The US democracy is broken. The people that get elected are skilled at making people believe promises, but not skilled at actually doing anything positive. Incumbent senators stay in office based mostly on name recognition no matter how poorly they perform. Second term presidents have no real incentive to do anything good.
As far as re-election is concerned, it’s a binary outcome. No matter if you’re slightly less mediocre than the other guy or if you’re awesomely superior, you get the same positive result: an extended term. No matter if you’re slightly less convincing or an outright scam artist, you get the same negative outcome: replacement.
Should there be actual incentives for good work? For passing legislation that matters, for getting budgets passed on time and with less waste? For actually balancing the budget for a change? If the congress-critters don’t get paid if they run a deficit, how many deficit years would we see?
If you got the same pay regardless of whether you show up for work or regardless of whether your work was any good, wouldn’t you start phoning it in?
If a president gets the same negative penalty (impeachment capped with a pardon) regardless if whether they lied about a blowjob or if they kill and torture thousands of innocent people, what’s to stop them from trying to get away with as much as possible? It’s like the argument that if rape is a capital crime, then rapists will kill their victims because they’d get the chair either way if they’re caught. So once a president risks doing something impeachable, then they might as well try to get away with as many impeachable actions as possible while still in office. In fact, it is in their best interest to do additional impeachable actions if it lessens their chance of being caught.
Finally, should a popularity contest decide how government should be run? If one candidate says a bunch of grand things but accomplishes nothing good, they will surely get elected over a candidate that doesn’t know how to say something without everybody assuming it is a lie (but would have actually achieved greatness).
Could you bring yourself to vote for someone with a personality you detest (or perceive to be “phony”) yet would end up doing a bunch of wonderful things? Note: the opponent with the silver tongue will make a very convincing argument that the potentially great candidate will actually louse up the country and has a sketchy past which indicates with great certainty that they will do scary things that cause you and your loved ones to suffer misery in the coming years if elected.
The OP is starting from the assumption the politicians aren’t trying very hard. From where I sit, the basic causes of the gridlock being complained about are primarily our constitutional system of government which makes it difficult to do anything, and more and more people are unwilling to work with political opponents because they are the enemy in an increasingly partisan game. Financial incentives do nothing to address either one of those problems.
Finally, the question at the end of the OP is simply silly. Could I vote for someone I detest but would do “wonderful things?” Are you kidding me? Do you have some kind of “wonderful things” detector that you bring with you into the voting booth? Give me a break.
DrCube, what would it take to get us to successful open rebellion (where politicians are actually lined up and shot)? Stealing money, killing innocents, and disregarding the Constitution hasn’t achieved it. But good point nonetheless… there is a third possible outcome for extremely bad work.
Ravenman, there are financial incentives and there are incentives. Putting a gun to someone’s head motivates quite differently than offering an extra $50. That said, if the US President does a crappy job and got less pay than my garbageman, it would be rather embarrassing and be gratifying to this voter. Although the guy is still rich and doesn’t care financially, salary does impact his ego. And someone who does an outstanding job should get more than the average Fortune 500 CEO.
Also, government leaders have the power to amend the system of government. Therefore, they are also responsible for whatever problems there are in the system. As for the popularity contest issue, there are some out of the box solutions that could address those problems.
Actually, I detest(ed) Bill Clinton in the '96 election. It was obvious to me that he not only deserved the moniker “Slick Willy”, but oh-so-much-more. On the other hand, I think he made a damn good president. His first term as POTUS specifically made me rethink my standards on voting; my conclusion was that to some extent, yes, Virginia, the ends (may very well) justify the means.
Depends on whether I’m motivated internally or externally. On whether the job is something I’m interested in doing for its own sake, or just because I get paid to do it.
Sure they do, if they care about the condition of the world and/or the country, or about their reputation/legacy/how history remembers them.
Sure, not everybody’s going to want to do good work without the right kind of carrot and/or stick, but that’s something to consider when deciding whom to elect to office in the first place.
Politicians spend a huge amount of their time raising money. The system that exists now rewards those who can raise huge amounts of cash. When the money is given ,it has hooks. If you give it to a pol and he does not vote for your interests ,you will not give money next time he runs. As much as a pol may want to do the right thing ,he has to always keep the money in mind.
I do not see it possible to do the right thing now. Until we change the campaign financing away from the equation we are screwed.
I disagree with the OP’s first statement: “The US democracy is broken.” Really? Can you cite a time frame when it was “working” while listing the criteria? As far as I can see it’s doing better than ever. The defects you list are features. If you’re that hard up for honest elections and getting things done for some weird reason then join a local club or organization. As a bonus, you’ll get to track your candidate(s) up close and personal instead of watching CNN lie to you.
No one cares about them stealing money, killing innocents, or disregarding the pieces of paper because that’s what politicians are for. I don’t think anyone here really cares either, do they? As long as we’re all materially comfortable this is all just entertainment. It’s a soap opera with suits. What zany thing will Giuliani say this week? Who knows, let’s find out! But if there’s really bad economic fallout of a Great Depression caliber then government officials may wish to have plans for retreating to their estates in Paraguay. But they’re smart enough to understand that mishandling the country that poorly isn’t in their interests, so things will probably not get that bad.
I care a lot about the theft of the treasury, killing innocents and ignoring the constitution. Their function is to make it better. If they do not ,vote then out or impeach them.
