I think about this comic all the time, even though it’s seven years old. (No reason.)
Canonical URL: https://wondermark.com/c/1298/
I think about this comic all the time, even though it’s seven years old. (No reason.)
Canonical URL: https://wondermark.com/c/1298/
Is this an anti-democracy comic?
No, it’s about politicians who knowingly court dangerous and extreme voters.
And now that’s all they have left, and that’s how we ended up with Donald Trump and these fucked up weird Republicans.
Some of them leaned into birtherism to keep their seats back in '07 and '08. Now half the people at their rallies are carrying around swastikas and Confederate flags and clamoring for a race war.
More like anti representative government where politicians just take advantage of us. Direct democracy might be possible
But the premise of the comic is that the politicians are themselves pressured by the voters to represent positions they think are insane (and are actually insane?) and hope won’t actually become law, yet they do become law because the conspiracy to pretend to do something while doing nothing fails. With direct democracy you would assume those same laws would pass for the same reasons, not a different outcome.
Do you really think that so many people would suddenly care so badly about gender and immigration policy if they weren’t being induced with specific intention?
Just devil’s advocacy. I think you are right that direct democracy doesn’t protect us from moral panics, or even from people inducing moral panics for personal gain.
Well probably, immigration and gender are both things that people have basically always had strong feelings about. Though I see your point; what if it’s more of a top-down phenomenon and wouldn’t be a big deal without the propaganda? But in that case the apparent anti-democratic message of the comic seems similar; the task of good politicians being to manipulate people in more responsible directions they actually believe in and not just lazily seek power appealing to whatever stupid ideas, which still seems to imply voters are not and should not actually be making any real decisions or in charge of anything.
Maybe it could also be thought of the other way around though; if ‘bones’ represents something actually pretty bad, then despite being ruled by a group naturally interested in doing the wrong thing, the right thing gets done anyway because of their incentives and lazy greed.
Not quite. Let us not conflate “criticism against one issue in a system” with “being against said system”.
Can one not form criticism of something without being opposed to it?