I am seriously worried about the future of our Republic. The reason I worry is because our system is seriously at risk as a direct result of the quality of our elected officials. They are completely unable/unwilling to do what is right at any point.

To explain:

In Federalist 10, James Madison wrote about the problem of factions and how they destroy governments and societies. In that essay, he specifically explained we are set up as a Republic to fight against factionalism, which runs rampant in a direct democracy.
When a group/faction gets together and pursues a particular objective (even if it is bad and undermines society), then it is hard for anyone to fight against it in a direct democracy. They have the votes so they can force everyone else to go down their preferred path.
Madison noted that you can fight against such factionalism by addressing the causes (denying all liberty to people or having everyone agree) or addressing the effects. It is obviously bad to deny people freedom (see China) and it is against human nature for everyone to just agree
So a direct Democracy is useless in fighting against ignorant or misinformed masses so founders instead looked for way to limit the effects of such factions. They did that by dispersing power and trusting elected officials to behave responsibly.
It is in the last part that the check against factionalism has fallen apart. Idea was these officials "wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations"
Madison allowed for the possibility that "Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people."

That's why the second check exists.
That's exactly what we have now. Our elected officials now consistently pander to whatever populist passions are developed by the faction they represent without regard for what is good for the country or what is true.
That's why you have Democrats pretending abolishing ICE or defunding the police are sane position, why you have Republicans willing to undermine essential institutions or try to bribe voters with larger checks. Why you have both parties pandering to false conspiracies.
The hope is that the dispersal of power among states and various factions is still enough to check increasingly dangerous populist factions on both sides, but it's clear politicians are just unwilling to do what is right if it could hurt them with their own partisan factions.
And I'm not talking about what I think is right, but what they themselves know is right. You think Dems don't know that CBP facilities are necessary when they yell about "kids in cages" or Reps don't know that Trump's anti-Democratic efforts are wrong or deserve condemnation?
But they are too worried about the next primary, fundraising for the next election, upsetting the base etc. to tell the truth (at least publicly). The result is there is they get trapped and increase pressure on others to pursue actions they know are wrong.

More from Government

Which metric is a better predictor of the severity of the fall surge in US states?

1) Margin of Democrat victory in Nov 2020 election
or
2) % infected through Sep 1, 2020

Can you guess which plot is which?


The left plot is based on the % infected through Sep 1, 2020. You can see that there is very little correlation with the % infected since Sep 1.

However, there is a *strong* correlation when using the margin of Biden's victory (right).

Infections % from
https://t.co/WcXlfxv3Ah.


This is the strongest single variable I've seen in being able to explain the severity of this most recent wave in each state.

Not past infections / existing immunity, population density, racial makeup, latitude / weather / humidity, etc.

But political lean.

One can argue that states that lean Democrat are more likely to implement restrictions/mandates.

This is valid, so we test this by using the Government Stringency Index made by @UniofOxford.

We also see a correlation, but it's weaker (R^2=0.36 vs 0.50).

https://t.co/BxBBKwW6ta


To avoid look-ahead bias/confounding variables, here is the same analysis but using 2016 margin of victory as the predictor. Similar results.

This basically says that 2016 election results is a better predictor of the severity of the fall wave than intervention levels in 2020!

You May Also Like

I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.


I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.

In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.

So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.

Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.