We are not all materially comfortable in America. Because you live in a gated community don’t think we all do. There are a lot of people going hungry. Many losing their jobs and homes. The bad fallout is on it’s way.
Who decides what is “good work”? I believe politicians do their best work when they do nothing at all. Other people think the government should be involved in everything. People want high wages but they don’t want to pay a lot for products. They want good health care and education but low taxes. They want security and cheap oil but they don’t want to get involved in foreign countries.
In Heinlein’s novel Friday, there is a wave of assassinations of politicians and public officials around the world. Three underground organizations claim credit, including one which claims to be assassinating any official who doesn’t do a good enough job for the people (but by what standard is never communicated). The main characters refer to this approach as “shooting any horse who can’t make the jump,” or words to that effect.
So you knew he’d do wonderful things before he was elected in 1992? Or did you like what he did from 1993 to 1996? Because I contend there’s no way for people to know prior to electing someone whether they will do wonderful things, which is the proposition the OP is suggesting should be our operating principle in voting.
How is it that you know this? Because based on my experience in DC, remarkably few people who work for the government are motivated by financial gain. OTOH, risk of being paid less would probably drive more decent people out of government altogether. What I’m saying is, if you build a system based on incentives, you’ll get people who want those incentives. I’d rather have leaders motivated by public service, which for the most part I think we have.
As far as your other incentives – or punishments really – I think you’re heading off the deep end and into the mistakes made in Maoist and Stalinist times. Shoot the politicians that the powers that be – or a fickle public – doesn’t happen to like at a particular moment and nobody will have any incentive to take a tough decision.
The US system runs on money. Politicians are paid huge campaign contributions (bribes) to vote the way the lobbyists pay them to. In that respect, there is no difference between contributions and bribes. That is why I laugh when I see politican’s spouting “change”-there are huge powerful interests that LIKE things the way they are (like the legal industry, that thinks we should spend 12% of our GNP providing high incomes for lawyers), or the israel lobby, that thinks the USA shouldblindly follow everything that israel wants… Or the defense lobby, that wants another arms race with Russia.
It is (depressingly) the same with local government-spent as much money as possible, screw the taxpayer!
No, you’re specifying perfect foreknowledge of an official’s future performance and claiming it’s impossible. And I’ll grant that, of course. No Tiresias am I. But the question is whether one might “detest” a person, yet vote for that candidate anyway with the belief that once elected, that person will execute the duties of the office admirably. And I can provide a single, first-hand counter-example that it’s possible, anecdotal though it may be.
I had never heard of Bill Clinton prior to 1992. To be honest, I’m pretty sure I didn’t vote in '92, seeing as how I was working 80+ hour weeks and not following politics at all at the time. By '96 (late '95, to be pedantic), I followed politics enough to determine that I thought badly of him – I remember telling my now-wife/then-girlfriend, “I think Clinton is a scumbag, but I think he’s doing a pretty good job as president.” In fact, I can even recall what I was doing at the time: we were walking through Sears on our way to Liberty House at Ala Moana Mall; I was looking for some aloha shirts to wear to work.
The clearest example of the proposed concept would be this: there is little in the world that I have a lower opinion of than extra-marital dalliances. I detest the very idea of cheating on one’s spouse and, by extension, those who do so. But I can (now) make the distinction – fuzzy though it may be, as a person’s actions in one situation provide some insight into what they might do in others – between decisions that affect one’s job duties vs. one’s personal life.
Which is one aspect of why I find the “beer test” for electability – y’know, the “would I like to sit down and have a beer with this person” – so abjectly stupid. Personally, I recognize that I don’t have to like someone to think they’ll do a good job; my world view is a bit more nuanced than that.
Yes, and thank you for your insightful and nuanced response.
Except you realize, of course, that idea is insane in real life. The standard can just as easily be “not fundamentalist Islamic enough” or “too pro-NY Giants” as easily as it can be “not helping enough people”.
That is the reason we decided on a system with built in peaceful methods of removing leadership instead of violent coups by fickle mobs and power hungry strongmen.
Actually, politicians have a disincentive to do good work. The average Joe doesn’t have the desire, the time, or the ability to master the complex issues that arise in the running of a country. (The founding fathers understood this; this is why they were greatly opposed to direct democracy.) But the average Joe is also pretty convinced that he knows what is best. And the average Joe controls the voting lever. So the politician has an incentive to pander to average Joe, and enact policies Joe approves of (which are generally not the best policies).
There must be some powerful incentive. A policitician will spend millions of dollars trying to get elected to an office that pays only a small fraction of that kind of money. Is it the fame and power, or do they expect to get wealthy? They make promises they can’t keep and get elected. I think it is the hope that springs eternal from the populace that keeps it all going. Maybe someday a real leader will step up and be recognized.
I’ve known politicians at all levels from city council and school board members up to a couple of senators who flirted with running for President. Every single one of them, regardless of their political leanings (or their personal moral character) thought they were doing something that could make the world a better place.
In fact, that holds true for all the legislative assistants and low-level staffers I’ve come in contact with. They aren’t in it for the money. They sincerely feel what they do is important, even world-changing.
With that kind of internal motivation, some sort of “incentive” mentioned by the OP would be meaningless. Besides, who gets to decide the incentive when elected official A fights to the death to block legislation introduced by elected official B? Who decides whether A is being an obstructionist or B is a dangerous radical?