Follow the $! Campaign finance reform requires you to raise large sums in small amounts; only ideological candidates can maximize their total intake under such a system. If you could raise $ anywhere from anyone, you wouldn't need to be as extreme to get that last $ (you could get more $ from the moderates).
Campaign finance reform also favors political dynasties & rich candidates (because they have a head start on fundraising).
Campaign finance reform was a disaster! It did the opposite of what it was supposed to do (it made people have even less confidence in politics because all they hear is stories about who gave what to whom w/ the obvious implication that everyone's bought).
Then, Big Tech got in the censorship game & MSM decided to be even more biased, but there wasn't enough $ to fight back, so ideology became the only game in town. (That is, conservatives had to appeal to conservative media & that made them more conservative, which - of course - made the opposition more liberal for the same reason & in the same way that any ban increases potency.)
At this point, our problems are almost all the result of our previous solutions. If we abolished government, we'd be shocked at how many "problems" just disappeared. Lack of affordable housing is the result of zoning, building codes etc. High costs of health insurance is largely the result of dumb government policies that drive up the cost of health insurance. I could go on, but government is really the classic (and only) example of how suppliers create their own demand. Every government mistake creates new problems that only government can solve!
If public opinion is on your side, being vocal and holding a public referendum is helpful. Yglesias is part of a group of influential political figures that champion policies that the public opposes. In that case, you need to hide the issue from the public, distract the public, and "just shut up and get it done".
Legalizing gay marriage was unpopular with voters, elite politicians conspired to overrule public opinion and get it done. I sincerely support gay marriage, so I am not upset with the outcome, but I dislike the tactics involved, and this scenario illustrates those tactics.
Local housing regulations is another one: most voters would vote against ending single family zoning. Yglesias would want to overrule the will of the public.
Immigration is a big one. Voters oppose large surges in immigration. Politicians know this. Yglesias knows this. They are pushing hard on this anyway. If voters voted on the issue, they would vote for immigration restriction. There is an enormous campaign to confuse and distract voters and stop immigration skeptics and restrictionists from spreading their message.
Obamacare was unpopular with the American masses when it was passed, architects of that admitted they were deliberately confusing + distracting the public. Now that it's passed, the public has lost interest in the issue and moved on.
A progressive elite pushed local policy to legalize homeless encampments in many cities. They knew it was unpopular with public opinion, so they did their best to keep it off the ballot and avoid a public referendum on the issue. Out of all the issues I mentioned, this one the progressive elite looks likely to lose. First, it's easily reversible. With immigration, you can't unimmigrate people, and it's nearly impossible to nullify gay marriage. But you can reinstate the camping ban and have the police evict homeless shanty towns. Next, the homeless cause lots problems with normal people in their day to day lives. Even committed Democrats are breaking with their party on this issue.
Follow the $! Campaign finance reform requires you to raise large sums in small amounts; only ideological candidates can maximize their total intake under such a system. If you could raise $ anywhere from anyone, you wouldn't need to be as extreme to get that last $ (you could get more $ from the moderates).
Campaign finance reform also favors political dynasties & rich candidates (because they have a head start on fundraising).
Campaign finance reform was a disaster! It did the opposite of what it was supposed to do (it made people have even less confidence in politics because all they hear is stories about who gave what to whom w/ the obvious implication that everyone's bought).
Then, Big Tech got in the censorship game & MSM decided to be even more biased, but there wasn't enough $ to fight back, so ideology became the only game in town. (That is, conservatives had to appeal to conservative media & that made them more conservative, which - of course - made the opposition more liberal for the same reason & in the same way that any ban increases potency.)
At this point, our problems are almost all the result of our previous solutions. If we abolished government, we'd be shocked at how many "problems" just disappeared. Lack of affordable housing is the result of zoning, building codes etc. High costs of health insurance is largely the result of dumb government policies that drive up the cost of health insurance. I could go on, but government is really the classic (and only) example of how suppliers create their own demand. Every government mistake creates new problems that only government can solve!
It's all so gross and depressing.
If public opinion is on your side, being vocal and holding a public referendum is helpful. Yglesias is part of a group of influential political figures that champion policies that the public opposes. In that case, you need to hide the issue from the public, distract the public, and "just shut up and get it done".
Legalizing gay marriage was unpopular with voters, elite politicians conspired to overrule public opinion and get it done. I sincerely support gay marriage, so I am not upset with the outcome, but I dislike the tactics involved, and this scenario illustrates those tactics.
Local housing regulations is another one: most voters would vote against ending single family zoning. Yglesias would want to overrule the will of the public.
Immigration is a big one. Voters oppose large surges in immigration. Politicians know this. Yglesias knows this. They are pushing hard on this anyway. If voters voted on the issue, they would vote for immigration restriction. There is an enormous campaign to confuse and distract voters and stop immigration skeptics and restrictionists from spreading their message.
Obamacare was unpopular with the American masses when it was passed, architects of that admitted they were deliberately confusing + distracting the public. Now that it's passed, the public has lost interest in the issue and moved on.
A progressive elite pushed local policy to legalize homeless encampments in many cities. They knew it was unpopular with public opinion, so they did their best to keep it off the ballot and avoid a public referendum on the issue. Out of all the issues I mentioned, this one the progressive elite looks likely to lose. First, it's easily reversible. With immigration, you can't unimmigrate people, and it's nearly impossible to nullify gay marriage. But you can reinstate the camping ban and have the police evict homeless shanty towns. Next, the homeless cause lots problems with normal people in their day to day lives. Even committed Democrats are breaking with their party on this issue.
The median voter theorem is a crock, See the long discussion of it under the heading "What About 'Public Opinion'?" at this post: https://politicsandprosperity.com/2020/11/12/the-iraq-war-in-retrospect/