menu Home chevron_right
PHILOSOPHY

Should Politicians be Honest or “Electable?” | Philosophy Tube

Philosophy Tube | September 7, 2025



When Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders of the Democrats are called “unelectable,” what’s the real political, moral, and philosophical ideology behind “electability?”

Subscribe! http://tinyurl.com/pr99a46

Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/PhilosophyTube

Audible: http://tinyurl.com/jn6tpup

FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/j8bo4gb

Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/jgjek5w

Twitter: @PhilosophyTube

Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com

Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube

realphilosophytube.tumblr.com

Recommended Reading:
Harry Giles, “What’s Going on in the Labour Party and what Does it Mean?” http://tinyurl.com/hloh8cg
Louise Richardson, What Terrorists Want
Sarah Ahmed, “Declarations of Whiteness” – it’s got some great stuff in there about nonperformative declarations that’s very applicable to politics: http://tinyurl.com/ps8sjt8
@WritersofColour
@postrefracism
Media Diversified on the Labour Coup: http://tinyurl.com/hhnyyvp

Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)

If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!

Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.

Written by Philosophy Tube

Comments

This post currently has 35 comments.

  1. @kazerniel

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    Sad to watch this video in 2025. Corbyn's leadership was the only time I felt inclined to vote Labour, never since the Red Tory takeover. (I'm fortunate that in Scotland I have other left-ish alternatives.)

    To imagine how much better the UK could have gotten with Corbyn in power!

  2. @raven-cat-lover

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    I think there an interest "honest vs electable" discussion to be had on the side of voters as well. Both my parents honestly have political views that most accurately align with the Green party, however in the last few general elections my mum has chosen to vote for the Liberal Democrats, because although they do not as fully align with her views, they are more electable so by voting for them she is at least putting someone close to her views in more power

  3. @portmantologist

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    It's standard practice in the Democratic party to blame the political left any time an uninspiring corporatist Democrat loses an election, as if the problem were that Democrats are TOO different from Republicans.

  4. @jjkthebest

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    In the Netherlands we don't have a two party system. I think this allows a lot more things to be electable since you don't need a majority to have serious influence in the government. It's not perfect of course, but I think it's a lot better than many other systems.

  5. @ElementalofAir

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    Electability is only as useful as the influence that individual politician will have, I think. One person out of 3 can make a big change, but 1 out of 100 – better to support those who display similar morals, and not just through voting, so that it won't be 1 out of 100, but 50 or 70 or more, you know?

  6. @Alex.R.L

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    * Vaguely Gestures at reality "
    We need some international Leftist organization, something that can compete against Late Stage Capitalist PR budgets. A problem I foresee: Organizing Leftists is like herding cats. We easily get distracted away from economics, the Dismal Science, same as the fascists.

  7. @Leo99929

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    Is it truly democracy if you don't know what you're voting for? If the candidates can openly lie about what they're going to do, then what is the point in voting? You would be voting based on fiction. You might as well vote via a roulette wheel. Is it really a democracy when first past the post inevitably devolves into a two party system? Is it really a free democracy when you only have two, highly curated, options? The British don't get to vote on if Hinkley Point C or HS2 are going to happen. The British public get to decide which team to elect, but the members of that team can come and go within their term without re-election. Is it really the same people you voted for if the members have changed? Is that a fair democratic system?

    Maybe we should ignore what politicians SAY they're going to do, and look at what they HAVE done. Vote based on historical statistics. We need an alternative system like single transferable vote to begin to address these issues.

  8. @queerspirit2995

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    When I was taking a pol sci class a lot of people assumed that I wanted to become a politician, when in truth I only took it because I'm interested in political philosophy, so I just figured "hey why not take a class on political science?" but because people assumed that I was an aspiring politician, that did encourage me to reflect on how a person with my political beliefs could even fair out on that career choice in the first place, and I realized that I have to become a good liar. If I want to be altruistic, I have to make myself look like I have other intentions that benefits the upper class.

  9. @maxdonaldson861

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    A good video but very much very much from the time it was written and ultimately a little biased and trying to send a political message as well as a philosophical one, not quite what I want from a philosophy video, but good nevertheless and I understand that it is hard not to be biased in such a complex issue, especially when you've got perfectly legitimate viewpoints of your own on the matter

  10. @alexwasdreaming9440

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    I think this is a false framing of the question, rather i think it would be more important to think about "what system causes honesty to unelectable"
    People think in interest; be it of groups or themselves. inherently both parties are patriotic and want whats best for their nation, and if what solves their issue were true and honest then the voter would vote for them, but clear something or someone has corrupted such a system of information.
    Now we question whether we should be honest or electable, instead of addressing the system that has destroyed honesty and truth, despite being what we truly want.

