What I'm saying is less about trusting or distrusting any public figure, from Assange to politicians to media personalities and celebrities, and more about trusting real people in our lives, especially our family members, friends, and acquaintances. I've heard so many people in real life talk about distrusting their own family and former friends because of their political party or who they voted for.

So in your Assange scenario, regardless of whether your or I trust Assange, as long as its for well-founded reasons, we should still be able to trust each others' motives.

I think I also need to clarify that I'm talking more about trusting people's motivations and integrity more than their specific opinions or beliefs. I'm not saying we believe everyone else beliefs, just that we learn to trust each other's motivation. Most people are not naturally untrustworthy; we're just being conditioned to think they are.

I guess what I'm trying to say is while I trust their intentions, I don't trust their processing.

Yes, exactly. I might not have been clear enough in the post, but this is what I'm trying to get across. We should each evaluate any information we receive from other people critically: where did they get the information, why should we believe it, what ulterior motives might the person or the original source have in publishing that information?

Yet we're in a better position to both discover true information and work together with others to make a better world if we can find some common ground. I think that common ground is my two points from the OP: we recognize that there are conspirators in the world who take advantage of others through deceit, and we as people (whichever people we each choose) must work together to secure our own liberty.

THIS IS WHEN things got all polarized, and Republicans did it.

I can probably agree with this, and let's say I do. Let's say I agree with you that the Republicans started this mess in blatantly cynical fashion, and that's why the polarization is so bad today. Okay, now what?

Does our current situation, with a majority of Democratic voters distrusting a majority of Republican voters, and vice versa, offer us any peaceful and cooperative way forward? I'm not talking about trusting Democratic or Republican politicians, mind you — I think on the whole they're all corrupt — I'm talking about people, real people of the proletariat if you prefer that terminology, distrusting each other. I don't see how a society can remain functional, let alone peaceful and prosperous, if the people of that society can't trust each other.

Stick to the substance, get this particularly vile strain of oligarchy out of office, then we can have some breathing room to go back to fighting for progress.

Democrats have been in power twice since '94, with Clinton and Obama, and frankly, I don't think either have really brought any significant change. I don't think Clinton and Obama were as bad on foreign policy or most social issues, but in terms of economic policy, domestic surveillance, and general social cohesion, they haven't been much better.

Clinton's crime bill was horrible for black people and communities, and Obama's ACA is essentially Heritage Foundation's plan from the 70s. Obama did nothing to reign in the powers of the executive that Bush added, and in a lot of ways normalized and expanded those powers. In many real ways, Clinton and Obama were to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon.

Even under Democratic presidents and congresses, we've seen an erosion of our civil liberties, a total disregard for the sovereignty of other peoples and nations, and a consolidation of power among the largest corporations in this country. Even if Democratic politicians and party leadership could be trusted, the pendulum effect all but guarantees that Republicans will be elected again, and will carry out the same policies of their owners in 4–12 years. It's not sustainable.

The numbers show clearly that Republicans have had much more control over government in recent times.

If you are willing to agree to this point, I'll be happy to run through some of your other points.

Agreed 100%. My point is not that Democrats have caused the same magnitude of problems as Republicans; Republicans have them beat by a long shot.

My point is only that Democrats are not a real alternative. When they are in power, they capitulate, walk back some of the worst abuses of previous administrations and legislatures, pass out a few token initiatives to placate the people, and then the Republicans are back in power. It's two steps back, one step forward at best.

I would like to agree with this, but where would a real alternative come from?

You probably wouldn't like my answer, but I'm a voluntaryist. I believe all human interaction should be governed by the principle of mutual consent and the the non-aggression principle. I believe governments are coercive by their nature and thus incompatible with voluntaryism. I think that it is impossible for governments or even one government to bring about a peaceful, prosperous, and free society through coercive means, and so there will never emerge a real alternative from the political system, even a "third" party (we only have one party with two wings).

The people who are affected would not call these things tokens. Take the sentencing act that Barack Obama got through.

I think that was a good law, and made a real difference in real people's lives. Obama definitely halted the climb of incarceration rates (graph), and we'll see how that fares in coming years.

Yet if the magnitude of these good laws passed under Democratic governments is less than the magnitude of bad laws passed under both Republican and Democratic governments, then I do say they're tokens. They're tokens because the overall direction is always toward greater control by the government, which does not represent the people.

