https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
This is a bad concept that is far detached from reality. Participating in public discourse is not like selling wheat or steel.
Sticking with the theme, a "free market of ideas" has significant transaction costs, information asymmetry and some actors wield significant market power (media organisations, public figures).
It's a nice theory but there are many classic market failures at play here that should dispel any idea of reaching an efficient outcome.
The best thing about the BBC is that people on both the right and the left think it has a political slant against them
And I want to be clear, in the U.S. Dems are a center-left party and GOP is a (increasingly) far-right party. You can see this objectively by the percent of the time each member flips. Approx. around 80% GOP never flips versus only 20% Dems.
We are either reading very different news, or your use of “extreme left” is highly out of sync with anything approaching common usage. Wake me me up when they start nationalising pensions
There are people who identify as Democrats who could be described as extreme left, and they may get a lot of airtime, but they do not represent the party and do not influence it's policies.
She'll be leading the party in 5 years.
Have you been using Fox news exclusively to form those opinions?
From a British perspective, the Democrats are to the right of all the major parties in our parliament.
They're described like that by the local standards of the country they're in. But if you were to transplant e.g. some "right wing" parties in certain European countries to a country like the US you'd have an extremist left wing party by local standards.
So it's no more evidence that things move towards the "center" in general than people in Venice and Mexico city saying "uphill" and "downhill" being evidence that those two cities are situated at the same altitude.
Fiscally conservative right wing parties in those countries typically run on a platform of at most reducing that by 3-5%.
If you then take what they'd do to military spending (at most 1/2 or 1/4 what the US spends per capita), social services (maybe a bit less spending, but not dismantling it), the state's regulatory role, fuel taxes etc. I don't think this is a far-fetched assertion.
(Eisenhower)
People don't turn out for centrists. They turn out for extremism. You'd like to think that sooner or later people would find that they've veered so far one way that the only correction is to jump over the center line, and restore Eisenhower's faith, but I don't see much evidence of that.
Centrists have been in unbroken power since suffrage began in most countries, so this is simply false
It has has a history of veering more and more wildly to each side. The previous leader was an exciting cipher when elected -- he turned out to be centrist, but was only elected because a lot of people imagined he was more to the left than he turned out to be. And at that, he was completely stymied in his progressive platform by an extremely right-wing legislature -- which turned out to be so popular that their party repeatedly increased their power in the legislature. Before him, the country elected a clear idiot, and then re-elected him after starting a war on clearly false provocation.
People were more likely to appeal to Eisenhower's approach in the 20th century, but in the 21st, the extremes have better access to mass media, making them better able to cast the center as extremist and shifting the Overton window. I see this only increasing. It's possible that it won't succeed this November, but even if it doesn't, I don't believe that the trend will change.
Already I find hints that other English-speaking countries are studying the effectiveness of our extremist tactics (goaded, in part, by our geopolitical opponents). I think you'll see more of it elsewhere in coming decades. They'll do it because it works.
It's not a foregone conclusion, but watch out for it. I don't know how to tell you to prevent it; it works inexorably. I hope they figure something out, even if it's just having a national character that's more repulsed by it than ours turns out to be. But do not rely on that, because we're just 65 years removed from Eisenhower ourselves.
BBC news and political reporting (the thing politicians care about) have a massive bias towards the current UK government - for the last 5+ years that means a pro-austerity xenophobic anti-EU bent. If they veer from that they get their funding cut.
BBC radio and drama/comedy/kids' TV studio content is generally very "politically correct" left-wing as the vast majority of employees in these industries are left wing. The stereotype of the BBC show with exactly one gay, one black and one disabled kid among its three-strong casts is not far off the mark...
I'd forgotten about this story, but it's a really good one. Sometimes we forget our humanity. If you want to convince people, don't browbeat them or belittle them. Do your homework, understand what they believe, and just generally show you're a good person.
We need a new narrative to bubble up through the media that empowers voices of reason and calm, not voices that divide.
Every single instance of genocide in the last 150 years or so started as just some folks expressing a relatively fringe ideology, with plenty of others debating against it vigorously. For whatever reason, that ideology caught on, and then the mass murders start.
People, as a general group, don't evaluate their beliefs in a rational manner. They are biased in favor of the first things they heard; and whatever is most palatable given their emotions and things they already believe.
It's how you can get into a situation where massive numbers of people believe some combination of the ideas earth is 6000 years old and also flat and also that 5G causes covid and also covid was a hoax and face masks are just a mkultra trauma psyop run by the pedophile satanic illuminati cabal run by Hillary Clinton and George Soros.
If people can hold all that in their heads, and not believe any evidence to the contrary; then the idea of suppressing the notions that Black folks/Jewish folks/Muslims/migrants/whatever are the root of society's problems and we should do violence to them starts to make a lot of sense.
I also think that the idea that markets, particularly abstract ones, such as the "free market of ideas" are capable of producing long-term positive outcomes for most participants is, at best, without evidence and at worst pure fallacious thinking.
That is not the whole truth of course, but far more accurate than saying the freedom of expression hurts minorities and leads to genocide. That is some class-A bullshit and revisionist of history.
On the contrary, restricting people from stating their opinion reinforces their believe that the world is conspiring against them. You need to have some trust issue to come up with ideas like that.
Flat earthers are only a problem to themselves so I don't understand your fascination with that group.
The free market of ideas has produced the most free societies. Not just in history, it can be also be seen today.
> They are biased
That is true for nobody or everybody. In both cases it wouldn't matter, would it?
As you say, they all respond to attempts to restrict their falsehoods play into the paranoid narrative. But sunlight doesn't disinfect it, either. They've set themselves a very attractive head-I-win-tails-you lose scenario, making them impossible to stamp out or even mitigate the damage.
Now the counter argument would be, where has that sunlight been these past few years with everything out in the open...
Do you think it’s slanted left or right? Half think it’s extreme left wing, half think it’s extreme right wing. Or do you think it’s slanted along some other axis?