Political scientist Brian Klaas looks into why we talk so much about politics, but never actually discuss any actual policy. My critique of his analysis is rather predictable.
While I agree with many of the things you’re saying about the press, I think you’re making the same mistake as Mr. Klaas, and missing the point.
Does the press fail at informing people about the things that matter for the wellbeing of society? Arguably, yes. Does the press demostrate bias? Totally. Does the press fail to put up a discussion about policies rather than politics? Absolutely.
Did everybody just switch off their cable news programmes? No. Did the press go out of business because it ceased to be relevant? Nope. Do people on Substack now set the discourse for the bigger part of the society, with only a few percent of the society still interested in what cable news companies have to offer? Not even close.
Yes, journalists like you do have audience; I’m much more interested in your journalism than I am in the state television. But your audience is limited to people who like asking the next question. Most people are not like that.
Most people don’t care.
They care about their hobbies, their spouses, their children, their apartments and houses, their cars. They don’t care about policies or politics, up to the very moment that policies affect them personally, but by that time it’s usually too late.
I bet most people would stop taking part in the political life completely if they were left to their own devices. That would not look nice: someone could start questioning the results of an election where only about 10% of the voters showed up. Consequently, there’s understandable incentive for those involved in politics to make people interested just enough to vote, but not enough to actually want to affect policies. Turning politics into a wrestling show is perhaps not the only way to achieve this, but it works quite well: people develop sympathies for one political figure over another (personal sympathies, of course; about actual policies most people don’t care), people vote, and then mind their own business until the next election.
Of course, populism wins as the result. The greatest thing about modern politics in every system I’m aware of is that, after the ballots are counted, the elected politican doesn’t even have to fulfill the campain promises. Seriously, there’s absolutely no liability in doing exactly opposite to what you promised to be elected! And this is not going to change, because people at large don’t care.
For us few who do care it seems counterintuitive, but people manage to live their lives without caring about policies (or politics, for that matter). Politicans exploit this situation to their benefit. The few people who care provide a counterbalance; sometimes it’s effective, sometimes it isn’t.
Was it not always so? I don’t know, but so far I’ve failed to think up a counterexample. Will it always be so? I don’t know, but so far I’ve failed to think up a way to fix it.
Hello again, and glad that you are back in the saddle.
For me as well, I agree with most of points you raised, but the question is: what next?
As @nekr0z pointed out beautifully: This situation will probably never change, as long as there are regular people and politicians.
Cheers
I haven’t had a chance to listen to the podcast yet, but I do have some replies to the comments that I must say I respectively disagree on. I also must say that my disagreement may come from my being in a filter bubble, but some of the people that I know that think the same as me on these particular topics disagree with me on most topics.
“Did everybody just switch off their cable news programmes? No.” In Canada, our minister of finance actually recommended that we stop subscribing to TV services. I can’t say that we listened to her, but I can say that a lot of us stopped listening to them because they only say what the government pays them to say, while many of us can testify that they are lying to us. Also, our greatly increased cost of living here means that we are having to reduce expenses such as this. And finally, our government has banned the access of news sources on social media, so we are not seeing it there either.
“Do people on Substack now set the discourse for the bigger part of the society, with only a few percent of the society still interested in what cable news companies have to offer? Not even close.” I’m not sure on this one. For an example: I personally subscribe to Fab’s mailing list, but 3 other people that I know obviously also subscribe to it, because they forward me the email to it every time it comes out. And I must admit that I am guilty of forwarding it to a few other people as well.
“But your audience is limited to people who like asking the next question.” Yes, and no. You are absolutely correct, but with what has been happening where I live, the people that are actually interested are forwarding this on to many other people. I like to think there are 3 groups. People that are interested. People that are still reading everything on both sides. And finally, people that are only interested in “the science is settled”.
“Most people don’t care.” True. The problem is that this is different for each country. I can’t speak for where you are, only where I am. People here are starting to care on various levels. People here hunt and deal with predatory wildlife, but the government is trying to ban all weapons. People here are dealing with record drug overdoses, while the government is buying and distributing drugs. People here are dealing with increasing crime to the point that the police are advising that you leave your valuables and car keys at the door, so that they are easily accessible to criminals. Our federal police force has released a report, that was a secret report and leaked to the media, that says that citizens are on the verge of revolt, but our government is still refusing to investigate any of the issues that are named in this report.
“Seriously, there’s absolutely no liability in doing exactly opposite to what you promised to be elected!”, I fully agree with this statement, and I think this is an area where there needs to be penalties.
“For us few who do care it seems counterintuitive, but people manage to live their lives without caring about policies” I used to agree, but this has shifted here. We got a new employee about a week ago. Great guy. Works hard. I have zero complaints about this guy. The super quiet type. Already he has mentioned politics at work, and I know where he stands. I literally only know that he is a capable worker, quiet, and his political stance on current affairs.
“but people manage to live their lives without caring about policies” This used to be me, and I would like to go back to that time. A time where I wasn’t paying about 80% of my income to the government. A time where I didn’t have to choose my words based on how others interpreted those words.
Again, nothing personal, and this could just be regional differences.
I also agree to this: “This situation will probably never change, as long as there are regular people and politicians.”