Can you see through politicians who make hay over inconsequential issues and avoid dicey stuff like Iraq?

Question

Or are you blind?

Answer 1

Normative faces of power debate
The faces of power debate has coalesced into a viable conception of three dimensions of power including decision-making, agenda-setting, and preference-shaping. The decision-making dimension was first put forth by Robert Dahl, who advocated the notion that political power is based in the formal political arena and is measured through voting patterns and the decisions made by politicians.[34] This view has been criticised by many as simplistic, notably by the sociologist G. William Domhoff,[35] who argues that political and economic power is monopolised by the "elite classes".

A second dimension to the notion of political power was added by academics Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz involving "agenda-setting". Bachrach and Baratz viewed power as involving both the formal political arena and behind the scenes agenda-setting by elite groups who could be either politicians and/or others (such as industrialists, campaign contributors, special interest groups and so on), often with a hidden agenda that most of the public may not be aware of. The third dimension of power was added by British academic Steven Lukes who felt that even with this second dimension, some other traits of political power needed to be addressed through the concept of 'preference-shaping'. Lukes developed the concept of the "Three faces of power" - decision-making power, non-decision-making power, and ideological power.[36]

This third dimension is inspired by many Neo-Gramscian views such as cultural hegemony and deals with how civil society and the general public have their preferences shaped for them by those in power through the use of propaganda or the media. Ultimately, this third dimension holds that the general public may not be aware of what decisions are actually in their interest due to the invisible power of elites who work to distort their perceptions. Critics of this view claim that such notions are themselves elitist, which Lukes then clearly admits as one problem of this view and yet clarifies that as long as those who make claims that preferences are being shaped explain their own interests etc., there is room for more transparency.


[edit] Postmodern challenge of normative views of power
Some within the postmodern and post-structuralist field claim that power is something that is not in the hands of the few and is rather dispersed throughout society in various ways. As one academic writes, "...postmodernists have argued that due to a variety of inherent biases in the standards by which ”valid“ knowledge has been evaluated...modernist science has tended to reproduce ideological justifications for the perpetuation of long-standing forms of inequality. Thus, it is the strategy of postmodern science...to identify and, thereby, attack the ”deceiving“ power of universalizing scientific epistemologies."[37]

Answer 2

Not blind at all but that's politics for you, would you rather have some head of religion or a cult lead the nation? I guess the lesser of the two evils is all we got.Matter of fact I'm going to write in your name on a write in vote to run this country, whip them into shape OK.

Answer 3

Yes, like Harriet the harridan Harman calling for it to be made illegal to pay for sex. I have too messages for Harman: 1) We live in a democracy, and we don't pander to personal whims. 2) Why hasn't she chosen to make it illegal to RECEIVE money for sex. The answer, of course, is that her nasty little mind is constantly targeting men as the baddies, and women as the innocent victims. None of the pathetic sycophantic males in Parliament will stand up to her, however.

Answer 4

Politicians could not organise a pi*s up in a brewery let alone make hay

Answer 5

Send the politician's in that made these decisions, they should lead the way.

Answer 6

i can see through it but i don't think it is going to change any time soon, no one wants to say BRING THEM HOME or that might not support our troops! But wouldn't the best thing be for them to come home! Instead we need to quivel over how to get them back....

Answer 7

David Blunket here.

Answer 8

I read them like a book.

Answer 9

hey i take offense to that cus im blind

Answer 10

That wasn't a question, but I can follow your reasoning.