Arnold Kling on the Progressives

Arnold Kling has a post on the temper tantrums some progressives have been throwing and here is the concluding comments,

The important point is that Progressives are never wrong. Top-down reform is the only way to fix the health care system. Anthropogenic global warming is scientifically proven, and its solution requires strenuous exercise of political control over individual behavior. Deficit spending is necessary and sufficient to create jobs. Technocrats can make banks too regulated to fail. Markets without technocratic control are like adolescents without adult supervision. Individual happiness can be improved by political authorities using scientific knowledge. Concentrated political power is the wave of the future, and it is good.

I am not a populist. I fear the mob. But how can I fear the Progressives any less?

FILED UNDER: Economics and Business, Government, US Politics
Steve Verdon
About Steve Verdon
Steve has a B.A. in Economics from the University of California, Los Angeles and attended graduate school at The George Washington University, leaving school shortly before staring work on his dissertation when his first child was born. He works in the energy industry and prior to that worked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Division of Price Index and Number Research. He joined the staff at OTB in November 2004.

Comments

  1. Steve Plunk says:

    He left out their moral superiority without which they cannot be infallible. It also allows them to use whatever means are necessary to attain the ends desired.

  2. Scott Swank says:

    Look, a straw man!

  3. Alex Knapp says:

    Let’s put the shoe on the other foot, shall we?

    “The important point is that Conservatives are never wrong. Tort reform is the only way to fix the health care system. Anthropogenic global warming is a gigantic hoax created by the media elite and a few corrupt scientists, and the only solution to the energy crisis is more oil. Tax cuts are necessary and sufficient to create jobs. Regulation of banks will always cause them to fail. Markets always achieve optimal results if they are unregulated. Individual happiness can be improved by political authorities using traditional moral precepts. Concentrated political power in the hands of the Executive Branch is the only way to fight terrorism, and it is good.

    I am not a populist. I fear the mob. But how can I fear Conservatives any less?”

    Straw men are easy to construct. Grappling with nuance is much harder.

  4. tom p says:

    thank you, alex. Not only did you beat me to it, you did it better.

  5. Tim D. says:

    Amen, Alex.

    I’m not even what this quote is supposed to convey. That progressives have opinions? That they hold those opinions strongly?

    Guilty… I guess?

  6. Steve Verdon says:

    Really Alex, strawman? Or are the two parties/sides mirror images of each other and thus far more alike than either side cares to admit? I find your description of conservatives…not too far as a general description.

    Whoops, was I supposed to not agree with you?

  7. Michael Reynolds says:

    Those dumb progressives. They’re so paranoid about big business they probably think a health insurance company coming off record profits would bend their customers over and a–f— them with a 39% rate hike.

    When will they learn that the market is always right?

  8. Brett says:

    Look, a straw man!

    It’s a miracle!

    More seriously, looking at the rest of Kling’s article-

    1. Is it really the case that people want the government to create jobs? I have seen many progressives and pundits claim that people are angry about jobs, but I have not seen any people clamoring for the government to create jobs.

    People blame the existing party in power for the lack of jobs, and Obama won in part because he promised activism on the economic situation while McCain seemed to waffle.

    They think that the 2008 election gave them the right to operate like China’s autocracy, and they are lashing out hysterically at those they perceive as preventing them from doing so

    No, we just expect it to allow us to pass legislation. It isn’t, because of the degeneration of the Senate into a body that needs 60 votes to do anything major that isn’t apparently starting a war in the Middle East or cutting taxes.

  9. tom p says:

    One thing I would like to add is, Temper tantrums? Anybody listen to the T Party convention speeches this past wkend? The reaction from the crowd?

  10. Steve Plunk says:

    Rather than call it a straw man argument and turn the table on conservatives I wonder what part of Kling’s statement our own progressives actually disagree with? I wonder what parts the Democratic leadership disagree with? I see Kling’s description as very accurate.

  11. Steve Verdon says:

    By the way Scott, tell us which parts you disagree with:

    1. Top down reform of health care is the only way to fix health care.
    2. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is true.
    3. AGW requires considerable exercise of political control over individual behavior.
    4. Deficit spending is necessary to create jobs.
    5. Greater regulation can prevent bank failures in the future.
    6. Markets must be regulated.

