Changing the Status Quo

[drgoodtrips]

Please bear with me here. I'm a little tired and I had an interesting though that I want to start a thread about before I forget it. So, this might not be the most cogently constructed thread start, but hopefully it can spur some interesting discussion.

I posted in the thread about illegal immigration in the US, stating that I believe that there are powerful interests with powerful interest in ensuring that undocumented workers continue to stream into America. Specifically, this is because they will work for below the minimum wage. If the USA changes policy to allow anyone who wishes to enter legally (i.e. the "left wing" solution), you lose undocumented workers. If the USA changes policy to keep illegal immigrants out (i.e. some gigantic wall or other Draconian measure), you also lose undocumented workers. Ergo, the status quo is entrenched beyond simply being the status quo.

Thinking about this made me realize that something similar is true with the US healthcare debate. You have one side looking for something to be done, another side looking for something different to be done, and a powerful interest wanting to preserve the status quo, which benefits almost no one (except that interest).

From a political philosophy perspective, I would argue that it's easier in general to preserve the status quo. It has a built-in, natural advantage. In order to affect change, you have to convince the right people to want to change, mollify or make irrelevant any hardline detractors, potentially compromise, and overcome people's natural resistance to change. But, in order to disrupt change, you simply need to convince the right people that it's risky or problematic. This leaves any proposed change much more vulnerable to irrational appeals to emotion or the distribution of misinformation.

So, speaking generally, how does a politician or desirer of change best level the playing field and overcome this disadvantage? I'm not interested in a definitive solution (especially since that will tend to be situational). Just interested in hearing people's thoughts on this matter - political strategy/gamesmanship, commentaries on human nature, commentaries on educating people or dispelling myths. All points of view welcome.

[Zarquon]

So, speaking generally, how does a politician or desirer of change best level the playing field and overcome this disadvantage? I'm not interested in a definitive solution (especially since that will tend to be situational). Just interested in hearing people's thoughts on this matter - political strategy/gamesmanship, commentaries on human nature, commentaries on educating people or dispelling myths. All points of view welcome.
Well its bloody hard, as most humans indeed have a natural preference for the status-quo (its called the status-quo bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias)), probably out of a need for stability, and/or a misfiring of the mechanism that makes us except authority.
I suppose, you must make something social(raise consciousness, hand out flyers, do charity and stunts), before you can make it political(rallies, petitions), and try and frame the issue in a manner in which its relevant to the person/s you want to convince.
Its basically the art of consensus-building, and perhaps of compromise too, cos yo almost never get the change you want, but you can try to and should get the change you need(like the Stone's song;)).

[Michael]

From a political philosophy perspective, I would argue that it's easier in general to preserve the status quo. It has a built-in, natural advantage. In order to affect change, you have to convince the right people to want to change, mollify or make irrelevant any hardline detractors, potentially compromise, and overcome people's natural resistance to change. But, in order to disrupt change, you simply need to convince the right people that it's risky or problematic. This leaves any proposed change much more vulnerable to irrational appeals to emotion or the distribution of misinformation.

Yes, I agree. It does appear that there is a certain bias in favor of the status quo within all human societies.

As Zarquon's link points out, this is a well known phenomena in economics and political science. However brief the Wiki entry is, it does supply two explanatory answers: loss aversion and the endowment effect.

Or to put it simply, 'a bird in hand is worth two in the bush'.

I think this represents a natural 'conservativism' that generally serves us well in helping to prevent us from making really stupid mistakes and/ir to avoid risky behavior that has a high probably of loss or harm. This is quite reasonable and rational from a human evolutionary perspective.

So, speaking generally, how does a politician or desirer of change best level the playing field and overcome this disadvantage? I'm not interested in a definitive solution (especially since that will tend to be situational). Just interested in hearing people's thoughts on this matter - political strategy/gamesmanship, commentaries on human nature, commentaries on educating people or dispelling myths. All points of view welcome.
I think something like a 'zeitgeist' is needed for success in making society-wide type changes. (ie. necessary, but not sufficient)

One idealistic and capable politician (or entrepreneur) working to create change is rarely ever successful on their own merits. (ie. necessary, but not sufficient.

