Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k
It is literally under previous schools in particular areas that need that extra funding compared to, let's say, general increase for teachers over the particular country. I think that on the comparative, it is much easier for people to actually lobby their own government for these particular policies. But let's give a couple of more reasons. The internal structure within this particular companies. You have internal divisions, you have managers, you have people who believe they will get more money if there is a bonus payment system compared to other particular system. So there is already an internal division that you can take advantage of and actually like lobby disproportionate groups that have bigger voices. So like, like convinced the manager, they will continue go up in the hierarchy and they'll get a big bonus if they convince their people that are working under them to actually push the labor union for this particular policy. It is, they're also able to corrupt such individuals in these particular places. All of this analysis destroys a bunch of the government cases in terms of what are the actual policies that you get in the first place. And it's very easy for collaboration to create the deceptive narrative that they're actually working for your interests and with the politicians who in fact implement a much important policies for particular groups that are important in society.
But also in general policies such as, for example, increasing the minimum wage such as such as, for example, taking place in like huge environmental. Environmental policies, this this means that huge impacts of vulnerable people are actually impacted.
<poi>
your case only applies in the narrow subset of instances in which corporations have a massive control over unions. If they're so powerful they likely have a similar mechanism of control over the state, which means they can exercise the same degree of power over lobbying our case applies in all contexts and rectifies imbalances.
</poi>
you do not provide reasons for any of these things. I have already provided reasons that there is asymmetric power towards this in terms of lobbying the government you also need to spend a bunch of more money but you also don't have the particular information and governments need to think about multiple different policies that they implement and they can easily be called out in parliament by opposition parties. They can easily be called out in protest on the streets because let's say a vulnerable group is literally suffering and dying in a particular area because a pollution policy has not been implemented or you allow this factory to buy up this property next to the river and push all of its pollution into that particular river. So there is disproportionate impact and it's very hard to completely lobby a particular government. Especially if that government knows that at the end of the day they need they need to get re-elected, they need general support from the populace. All these things are much more happening on our side of this debate and I think that's in in terms of like these particular ministers they they have huge power to do a lot of these particular things because they can they like, can imply certain small subsets of policies that change small things that are very beneficial in terms of the range of a wider build. That is, let's say in general for the industry they can do executive orders they can do like, disproportionately effect the budgeting towards different counties different countries and things like that. So what we have proven you in this debate is that now actually corporations are much stronger on the other side of the house and the ability to have a huge impact on to vulnerable people is much larger. I have never been prouder to oppose.
</dlo>
<mg>
opening opposition suggests that the lobbying power the increased lobbying power as a consequence of this promotion. It's going to lead to policies which are societally disutile. If you're able to show the opposite we're going to win over top half because opening government says these policies are stable but they did not answer opening opposition's question, as to why these policies are not going to be harmful outside the interest of that specific sector. I'm going to outline a couple of incentives and integrate my rebuttal. What are the incentives for this lobbying to be done well and for the policy to be economically efficient across the board not just for an individual sector. First of all there is an incentive for unions and the representatives to survey public preferences insofar as the public themselves are the are the ones who appoint the political elite this means that they could have an unfavorable regulatory framework in the future. Which is to say there is a potential crackdown on unions, if we have fertile ground for anti-union thought and anti-union politics. Which is to say if the public already feels that the union is working against them. This means that you're creating fertile ground for narratives about unions being perverse organizations that manipulate people but never get anything done to the workers particularly in capitalist countries where we already have on one side a demonization of socialism the idea that unions are reducing economic efficiency and leeching over people's money. But secondly, the glorification of the capitalist narrative which is to say the meritocratic narrativE. Which supposes that you get the amount of money that you deserve as opposed to the amount of money low before you by some kind of state organization or some kind of union, especially because there are historical moments where this has happened after 30 or 40 years of unions being strong got margaret thatcher because one old reagan unions know this has happened historically they want to catch against this. Which is to say if it's too the loud as well because most people who vote for environment are left-wing and young, who are also the voter base is going to vote for pro-union policy and pro-social democratic policy as opposed to pro-business. Secondly, they have the incentive to craft economically viable policies, which is to say to hire experts to create policy drafts, to produce some kind of economic projections before they present their policy, before their lobby. Why is this the case? because in that case they can sell their policy to politicians to co-opt it's easier to get the candidate to say, i'm going to take this policy is going to be my platform. If he can sell his policies economically viable. This is also true because companies are already trying to slam their unions being inefficient So they have an incentive to ensure that they cannot be beaten by statistics, that companies cannot go out and say gdp people go down by this amount of percent if you accept this policy, Which is to say that they have an incentive to create policy which can create economic efficiency across the board. Which is to say have proven that it's both in accordance with preferences. Which is all principle i've also proven why it's going to be good policy as opposed to just stable policy. I think it's actually incentive to the contrary i think unions can be a vector for crafting good policy. Why? First of all because they have information on the ground that allows them to detect problems within companies that create inefficiencies, know that the incentive of unions congrues with economic efficiencies of particular sectors insofar as they want job security down the line, they want the company to expand not to contract they want to get raises and promotions. Which means that the marginal profit of the company has to rise overall so in crafting policy. They have to make the company more efficient and a lot of these things are just incredibly intuitive, which to say increasing break time increases productivitY. Giving people more benefits makes them happier they work better human resource departments do. Yes, the shift is happening currently in companies like google but it's happening incredibly slowly we want to increase that vector now this is also a mechanism as to why nikolai's speech doesn't really make sense because insofar as workers have visceral knowledge of the problems that they face I don't think they can be misled by the industry experts or whatever. But secondly, workers are tend to be skeptical towards their bosses because they very often see them as exploitative and not giving them their money and you just have an incentive to encourage this kept skepticism insofar as that encourages human activity. I don't think the people can be misled that easily but also if they can, there's no comparative to the opening opposition case because the industry can just mislead them to propaganda campaigns but it can be misled by the government. I'm not sure why that's comparative. But secondly, notice a lot of the policies that you want to slander is economically efficient particularly dlo. I know he's very pro-business are actually good for economic efficiency because raising minimum wages, raising benefits, providing people with healthcare, increases the disposable income people have. It creates aggregate demand and never get spending. We're circulating the economy taxable transactions, which are funneled to the state to provide public services but also within the economy, within the local grocery store, within the local fruit shop, and this is the largest delta we have to unlock in terms of spending because poor people have the least amount of disposable income most of their little amount of money goes to things like health care and safety and stuff like this. At the point where we unlock this income we unlock a significant amount of spending that did not exist before it increases economic efficiency. It can, however, only be done through this motion because in a status quo unions can only lobby, companies can out to lobby. Then the comparative now these units can directly impact the regulatory environment that these companies are going to work in they have retaliatory power but the companies cannot stop because they have an effective veto. Which is to say the only way we can unlock the unions and actors of good policy is by providing this motion. I've both linked the impact to the emotion but they've also given you explicit analysis why the policy is going to be actively good. The response we get from all are corruption and privilege first of all unions tend to be structured democratically. Which is to say i don't care if the people at the top are rich and religious, if most people are secular they will vote sacred because unions have democratic structures and muslims are not owned by the state naomi. Secondly, however, corruption is just a mitigatory mechanism. Which is the same so far as all seems to stand for democracy, which is also impacted by corruption. I'm not sure why corruption is a reason to abandon a policy it's mitigation mitigation at best. But lastly, even if people do vote religious in a particular union. This is in congruence with open opposition's own principle if that's the preference that people vote for fine, they need to stand behind us the reason why we weigh over og is because og uh conveniently mitigates their own principle, when ahmed tries to preempt by red herring. He says property is acquired justly, this means he also justifies the imbalance of power created as a consequence so their principle is inconsistent my practical is true regardless.