    Alex you can play too. 🙂

  12. tom p says:

    Or are the two parties/sides mirror images of each other and thus far more alike than either side cares to admit?

    Steve!! Welcome to the Great Dissatisfied Muddle! (yeah, i know you have been here for a while tho in your case it is the “ruddle”… in mine the “luddle”… tho sometimes i think we agree more than we can ever know)

  13. Steve Verdon says:

    No, we just expect it to allow us to pass legislation.

    What is stopping you? Last I checked the Democrats had the votes in both houses to pass legislation.

    One thing I would like to add is, Temper tantrums? Anybody listen to the T Party convention speeches this past wkend? The reaction from the crowd?

    Mooommmmm, he’s doing it tooo! So why can’t I!

    pouts

    You serious tom p?

  14. Steve Verdon says:

    David Broder had an article like this awhile back.

    Linky

    If you put Mr. Bentham in charge of the government, he’d proceed with confidence. If you told him to solve a complicated issue like the global-warming problem, he’d gather the smartest people in the country and he’d figure out how to expand wind, biomass, solar and geothermal sources to reduce CO2 emissions. He’d require utilities to contribute $1 billion a year to a Carbon Storage Research Consortium. He’d draw up regulations determining how much power plants would be allowed to pollute.

    He’d know about battery efficiency and building retrofit programs, and he’d give you a long string of dazzling proposals. So then you’d ask him to solve the health care mess.

    He’d say we have to cover the uninsured without bankrupting the country. He’d design a set of insurance policy regulations to make sure everybody gets uniform care. He’d get out his magnifying glass and help pay for expanded coverage by identifying waste in Medicare.

    Then, he’d say, we’ve got to change the way government reimburses providers. He’d set up a $1 billion-a-year Innovation Center within the Department of Health and Human Services. He’d organize a superempowered Medicare commission to rewrite regulations and hold down costs. He’d set up comparative effectiveness research centers with teams of experts who would determine what treatments work best. He’d encourage doctors to merge their practices into efficient teams because he’d seen successful pilot programs along that line.

    Mr. Hume, I’m afraid, wouldn’t be so impressive. If you asked him to take on global warming, he’d pile up reports on the problem. But if you walked into his office after a few days, you’d find papers strewn in great piles on the floor and him at his desk with his head in his hands.

    “I don’t know the best way to generate clean energy,” he’d whine, “and I don’t know how technology will advance in the next 20 years. Why don’t we just raise the price on carbon and let everybody else figure out how to innovate our way toward a solution? Or at worst, why don’t we just set up a simple cap-and-trade system — with no special-interest favorites — and let entrepreneurs figure out how to bring down emissions?”

    On health care, he’d be much the same. He’d spend a few days reading reports. Then one day you’d find him in the fetal position, weeping. He’d confess that he doesn’t know enough to reorganize a fifth of the economy. He can’t figure out which health care delivery system is the most efficient. “Why don’t we just set up insurance exchanges with, say, 12 different competing policies? We’ll let everybody choose a policy, and we’ll let people keep any money they save. That way they can set off a decentralized cascade of reform, instead of putting all the responsibility on us here.” And then Mr. Hume would beg you to leave him alone.

    I’ve introduced you to my friends Mr. Bentham and Mr. Hume because they represent the choices we face on issue after issue. This country is about to have a big debate on the role of government. The polarizers on cable TV think it’s going to be a debate between socialism and free-market purism. But it’s really going to be a debate about how to promote innovation.

    The people on Mr. Bentham’s side believe that government can get actively involved in organizing innovation. (I’ve taken his proposals from the Waxman-Markey energy bill and the Baucus health care bill.)

    The people on Mr. Hume’s side believe government should actively tilt the playing field to promote social goods and set off decentralized networks of reform, but they don’t think government knows enough to intimately organize dynamic innovation.

    So let’s have the debate. But before we do, let’s understand that Mr. Bentham is going to win. The lobbyists love Bentham’s intricacies and his stacks of spending proposals, which they need in order to advance their agendas. If you want to pass anything through Congress, Bentham’s your man.

