Bruce Cowper-Smith

David, while I agree that politicians can be ignorant of complex issues, and they can look for the more simple ways to convey complex issues to the general public, I also think politicians are essentially idealistic, optimistic and get elected because they convey a large degree of hope. After all, who would vote for someone who was realistic and somewhat pessimistic? We want leaders who make us confident that solutions will be found. We primarily want and are attracted to outgoing sorts of politicians who have answers to virtually every question. Steven Harper wasn't very popular mostly because he didn't instill a lot of hope. Trump was popular because he seemed to have answers to everything. But once those outgoing, have an answer to everything type get into the nitty-gritty of everyday political life, they don't actually have answers to everything. And in order to just make some small headway, they learn its necessary to compromise. The compromises that seemed impossible when they were drawing crowds to hear them express their big dreams suddenly become the only way to actually move forward without alienating everyone who ever voted for them and worse all those who may consider voting for them again. I think the very nature of our western political system creates the context for impossible dreams, unrealistic dreamers, and then disappointed and disillusioned voters. We would like to think that well intentioned, intelligent, honest, politicians can be swayed to make the "right" decisions by applying the facts. But we live in a world so complex, and so deeply divided in term of understanding what the "right" decisions actually look like, that no amount of applying the facts will ensure the "right" things are done. I think its good for people like yourself to continue to put important alternate perspectives out to the general public. But I rather doubt that a liberal application of "truth" is actually going to have a big impact on politics. Especially not now in the new era of Trump, and the death of the need for truth in political debate.

David, I in no way wish to be critical of your fine article, nor of the publication as a whole. However, if we accept your numbers, we are left to think either our politicians are ignorant or dishonest. We certainly have plenty of evidence to think politicians can be either or both of these. So, I don't think your article went far enough. In fact most of these sorts of articles don't go far enough. Just why is it that people we have elected to make very important decisions for us and for our country make at times very poor decisions? It seems here in Victoria we have lots of evidence of rather poor decisions being made. Why? I have some of my own theories, but I would invite you to consider this question. Maybe there is another interesting article in this for you. Bruce