
Using honesty and electability as polar opposites is a bit silly don't you think? For honesty, I think politicians should have the flexibility to change their minds (hence being perceived as lying). Take Corbyn for example, despite publicly expressing eurosceptic views, he still campaigned to remain in the EU. It is of course a different issue when political campaigns like Brexit deliberately lies like the 350 million figure and that form of misleading the public is unacceptable.
How exactly was Ed Miliband right-wing? He was a strong critic of the Iraq War and self-described himself as a socialist.
You should have added a line explicitly pointing out the videos "example" was from a labour left perspective and its arguments still apply to other parties and views.
Without it you appear overly biased and some people with different principles get alienated.
Constructive feedback: I really love your channel, explanations, taught and arguments. That aside, on this video specifically, the inserted background music created a distraction from the content. It made is somewhat difficult to listen to you... maybe its juts me, but again maybe not. Anyway, keep up the good work!
good point.
Watching this in 2023, and I feel sick about everything that's happened since.
This is an interesting perspective, but I think it's really disingenuous to suggest that Labour have been doing well under Corbyn, and hold Miliband up as an example of people judging "Labour going right".
I think this is a false framing of the question, rather i think it would be more important to think about "what system causes honesty to unelectable"
People think in interest; be it of groups or themselves. inherently both parties are patriotic and want whats best for their nation, and if what solves their issue were true and honest then the voter would vote for them, but clear something or someone has corrupted such a system of information.
Now we question whether we should be honest or electable, instead of addressing the system that has destroyed honesty and truth, despite being what we truly want.
The problem I have with Corban is that he's either honest in his racism or uses pseudo-liberal as a demagogic tool to appeal to those who might hold such opinions. Either way is bad for the Labour party, and in general.
I've learned alot of philosophy on this channel over the years. He has introduced me to many philosophers and have given me there argument and counter arguments. But since his shift in focus toward acting and success of getting subscribers to donate toward his channel, I've been seeing less of a academic drive toward his videos. This video doesn't have any historical perspectives on this subject, the basis for much of the video hung on the "good" or "bad" without giving a rationale or standard to judge it from. And much of it was "well if you mean this way politically you contain the truth and the other side is pandering without giving sources for this belief.I hope this channel doesn't go video blog on us.
+shaun Brown political philosophy is academic, but yeah to be fair I have been on a politics/economics kick recently and the channel has reflected that a bit. I've got episodes and scripts coming that bring a bit more variation back :)
I think your being naive here, these politicians are in their 50s their not stupid, their not for a labour right because of beliefs, but because it gives them power, pure and simple