  15. tom p says:

    Mooommmmm, he’s doing it tooo! So why can’t I!

    pouts

    You serious tom p?

    Steve, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this, so I can only say, “Hi Kettle! I’m Pot! You’re black!”

    Is it clear now?

    If not, try “People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.”

  16. Tim D. says:

    Well, for the record, I disagree with #3. Putting a price on carbon is inherently a market-based solution.

    I don’t know of any real proposal to establish “political control of individual behavior” or any progressive who would advocate for such a thing.

    It’s just name-calling.

  17. sam says:

    @Plunk

    He left out their moral superiority without which they cannot be infallible.

    That’s the really the nut for you, right Steve? The idea always in the back of your mind that one of them is looking down his nose at you? Or worse, laughing at you. Isn’t that the really the engine of you anger?

  18. tom p says:

    1. Top down reform of health care is the only way to fix health care.
    2. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is true.
    3. AGW requires considerable exercise of political control over individual behavior.
    4. Deficit spending is necessary to create jobs.
    5. Greater regulation can prevent bank failures in the future.
    6. Markets must be regulated.

    This at least, is an attempt at a serious discussion.

    #1: While I am sure there are things which could help in the form of “bottom-up” reforms that might help solve the health care problem, I have yet to here one. Tort reform? If a doctor cuts your wife’s aorta during a tubal ligation because he is drunk (true story as far as I know) tell me you don’t want to sue the sob for everything he is worth. (or how about amputating the wrong limb?) And buying insurance across state lines is a race to the bottom. (whatever happened to Federalism?)

    #2: “AGW is true.” Well, I am not a climate scientist. Neither are you nor, I suspect, anybody else who posts here. However, something like 90% of climate scientists say AGW is real… maybe less than 2% say it isn’t, the other 8% don’t know… Well, as the informed idiot that I am, I will go with the 90% who say it is real.

    #3: Yeah… Like the free market is capable of dealing with something that is just beginning to rear it’s ugly head? Like it did with the housing bubble?

    #4: When the market is retracting out of fear, it does not spend. Steve, I am not an economist and I know you can argue circles around me on this subject, so please don’t argue with me, argue with the “majority of reputable economists” who say the stimulus stopped the downward slide.

    (in quotes because they are Obama’s words and I know it is one side only of the story.. I am sure you have points opposing his)

    #5: Well, a lack of regulation sure didn’t stop them.

    Steve, in all honesty, what is your solution to the “too big to fail” problem and how do you do it without regulation of some kind?

    #6: “Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble…” A little Alan Greenscrow anyone?

  19. Drew says:

    Nice try, Alex, no sale.

    The difference is that “progressives” are determined to drive their views down our throat. We still have the vote…………..at least for know.

  20. sam says:

    @Drew

    The difference is that “progressives” are determined to drive their views down our throat.

    Oh, stop with the aggrievement, OK? If your guys had the upper hand, you’d be only too happy to drive your views down our throat. It’s called ‘politics’. Sometimes your side is up, sometimes, it’s down. But don’t try to take some bogus moral high ground and bullshit us that your side wouldn’t use the muscle if it had it.

  21. Michael Reynolds says:

    The difference is that “progressives” are determined to drive their views down our throat. We still have the vote…………..at least for know.

    And if teabagger genius Tom Tancredo has his way you’ll keep that vote, too, Drew: as long as you stay white.

  22. steve says:

    “What is stopping you? Last I checked the Democrats had the votes in both houses to pass legislation.”

    Really? When was the last time that there were 60 Democratic Senators? Lieberman was almost McCain’s VP candidate.

    “The difference is that “progressives” are determined to drive their views down our throat. We still have the vote…………..at least for know.”

    Sigh, you are too smart to babble talking points. If they wanted to ram they would just use reconciliation. So answer me this. What party was the first to ever use reconciliation to pass a bill that increased deficits? That, IMHO, is ramming. Also, could you at least please be consistent. Are they ramming things through or are they so weak and ineffectual that they are unable to pass their legislation?

    Steve

  23. Alex, that was embarrassing for someone who wants to be taken seriously. But since you’ve adopted Pee-Wee Herman-ish logic, allow me to note that I checked yesterday and there is indeed no basement in the Alamo.