<poi>
Seeing policies are economically viable doesn't mean that they won't be self-interested in the most optimal policy for all, such as teachers pushing for higher pay relative to other public servants or industrial unions pushing for anti-environmental. Policies knockout effects don't work because you're more affected by losing your job than the future of climate change.
</poi>
I've given you incentives why they're also going to care about negative externalities but i also think that if i can show that this self-interest congruent economic efficiency i don't care itself interested, I mean it's nice to be altruistic, i'm not sure i care about that. Second extension, we simply get the more union membership note that currently, unit membership is steadily declining mostly to slander campaigns by companies that mostly go along the lines of look, this is incredibly inefficient the benefit of being in a union for four years is about three hundred dollars per year, walmart said to their workers for this money you could have just bought an xbox. Why are you within a union? they will not get things done, they will manipulate you. This is combined with aggressive policies of companies towards workers who try to unionize internal memos that push executives to portray certain workers unintelligent or stupid because they push other students they literally organize seminars on why unions are bad. This now shifts the calculus, because unions literally have a mechanism by which they can affect laws. This is literally the case because they can say we veto this candidate with that particular policy they can no longer be seen as inefficient which means you and I also have the ability to retaliate, companies will be less aggressive towards workers because now unions can veto their pro-business candidate. This shifts the calculus and more people join unions. That's not as good because of lobbying but auxiliary benefits even if you don't lobby successfully unions pay for your healthcare. If it's not provided they give you sick pay, if it don't provide it, they give you job training, they give you health and safety equipment, if your job doesn't give it to you or the equipment is not provided to you. They grant you huge amounts of benefits especially for lower middle class people even if they don't help me successfully so i'm not contingent on either successful or good lobbying. This is the most comparative case in the debate for all of those reasons closing government.
</mg>
<mo>
two contributions from closing opposition. First, we're gonna explain why this is bad for the power of unions, which is both the largest time in the debate and deletes the government ventures benefit in this debate, because if the union in this sector does not exist, they cannot exercise a veto; And second, i'm going to explain why it is that the exercise of this veto would be in fact very bad much better than opening opposition. Let's start with why this is bad for the power of unions.
The first thing to explain here is that you now have more of an incentive to do things like union bus that looks like anti-union laws that looks like funding campaigns to convince people not to join them that looks like funding law sets against unions in some parts of the world that looks like literally killing union leaders and now you have to completely eliminate the presence of a union in this sector or make sure that one can never get off the ground in order to make sure they never exercise a veto. So if you're a country that has a nascent teachers union, then you are clearly going to do as much as you possibly can to avoid that union ever again.
are coming to fruition such that they cannot exercise a veto. First of all, because you want to have control of your ministers. And second, because at the point where a union pops up in this particular sector, that union is now is now able to bring your government to a standstill, not allow you to be able to appoint to appoint ministers. That means you are never going to allow the union to exist in the first place or you are going to bust that union. And what that means is that you will not get unions in the first instance. This has two impacts. First, it deletes government benches benefit because if the government never allows an education union to exist in this sector in the first instance, no one can exercise a veto. But second, it means you no longer get all of the other good benefits that we could claim on our side of unions. Things like better conditions, things like better pay. Closing government says, ah, unions will always act in good ways so that they don't get union busted. But obviously, acting in bad ways leading to union busting is something that can exist on either side. And if this claim is just completely a historic throughout history, unions have attempted to enrich themselves as much as they possibly can all right that is for a couple of reasons. It's first, because they have particularly short-term incentives, right. So the particular union leader at the time wants to make sure that their members at the time have democratically elected them can get as much money as possible so they don't necessarily care that much about the future. But secondly, there's a collective action problem here because a single union going too far or trying to get too much power for themselves isn't going to be the tipping point to cause all this anti-union busting but at the point where the, but at the point where all of the unions do it, then that's where you're likely to get much more clamp down on unions and what that means is that and what that means is that you all the unions have the incentives themselves to go as hard as possible because they're not going to make a huge difference. The end of this argument, the unions never pop up in the first instance in the countries that most need them.
<poi>
Yeah, if regulation affects specific sectors in a lot of instances, then your mechanism there just doesn't actually land. Think about how this happens in the real world, Sydney. Why doesn't it land?
If you have regulation that can happen towards a specific sector, then you don't have the collective action problem mechanizing as you said, which means an individual industry won't go as far as they have to.
</poi>

Okay. So basically the problem with this is that it runs into the first. So obviously there's like multiple characterization, but I deal with that characterization in the first one where I explained that you will then attack this particular industry or never allow it to that industry developed in this first instance. Second reason it's bad for unions is because now unions have an incentive to keep people out under the status quo, You want to grow because even though your share of power in that union goes down when you grow, the overall power of the union increases and that means that your power increases, however, this form of power is a form of power that isn't contingent on the size of the union and in fact, when the union gets larger your your amount of control over that union is, your control over that union power in fact goes down and no this is the largest power you have because in many parts of the world other forms of union power are systemically in decline because we've seen things like anti-union laws. This now means that the largest power the union has isn't contingent on the union growing and in fact everyone in that union has an incentive to make sure that as few people join that union as possible so they can have as much control over that power in the first instance. Noting this also means you want your particular faction to control that union, noting that unions are deeply political and deeply factionalized. Therefore, you actually have an incentive to keep your union smaller so that your faction is able to exercise this veto power. And that looks like things like the way that they keep people out is doing things like setting higher dues, having more demi- having more bureaucratic barriers to entry, denying people's applications into union, not actively recruiting individuals. And this means that the union is now likely to be smaller because the people in the union don't have an incentive to grow when the key power of the union, actually their power over it dilutes at the point where more people join it. The impact of this is too bold. First, it means that less people get access to how unions work, less protection for their workers rights and less high wages. Secondly, it also kills government ventures benefit because it means it's not everyone in that industry voting, but the particularly most powerful faction in that union that was able to capture it. Right. The government bench might say, well, no, you have other incentives to be larger. I explained why this is the most significant power that the union has, which means it's the largest incentive and therefore you're going to preference your amount of control over that or over all other interests. And therefore you're not going to let people into your union. CIG says more people will join the union because they have an incentive. Clearly, if the people in the union don't want you to join, they won't. At that point, we prove that unions are likely to get nuked by this, deletes their benefit, is the largest impact in the debate. Clear CO1. But let's now explain why it is that you are actually, if it is you, This would actually be catastrophic much better than our. The first thing is we just think in a lot of instances. You are not going to be able to get agreement between the government and the union and that means that you will not have an education minister Right, you will not have a minister for this particular industry that is first because many times particularly where there are conservative governments labor unions view these people as Literally the enemy they will never agree with them and second note that labor unions often very politically embedded They have things like a labor party that directly supports them or at least a political party with which the unions are aligned for instance the Democratic Party in the United States and that
That means that where there is a conservative party, they are likely to deliberately nuke their ability to appoint ministers of any kind in order to benefit the political party that they support, which is the biggest harm to their museum. Because it means you get gridlock. It means that governments literally cannot have ministers to be able to function. That is incredibly important. Finally, I'm going to explain why unions have sets of bad incentives, because OO says, oh, there might be underregulation. We're going to explain what they actually do. First, they can cripple your public services. This looks like non-functional hospitals continuing to run because the unions will not allow individuals to be laid off. It looks like education unions that refuse to have any forms of reform. And that is incredibly bad because it means that all of society is harmed by the fact that like public services come to a standstill. Second, it means they can often do things like create monopolies over labor hire. So in many instances, like for instance, the Australian Maritime Union used to not allow you to contract out to particular companies. They used to say, you have to come to work for the union and then we will labor hire you out. And that meant first of all, that prices go up. And secondly, people couldn't get jobs because the union was artificially constraining supply in order to keep the prices high and third note the connection between unions and organized crime and the way in which unions have often been used as a front front for criminality. They can now stop any kind of attacks on these bad things that they're doing first because they are able to veto any minister responsible for them who would regulate it and secondly insofar as the union now has this ability to the government the government will not come after the unions this is a much better explanation than opening opposition of the actual explicit things that unions are going to do that are bad
</mo>
<gw>
I have a lot of stuff now for a variety of reasons the comparative in this debate is quiteconstraining supply chains.
