To dissolve the people, And elect another
July 15, 2016 7:44 AM Subscribe
Democracies end when they are too democratic. - Andrew Sullivan
Britain’s democratic failure - Kenneth Rogoff How American Politics Went Insane - Jonathan Rauch
It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses - James Traub
Andrew Sullivan Is to Blame for Donald Trump - Tom Scocca, Gawker
The Second Time Around: James Traub on Neoliberal Technocracy -Corey Robin
America Needs More Democracy, Not Less - Roslyn Fuller
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Political Insanity and Dysfunction: Are we citizens to blame? - David Brin
What Happens When One Party Doesn’t Care About Governing? - Nancy LeTourneau: "What we are witnessing is a Republican Party that has completely abandoned any pretense of actually governing on behalf of the people."
Brexit and the new hostility to participatory democracy - Jeff Sparrow
Democracy’s Boaty McBoatface problem - Chris Ladd : "Democracies suffer from two frustrating weaknesses. The first is justice. Majorities might thwart the greed or violence of a few, but who will stand in the way of an angry electoral mob? Majorities can as easily be assembled toward lynching as problem-solving.
The other problem is expertise. We make fairly good decisions for ourselves when we understand the subject matter and we have a personal stake in the outcome. We make consistently terrible decisions when we have little understanding of their implications and the decision involves consequences which are distant in time and dispersed in impact. "
Michael Sandel: “The energy of the Brexiteers and Trump is born of the failure of elites”
Britain’s democratic failure - Kenneth Rogoff How American Politics Went Insane - Jonathan Rauch
It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses - James Traub
Andrew Sullivan Is to Blame for Donald Trump - Tom Scocca, Gawker
By some lucky coincidence, as Sullivan’s account has it, the unprecedented American political crisis of Trumpism is the fault of the people Andrew Sullivan has been criticizing for decades. Trumpism is the work of the left—“the newly energized left,” the “Black Lives Matter left,” “the gay left, for whom the word magnanimity seems unknown.”The Democratic Deficit
The naive reader might wonder if it’s also possible, or even more plausible, to locate the origins of Trump’s right-wing populism in right-wing politics.
Traub’s essay, like others in the genre, simply refuses to consider the possibility that the political and economic consensus of the past thirty years has utterly failed people. Instead, we are told, it is the people who have failed it. “Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country’s last universally acceptable form of bigotry,” writes fellow traveler Jonathan Rauch, before concluding, “Our most pressing political problem today is that the country abandoned the establishment, not the other way around.”
Proponents of the “too much democracy” thesis therefore cast popular anger toward elites as a sudden, malignant growth within the body politic rather than a response induced by actual events.
The Second Time Around: James Traub on Neoliberal Technocracy -Corey Robin
America Needs More Democracy, Not Less - Roslyn Fuller
It is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and nowhere was this more apparent to me than when reading Andrew Sullivan’s recent article in New York magazine. In it, Sullivan uses a smattering of knowledge about ancient Greece to declare that the United States is falling apart because it has too much democracy. In Sullivan’s view, just like the ancient Greeks, we have become a permissive and disorganized society, incapable of passing any judgment on ourselves and decaying from within. The final proof: Donald Trump.
It would be a much more convincing argument if ancient Greek democracy had decayed from within or if it had looked anything like what passes for democracy in the United States of America.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Political Insanity and Dysfunction: Are we citizens to blame? - David Brin
Rauch’s proclamation that (in effect) “both sides are crazy and at-fault!” has become the last ditch rallying cry of American conservatives who cannot bring themselves to admit the obvious. That their side — particularly the TV, radio and web svengalis who spent decades stirring illogical and counterfactual populist rage among white males — is the one that is both crazy and at-fault for the deliberate destruction of American politics.Why American Politics Really Went Insane - Jon Chait - "The more serious problem with Rauch’s argument is this: Virtually every breakdown in governing he identifies is occurring primarily or exclusively within the Republican Party. Democrats have not been shutting down the government, holding the debt ceiling hostage, overthrowing their leaders in Congress, revolting against normal deal-making, or (for the most part) living in terror of primary challenges. "
What Happens When One Party Doesn’t Care About Governing? - Nancy LeTourneau: "What we are witnessing is a Republican Party that has completely abandoned any pretense of actually governing on behalf of the people."
Brexit and the new hostility to participatory democracy - Jeff Sparrow
Democracy’s Boaty McBoatface problem - Chris Ladd : "Democracies suffer from two frustrating weaknesses. The first is justice. Majorities might thwart the greed or violence of a few, but who will stand in the way of an angry electoral mob? Majorities can as easily be assembled toward lynching as problem-solving.