    And did I mention that I cannot recommend The Road to Serfdom strongly enough to anyone who thinks this battle isn’t a very old one?

  24. An Interested Party says:

    It really is quite amusing to watch some conservatives around here try to dispute what Alex wrote…to echo Steve Verdon, many people on both sides of the political divide are mirror images of each other when it comes to their self-righteousness and belief that theirs is the only “correct” way…if Kling were intellectually honest, he would write a very similar post about conservatives…

  25. Alex Knapp says:

    Charles,

    My point is that Kling built a strawman, it’s just as easy to build a conservative strawman, and both strawmen are equally stupid.

  26. ulyssesunbound says:

    What the hell is the point of this post? This is something you would see at redstate. “Progressives are evil! Grumble Grumble Global Warming! Liberal stereotype! /endpost.”

    I think most visitors to this site come here to read a moderately conservative analysis of current events and political trends. If Doctor Joyner had posted shit like this, regular readers of this site would leave in a hurry.

  27. >>Whoops, was I supposed to not agree with you?<<

    Steve, it would be easier to take your protestation of being something other than a partisan hack if you, you know, ever posted criticisms of the right. At most, you'll say something like this in the comments section, but the reality is that post after post after post consist of you either directly excoriating Democrats, or quoting extensively from Reason, Heritage, and Cato and simply appending a virtual "amen."

    Worse, you almost never accept the challenge to explain your views. You've bitched about bank regulation, but have you ever explained what you would do to prevent financial meltdowns like we have last year? You've bitched about the health care bill, but I can't for the life of me recall you actually laying out a full argument for how to fix the system. You don't think deficit spending creates jobs. Okay. What do you propose in its stead? Now, you seem to be signing onto the climate change deniers position. Cool, explain how you read the data differently.

    I am pretty sure, if I get any response, it will be your trademark snarky dismissal. Either a claim that I am too dumb to understand your arguments, or a research assignment to use the OTB search box. I doubt I am the only one who would appreciate you just simply, and straight-forwardly telling us your alternatives.

  28. anjin-san says:

    Or are the two parties/sides mirror images of each other and thus far more alike than either side cares to admit?

    At the fringes, sure.

  29. Alex Knapp says:

    Steve,

    Really Alex, strawman? Or are the two parties/sides mirror images of each other and thus far more alike than either side cares to admit? I find your description of conservatives…not too far as a general description.

    Whoops, was I supposed to not agree with you?

    Yeah, strawman. And I’m not a fan of the “plague on both their houses” thinking. I felt that way for ten years but in the past couple have decided that it’s not particularly productive.

    Alex you can play too. 🙂

    Oh sure, why not?

    1. Top down reform of health care is the only way to fix health care.

    Not the only way. Merely the most practical way in the particular context of our political system. The fact of the matter is, countries with government-guaranteed health care systems produce generally equal or superior outcomes at a drastically lower cost than our own system.

    2. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is true.

    At the present time, the evidence supports this position.

    3. AGW requires considerable exercise of political control over individual behavior.

    Nope. It simply requires eliminating the laws, regulations and subsidies that make fossil fuels appear to be less expensive than they would be in a freer energy market, coupled with laws that make people who pollute into the atmosphere shoulder the costs of that pollution.

    4. Deficit spending is necessary to create jobs.

    That’s a rather broad statement, but sure, I’ll go with it. After all, when businesses expand (necessitating new jobs) they typically finance to do so and might go into the red for a couple years as a consequence. I don’t know that it’s always necessary, but borrowing to expand a business seems to be fairly commonplace. I definitely wouldn’t want to outlaw banks from lending to businesses, if that’s what this implies.

    Or wait? Did you mean government deficits? In that case, I can’t think of a single human being on Earth who thinks that deficits are engines of job creation. Now, there are folks who believe that government deficit spending during an economic downturn is necessary to prevent job losses or a more rapid contraction. I don’t have a definitive answer to that question as there’s evidence that cuts both ways.

    5. Greater regulation can prevent bank failures in the future.

    I think that would depend on the particularities of the regulations. Far too broad a statement to agree or disagree with.

