A politician can choose between two messages that affirm their loyalty: Advocating a beneficial policy, or advocating a useless and wasteful policy. They choose useless, because the motive behind advocating a beneficial policy is ambiguous. Maybe they wanted people to benefit!
I think this is a bad description. If we take the EMA decision to approve the COVID-19 vaccine later then other agencies, the had the choice between benefitial policy (early approval) and useless policy (late approval). They chose the late approval to signal that they care strongly about safety and displaying their loyality to the ideal of safety.
I don’t think anybody who’s the target of the signal is supposed to think “The EMA didn’t care about benefiting people”.
Politicians signal loyality to lobbyists by doing exactly what the lobbyists tell them. If a politician takes the amendment that a lobbyist gives them and adds his own words to it that make it a more wasteful policy for the general population that’s not a sign of loyality towards the lobbyist. It’s rather a sign if he pushes the amendment without changing any words. And maybe not asking boring questions such as “what would be the effect if this amendment makes it into law?”
I can see politicians making laws to punish the outgroup and signaling tribal loyality with that but when it comes to that I doubt any of the target audience is supposed to think “the politician doesn’t want the people to benefit”.
Do you have an example where Maybe they wanted people to benefit! would actually be an important signal in Western politics?
I think this is a bad description. If we take the EMA decision to approve the COVID-19 vaccine later then other agencies, the had the choice between benefitial policy (early approval) and useless policy (late approval). They chose the late approval to signal that they care strongly about safety and displaying their loyality to the ideal of safety.
I don’t think anybody who’s the target of the signal is supposed to think “The EMA didn’t care about benefiting people”.
Politicians signal loyality to lobbyists by doing exactly what the lobbyists tell them. If a politician takes the amendment that a lobbyist gives them and adds his own words to it that make it a more wasteful policy for the general population that’s not a sign of loyality towards the lobbyist. It’s rather a sign if he pushes the amendment without changing any words. And maybe not asking boring questions such as “what would be the effect if this amendment makes it into law?”
I can see politicians making laws to punish the outgroup and signaling tribal loyality with that but when it comes to that I doubt any of the target audience is supposed to think “the politician doesn’t want the people to benefit”.
Do you have an example where Maybe they wanted people to benefit! would actually be an important signal in Western politics?