The other problem is expertise. We make fairly good decisions for ourselves when we understand the subject matter and we have a personal stake in the outcome. We make consistently terrible decisions when we have little understanding of their implications and the decision involves consequences which are distant in time and dispersed in impact. "
Michael Sandel: “The energy of the Brexiteers and Trump is born of the failure of elites”
Great post. Taibbi's If you believe there's such a thing as "too much democracy," you probably don't believe in democracy at all, probably belongs in this list
posted by talos at 8:24 AM on July 15, 2016 [56 favorites]
posted by talos at 8:24 AM on July 15, 2016 [56 favorites]
Good post! This parenthetical in Jon Chait's response to Traub has interesting implications which Chait, who would give the finger to an Iraqi on his deathbed, would never investigate:
The almost-all-white Republican Party is far more ethnically monolithic than the polyglot Democratic Party, and more ideologically monolithic, too — more than two-thirds of Republicans identify themselves as conservative, while fewer than half of Democrats call themselves “liberal.” (Self-identified moderates and conservatives comprise a majority of the party’s supporters, albeit a shrinking one.)posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:30 AM on July 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
The Iraq War was completely manufactured by the political class and Sullivan and Rauch were in favor of it so you'll have to excuse me if I don't want to read these shitheads and their opinions about "the masses" and "the elite."
posted by mcmile at 8:35 AM on July 15, 2016 [78 favorites]
posted by mcmile at 8:35 AM on July 15, 2016 [78 favorites]
Traub's article is utter self-soothing nonsense, I'm afraid. He's putting both the wealthy and the intelligentsia into the same group of "elites".
In practice, the wealthy have never had much trouble finding an accommodation with demagogues and fascists. Yes, they might prefer open borders and democratic institutions, but they can make do with closed ones and dictatorships.
The "experts" and "intellectuals" on the other hand will be expected to either toe the line or shut up lest they be accused of "sedition" or "foreign influence" or "being effeminate" or whatever the dog-whistle du jour is.
posted by Zarkonnen at 8:38 AM on July 15, 2016 [24 favorites]
In practice, the wealthy have never had much trouble finding an accommodation with demagogues and fascists. Yes, they might prefer open borders and democratic institutions, but they can make do with closed ones and dictatorships.
The "experts" and "intellectuals" on the other hand will be expected to either toe the line or shut up lest they be accused of "sedition" or "foreign influence" or "being effeminate" or whatever the dog-whistle du jour is.
posted by Zarkonnen at 8:38 AM on July 15, 2016 [24 favorites]
What Trump’s Rise Means for Democracy
Andrew Sullivan’s long and engaging essay in New York magazine captures the major themes that we can expect to see shared in the weeks and months ahead from the right through the center-left. Sullivan, the former editor of the New Republic and a libertarian kind of British liberal, gives a systematic statement of a position he seems to share, more or less, with Brooks, the Times’ Ross Douthat, and others. Because it offers readers a way to orient themselves in this strange new political landscape, while also indulging certain widespread political prejudices and flattering the vanity of the educated, economically secure, and civic-minded, Sullivan’s account is likely to become one of the contenders for the “national narrative” of at least some commentators and many confused and rightly anxious voters.posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:40 AM on July 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
It is also a deeply conservative, even reactionary rendering of our situation and of democracy itself. The revival of this argument, and its appeal to a certain kind of thoughtful voter, is a bid to shut down the gains the Sanders campaign has made for the left and to discredit the very idea of popular rule in favor of various kinds of elite management of politics.
Sorry, it's Jon Chait's response to Rauch, not Traub. Regret the error. Getting some more coffee.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:41 AM on July 15, 2016
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:41 AM on July 15, 2016
Blaming democracy is like blaming the car for your drunken uncle's fatal joyride. It's a vehicle that will only go off a cliff if you where decide that's where it will go.
posted by 2N2222 at 8:48 AM on July 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by 2N2222 at 8:48 AM on July 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Christopher Lydon spoke with Andrew Sullivan on his show Radio Open Source (along with guests Francis Fukuyama, Jedediah Purdy, & Gordon Wood) after his democracy article was published. Should you want to dislike Andrew Sullivan even more: Democracy In The Dumps
posted by Auden at 8:50 AM on July 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Auden at 8:50 AM on July 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
It takes a lot of self-delusion for someone so often wrong, and by so much, to insist his decision-making abilities should be weighed more than those of the general populace. That particular quality is often a red flag for me when I'm deciding whose advice to listen to, even just in my personal life.
