Thomas wrote:It depends on the fact that the continental European welfare state either is or is not sustainable, independent of what the majority of voters is thinking. As it happens, I believe that it is not [..]
But even if the situation was reversed, my point stands: [..] it would be a good thing for politicians to do what's right even against the will of the majority.
(Hope I didnt butcher your quote too much in editing)
Yep. This was basically my point.
There is what the majority of the people want - expressed in a referendum or an election or what not.
Those who believe that what the population wants is simply
wrong, may hope that the government will do what's right and necessary (to their eyes) anyway, even if that means ignoring the popular preference.
Because for sure - I won't dispute this - the majority is not always right.
But that's all we're talking about. The continental European welfare state either is or is not sustainable, and you
believe it is not. I believe it is. The dominant economic school tends toward the "unsustainable" analasys, but it is hardly uncontested. You believe that the necessity of adapting to an ever more free-market model is a matter of natural or scientific law, and you have the right to
believe it is.
This bit of "unmasking" claims of fact and (natural/scientific) law as the matters of
conviction they really are is necessary, if only because they are made so habitually. IMF-type free market policies are presented and prescribed as a matter of fact - of the natural order of things that one just has to adapt to - when in fact it is one of ideology. I'm not saying that they are submitted without thorough reasoning or illustrations of evidence - but a
school of thought/policy it nevertheless remains, countered by others.
Aside from that, however, another question poses itself here. At first I wrote, in the paragraph above, that
of course those who believe that what the population wants is simply wrong, will hope the government does what's right anyway and ignore the popular preference. But that's not really that self-evident. It
is really kinda the reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.
"Brussels" - whether it be the Commission or the periodical summits of national government heads - has for years now all too often gone down the "better not ask them" road. As in that quote JW posted: they dont know about it, and if they knew about it they wouldnt like it - so better not ask them. But there's only so far you can take a country or continent down the "we know better" road, ignoring what people really want and implementing what you think is necessary, instead - even if you really, sincerely believe it is. Because if you take that too far, you'll get other problems that will bite you in the back instead. Political apathy and alienation is step 1. Protest - and swelling ranks of the far-left and the far-right - are next. With all the nastiness and disorder that might bring.
Sometimes, perhaps it is better if one
does listen to the popular voice for once, even if you do think its wrong. If only to avoid worse.