    6. Markets must be regulated.

    Well, I think that county recorder’s offices should keep track of deeds. I think that courts ought to enforce contracts. I think that the police should be able to arrest people for fraud. So yeah, I guess that markets should be regulated. I’d prefer to not have the Somalian economy.

    Of course, this doesn’t mean that every regulation is a good thing. But the idea that markets should be completely unregulated doesn’t make any sense. Free markets can’t exist without a state to enforce rights. That means that there will be regulations.

  30. sam says:

    @Charles

    And did I mention that I cannot recommend The Road to Serfdom strongly enough to anyone who thinks this battle isn’t a very old one?

    Speaking of Hayek, Charles,

    Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance — where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks — the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong… Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken. — The Road To Serfdom (Chapter 9)

    Jesus Christ! F.A. Hayek, Progressive.

  31. Stan says:

    Hayek used the word “liberal” in the European sense, for example as a description of market oriented parties like the Free Democrats in German. When I read the Hayek quote “probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez-faire capitalism” (in the Wikipedia article on The Road to Serfdom), I have a strong feeling that Hayek wouldn’t pal around with Sarah Palin.

  32. Dave Schuler says:

    The fact of the matter is, countries with government-guaranteed health care systems produce generally equal or superior outcomes at a drastically lower cost than our own system.

    Unfortunately, that’s post hoc propter hoc reasoning. My view is that a single-payer system, for example, might have the desired effects but only if coupled with other reforms.

    Examples of the “other reforms” would be rather drastic price controls, rationing, or orders of magnitude increases in the supply. Without these other reforms we’ll just have the world’s most expensive single-payer system.

    There doesn’t seem to be any political will for the other measures that are required at this point.

  33. Drew says:

    “If your guys had the upper hand, you’d be only too happy to drive your views down our throat.”

    Really. You’ve got to teach me that mind reading thingy some time, sam.

  34. Steve Plunk says:

    Sam, I’m not angry but I have been around enough liberals to know about their sense of moral superiority. It does bug me but not really rile me the way some might think.

    I think we all have a little pot and kettle in us. I think liberals snobby and liberals think me angry and frustrated. Conservatives think we’re over regulated and liberals want more regulation while liberals think conservatives want wild West style unregulated markets. We see each other in extremes and debate with with those biases.

    The fact is in order to have public debate we must sometimes reduce things to stereotypes and simple explanations. Kling is doing that and it’s not straw man building to do so. Not every column can be a doctoral thesis delving into the intricacies of each argument and defending every position. The gist of his column is true enough for public consumption.

  35. sam says:

    @Drew

    Really. You’ve got to teach me that mind reading thingy some time, sam.

    Ah, c’mon. Deny that you’d be happy to have your views implemented in the face of liberal opposition, massive liberal opposition, and that you’d use congressional muscle to do it if you could. And be just peachy with it.

    @Plunk

    Well, your first, out-of-the-box comment on Kling’s piece was nothing about the merits of what he said, just a slag on progressives’ characters. Must be pretty prominent your thinking.

  36. sam, I actually read that chapter while on a plane yesterday before I saw any of this. But if you believe the proposed health care reform package is limited to what Hayek has mentioned here, then I’m afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree. The proposed takeover of healthcare will define what I can and cannot do with respect to my healthcare options regardless of what I want or how much of my own money I may want to spend. That is not what Hayek was advocating.

    To claim that Hayek is a progressive in any sense of the word — even in jest — is to either be ignorant or misleadingly false regarding the rest of that book, in which he repeatedly makes it rather clear that he is not a modern liberal or progressive and spends an awful lot of effort explaining how the best laid plans of progressives will lead to totalitarianism.

  37. Steve Verdon says:

    Oh, stop with the aggrievement, OK? If your guys had the upper hand, you’d be only too happy to drive your views down our throat. It’s called ‘politics’. Sometimes your side is up, sometimes, it’s down. But don’t try to take some bogus moral high ground and bullshit us that your side wouldn’t use the muscle if it had it.

    Actually, yes I do oppose coercion and would not want to shove anything down your throat and would like the same from, thank you very much. By implication of what you’ve written above you like coercion, you want to shove things down people’s throats and are fine with it.

    You are exactly what Kling is describing.