posted by sallybrown at 8:51 AM on July 15, 2016 [51 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 8:51 AM on July 15, 2016 [51 favorites]
Looks like a great post. I haven't had time to read everything yet, but I suspect a good response to the Traub piece would be "The elites creates the ignorant masses with forty years of propaganda and cuts to education, so excuse me if I'm not sympathetic to their losing control as a result."
posted by Caduceus at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by Caduceus at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2016 [21 favorites]
It takes a lot of self-delusion for someone so often wrong, and by so much, to insist his decision-making abilities should be weighed more than those of the general populace.
So you're saying you don't vote?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
So you're saying you don't vote?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Andrew Sullivan seems to give a bit of misleading impression about Plato and Socrates, as if they believed in a moderate level of democracy that could go too far. They were firmly against democracy in theory and in practice. (When the Thirty Tyrants overthrew the Athenian democracy and exiled prominent democrats, Socrates stayed put.)
I think it's more useful to start with modern representative democracy in the Eighteenth century. It's worth reading Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" where he argues against democracy and Thomas Paine's response "Rights of Man". A lot of modern arguments about democracy end up as reprises of that dialogue.
Burke's key argument is that a modern Eighteenth century state is too complicated for mediocre people to administer. Only the best men are capable of managing it: educated, well-informed, intelligent and experienced. Such men are only going to be found at the top of society. Moreover, people who are not themselves the best will not be capable of identifying the best.
Paine's response is that the government must reflect the *interests* of the people. (He constantly uses that word). The government must consist of people like you, in order that they will act in your interests. If an elite are in charge, they will chiefly act in the interests of that elite, not for the common good.
Those are the basic questions of democracy, which most supposedly "new" arguments come down to today.
1. Is the government so complicated that it requires an elite to manage it?
2. If an elite is in charge, will they act in the interests of the whole population, or the interests of the elite?
It's possible that while the questions are the same, the answers have changed. Maybe an Eighteenth Century state was simple enough for amateurs, but a Twenty-First Century state requires more expertise. Maybe Eighteenth Century elites were selfish, but Twenty-First Century elites with their gap years and exam results are more altruistic.
But I'm still with Tom Paine.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:56 AM on July 15, 2016 [53 favorites]
I think it's more useful to start with modern representative democracy in the Eighteenth century. It's worth reading Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" where he argues against democracy and Thomas Paine's response "Rights of Man". A lot of modern arguments about democracy end up as reprises of that dialogue.
Burke's key argument is that a modern Eighteenth century state is too complicated for mediocre people to administer. Only the best men are capable of managing it: educated, well-informed, intelligent and experienced. Such men are only going to be found at the top of society. Moreover, people who are not themselves the best will not be capable of identifying the best.
Paine's response is that the government must reflect the *interests* of the people. (He constantly uses that word). The government must consist of people like you, in order that they will act in your interests. If an elite are in charge, they will chiefly act in the interests of that elite, not for the common good.
Those are the basic questions of democracy, which most supposedly "new" arguments come down to today.
1. Is the government so complicated that it requires an elite to manage it?
2. If an elite is in charge, will they act in the interests of the whole population, or the interests of the elite?
It's possible that while the questions are the same, the answers have changed. Maybe an Eighteenth Century state was simple enough for amateurs, but a Twenty-First Century state requires more expertise. Maybe Eighteenth Century elites were selfish, but Twenty-First Century elites with their gap years and exam results are more altruistic.
But I'm still with Tom Paine.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:56 AM on July 15, 2016 [53 favorites]
Yeah, I can see how democracy could go a bit off the rails when every other institution which underpins it has been systematically attacked for the last thirty years.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:57 AM on July 15, 2016 [44 favorites]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:57 AM on July 15, 2016 [44 favorites]
I've gone back many times this year to these Ta-Nehisi Coates tweets, which I find illuminating on the subject of Sullivan (and Chait, too):
posted by sallybrown at 8:58 AM on July 15, 2016 [41 favorites]
But the burden of whiteness is this: You can live in the world of myth and be taken seriously.I wonder how being put through the fire of racism or sexism -- having to be twice as good to attain half as much -- would have shaped the obvious intellectual gifts of some of these "thinkers."
Marty Peretz thoughts on race--as owner of TNR--are the intellectual equivalent of my thoughts at 17.
There's no difference. And it's sad because being forced to face up to your ordinariness, your lack of nobility, is so beautiful.