While this is a major subject of debate, it makes some sense for Democrats to move toward Republicans to sweep up the swing voters.

It's a sound strategic decision, I can agree to that. The problem is that when they move into the center to get votes, and then continue to do the bad things the US government always does, the center rejects them and goes back to the Republicans.

The Republican premise is that government doesn't work, and they actively try to make it not work. When it turns out that government doesn't work (in part because they made it not work), the people agree that they're right and vote them in. That's what Trump was, and he wasn't wholly wrong in saying that the government doesn't work. (The con by Republicans is obviously that they and they're cronies benefit enormously from a government that does not work.)

Just like in the years after FDR was elected, it is going to take a while to really pull Democratic politicians toward the people.

If it is possible to reform the government, the focus must be on restoring and creating actual representation, which requires structural reform, and it has to start at the state and local level. Maine and many municipalities introducing ranked choice voting, multi-member districts, proportional representation. And a devolution of powers from the national government to the State and local governments. Unless you devolve the power back down to the people — and Democrats have never limited the power of the executive or of the national government — I cannot see the political system solving the problems it created.

I would likely vote for someone like Larry Lessig, who ran on the single issue of campaign finance reform. If the American people are serious about reforming their government, they need to form a structural reform party, with a few key planks about reforming the government, and no policy positions at all. Their mandate must be to reform the government in ways that can be agreed to by Republican and Democratic voters, and once they accomplish their goals, they resign.

Republicans have been the party of oligarchy for at least 100 years and they will remain so.

Agreed, and arguably much longer. Lincoln fought the Civil War for northern industrialists. But how many Democrats would the oligarchs really need to own, assuming they own all the Republicans, to ensure that their policy preferences are acted upon?

but the real world shows me that the moment a subject like abortion or gun rights comes up, everyone rushes to respective corners -- general concepts be damned.

Yeah, that's the problem with our two party system as it's set up. A two party system isn't necessarily bad, but the way the lines are drawn is artificial. There is a large anti-interventionist, anti-war contingent on both the left and the right. I would say Sanders, Ron (Rand) Paul, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Lessig if you count him are all of this anti-interventionist strain, and their combined supporters (someone for whom that candidate is the first choice) I would say is arguably close to a majority. Many Trump voters voted for him at least in part because they thought he would be more restrained in global conflicts than Clinton.

Yet because of the way the lines are drawn between Republicans and Democrats, we get involved in global conflicts either way, albeit the Democrats are usually less overt and bombastic with their wars, and we lose less American lives. If the anti-war voters voted together, we could reduce America's military footprint, but instead both major party candidates are typically at least somewhat pro-war in the end. For the most part it's no better at the congressional level, as there are very few strong anti-war voices in either house, and at best some milquetoast opposition from the apparent left. Trump wouldn't have received the military spending he got from Congress without Democratic votes.

Of course, we still have to build understanding on this, but I see it as a long term goal.

If it is a long-term goal, and I agree that it is, are you willing to vote only for 3rd party candidates that would support reform-but-no-policy positions? That is, you don't vote for any Democrats, just 3rd-party protest candidates. Are you willing to lose election after election to Republicans, and stand in solidarity to say our current two parties are not working?

Because that's what I think it takes, and every time we vote for a Republican or a Democrat, we're saying "At least he's better than that guy." And when we do get candidates like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, candidates that make people say "I want that guy!", the establishment and media for each party has silenced them. The parties want us voting against each other rather than for candidates we want.

We've got some agreement here. We both find the current system to be ridiculously corrupt.

Agreed :) Thank you for hashing this out with me civilly. It appreciate that for its rarity. I do think we have some agreement here, and it's hard to tell over the internet, but I think we have some of the same goals as well; our disagreements seem to be more about strategies and tactics to achieve these goals rather than about the goals themselves.

This is the kind of base level of trust I was talking about in the OP. We may disagree on a lot, but if we can trust each other enough to explore an idea together honestly yet graciously, we can still learn from each other and find where we do have common ground. Thank you.

I don't see libertarians as anti-war at all.