I'm just going to name the ones that were said in this debate. Firstly, the fact that we explained to you in closing government uniquely the degree to which unions care about public opinion, because regulation can directly affect them and they don't want to swing that from happening negatively. Secondly, the race to the media that open government outlines. Thirdly, OO's idea on industrial culture. Fourthly, the extent to which regulations still exists, OO say that it needs to be enforced, but of course the risk reward calculus for an industry, skirting regulations, eventually losing their license in the business is massive, so this mechanism doesn't land. Fifthly, the fact that you're still choosing from a subset of politicians that are being provided to you by the Conservative Party, if CO wants to talk about them. And sixthly, the fact that it's congruent with economic interests, which is to say that the industries themselves and the workers within it both want positive economic impacts.
And to the degree that the industries are being are lobbying higher than individual people are in terms of voting. Therefore, those lobbying powers are going to be used. And that's the kind of thing that happens. Therefore, there's only three comparatives in this debate. Firstly, where there's on union membership. Secondly, on slight disalignments of preferences. And thirdly, on the principle. So first thing with regards to union, like union membership, let's deal with CO's case here. The first thing they say is that you have a higher incentive for union busting now that they have this degree of power. Firstly, I continue this is a knife to their opening opposition's characterization it says that you can use them as a ventriloquist for your own interest. Secondly, i would say to you that it becomes less effective now because insofar as you can say to people oh you shouldn't join a union you have a decreased capacity to do that well you can't use the techniques that we outlined here in closing government are saying it would not be worth your time and indeed the fact that unions are capable of explaining to you why it's economically beneficial for you as an individual and indeed aligns with public perception as we explain it to you in our extension. I got no response in closing opposition. But secondly, i would contend that there is no increased incentive to the degree that unions are able to do things like union boasting, which is to say, I think under the status quo, if CO are right in the third power, in the second part of their extension about the things that unions can do to an industry, then the industry would already have the maximum incentive and so the comparative is on capacity. And indeed, on the comparative of capacity, we explained to you that now that even nascent unions, even small unions have massive retaliatory power against an industry that wants to undermine it and see CO's own example that they're willing to do things like hospitals within their own characterization being shut down, they're willing to take retaliatory efforts
against their own thing means that you must become less effective. Second thing to say is a single union will go really hard because of collective action problem. Again, I POI this and they never give a response to it. Part from flight in the first part that I just responded to. So on face, they've lost that comparative and the explanation that I provided to you is the fact that if you are one individual industry, say, for example, the teachers union, because if you lobby for things that are massively beneficial for just teachers and not the public, that will be negative because you can get directly regulated as a consequence of that. See those cases only true if regulation has to be universal, but you can have industry specific regulation and therefore that
case doesn't land. The third thing they say is you want when you want to get a higher degree of control, you want less people within your union because you want to maintain your positional power. This only makes sense if you as one individual person within the industry are more powerful. There's three and four members. We would content you that hierarchy still exists, which is to say, if you are the upper level of a union right now, when new people come in, you maintain your place in the place in the hierarchy. Secondly, you undermine your ability if you want fewer members to do the other good things that unions are able to do as we explained to you in our extension, things like lobbying, but also all the
corollary impacts to explain to you your power decreases on net. And thirdly, because you join your trade union for a reason. And this is the thing. If you create a trade union or join a trade union in face of all the harms that CEO outlined in terms of union busting, it flags as an explicit preference that a person wants the betterment of the people within that industry. And therefore, this case is going to be comparative. We're winning on this comparative. That's probably the most important one in the debate, because if the change in regulation is quite speculative, if we're able to provide to you a massive degree to which people are able to access the benefits of unions, health care, worker pay, safety
regulations, gloves, masks, etc. that increases the quality of life for individuals within the industry, but also doesn't have the negative externalities that are worth talking about. Second comparative then in the debate is on the disalignment of preferences in and so far as when they exist. Opening government on this are remarkably, like, are not very strong. The reason for this is they firstly outline knowledge, but without explaining why the industry doesn't have the capacity to have that knowledge with regards to the lobbying that they say is the most powerful thing that happens within that context. And secondly, they talk about the ability to undermine lobbying without ever characterizing
to you the degree to which that this alignment of preference is happening. We make them weak to OO's response that indeed the kinds of things that the industry will lobby for will be negative. Where do we fall into this in terms of explanation of the kinds of things that change? This is the comparative. We explained to you why in a much stronger way than opening government unions have a massive incentive to align with public preferences. They fear regulation. I'd also contend as a further response to opening opposition that these are the people who are most likely to have the direct experience of harms towards them in their lives. They understand what it looks like when an economy downturns. They understand the harms of environmental regulations not being there when it means that they can't clean their clothes in the river anymore. Because these are the pores within society that was approximately affected by negative externalities outside of their place as a worker and their friends and families are too. I would contend that these people are in a better position to make that decision on the basis of preferences, although I'll explain that later when I deal with the principle. Therefore, the slightest alignment of preferences is where we explain to you in our extension. We explain to you something very simple, which is the kinds of visceral experiences that workers have of working on the ground, something that does not trickle up the corporate ladder. I know, for example, working in my job that if there was
a ground mat on the floor rather than just a hard floor that was there, I'd be able to walk quicker later in the day because my legs wouldn't be broken and tired. But the companies, because they're based off of this idea of having an oppositionality between workers and their bosses, and think that the workers are just looking for more and more things like more money for themselves for greedy reasons, means that the way in which they think that you get more economically efficient is by being punitive. This is the reason why very few industries apart from the tech sector have actually updated to be more ergonomic towards their workers, despite the fact that we now have the economic information
to provide to us to explain that might in a lot of instances be beneficial towards the economy. The economy being good of course and in terms of general weighing is just good in general insofar as it means you have things like increased tax revenue for the people, increased wages in people's pockets, increased pay overall.
<poi>
Our point wasn't that a lot of teachers being religious is bad but that there are asymmetries if you become an industry leader versus a general demographic of the industry based on privilege leading to things like pushing for more seniority pay and just like more religious funding from external donors distorting priorities.
Also, the debate on the union.