  11. @firstlast-cs6eg

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    You seem to be mixing two issues like there is no distinction.
    1. Who "party leaders" etc. are willing to put up as candidates (need ranked voting so you have more parties)
    2. What those candidates do and say in order to get elected.

    1. I mean some people might say X person is not electable, but actually mean these party leaders etc don't want them on the ballet because they don't like their position. So they use "unelectable" as a way of saying "please don't make this person a candidate, they might win". but more dishonest like.

    2. If people follow what the candidates say and then they do something different, then people lose more trust in politicians, so how is that helpful?

    Besides, if you got both sides on the right so you're just choosing between bad and worse, how is that a democracy?

  12. @karliebellatrixyoung6359

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    Perhaps the worst thing about "Electability" politics is that it invites the principal-agent problem. Representative democracy is premised on representatives accurately portraying their political platform so that voters can judge them on that basis and in turn be represented by someone whose values most accurately represent their own. What we are calling electability is a lie, and one that almost hurts everyone but the liar more than the liar, because that pattern of misrepresentation will be generalized, and it encourages voters to make improper and even unfair assumptions about individual politicians.

    I also think it was a bit remiss to not mention that this issue is not nearly so prevalent on the right as it is on the left. Conservatives don't have to lie about who they are, especially in America, their platform is already a misrepresentation, namely to sell to the poor and working class that empowering economic elites will result in their salvation. Our whole discussion of philosophical morality in politics is constrained to the left. Convenient scapegoats are convenient if you don't care about ethics.

  13. @Moon-ep2bb

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    well this looks exactly like American politics with right and left sides and “immigration issues” i am having whiplash… and you can put this on Bernie with the “unelectable” the same way you talked about jeramy corbin. i honestly can’t comfortably talk about politics without getting serious backlash about completely different ideas that turn out to have the same values behind them.

  14. @rosieo5875

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    I’m sorry, and I’m obviously very late to this, but the Labour Left have very real concerns about immigration and the EU’s FoM policy, which is one of the reasons why we have Brexit. Not the only reason, but one of the reasons.

  15. @bolloggfisch1100

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    I think following what's electable will inevitably lead to a vicious cycle. If the public perception shifts to the right, let's say, Social Democrats may also decide to adapt their stances, not alienate anyone. Then, the Conservatives would have to shift right as well to distinguish themselves. The discourse (TM) would gradually move to the right bit by bit, so the parties again have to move right as well to keep being electable. Political parties often act like what they do and say does not affect the perception of certain topics in the public.

    Adding to that, I would like to live in a system where losing votes is not always necessarily seen as a bad thing. Say, you have 10 different parties, representing 10 quite different world views. If a majority goes in one direction, I wouldn't want the others to also change and pander to them. If only 4% are having the world view that this certain party has, so be it, they shouldn't change and became more electable because of it. To properly display what the population actually thinks and believes, we probably would also need something like alternative voting, really badly.

  16. @officially8210

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    Three years too late but, to me, 'electability' should still involve moving the country in the right direction. Right Labour and centrists are, at best, fighting for the status quo and, in some cases, trying to move the country to the right. To me, electability is supporting Corbyn because he supports partial worker ownership of businesses, rather than opposing him because he doesn't support total worker ownership.

  17. @tomio8072

    September 7, 2025 at 10:51 pm

    I think this is why Trump won – he didn’t back down and say what you make him “electable” ironically. It’s the fact he was proud of who he was, it seemed. Maybe idk

Comments are closed.




This area can contain widgets, menus, shortcodes and custom content. You can manage it from the Customizer, in the Second layer section.

 

 

 

  • play_circle_filled

    92.9 : The Torch

  • play_circle_filled

    AGGRO
    'Til Deaf Do Us Part...

  • play_circle_filled

    SLACK!
    The Music That Made Gen-X

  • play_circle_filled

    KUDZU
    The Northwoods' Alt-Country & Americana

  • play_circle_filled

    BOOZHOO
    Indigenous Radio

  • play_circle_filled

    THE FLOW
    The Northwoods' Hip Hop and R&B

play_arrow skip_previous skip_next volume_down
playlist_play