I'm talking more about small-l libertarians, and particularly individual voters who identify as a libertarian, not the institutions pushed by the Kochs, the Birchers, etc. I likely despise the Kochs political activism as much as you do. But if you look at Ron Paul's foreign policy and campaign positions, the positions which garnered him as much support as they did, he was pretty firmly anti-war and non-interventionist.

I see the Tea Party et al as being largely the same as the major parties: coopted or wholly-created movements that appeal to voters' preferences, but are pushing their own agendas.

When it comes to oil companies committing genocide in Liberia or Coca-Cola killing people in Colombia, apparently that's not war, that's just good business.

Corporations have used the US military as their enforcement arm for over a century. Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" describes his history as a highly decorated general as being a hired gun for US corporations. Yes, if we eliminated the US military's wars, corporations would still hire their Blackwaters and others to do their fighting, but it would be more costly for them, both financially and in terms of PR.

We need to stop both kinds of war, but at least nominally the US government is responsible to its citizens, and we're paying for this murder and devastation with our tax dollars. I can choose not to spend money on Coke, but I am coerced to pay the government their tribute under penalty of imprisonment. I'm as opposed to centralized power wielded by corporations as I am when it's wielded by states.

Democrats are the lesser warmongers and it matters!

When Democrats had full control over the Congress and Executive in '09, what did they do to limit the power of the Executive in waging war? The AUMF passed in the days after 9/11 is still in force, and as Barbara Lee pointed out when she voted against it, it's a blank check for whatever the Executive wants to use it for. If the Democrats actually cared about preventing Republican administrations from causing the undeniable havoc they do, they would be serious about limiting the Executive, and demanding that the Congress reassert its sole Constitutional authority to declare war.

With a robust policy of breaking up corporations, reducing corporate speech, taxing the rich, and pursuing fair treatment for all identity groups we can lift people up to a place where they have the freedom to oppose wars.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Nevertheless, I could agree to support a group that included libertarians in stopping wars, but it would be a very short alliance of convenience.

Which is how representative governments should ideally function: representatives should vote for the policies their constituents prefer. Instead, roughly half of the population has no real representation in Congress. 51% of a district vote for the rep who wins, who then generally represents that segment of the population, but not the other 49%. Politicians are far more beholden to donors and parties than their own people.

But yes, limited alliances across party lines on specific areas of agreement would be helpful.

I've watched as the damage done by Republican government has harmed real people and has rarely been reversed.

That's my point: the harm is hardly ever reversed. Each administration since FDR with the possible exception of Carter's has increased the power of the Executive. The Democratic strategy has been to further increase that power so they can accomplish what they think is better for the country (and I often agree with their professed goals: equal treatment for all identity groups, limit corporate power, etc), but the actual outcome has been stronger executive powers for the next Republican government.

if I were in a swing state like Florida, I would have settled even further and voted for HRC.

And I argue that would only kick the can down the road. Had Clinton been elected, she would have been the most unpopular President in our history, just like Trump arguably is. Anything that went wrong under her, and much would have gone wrong (as it has with Trump) would have been blamed on her and the Democrats. Her "scandals," real or not, would have dominated every headline. I would be astonished if Republicans would not have won and won big in 2020.

We both seem to want to get to a similar place, but we sure do have different ideas how to get there.

I'm convinced that more conversations like this is what is needed.

I will say one more time that a holding pattern is better than continued destruction and harm.

I'd say that the holding pattern is still a declining holding pattern. The question is whether we can pull up on the control stick before the ground reaches us. In fact, I think it's that question that is really our point of disagreement here. You think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that we can pull out of the decline by incremental reform through electoral politics, and I do not think that's possible.

If your strategy works, and we get to the peaceful and prosperous society we both desire, then I'd be ecstatic. I'd gladly admit I was wrong, and move on living in that society.

There are a number of factors that lead me to believe that is not possible. Environmental degradation and advances in AI/robotics (meaning, a corporation or nation-state will soon be able to wage war without human soldiers). I believe that by giving legitimacy to our government through our actions, we increase its capacity to do harm, even if that harm is somewhat lessened or reverted under Democratic governments.

we may both agree that the 1974 War Powers Act needs to go along with the 2001 AUMF. Let's pull this war thing out by its roots.

Agreed 100%

That's a real shame and it speaks volumes about the limits of counting on the people for change.

Limits of the people or the political system?