</poi>

problem though is you never explain to us why this privilege actually transfers in a meaningful way as opposed to the way it does within general society when you can get economic privilege. For the reason of my response to closing opposition which you chose not to respond to in that poi people with the most amount of drive within these trade unions tend to be the ones that rise to the top, people that can be most persuasive to the top, people within the union senate those ones that will rise to the top, people have the most degree of you know just like like drive for change those like people's rights that's how in terms of the principle I think we're able to win that overall by reducing it to the practical part. Because note the harms and the principle are practically contingent because they're based off of the idea of coercion and undermining coercion in this state. We were proposed to use that things like not having proper health and safety regulations, not having enough money in your pocket are also coercive, but notably also OG's principle of self-defeating. And we explained why your line of preference is within opening opposition. Therefore, on the way up in terms of this debate, closing government has to win. Because on all strands of the debate, relative to the burdens of proof of those strands, we're able to provide a winning comparison to you on the proposition side of the house, and then conclusively we've won the debate.
</gw>
<ow>
Closing opposition provides three important contributions to this debate. The first contribution that we provide is to explain why unions are just unlikely to be able to exist and function. And that argument necessarily occurs upstream of anything that opening government or closing government wish to say, because both of them attend to provide a series of reasons of either why this veto power would be used well by unions are to help workers, which is the opening government case. And then the closing government case is why this power would be used well to help people at large. If we prove this first argument, we necessarily beat those two teams and opening opposition by making an argument that actually defeats the government bench, assuming their characterization about unions is still true. The second important contribution that we provide, however, is just explaining why unions get incredibly elitist. And I would weigh this perhaps the most highly in the debate for the reason that there are a series of individuals who often need unions to get important representation. They need things like workers rights, which that CG whip does a bit of impacting. We explain why you're less likely to get that. But finally, we provide a contribution that actually explains how unions have the capacity to implement bad sorts of legislation and policy and do bad things at this speedo as opposed to opening opposition who just say they will. So let's start with closing government. They give us maybe two responses to our extension. Sorry, three. The first is calling it a knife, which it obviously isn't. As I explained in my introduction, we just make an argument that occurs upstream of opening opposition. We do not contradict them directly. No analysis there. The second response that is given is to say that, well, your collective action problem, it doesn't work because you would target specific industries and industries as a whole won't be regulated. The first thing I want to note about this is that it is mitigation because there are still industries that are incredibly important that are likely to be cracked down on. So that is a harm that they still necessarily have to bite in the trade off. But secondly, as they explain, Obviously, a set of corporations and businesses and policymakers have incentive to label these individuals as bad for the reasons that not only do the government makes you agree on, but that they empirically do in the status quo. So obviously, if these incentives still apply, then at the point at which one union starts doing bad things, you want to paint a board brush stroke of audience doing bad things so you can equally all deregulate and fuck over those unions. So to the extent that this only occurs in one instance, they never show why that wouldn't be used to jeopardize and screw over all unions in general. The third response we get
get is on our sort of membership part of the extension. They say, well, you're unlikely to, for example, become a leader or kick people out to maintain power because there's already a pre-established hierarchy. But obviously this is untrue for the reason that unions are democratically elected, right? Like new members that have different interests to you for the reason that they occupy different socioeconomic positions, for example, or the younger or in their different parts of their careers, obviously then present a threat to you as someone who is more established when they have, for example, a bigger voting block. But also I would argue that this veto specifically creates this incentive because now being elected comes with so much more direct ability to privilege yourself that now even if this incentive didn't currently exist, it definitely exists on their side of the house. That means our extension stands and for the reasons I outlined in my introduction, it wins the debate. Let's talk about closing government. They really have one extension because their second extension about getting more people is reliant upon unions doing good things in the first place and is entirely contingent and basically just impacting. Their one extension in this debate is unions will do good things.
opening government not taking you. Unions will do good things. And they give a series of general reasons why it might be nice for unions to do good things. They say, maybe it will remove a few narratives. Note, I already respond to why this isn't going to happen. They say, well, maybe you'll capture some voter bases. And the real reason that they whip over and over again is, well, unions are made up of members who are affected by economic outcomes. Therefore, you want to get good economic outcomes for your members. But there are obviously four problems with this extension. And what I'll do now is outline this and explain why this
will not be the actual incentive that disproportionately affects people with dingyuns to operate this way. The first thing that I will explain is that you can already vote for things like the government to represent your economic interests. The reason that you specifically join a union is because you want specific work interests advocated for. The point at which unions are no longer doing this and they're considering general sets of, for example, economic outcomes are the point at which you just go, well, why am I even here paying subscription fees? No, things like subscription things do make this a necessary opportunity cost.
that a lot of individuals, for example, particularly poor individuals have to engage in. But the second thing I'll say is that you're often motivated by incredibly short term incentives, right? Because if your country is experiencing recession or if your job is specifically going to be laid off, then obviously you don't care about what other people in the fucking country, you know, want, for example, you care about your job, you care about putting food on your plate. And that is the reason why not only in general, but in specific circumstances where it matters most, obviously these unions are going to care about their own incentives as opposed to general.
For those reasons, it's clear that CG never proves why this is the most likely incentive that people will operate on. Now that I'm done with them, CG, go!
<poi>
apart from no mechanism as to why unions would lobby generally know specifically up bench has yet to provide a reason as to why states and companies would not already be at maximum incentive to scrub our unions given their own explanations of why unions are bad therefore the comparative is on capacity of unions to retaliate that's where we get more membership.
</poi>
yeah so the basic claim being made in this poi is that well you're already screwing over unions to the most extent, So therefore there's no change. I would just say that this is empirically untrue for the reason that unions often do have a lot of collecting bargaining power. People do listen to them, but all that previous speech actually explains like why, sorry, my speech, why narrative gets worse, where there's a greater capacity for things like the screw over. But now I'm also going to explain why policy gets worse, which also occurs upstream of this rebuttal. So let's talk about open government. They have two arguments. First is it is principally legitimate. I'm just going to say, let's assume this is true. This is not a reason why we should do something. It is not positive material. It just says that it's legitimate. So I don't care about this. Let's move on to
the second argument, which is that it will create a balance. Their only mech for this is like, you will have conversations with people and I POI this and I explained that now, obviously companies and people proposing policy come to you in the first place because now they cater their policy specifically to you. So for example, not get fucked over. You don't want to, for example, avoid being vetoed in the Senate and have time to grace. You don't want to have administrative delays. There probably is outside pressure to get your policies through. So that means if opening government are like it creates a balance, obviously it creates a balance in a really bad way that disproportionately favor these
They're like, well, no, you're not actually setting the policy, but you might as well be. But even if that's not true, obviously people naturally tend towards these sorts of things, as I already explained. Their only other claim then is that, well, sometimes governments have a majority and they can elect anyone. Our extension explains specifically why you're unlikely to, for example, like you're likely to elect the worst sorts of people because you kick everyone else out of the union now. Briefly on opening opposition. Oh, sorry. Like the takeaway from opening government is just they have to prove why this balance is good or fair. You're just giving it some more power, which is bad.
opening opposition, we beat them in three ways. First of all, we operate, they operate the assumption that unions are probably still good in a lot of instances. We explain why those unions disappear. Secondly, we show you why if unions kick everyone else out, then that actually unlocks their corruption and policy material because it explains why you can specifically lobby for specific interests, why you're not bound by things like a series of other voices. But finally, we make much better explain and unlock their biggest benefit, which is how you can specifically have the capacity to do this. Things like constraining membership, preventing people from joining or fucking over emergencies services.
