06-28-2018, 01:08 PM
(06-27-2018, 05:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: For politicians, it's pretty easy: get rid of them. Well, easy to SAY, I know. But, you want to get rid of bad bahavior? You de-incentivize it. Allow the negative consequences of the bad behavior to occur. IMO, trying to prove the "other side" is worse just a justification of bad behavior.
It is easy to say, yes. Defining "bad behavior" seems to be part of the problem. One person's bad behavior is another's version of "strong leadership." How do you de-incentivize bad behavior when voters reward it? They question then becomes why do they reward it.
I have to go all sociological again: when people feel stressed because of changing social circumstances, like declining wages or an influx of "different" people in the neighborhood, when they feel powerless, then they are more likely to tolerate behavior they otherwise might not in support of a champion they think might restore the status quo. Or even to think such behavior is now good. You are probably old enough to remember when the Republican party was all anti-deficit and anti-tariff and anti-Russia and pro personal responsibility and traditional morality.
Trying to understand behavior in a larger historical/social context is what I am aiming for when I look for tendencies in party as well as individual behavior. There is larger endgoal here than just finger wagging at the other side