I think you also have to add the possibility that for one reason or another, they just don't put a high priority on knowing what truly happened on 9/11, or any other particular historical event that we do place great importance on.

Many people in the US, and around the world, simply don't have much time to spend on these subjects. They have long hours to work and long commutes, time spent raising children or taking care of others, developing and pursuing their passions.

Most of my Latino and black people who are struggling to get food, clothes and shelter in the hood are so concerned with that, that philosophizing about freedom and socialist democracy is usually unfortunately beyond their rationale. They don't realize that America can't exist without separating them from their identity, because if we had some sense of who we really are, there's no way in hell we'd allow this country to push it's genocidal consensus on our homelands.

--Immortal Technique, The Poverty of Philosohpy

I think we do a disservice to ourselves and others when we assume their motivations for not looking into these things. We can say they're priorities are misplaced, but even that statement comes from a place of privilege. For one reason or another, we do have the time and energy to spend researching and discussing these things, but that doesn't necessarily make us any better than the single mother struggling to keep her children fed and healthy. As always, we need to maintain our compassion toward all people.

I don't think we do disagree, and I think what I'm saying is compatible with what you are saying. My second "fact" that I wrote was:

2. We must trust other humans if we want to live in a peaceful and prosperous society

I never said how many humans we have to trust, or how large our society would need to be. I think humans can live very well in small tribes or villages, and depending on how our history truly happened, that is how humans have spent most of their time as a society. I think we can also live in larger societies, city-state to small nation-state, though I agree our "nation"-states such as the US, China, and India are too large today.

Ultimately, I think the US should be broken up into 5 or more separate City States.

I'm not opposed to that outcome, but I don't think the US Government will ever let itself be broken up. Any true evolution or revolution or awakening must come from the bottom up: from individuals relearning how to trust themselves, and how to trust each other. People forming self-sufficient and inter-dependent communities that do not rely on centralized structures like the US Government to function and meet their communities' needs.

Governments ensure compliance to societal norms on the basis of fear. If you do not obey your government, your government will use force, up to and including lethal force to coerce you into submission. That is the only tool that government's have, that and the propaganda to make us believe it's the only way. We don't need to wait for governments to do what we think they ought to do, we need to create our own webs of trust and build our own communities with that trust as its foundation.

And that's kinda what I'm getting at. You and I have had many discussions over the years, typically about what we disagree about as those are the more interesting conversations, yet I think for the most part we have the same basic intentions and motivations — broadly speaking, peaceful societies through individual liberty.

We may disagree on specifics, or on strategies and tactics to accomplish these goals, but I generally trust that you believe what you do and act in the world as you do with integrity and for noble motivations as you see them. That's not to say I fully believe that you're not an agent of some conspirator, but I don't need to know that to tentatively trust you. I don't trust you with my life or with my identity, but I can trust your sincerity and honesty in our conversation, and we need that if we're ever to build mutual understanding.

I'm more talking about real life, with people we've actually met face to face. I'm not saying we need to do this with everyone on this site, for sure, but if we're going to have meaningful conversations, we can only have those with people we can at least pretend to trust.

Besides Russiagate? Probably not.

I'm including Russiagate. Fundamentally, a believer in the claims behind Russiagate has a similar psychological attitude towards it as other conspiracy theorists do toward the theories we believe: We each believe that there are conspirators at the highest levels of government that are using deceit, dishonesty, and other unethical means to exploit we the people. They just believe in a different set of conspirators, or don't go as far as some of us do in how deep these conspiracies go.

That says a lot about how much faith this sub has in the future of humanity.

Not really. It says more about how some-but-not-all individuals on this sub view our present reality. I'm not much interested in stereotyping an entire group of people (conspiracy theorists) by the votes on a public forum with open entry.

It's just we're so cynical at times it's hard to tell.

I can certainly agree with this, and I am rather cynical myself about many things. The difference I'm trying to highlight here, though, is being cynical of people vs. being cynical of humanity. I am among the harshest critics and greatest cynics when it comes to human institutions, but an eternal optimist when it comes to humanity and Gaia.

I just don't think this sub any longer represents the "conspiracy theorist" that I've known over the years.