We win on our metric by actually recognizing this and we take the debate.
</ow>
<pm>
Panel, the position of opening government today is very simple. We think tying a movement, a political movement, that is progressivism to particular individuals is bad. We think it is bad both for progressive politics and for broader society. We're going to advance four claims in the speech, first on political polarization,then on policy making and policy passing, why we think that there are constraints that would not exist independent of a situation in which you cast light on particular people, third on individual accountability and finally on mis-prioritisation. Look, I think the stance of open government is quite clear by way of model. We regret the creation of icons like AOC, like Bernie Sanders that are discussed in the chat. We think that often these are not created by say the Democratic Party but emerge out of particular events that lift those people to prominence. So for example for AOC it was winning a
an election, a very safe democratic seat for Bernie was living in Vermont and running for president in 2016. I'll take questions, but I think there are none. Let me know if there are. So on the first argument of political polarization. I think this is quite clear. I think that there is significant over weighting that occurs of particular viewpoints at the points at which you have progressive politics assigned to particular groups of people or particular people like AOC and Bernie Sanders. This is problematic for a number of reasons. First, AOC and Bernie and other progressive political ideologues run in electorates that are extremely safe victories for them, that is AOC ran in a district that would never be won by a republican. She will continue to win elections over and over again, the same is true of Bernie Sanders in Vermont. They run in extremely safe districts and overweight the popular discourse with progressive ideals.
This makes it very easy for competing parties to capture moderates because they can say things like ah Bernie Sanders stands behind socialism, AOC supports things like socialism and we don't like socialism and this echoes and reverberates through elections that do not concern them because their elections in and of themselves are not at risk. People will vote for them independent of their existence as icons. AOC was elected independent of her emergence as an icon, as Bernie Sanders. And the point at which that is true, the question is about the influence that these people have, the undue influence that they have on the movement as a whole and the way that progressivism is cast, because we on open government take a progressivism neutral stance, we think it is a valid political ideology, but we think that to the extent that you think that it is good, It is bad for it to be individually ascribed to people who have very safe elections who are unlikely to do anything but challenge the way that moderates are perceiving things. Right, Like this is why the Trump campaign was so successful by running ads about socialism and communism in Florida, because people are actively scared of the values. The progressive politics is said to stand behind and that they themselves say they stand behind. Things like extreme redistribution is very unpopular in the United States, specifically among the moderate population. That causes a second order harm, which is infighting within the Democratic Party, which means that there are disagreements significantly in the sorts of policy measures that should be passed, which I'll get to in a moment. But fundamentally, it means that the Democratic Party itself fractures. It is unclear what from a big perspective, a big time zoomed out perspective these people are going to campaign for. It is not clear whether they want the more extreme version, which is the progressive ideology subscribed to by few or the more moderate ideology and the Democratic Party itself runs into an issue with marketing both at the same time, it cannot quintessentially be moderate and also extremely progressive simultaneously, meaning that you are always going to upset a range of voters. In most cases, if these icons are as powerful as opposition will want them to be, you're going to upset a lot of moderate voters that are going to push the moderate vote away from progressive candidates. It's going to push them towards more like, you know, conservative candidates. Donald Trump was extremely successful in this election, despite the fact that he is entirely incompetent. And I mean that. So then, thirdly, on impact on turnout, we think that you reduce turnout in the lecture, it's where that election actually matters, and you isolate people from democratic politics in general. Firstly, because people become disenchanted with the democratic party and the left establishment. There are only two parties in the United States, and it's not going to change at any point in the future, presumably unless opposition wants to run a whack job argument that will. To the extent that that is true, we think that the democratic party loses support from individuals who become disenfranchised with the idea that they are not supported by a party. If they themselves subscribe to progressive ideologies. They are fractured away from the Democratic Party because they fail to support candidates that are not as progressive. But for people who oppose progressivism, the Democratic Party fails them also because the existence of icons is an overriding ideology of the party to the extent where people will disagree with the existence of those icons and therefore the fundamental base of the party. Secondly, it is bad for policymaking. That is, AOC now has the mandate not to pass policies that she thinks is anything less than totally redistributive. The Republican Party also has no incentive to pass policy with AOC. Why? Because they hate her, right? Like the right very clearly has a vitriolic hatred for AOC and for Bernie Sanders and for the policies that they stand behind. That means that cross-party negotiation as far less likely to happen at the detriment of a lot of American people. Look to Bernie Sanders intentionally blocking legislation that would help millions of American people because it was not generous enough for them under the presumption that a more generous policy would pass. A sort of idealistic approach to politics is flawed at the point at which you risk the lives of millions of people. When you ascribe that value to those particular politicians because you hold these individuals accountable for that policy changing to the extent that that policy does not change, you become further disenchanted with the efforts of the party. You're far less likely to turn out to vote firstly. But secondly, you're less likely to compromise on policy that is good.
<poi> Nicole, with the reference to arguments on disenchantment, fracturing, polarization, just to be clear, are you against progressive politics being practiced in America or are you against progressive icons specifically? </poi>
like I already said, we're value neutral and progressive politics. Like I said, it's a value, like it's a valuable ideology as any other is. We think that the assignment of individuals specifically who overweight the discussion with their political narrative is bad. I think that was quite clear. Third though, on, on wrongdoing, the democratic party gets itself into a bit of a double bind at the point at which it puts a lot of value into particular people, into particular individuals, especially those that do not win big ticket elections because AOC is not the president. She is just a member of Congress.
What does that mean? First, it means that the individual accountability of those members becomes kind of thrown up in the air. Two reasons. First, the Democratic establishment can't immediately hold these people accountable because it will make it look bad. It looks like it's cracking down on its own base, on its own party base, right? Secondly, though, these people are less likely, even if they are to be held to account, to hold the party to account because to the extent that they want to hold the Dems to account, either A, the Dems just don't run more candidates that expose things within the Democratic Party or B, that creates more infighting in the party that creates instability in their voter base, which means that elections that need to get won, like the runoffs, do not get won. Finally, the priorities of people are like thrown off. I think people are specifically icons concentrate more on their media image and the distribution of information that concerns them than they do about the distribution of information that concerns the average voter in the average electorate about the moderation of politics that most people in the United States, particularly individualistic state actively subscribe to. To the extent that that is true, I think that there is very clear case to regret the iconoclastic form of politics that is described during the status quo, so incredibly proud to affirm.