But if the times are 'ripe' for a particular type of change, and the conditions are favorable, then one single idealistic and capable politician (or entrepreneur) is sufficient to make it so.

If that is true, then I suppose this just changes the question to that of, 'how does one go about creating a 'zeitgeist'? :lol:

[Lily]

But if the times are 'ripe' for a particular type of change, and the conditions are favorable, then one single idealistic and capable politician (or entrepreneur) is sufficient to make it so.

If that is true, then I suppose this just changes the question to that of, 'how does one go about creating a 'zeitgeist'? :lol:

Elect George W. Bush, twice. :)

That's a bit flip, but I'm serious. I think Pres. Obama was the right man at the right time to take advantage of a time "ripe" for a particular change in American politics. However, it's one thing to halt, quite another to change direction: the latter is much more difficult to navigate.

[Americano]

Elect George W. Bush, twice. :)

That's a bit flip, but I'm serious. I think Pres. Obama was the right man at the right time to take advantage of a time "ripe" for a particular change in American politics. However, it's one thing to halt, quite another to change direction: the latter is much more difficult to navigate.

I view it with the large ship analogy; all resources have to be directed at rapidly changing direction to avoid destruction and, to the dismay of the passengers (general public), there's no immediate result.

Given US size and complexity there's still a distinct possibility of not making the turn. Dismantling four decades of fiscal mismanagement and failed foreign policy while pacifying a generally spoiled rotten citizenry and maintaining its unearned standard of living is, imo, far beyond the immediate capability of a movement, elected government or individual. A crash is already unfolding, severity yet to be determined.

[Michael]

Elect George W. Bush, twice. :)

That's a bit flip, but I'm serious. I think Pres. Obama was the right man at the right time to take advantage of a time "ripe" for a particular change in American politics. However, it's one thing to halt, quite another to change direction: the latter is much more difficult to navigate.

American wanted a 'gung-ho' or 'feel-good' president back in 2000 and again in 2004. Gore and Kerry both wanted to play referee, talk policy and address ugly problems. This very much fits my 'zeitgeist' comment.

Likewise with Obama. He also rode a 'zeitgeist' of change from the ugliness of the reality of Bush.

But you are correct (and I noted above), 'zeitgeist' is necessary, but not sufficient cause for actual change.

For actual change to occur, one needs an idealistic, competent and capable leader as well. Those are bloody rare creatures. Obama isn't one of those.

As a good counter-example to prove the pattern here, I'll suggest that Bill Clinton was an idealistic, competent and capable leader. Unfortunately, the 'zeitgeist' of his time frame was not interested in progressive change - it was a rather reactionary time.

[Lily]

I view it with the large ship analogy; all resources have to be directed at rapidly changing direction to avoid destruction and, to the dismay of the passengers (general public), there's no immediate result.

Given US size and complexity there's still a distinct possibility of not making the turn. Dismantling four decades of fiscal mismanagement and failed foreign policy while pacifying a generally spoiled rotten citizenry and maintaining its unearned standard of living is, imo, far beyond the immediate capability of a movement, elected government or individual. A crash is already unfolding, severity yet to be determined.

And in keeping with the large ship analogy, we have the teabaggers (and some members of Congress), which I liken to a small boat of bandits who are determined to stop the progress of the ship and hold it hostage, not really knowing what it wants, but knowing it doesn't want the ship to move forward.

[Lily]

American wanted a 'gung-ho' or 'feel-good' president back in 2000 and again in 2004. Gore and Kerry both wanted to play referee, talk policy and address ugly problems. This very much fits my 'zeitgeist' comment.

Likewise with Obama. He also rode a 'zeitgeist' of change from the ugliness of the reality of Bush.

But you are correct (and I noted above), 'zeitgeist' is necessary, but not sufficient cause for actual change.

For actual change to occur, one needs an idealistic, competent and capable leader as well. Those are bloody rare creatures. Obama isn't one of those.

As a good counter-example to prove the pattern here, I'll suggest that Bill Clinton was an idealistic, competent and capable leader. Unfortunately, the 'zeitgeist' of his time frame was not interested in progressive change - it was a rather reactionary time.

I was hoping he would be, but now I'm not sure. That's disappointing. I want to poke him with a stick, you know? Tell him to just put his foot down and do it.