It's hard to say whether it ever represented "conspiracy theorists" writ large. It's such a broad and diverse label that there's hardly any way to come up with a succinct description or a prototypical conspiracy theorist. There often seems to be more dissimilar than similar among any two "conspiracy theorists." You also have the dichotomy between someone identifying as a conspiracy theorist vs. someone being identified as a conspiracy theorist. It's use as a slur or a derogatory phrase only complicates the problem of defining the group identified by the term.

Those that I've known in my life are always very spiritually motivated. They are "as wise as serpents, but as innocent as doves."

I would agree, and some are still here, but their numbers and voices have been diluted. Many have left for one reason or another, and some just frequent other subs. Because of how diverse the topic of conspiracy is, there are many overlapping topics or narrow focuses. I subscribe to a number of these, and mod a couple.

I'm not afraid to share my political perspectives with anyone. What have you seen lately that makes you feel that way?

I keep a lot of my political beliefs to myself, or at least temper them, partly because they're quite radical in the sense of getting to the root of things (I'm a voluntaryist/anarchist). I still express my views but more carefully or relatably.

What makes me doubt the general trust among the population is what I hear people say about the others' political persuasions when their not in the room. I have some friends and family who are Trump supporters/voters, and some who are Democrats/anti-Trumpers.

I somewhat slide between lines, and most people just assume I agree with them, so they talk freely with me. The way I hear some of them talk about the other group ranges from bemusement to condescension to anger to disdain and almost dehumanization. And it comes from both sides. They seem to have little desire to work with the people from the other side, and more interest in just beating them. It was one thing when we felt that way about the politicians, but now I'm seeing people distrust and condemn each other, even among friends and family. This has an aggregate effect on social cohesion.

One big distinction conspiracy theorists carry is the opposition to figures like the MSM.

Only if you decide a priori that Russiagaters are not conspiracy theorists, which I think is inaccurate. They believe the theory that Trump and Putin engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the US/steal the presidency/etc. By definition, they are conspiracy theorists, and many of them do trust their chosen MSM outlets when those outlets confirm their suspicions.

I think on the whole we share more in common than not, mostly because I think these fundamentally shared beliefs account for a large part of our being.

I think you are correct here for a subset of conspiracy theorists, and the distinction I would make is between people who start from the premise of investigating corruption and conspiracies to discover the truth, and those who investigate conspiracies to score political points within the electoral theater. There are many pro-Trump and anti-Trump conspiracy theorists who fit in this latter category.

I wish we could get these users to come back and post to this sub. Mr. Dong was making an effort but I haven't seen him lately.

Dong stepped down from the team for personal reasons, and his presence is missed. The issue with getting users back here is that dealing with everything here can be exhausting and draining. Many of these users, myself included to an extent, prefer smaller subs and off-site places where it's more of a conversation than a battle. r/C_S_T is one such sub.

Shall we get adjacent islands to Puts?

Haha, maybe! Personally I think the problem with his strategy is that he's trying to go it alone too much. Say he gets his island. Sure, "they" might leave him alone, or they could just label him a terrorist, hit him with a tomahawk and no one would care. We have to stand up with each other and for each other. The wealthy are well aware of class consciousness, and we disregard it at our peril.

It just feels ways too much about politics and that just isn't in the spirit of what I would consider a conspiracy theorist.

For sure. In this sense I find "truth seeker" to be a better term for self-identification than "conspiracy theorist," but I'll answer to either. I do think defending the linguistic territory of "conspiracy theorist" is still worthwhile.

You should start crossposting from that sub.

What do you think this post is? ;)

Just a joke coming from me, but I agree with this sentiment.

I figured as much.

Thank you for this reply. It touches on a few key aspects that I had missed. I do agree that there are these two broad groups within these circles, and I think initiated and uninitiated are good terms, if a bit loaded.

We must help people understand why they should not trust the institutions and powers that we ourselves distrust. Only then we can start to work on forming a peaceful and prosperous society.

This is beautiful! Truly. And it's given me a realization, that it's not trust that I was necessarily getting at, but faith. Your formulation, that we "must help people understand," in some way requires a faith that the people we're trying to help can and will understand why we distrust the institutions we do. If we don't have faith in someone we're trying to persuade, we will never persuade them, and those energies are wasted.

This thought leads to the question of whom we should put our faith in. I think it has to start with those closest to us, those whom we love and those we spend our time with. And by faith, I think it's just faith that they can work to form a more peaceful and prosperous society.