</pm>
<lo>
So we think like a lot of problems, proposition side exists on this side of house comparative world anyway, like polarization, as long as there's like progressive proposals there will always be like defamination will always be accusation of these people anyway, so we don't know like what is the comparative benefits from proposition in that sense so uh but before I move on to my constructive speech several response to that so first of all about like that we reject the characterization of what the political icons look like so we understand sometimes some of their proposals may be extreme but extreme doesn't necessarily mean there's only a minority of people being represented by that proposals. As we see in the past, like how it will say, oh like Bernie Sanders campaign goes well, we see like a lot of people are waiting to take this stance and are willing to support this politicians. So we see like when you kind of like, within the comparative world, when there's no such kind of political icons, what is the alternative? It's more likely to be like more like far right, like Donald Trump, that is the alternative. I believe that both house would prefer not. So, before I move on to my constructive speech, what is the most important thing in today's debate? We're saying like, how exactly, what we want on our side house is first of all, we want those more progressive proposals to be more likely to be passed in Congress and to actually be able to mobilize more voters in the campaign, which could establish a long-term awareness and water base that could further make the campaign and proposals in US politics more progressive in the long run. And secondly, we're saying another house, we could have more representation of the people that couldn't be represented or OG misidentified as extreme group of people another house. So how exactly we can do that? What is the creation of political icons we're talking about? A, we're talking about those people, those politicians, they try to mobilize support with social media or with international media coverage to estabish a quite progressive image overall, and secondly we're saying because they depend their political success upon this sort of image, that means they will be kept being held accountable by their supporters as icons in this particular field. Their proposals will be rechecked whether it's within the line of their proposal, the sayings they gave in the campaigns and people, by checking them that holding them accountable for well and after believing that they will become the political icons in a progressive way, people will tend to have more trust on those individuals in comparison with other politicians. And thirdly, we're also saying that these political icons are more likely to use the very progressive proposals to campaign overall. So, why this is comparatively better? We're seeing two things. First of all, how when we have this creation of progressive political icons, we're more likely to having more progressive campaign process that could in the long term produce more progressive and firm voter base. And secondly, why we'll have a better discussion in the Congress that are more likely to making those progressive policies being passed. So that's the first thing. So we're saying how campaign works. When we have those political icons, they mobilize and they try to mobilize their voter base, trying to sell their progressive proposals. That means what is the comparative here, A, we're saying the audience because they understand these people are sort of political icons and will be held accountable by their supporters. That means they will tend to have more trust towards these proposals that other politicians who the audience will view, more likely to be as a strategy to propose those progressive proposals. That means comparatively speaking, those voters who may more likely to be liberal and who may turn towards those progressive tendencies were more likely to go outside to vote because of the trust. And secondly, what is the comparative here is like when you're trying to mobilize things, mobilize those progressive proposals, you're making like this issue more political size, more politicized. Why that is a good thing. Two reasons, two impacts. First of all, we're saying like making people to vote is the fundamental way that we could actually actualize any impacts in a progressive way. That only when people who are asked to vote hold politicians accountable and making pressure in politicians to actually pass policies, we're saying you could actually have all those impacts in a progressive development for the society. But secondly, we're saying we will politicize these issues as a political icons. You are campaigning around the whole nation. That means you're reaching the group of audience who may not know this otherwise in their daily life, but in campaigns there are overwhelming reports on that and as political icons sticking to this position they will keep talking about that which will also reaching like all these other audience even on the opposite side because opposite side will also like engage with the argument during the process so that's to say when we politicize the problem, when we politicize the issues we want to address, those political, those like progressive proposals in a political way we are reaching more audience more likely to reach, more likely to reach a practical outcome and alongside house
<poi> Yes, Bernie Sanders mobilized some young voters to vote for him, but he also mobilized equally if not more of them to vote against Hillary the general election, which got us four years of Trump.
</poi>
Alright, So the comparative in that, in your world here is, those people who vote for, like those people who vote for Donald Trump will vote for them anyway, and as we see like Donald Trump has already won because based on mobilizing those extreme voters. But the comparison here is like without Bernie Sanders, you won't have those proposals being proposed in the very first place, and you won't have the proposals to be negotiated in the Congress and in the Democratic parties without this firm voter base, you get as a like political articles. But secondly, how exactly on the outside house you could actually have a progressive progress in the Congress. We're saying as a political icon, what is unique to you is you have a group of people firmly supporting your voter base. Then you will have more staying in the negotiation within the Congress in the first place. And secondly, because of this voter base, even within the Democratic Party, it's more likely that other candidates, even if, for example, Bernie Sanders wasn't selected as the candidate for the Democratic Party, but other candidates were also trying to integrate these proposals within their own proposals to try to like mobilize more voters in that sense. So only with this creation of progressive political icons we can more likely to truly push forward voters into more progressive way and get actual changes from that house.
</lo>
<dpm>
opening opposition is correct. Progressive politics is going to exist either way because there are people who want progressive politicians. What we've identified for you though is a lot of reasons as to why the specific idea that you tie the movement to individual livelihoods or individual people or personalities is specifically bad. The main thrust of a response that we've got from allo is just the idea that all the arguments we've given you are not exclusive, they'll happen because there are people who want progressive politics. This is incorrect for a bunch of reasons. The first thing to say is that what Nicole told you in pm, which I don't think was appropriately responded to is the idea that you change the movement in a way that discreaditing individuals becomes dicrediting the same thing that is spreading a policy proposal or discreaditing an entire part of the platform, i.e. the idea that you're able to attack AOC for like her background, for example or educational background or able to attack Bernie Sanders for being a millionaire are taken as the same things as being attackson their platform. That is, the fact that you're able to say, well you know the progressives aren't really doing anything or like look at all these shady stuff Bernie Sanders did like you wrote a book and made so much money, are taken as the same thing and equally as credible as genuine a tax lien policy proposal itself. The problem with this, however, is two things. One, the policies themselves become tainted by their association with individual actors. That is that I think a lot of people will probably be in favor of things like higher wealth taxation, if it weren't for the fact that Bernie Sanders and AOC were the figureheads at the top of that movement. Secondly, though, it means that even in the case where progressive policies and progressive individuals are good on the local level, they become overridden by the association with a progressive icon that has been vilified in the right wing media. The second reason why this is bad, though, is because it causes an immense amount of vitriol that is not as easy to mobilize against individual movement. That is, in the same way as conservatives are not motivated to vote in elections because they hate Joe Crowley or they hate Harry Reid, they are motivated to vote in elections because they hate AOC, which means that even if they're able to access the increases in turnout, the opening opposition thinks are important. The problem is that it is symmetric, which is that the vitriol you induce on the other side will outweigh the vast majority of the marginal increase in the voter trend, you will get from having maybe a marginally more charismatic candidate on their side. The second thing to say, though, and this is particularly important with regards
policy change arguments that is advancing, as that becomes far harder to unify or pass on the baton, even within the progressive movement. That is, the easy example of this is that Bernie and Warren, for example, during the 2020 election, while being very ideologically similar, had supporters who were frequently clashing with each other and refused to support the other after one dropped out. The problem with this, then, is that because you tied a specific, you tied your ideology, not to the fact that you are a progressive, but be that you are a Bernie supporter or that you are a Warren supporter, means that it is incompatible for you or it is very difficult for you to support other individuals with similar ideologies just because they are different individuals. The reason why this is particularly harmful is if you care about things like long-term change or if you care about broadly the idea that you can move the populace to the left, it's bad to tie to individuals who are by definition temporary. It's much better to do things that tie to broad-based societal movements. And obviously it is true that you are able to mobilize support without the need for individual icons. There are plenty of movements that are largely not dependent on the charisma of individuals. You see Black Lives Matter movement, it's not clear as to why opening oppositions arguments are necessarily exclusive to what they're telling you about. The third thing to say, however, under this is that they're just a difference in priorities, in the way that you pass policy. This isn't just the argument that we gave you in pm which is the idea that progressiveicons are likely to block legislation for the sake of advancing their own national image. It's also the idea that there's a difference in priorities in terms of campaigning. That is, that AOC sends a ridiculous amount of time trying to primary democrats in like safe districts and not nearly as much time as she could, for example campaigning for people in purple states or in battleground states, places where the election genuinely affects whether their policy will pass or not. The important characterization to remember is this, all of the mobilization that OO wants to talk about happens with largely progressive voters who are already in districts that already will vote for democratic policymakers. This means, one, that they don't have the leverage that they talk about to actually enact new policy because these people are in districts in states that just don't matter during most elections. And two, to the extent that they become more popular, it's not clear that they move the districts or move the national conversation meaningfully more left than they actually care about. Specifically then, some extraneous rebuttal to opening opposition.
