WS: How does the declining approval rate affect presidential power after the election. In a parliamentary system - which we do NOT have - that mechanism is proportional representation and multi-party coalition. Since the parties form the government and each party's power depends on popular support - the loss of support for current government will likely transfer to the parties that form it and thus will result in their loss of power. So the parties must always balance supporting the current coalition and getting sufficient share of seats. If the popular discontent tips that balance, the government falls - which is the mechanism connecting voter satisfaction and government's power.
But no such mechanism exists in the US. Once the prez is elected, his government is virtually guaranteed to stay in power for the entire term, even if it had zero popular support - since impeachment is extremely difficult. Each party's power is not linked to popular support, but rather is a function of institutional arrangements such as winner-takes-all, gerrymandering, machine politics, and the general shortage of political choice which helps maintaining voter loyalty even if they have to hold their noses.
One can argue - albeit I ma not sure how convincingly, given Bush jr. - that in the first term popular dissatisfaction may hold presidential power in check due to re-election - bun in the second term? They can pretty much do what they want, or rather whatever is possible given the balance of power among other interest groups. That is why the presidential approval rating that Doug and others diligently cite never cease to amuse me - they carry less weight than, say, Miss America pageant.
However, I do agree with your second observation that presidential political skills, and thus power, increase the longer he stays in the office.
Ravi opined: <<< if like wojtek you believe in retributivism (if that's the right term), by which i understand some form of theory of revenge, then yes, punishing lindy england becomes a high priority. i do not see much value in revenge and tend to place a lower priority on england, i would argue, from a utilitarian point of view: getting the larger culprits contributes a lot more to prevention. >>>
WS: That is a particularly vicious and misleading caricature of retributivism. Perhaps some vulgar popular views may use the term to denote revenge. But philosophically, retributivism is a position that sanction - or punishment - is a necessary element of law, for without it law would not have any gravitas. In other words, violator is punished because the law says so, not because we derive some utilitarian benefit from it - including revenge which is a form of emotional utility. Without punishment, law would not be the law ie. it would not have the binding gravitas or obligatory power - so punishment is a necessary element of law, and law is a value I itself - its is the embodiment of obligation which is an a priori category of reasoning.
Justin can certainly say much more on this - all I want to say is that I find the retributivist position more intellectually honest than utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is intellectually dishonest because it depends on a hidden assumption that is antithetical to the notion of utility to be convincing. That assumption is a common sense understanding of an absolute notion of good and bad. Without that hidden assumption, utilitarianism in all forms (including the free market ideology) is morally reprehensible because it may lead to morally reprehensible conclusions (just as argument is false if it may lead to false conclusions). Genocide of a small group is "good" if it results in greater utility or "Pareto optimum" for a much larger population. No punishment is warranted because it cost money and will not undo what has been done - so let's forget the whole thing and go on with the business. The Enron crooks would love such counter-ethics - it is "ethical" as long as it is profitable in one way or another.
Doug quoted: <<<Abortion, the Court and the Public A Pew Research Center Analysis Released: October 3, 2005>>>
WS: We've had that discussion a number of times, but let me repeat: What opinion polls have to say about people's opinions on complex issues (as opposed to predicting simple behavior, such as voting) is pretty much inconsequential, because such opinions are not static, but change considerably depending on framing. That means not only that the poll results change depending on wording (i.e. are highly unreliable) but also that the views themselves change depending how the issue is framed by any particular speaker. It is like trying to measure the length of a spring with a rubber measuring tape.
A person may deny to right to abortion to "all those lose women out there" but will staunchly defend the right to terminate unwanted pregnancy for his wife, girlfriend or daughter. It doe snort have to that crass - but context, and framing (including skillful manipulation) can change these popular views 180 degrees in no time. Sow hat the polls measure right now is pretty inconsequential - a skillful, well funded media blitz , can change that almost at will.
Marvin:
> Amazing. So how do unions survive if less than one in ten workers are
> dues-paying members and they are responsible for negotiating and
> administering agreements in 90% of all enterprises? Especially the poor
CGT,
> now bereft of Moscow gold? :)
WS: I think we need to look beyond cost-benefit analysis to explain membership. It is the culture of social solidarity which most English speakers are simply genetically incapable of understanding. People belong to- or support certain types of institutions because they feel connected to it, it is a part of their collective consciousness, without asking 'what is in it to me" as many English-speakers tend to do. The thing that comes closest to it in the English speaking world, especially on this side of the pond, is Church membership - it defines group identity even though it may not produce tangible payoffs to specific individuals.
Wojtek