This gives us somewhere concrete to work from, we start by putting faith in people around us and encouraging them to play their part in making a better society. Along the way, as we're already working together, we can explain why we distrust the institutions and power we distrust, yet I don't think we have to start with that. We don't have to wait until people are "fully woke"™ before we start creating that more beautiful world our hearts know is possible, and I think we will wake more people by living that world than by trying to explain what's wrong with this world.

What I'm saying is less about trusting or distrusting any public figure, from Assange to politicians to media personalities and celebrities, and more about trusting real people in our lives, especially our family members, friends, and acquaintances. I've heard so many people in real life talk about distrusting their own family and former friends because of their political party or who they voted for.

So in your Assange scenario, regardless of whether your or I trust Assange, as long as its for well-founded reasons, we should still be able to trust each others' motives.

I think I also need to clarify that I'm talking more about trusting people's motivations and integrity more than their specific opinions or beliefs. I'm not saying we believe everyone else beliefs, just that we learn to trust each other's motivation. Most people are not naturally untrustworthy; we're just being conditioned to think they are.

I guess what I'm trying to say is while I trust their intentions, I don't trust their processing.

Yes, exactly. I might not have been clear enough in the post, but this is what I'm trying to get across. We should each evaluate any information we receive from other people critically: where did they get the information, why should we believe it, what ulterior motives might the person or the original source have in publishing that information?

Yet we're in a better position to both discover true information and work together with others to make a better world if we can find some common ground. I think that common ground is my two points from the OP: we recognize that there are conspirators in the world who take advantage of others through deceit, and we as people (whichever people we each choose) must work together to secure our own liberty.

I would like to agree with this, but where would a real alternative come from?

You probably wouldn't like my answer, but I'm a voluntaryist. I believe all human interaction should be governed by the principle of mutual consent and the the non-aggression principle. I believe governments are coercive by their nature and thus incompatible with voluntaryism. I think that it is impossible for governments or even one government to bring about a peaceful, prosperous, and free society through coercive means, and so there will never emerge a real alternative from the political system, even a "third" party (we only have one party with two wings).

The people who are affected would not call these things tokens. Take the sentencing act that Barack Obama got through.

I think that was a good law, and made a real difference in real people's lives. Obama definitely halted the climb of incarceration rates (graph), and we'll see how that fares in coming years.

Yet if the magnitude of these good laws passed under Democratic governments is less than the magnitude of bad laws passed under both Republican and Democratic governments, then I do say they're tokens. They're tokens because the overall direction is always toward greater control by the government, which does not represent the people.

While this is a major subject of debate, it makes some sense for Democrats to move toward Republicans to sweep up the swing voters.

It's a sound strategic decision, I can agree to that. The problem is that when they move into the center to get votes, and then continue to do the bad things the US government always does, the center rejects them and goes back to the Republicans.

The Republican premise is that government doesn't work, and they actively try to make it not work. When it turns out that government doesn't work (in part because they made it not work), the people agree that they're right and vote them in. That's what Trump was, and he wasn't wholly wrong in saying that the government doesn't work. (The con by Republicans is obviously that they and they're cronies benefit enormously from a government that does not work.)

Just like in the years after FDR was elected, it is going to take a while to really pull Democratic politicians toward the people.

If it is possible to reform the government, the focus must be on restoring and creating actual representation, which requires structural reform, and it has to start at the state and local level. Maine and many municipalities introducing ranked choice voting, multi-member districts, proportional representation. And a devolution of powers from the national government to the State and local governments. Unless you devolve the power back down to the people — and Democrats have never limited the power of the executive or of the national government — I cannot see the political system solving the problems it created.

I would likely vote for someone like Larry Lessig, who ran on the single issue of campaign finance reform. If the American people are serious about reforming their government, they need to form a structural reform party, with a few key planks about reforming the government, and no policy positions at all. Their mandate must be to reform the government in ways that can be agreed to by Republican and Democratic voters, and once they accomplish their goals, they resign.

Republicans have been the party of oligarchy for at least 100 years and they will remain so.

Agreed, and arguably much longer. Lincoln fought the Civil War for northern industrialists. But how many Democrats would the oligarchs really need to own, assuming they own all the Republicans, to ensure that their policy preferences are acted upon?