The broad thrust of the ideas that we get is that you can progressive icons are able to use their image to advance certain ideologies that would otherwise not necessarily be as popular. Obviously, we've told you reasons as to why these images are likely not to be nearly as popular as I think they think they are. But the idea that you're able to mobilize progressives and force individuals to adopt things in the party platform is something that presumably happens naturally over time, i.e. the independence of the rise of progressive political icons like Bernie Sanders or AOC, you still have the Democratic Party moving left and adopting more leftist positions on race relations and climate change. So presumably the sport of the process of evolution is something that likely occurs on either side. The difference, however, is the process of the reaction by individuals on the other side of the movement. Because when you tie movements and tie policies, the identity of individuals, it becomes so much harder to differentiate the two and so much easier to do things in ways that are just so, so much worse for the movement.

<poi> This is a this house that regrets debate, not a this house opposed this debate. Give me the counterfactual so you have a chance.
</poi>
Yes, the counterfactual we envision is a world where progressive politics still exists, but it is not tied to the fate of individual politicians. That is, we are happy for perhaps as politicians to exist on either side. We just think that you should not be like AOC is the progressive movement. Rather, we think it should be that there are progressive politicians who share a common set of ideologies, i.e. we prefer the civil rights movement, for example, that is unified around a common set of policy proposals, not a world where it is tied to individuals that we think is particularly so harmful. Why then is this something that is particularly impactful in this debate? Firstly, to the extent you care about polarization, the problem is that it's easy to immobilize vitriol against individuals for their personal flaws or things they might have done in the past. It's less easy to debate the merits of a policy. This is something opening opposition themselves told you, where they told you that you need rational debate about policy to get things on the table. This only happens in a world where policies are not tied to specific individuals because then they become synonymous with these people and it is far easier to attack them. Secondly, though, to the extent that you care about the ability for individuals to pass policy, presumably you do not want people with outsized influence single-handedly blocking policy, i.e. AOC by herself as an individual person would not be able to block the CARES Act, or Bernie Sanders would not be able to block the stimulus bill, but by virtue of their status as icons, they're able to do so and stall valuable help that helps individuals just because it doesn't align with their personal political goals. This means then that to the extent you care about long-term progressive policy, the analysis is incredibly simple. The fact that politicians are inherently wanting to advance their own interests creates a world where it is actually worse for the progressive movement. That is the fact that you are seen as doing things like blocking things that would help people, the fact that moderates who lost in the 2020 election are blaming AOC and other progressive congress people for losing them that election is something that decreases the willingness to work together within parties, which makes it far harder to pass this legislation, because regardless of what opening opposition wants to think, the simple fact is that in order to pass legislation now or even decades into the future is necessary for you to get cooperation within your party. The fact that you fracture parties, the fact that you make it harder to pass on leadership in the long run is something that makes substantially more difficult. To the extent then that you tie movements, the fate of individuals, the problem is that individual fallibility becomes an excuse for attacking the merits of a policy. We're very, very proud to stand in proposition.
</dpm>
<dlo>
The first thing we're going to talk about is polarization. What would have changed on both sides and what would have stayed constant because that was the burden opening government needed to win this debate. The second thing we're going to talk about are political barriers where they would have changed and where they would have been beneficial. And then we're going to talk about this idea of deproitization and why that's an actual asset to the Democratic Party. After all of that, I'm going to explain to you explicitly with mechanisms why individuals and focusing these movements around individuals is better than the counterfactual, which would have been policy concerns. Let's talk about polarization. Opening government tell you that you get an overweighting of progressive politics, which means that Democrats can't get like moderate votes But also you get like anti-socialism rhetoric that Trump becomes powerful, the Republicans become powerful, a number of responses. Firstly the Democratic Party needs Progressivism as a check and balance the problem with opening government's case is that they assume that the Democratic Party is this neutral and fair arbiter and therefore the progressive icons have acted like this overweighting force without any contextualization of what the Democratic Party actually looks like. Three mechanisms here, firstly the old guard and the people who pull the strings within the democratic party in 2016 and even up to now although that is changing as a result of this motion, are like red democrats and like more right-leaning democrats. Those are people like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer who get to make the kind of appointments and get, and therefore get to determine like who gets power within the democratic party, what the image of the democratic party is. Secondly the party is funded by many right-leaning interests who fund both sides of the political spectrum which pulls both parties towards this kind of moderate status so people feel as though there is no fucking change in society. But finally, I think the democratic's presidential super delicate system allows these moderate politicians and old God to cement power in a way which means that for the vast majority of people who even vote for the Democrats, but just people on the outside, it doesn't seem like there is any genuine concern for ordinary people. This is one of the biggest reasons that Trump won the election in the first place in 2016, because of this idea of draining the swamp. Then they, then I think the second general comment is that America is changing demographically. We accept their one single example that people who are Hispanic and who live in Florida happen to vote republican. But we think this was a result of a very specific wave of immigrants from socialist leaning countries like Cuba and Venezuela. The general trend, however, is one of four things, for all three things. Firstly, mass urbanization of individuals and a convergence towards cities, which is why, for example, we saw surprising results in the state of Nebraska, which sure didn't turn into a democratic state, but had a ridiculous turnout for Democrats in places like Omaha, which is only growing in number as a percentage of the population of these republican rural areas. Secondly, more college educated people which is filtrating throughto the suburbs which is why biden was able to win massive suburbs, suburbs which the democrats have not won in decades. Thirdly, I think there is an increase as a general percentage of the population of african-american and non-anti-communist hispanic people, people from states of mexico or central america, guatemala, which who are more likely to support likely to have things like political enfranchisement, like well-funded healthcare and education systems. That means the general trend is one towards progressivism in US politics and so we don't regret that the Democrats were getting ahead of the curve. We think they are likely to see results in the future as a result of getting ahead of the curve. The third general comment here is that Republicans engage in polarization on both sides of the house. Trumpism has existed since 2016 and is here to stay. We think that republicans are pushing a polarizing alt-right narrative which is why a lot of the stuff that opening government talk about is uncomparative. So for example a lack of cross-party policy making which note was their mechanism as to why you get less policy points passing a more disenfranchisement has been a literal reality of the Trump administration because they have been pushing policy so far to the right that no even moderate democrat can support those policies and you've seen like a stasis within the within congress. I think what this means is that moderates have less choice on both sides and have to settle on both sides, which means that you don't necessarily lose them as opening government claim because they also are reluctant to vote for Trump. But more importantly, just on a factual note, moderates voted for Biden despite like this progressive trend existing due to Trumpism and like its abandonment of the norms and rules of how you just engage fairly in politics. If anything, what this should tell you is that moderates have to lean towards the Democrats and therefore, given there's not really a massive harm of losing them, this is a critical juncture between 2016 and 2020 to add progressivism to the agenda. Secondly, let's talk about prioritization. I think the thing about this is even if the Democrats stay moderate on both sides and progressivism is small, the icon status of these people within the progressivism movement is an asset to the national party as a whole because you now have somebody to send to these kind of growing cities in Wisconsin or Omaha in Nebraska to get town out in polarizer swing states. I think the mistake that opening government make is to assume that swing states are ones which are just full of moderate people. No, they are states which are full of polarized people. It's just about who can mobilize their polarized people more than the other side. I think that these guys are a key asset to do that.