    Really? When was the last time that there were 60 Democratic Senators? Lieberman was almost McCain’s VP candidate.

    Ohhhh…so that is it. You want your way no matter what even when you don’t have the votes so you can ignore the opposition. You really are not better than sam, see my response to him.

    …if Kling were intellectually honest, he would write a very similar post about conservatives…

    Kling is pretty libertarian, I haven’t gone through his archives, but I bet if you did you’d find criticism of conservatives as well.

    Bernard,

    Steve, it would be easier to take your protestation of being something other than a partisan hack if you, you know, ever posted criticisms of the right.

    Bernard let me help you with your cluelessness,

    Item #1

    Item #2

    Item #3

    Item #4

    Item #5

    Item #6

    Item #7

    Item #8

    Item #9

    Item #10

    Item #11

    Worse, you almost never accept the challenge to explain your views. You’ve bitched about bank regulation, but have you ever explained what you would do to prevent financial meltdowns like we have last year?

    This is just not true. Lets jump to this post.

    1. An alternative that could seriously reduce the chances of similar financial meltdows.
    2. You comment in that thread that you don’t see how it works.
    3. I explain the part you don’t understand.

    You’ve bitched about the health care bill, but I can’t for the life of me recall you actually laying out a full argument for how to fix the system.

    Oh…I’m supposed to come up with a plan to fix what amounts to 1/7th of economy? I’ll get right on it.

    And I got tired of going through the archives.

    I am pretty sure, if I get any response, it will be your trademark snarky dismissal. Either a claim that I am too dumb to understand your arguments, or a research assignment to use the OTB search box. I doubt I am the only one who would appreciate you just simply, and straight-forwardly telling us your alternatives.

    Yes, you got the snarky response, because you’ve decided that not having complete information and doing 20-30 minutes of research was good enough for you to come in and make false statements about me. Read the links I’ve posted and come back. Until then, GTFO, kthanksbye.

    Alex,

    Not the only way. Merely the most practical way in the particular context of our political system. The fact of the matter is, countries with government-guaranteed health care systems produce generally equal or superior outcomes at a drastically lower cost than our own system.

    As Dave notes this is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and thus dubious. It might be true, or we might end up with an even more expensive system than we currently have.

    Nope. It simply requires eliminating the laws, regulations and subsidies that make fossil fuels appear to be less expensive than they would be in a freer energy market, coupled with laws that make people who pollute into the atmosphere shoulder the costs of that pollution.

    We also have laws that make things like gasoline more expensive than we would see in a freer energy market (taxes, blend requirements, etc.).

    Or wait? Did you mean government deficits? In that case, I can’t think of a single human being on Earth who thinks that deficits are engines of job creation.

    So how were things over in Aldeberan? :p

  38. sam says:

    @Verdon

    Actually, yes I do oppose coercion and would not want to shove anything down your throat and would like the same from, thank you very much. By implication of what you’ve written above you like coercion, you want to shove things down people’s throats and are fine with it.

    Only Verdon would describe the democratic process as coercion. No surprise there, he hates democracy.

  39. Steve Verdon says:

    sam,

    It is coercion. If I don’t like what you want to do, what are my options? If you want to raise taxes on me and I don’t comply what happens? If you want to reinstate the draft and those affected don’t comply what happens? Note these aren’t instances of people wanting to hurt others they just don’t like being forced to do things they don’t like.

    This Georgetown Law Class looks at Democracy and Coercion. Or this book, Democracy, Freedom and Coercion. If compliance is not obtained voluntarily, then it is often obtained by force…coercion even in a democracy. And look how your phrased it,

    If your guys had the upper hand, you’d be only too happy to drive your views down our throat. It’s called ‘politics’. Sometimes your side is up, sometimes, it’s down. But don’t try to take some bogus moral high ground and bullshit us that your side wouldn’t use the muscle if it had it.

    Shoving it down throats, using muscle…your very words denote the use of force to get what you want whether others like or not.

    I thinnk we’ve fetishized democracy in this country. “Well if the majority wants it….Well thats what the voting says….” Its not a good thing, in my view. We should only resort to democracy when other methods fail.

    Winston Churchill is noted for saying (more or less), “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried.” That is not high praise. It is actually a condemnation.