Identity politics and the skew in lawmaking...

[DoTheScience]

I think most people will notice the unnatural obsession in politics with specific fringe identities such as homosexuals or transsexuals. A lot of this doesn't make sense on face value. In a democracy, a major party might be exclusively representing and concerned with one tiny subset of the constituency on issues that are not particularly profound nor foreground issues makes no sense. We live in a country where various minority groups have it very good and there are no pressing issues or issues that should be central in politics in terms of representing them.

 

When we look at why are these issues so disproportionately represented, I think it's because voters, more so on the left are bad at reading a CV. This is part of the process of voting for a candidate. You have to look at their background and skills as well as then also measure up the person themselves. If a candidate comes from the legal profession such as that they were a human rights lawyer, then you might think that's great, they have experience both in law and representing people.

 

In reality you need to look beyond titles and things like that. You'll find in law human rights issues aren't as broad as the name might imply. Various demographics will be represented more in human rights cases than others. The political candidate may not have generalised transferable skills but specific skills. For example, specifically representing Muslim asylum seekers in residency hearings. When they're then voted in, they're stuck in the mode of representing Muslim asylum seekers versus the state rather than representing their state or their constituency.

 

I've seen political issues that are nothing to do with identity or protected characteristics turned into what looks like a trial of the "the homosexuals versus the people" in a typical nonsensical display of political ineptitude. This is neither good for homosexuals or heterosexuals. The process regularly pits them together on issues where there was no point of contention. They have a habit it appears of recreating conflicts they were involved in historically into things like parliament.

 

When you look at the backgrounds and qualifications of certain politicians, their professional history, then it starts to make a bit more sense. There's a similar problem along these lines that's combined involving charities. There's no charities for heterosexuals. There's rarely discrimination cases for heterosexuals.

 

There's a bit of a pattern and a conflict of interest here too. These people go from an industry where they profit from the kind of legislation they're now empowered to create. The problem is, things like discrimination now are very rare. You have charities and legal industries that should naturally shrink. There's an existential threat to what are commercial operations though we don't usually thing of charity and law in that manner.

 

There's a desperate need to lower the bar on what counts as discrimination to keep the profession as a whole afloat. In a way, this ends up being a round about way of lawyers taxing corporations for their own social security.

 

When you look at politicians that appear to be anti-white male, pro-female, pro-criminal, pro-minorities, etc then when you also look at the demographics that leads to more cases and more money for them, their income and livelihood then it tends to match that. If there's less crime, lawyers, anyone in the legal profession that deals with crime would risk being made redundant.

 

If you look at all the racism, sexism and other kinds of bigotry or preference for certain characteristics, inequality, then it disturbingly correlates with their clients in their backgrounds in things like law, charity, social work, etc. Politicians from normal professional backgrounds tend to be somewhat rare.

[DoTheScience]

To put it simply, what I'm seeing in the political class is a pattern of lawyers come lawmakers still representing their clients rather than their constituents. I think once people are aware of patterns like this they can become better voters.