送交者: mangolasi 于 2006-4-23, 15:54:25:
回答: The best is check and balance 由 吴礼 于 2006-4-23, 13:13:44:
As I am still a Chinese citizen, I have no right to vote (meaningfully)(and the country of my residency has a politician I don't like, but as I am cynical enough now, I don't care that much).
However, I guess if you are exercising your duty as a citizen, the criteria is not really on ideology, especially for a 2-party system like America's. As long as the propoganda is not very strong (not very optimistic these days though), the public are more or less informed, though not perfectly. The parties' policy should be then appealing more or less the interest portfolio (economic, social, religious etc) of the median votes. I guess the divergence of the policy is from 80% of estimation/perception error (might due to ideology though--ideology might gives out perception bias)+10% party ideology+10% self-interests of party members,supporters, lobbyists.
Citizens are doing a better service to their countries/their interest group by voting according to 20% policy+80% competence. You want to choose someone who can work for the country, efficiently. I.e. you'd better vote like choosing a servant, not a leader.
As more or less the policies are appealing the median voters, so even you don't like a particular policy package (alas, the policies of politicians are not a la carte), you know it's not that far away from the other side. A dramatical change of policies is not on regime change, but on a universal and profound change in people's mind.
I guess, under the conditions that human are not perfect and policies are appealing median voters, the people I would vote is the one with tracking record of sensible management and with nuanced views on many problem (alas, the latter one is always out of power as the public want some "determinent" people with simple arguments), and the most important, have a sense of reality and being willing to bow before the facts and numbers. The reality is complex, once check and balance is there, the most important thing is competence.
So for example, while facing budget surplus, which is better, cutting tax or spending on some government project? We don't know, until we know how to cut or how to spend. To do this correctly requires expertise that the politician doesn't have and the ideology doesn't generate. It requires the politician has the wisdom to choose the right people to do it and the power to manage those people. As both sides can have a good solution and a bad one, the person's ability to generate the best under the constraint of party ideology/interest is the best. It's the result that counts.
To reduce inequality, we need to know how this inequlity(usually as a snapshot--one year income difference) comes from? Permenant income difference among people or increasing proabability of getting a really bad year for everyone? For the former, is the difference of price of skills increases or the difference of prices of capital and labor increases or both? For the later, is the skill composition needed by the company changes a lot or the company is transferrring its risk to its employees? Each of the source requires difference cure, even if ideology agrees that inequality is a bad thing (usually parties agree, just to different degree). And hwo about the relation of (the current type of) inequality and growth? How about mobility? Those are details you can not get from the public speech, and the only way you want it have some satisfactory solution is to elect some one who admit the fact first, and then can find the right person to accomplish it.