<poi> The green new deal is expected to cost 10 trillion dollars which is 10 times the average expenditure of the state under the status quo Why are progressive policies good?
</poi>
I think this is a check and balance, some people support the green new deal, some people don't vote and most people feel like they're choosing the best of both worlds. We think that progressivism is good in so far as it's giving people options and insofar as it's moving democrats away from the statsis where they agree with modern republicans on things like no healthcare, so sure the green new deal might be a bit problamatic but like on balance we think that progressivismis good for the party. Why is it then that individuals are better centralization points than the counterfactual. I think there are benefits of individuals of the following. Firstly, it has provided hope and mobilization by centralizing a person and a narrative who you can big up and like really make seem like an important person and somebody who can give you that aspiration to go out and vote or to make small scale donations. I think secondly, the essential media interactions just create a level of relatability. Why is this important? This is so important. It means that they don't seem like the swamp which the Trumpists are talking about, which has moved people towards republicanism.
It means that they are more likeable in a post-fact era where people are able to believe in random facts on both sides and random policies. It is trust in politicians which is going to determine who people vote for. That is the comparative. That is why OO is winning top half. </dlo>
<mg>
The democratic party is going to be less progressive under our side of the house. That is, one, as per opening oppositions's analysis, that is, you have a presumption for the establishment which has a vast amount of money in the party that can fund people's campaigns and set the agenda that is only checked by icons who get huge amounts of donations, for instance by appearing on twitch. That's also I think necessaryfor og's case make sensebecause what they're saying is that you're far more likely to get people opposing the radical policies of the left under opposition. But notice that if it is the policies that stay exactly the same and just the figures, they're basically only contained to them like the mechanism which says people complain because AOC went to Brown, which probably precludes them from getting the vast majority of their benefits because I'm not sure that genuinely is the reason the Democrats have ever won or lost an election. The first thing I want to do is explain why progressive politics and progressive policies are bad for the Democratic Party.
The thing that is important here is under our side of the House, we will still have progressive people because large numbers of voters will still be relatively progressive and still probably in primaries, pushed for better policies than apparently no healthcare, which I don't think has ever been the standard that the party has gone for. The comparison is that the capacity to be extremely radical is far more possible on the desk at the House when individual icons are not constrained by moderates who predominantly fund the party, but instead are people who get their own independent sources of funding,
Most of the time from the most radical college-educated people who haven't really had a job or have any experience of the world, but think that the more radical you are, the more woke you are, and therefore fund these people under their side of the house. Why is advocating for this stuff bad? One, we think that these policies are often extremely expensive or extremely inefficient. That is, they give huge amounts of power to a government bureaucracy which has huge numbers of people working within the system, often receiving jobs which make the private sector anti-competitive and therefore in the long term decrease the capacity for jobs to be provided people and have enormous cost overruns. That's why the US despite spending so much on welfare does so badly on almost all statistics of welfare because it's just so badly run but these policies and never cut because they're always, those cuts are always opposed by the progressive wing, but the second reason that these are bad is that these people as have been pointed out frontline aspirational policies rather than feasible policies. That is the example we give you, they pust for things like the green new deal with nobody that the green new deal could ever be implemented merely because they want to say here is a list of all the things we think is wrong with society. The problem is that when these people are able to advocate for these things, they force the rhetoric of the rest of the parties to start campaigning on the lines of these policies, which is why then these terrible policies are something that the rest of the people are sandbagged with in elections. Why is this important? One, I think we give you reasons why we still get some, like we still get some progressive policies that are side, but not this extremely bad policy that empirically given Democrats do win is likely to be implemented at some point, which means opening opposition. Two, I think this significantly resolves the deadlock in the top half because OO are like, well, we can inform and excite people and see, OG are like, well, this can be radical, it's going to turn away moderates, and in some swing states, apparently moderates important and others. We want to excite people by dividing but, if we can tell you that the policies themselves are so intrinsically unreasonable, then that is good reason to believe that the vast majority of people, even low income people who want help don't believe that these are feasible ways for helping them, which is a significantly better reason they're unlikely to be electable in the future. Second thing, the other thing I'd like to note is that we think that one reason these policies now more likely to be implemented which is bad for the reason we give you is that these people are now able to hold the democratic party into account and it's significantly harder for the democratic party tp push for moderate policies under their side of the house. OG tells you the AOC doesn't vote for moderate policies. I think they don't tell you why other progressive politicians would be likely to, but given we told you the mechanism which is there beholden to the money from the rest of the party, there's a significantly better reason than where I'd like you to capture these benefits under our side of the House. Next thing I want to talk about in that extension is what campaigns are likely to look like under both sides of the House.
<poi> Logically extending your argument on electability and polarization. Do you think the Democrat Center should move further to the right?
</poi>
I'm not sure that's what we're committed to, right? Because what we're not saying is that there is some optimum policy, although plausibly they should move to the right, but that the kinds of policies that icons are going to frontline will be so radical and so extreme that they're unreasonable. Let's talk about campaigning. The fact that these people are able to extract huge amounts of attention means that they affect significantly the way that primaries and presidential elections are run. What happens is that when Biden runs for office, he is unable to take a substantive policy commitment on any particular issue.
That is when Trump asks Biden, do you stand behind AOC or not? Biden just doesn't answer the question. Two reasons why this is down to the success of progressive politics and which is down to icons. The first is that these people represent a significant voter base that Biden doesn't want to upset, which means that this often trades off against promoting real legitimate policy that actually could be implemented. So as a fear of avoiding upsetting moderates and progressives, instead, candidates take no commitments. The second, in order to win the primaries, these candidates will often have to have taken more progressive stances, which means that they're therefore unable to go back and say we're not going to be implementing these progressive politics. Instead, what they often do is just not comment on what they're likely to do. Why are these bad things? The first thing is the party is significantly less likely to excite new voters. That is, unlike what OO says, because premises having radical policies is good. We never get any policies frontlined in national elections because it's either toxic to the modical or radical wing of the party.
That means people who genuinely want some hope about some feasible change in their lives never get any sign that the party is going to account for that. That is far more important than the college educated radicals who want extreme party who are to a significant extent already accounts for or moderates who to a large extent are middle class. The second thing is this incites the possibility of personality politics because instead of Republicans being challenged by saying where is the policy you pass that made people better for the people you claim to when there is no policy commitments merely statements about what you stand for.
very easy for Republicans to have the same empty rhetoric and never actually have policies which improve the lives of these people for the foreseeable future under their side of the House. What are the impacts of the arguments? The first is I think we should be relatively agnostic about what policies matter and say that democracy is important in as much as people don't vote for policies under their side of the House, we're significantly better off. Two, we are far more likely to have the least well-off represented because these people are not people that turn out in primaries
but instead of people that are neglected by virtue of the fact that in presidential elections, the Democrats never take substantive policy commitments. The third is that whether or not the Democrats win, we're likely to have significantly better policy for the vast majority of people because actually talking about policies is something that will make the Republicans significantly more accountable and less likely just to elect the white person who is better at spinning the narrative about how AOC is terrible.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.