[Americano]

And in keeping with the large ship analogy, we have the teabaggers (and some members of Congress), which I liken to a small boat of bandits who are determined to stop the progress of the ship and hold it hostage, not really knowing what it wants, but knowing it doesn't want the ship to move forward.

Yes, those are some of the complexities but I wouldn't consider them a separate vessel. They're unfortunately part of the existing crew.

[drgoodtrips]

Yes, I agree. It does appear that there is a certain bias in favor of the status quo within all human societies.

As Zarquon's link points out, this is a well known phenomena in economics and political science. However brief the Wiki entry is, it does supply two explanatory answers: loss aversion and the endowment effect.

Or to put it simply, 'a bird in hand is worth two in the bush'.

I think this represents a natural 'conservativism' that generally serves us well in helping to prevent us from making really stupid mistakes and/ir to avoid risky behavior that has a high probably of loss or harm. This is quite reasonable and rational from a human evolutionary perspective.


I think something like a 'zeitgeist' is needed for success in making society-wide type changes. (ie. necessary, but not sufficient)

One idealistic and capable politician (or entrepreneur) working to create change is rarely ever successful on their own merits. (ie. necessary, but not sufficient.

But if the times are 'ripe' for a particular type of change, and the conditions are favorable, then one single idealistic and capable politician (or entrepreneur) is sufficient to make it so.

If that is true, then I suppose this just changes the question to that of, 'how does one go about creating a 'zeitgeist'? :lol:

This is really what I was driving at with the OP. The zeitgeist phenomenon often produces change only when things have gotten to some boiling point - revolutions in response to endless regime oppression being an example. But, I'm wondering how someone goes about creating a change that he or she deems necessary when it doesn't yet have that air of inevitability.

So yes, how does one create that zeitgeist?

[Michael]

This is really what I was driving at with the OP. The zeitgeist phenomenon often produces change only when things have gotten to some boiling point - revolutions in response to endless regime oppression being an example. But, I'm wondering how someone goes about creating a change that he or she deems necessary when it doesn't yet have that air of inevitability.

So yes, how does one create that zeitgeist?
In a word? Marketing.

I think PNAC and the invasion of Iraq would make a perfect case-study in manufacturing zeitgeist.

[dilettante]

To a considerable extent, when it comes to politics, our system is designed to explicitly uphold the status quo. Judicial precedent, common law, Constitutionality, etc...

Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson, on more than one occasion, argued that all laws and all constitutions should last no long than one generation, at which time they would have to be explicitly reestablished or would become null and void. Likewise, all debts were to be canceled at death. Thus, the living generation could not be bound, either legislatively or fiscally, by the dead.
A system like that would give much less power to the status quo...of course it would also be less stable.

[Zarquon]

To a considerable extent, when it comes to politics, our system is designed to explicitly uphold the status quo. Judicial precedent, common law, Constitutionality, etc...

That is mostly intended to avoid bad decisions and provide for a rational and prudent system of governance, and I don't see them as particularly problematic.
What irks me is the imbalance between the House and the Senate, but all things considered the system itself is not at fault, its well thought-out and does well to further the founding fathers' interests of maximizing liberty and minimizing tyranny. The real problem is how damn conservative the American electorate is, and all those arcane Senate procedure rules.

[dilettante]

That is mostly intended to avoid bad decisions and provide for a rational and prudent system of governance, and I don't see them as particularly problematic.
What irks me is the imbalance between the House and the Senate, but all things considered the system itself is not at fault, its well thought-out and does well to further the founding fathers' interests of maximizing liberty and minimizing tyranny. The real problem is how damn conservative the American electorate is, and all those arcane Senate procedure rules.

I can more-or-less agree with that; I didn't mean to argue that the system was bad, just to point out that the power of the status-quo isn't completely natural or unavoidable; it was intentionally and explicitly empowered for precisely the reasons you mentioned.

[Michael]

Further to dilettante's point, I'd say that the Electoral College and the Senate were explicitly created as anti-democratic insitutions for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. The framers didn't want no dirty fucking majorities to go challenging the system of elite rule that they created and intended to perpetuate.

The framers were indeed mostly successful. US doesn't have majority rule.