It's very sad to see someone call Charles Murray "the most influential social scientist in America."
Someone who loves and knows how you sound should say, "Man listen..." I got that at 17.
posted by sallybrown at 8:58 AM on July 15, 2016 [41 favorites]
1) Citizens are justifiably angry at "elites" who've consistently sold out their wages, rights, etc. to bolster corporate profits over a period of decades.
2) That anger is not always (often) (almost ever) channeled rationally, and is quite vulnerable to being redirected by demagogues and hucksters for their own ends.
3) Far-right nationalist/racial supremacist groups have been particularly successful in using that anger to get themselves elected in what would have previously been described as liberal (on a global scale) democracies, and increasingly so -- culminating, thus far, in Brexit and the Trump nomination.
#1 represents a breakdown of the mechanism of democracy; voters are either being offered no meaningful choice on the issues that affect them, or are being actively misled on how their representatives plan to address those issues. Responsibility for this rests with the political classes and aspiring oligarchs.
#3 represents a breakdown of the process of democracy; voters are using the vote as a "fuck you," regardless of actual consequences (often with outright disdain for actual consequences). The con-men and racist demagogues drawing votes share responsibility for this one with the racists and assholes who are voting for them.
So how do we fix this? Removing control from the masses and giving it to the elites isn't a solution -- it was part 1 of the chain of events that brought us here, would just stoke more and more violent anger, and in all likelihood just encourages further oligarchy rather than any kind of reform. But saying "okay, the elites demonstrably screwed the pooch so a populist wave is the natural result" doesn't change the fact that the wave in question is headed over a cliff with sharp rocks at the bottom, and the rocks are shaped suspiciously like Nazi Germany. By process of elimination, everybody with power to shape our political systems, whether individually or in aggregate, should be disenfranchised and replaced with....I don't know, computers? Adorable puppies?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:03 AM on July 15, 2016 [34 favorites]
2) That anger is not always (often) (almost ever) channeled rationally, and is quite vulnerable to being redirected by demagogues and hucksters for their own ends.
3) Far-right nationalist/racial supremacist groups have been particularly successful in using that anger to get themselves elected in what would have previously been described as liberal (on a global scale) democracies, and increasingly so -- culminating, thus far, in Brexit and the Trump nomination.
#1 represents a breakdown of the mechanism of democracy; voters are either being offered no meaningful choice on the issues that affect them, or are being actively misled on how their representatives plan to address those issues. Responsibility for this rests with the political classes and aspiring oligarchs.
#3 represents a breakdown of the process of democracy; voters are using the vote as a "fuck you," regardless of actual consequences (often with outright disdain for actual consequences). The con-men and racist demagogues drawing votes share responsibility for this one with the racists and assholes who are voting for them.
So how do we fix this? Removing control from the masses and giving it to the elites isn't a solution -- it was part 1 of the chain of events that brought us here, would just stoke more and more violent anger, and in all likelihood just encourages further oligarchy rather than any kind of reform. But saying "okay, the elites demonstrably screwed the pooch so a populist wave is the natural result" doesn't change the fact that the wave in question is headed over a cliff with sharp rocks at the bottom, and the rocks are shaped suspiciously like Nazi Germany. By process of elimination, everybody with power to shape our political systems, whether individually or in aggregate, should be disenfranchised and replaced with....I don't know, computers? Adorable puppies?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:03 AM on July 15, 2016 [34 favorites]
There's a lot to be miserable about the Brexit campaign and result, but the most worrying is the "Why to do we let these idiots vote?" response of a few people. We worry about people like Trump as a threat to democracy, but it's people who would give up democracy in order to avoid some "stupid" votes who are a big threat. Democracy means every age-qualified person being able to vote. If you start excluding people for any reason, then we're moving away from democracy.
The other worrying thing about Brexit is the number of people who will feel they have't got what they thought they were voting for. Obviously that includes all the Remain voters, but a lot of Leave voters think they voted for reduced immigration, free trade and extra money for the NHS. (Some even seem to think they voted to send all existing immigrants home and the end of the metric system...). That they were misled doesn't alter the sense of disappointment they will likely feel - or already do feel since the leave campaigners started walking back those claims within hours of winning.
The whole Brexit vote seems almost to have been designed to make large swathes of people feel that either voting is a waste of time or that democracy doesn't work. Add in an economic downturn, resentment of outgroups and you've got fertile ground for "a strong leader who will sort things out."
posted by YoungStencil at 9:05 AM on July 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
The other worrying thing about Brexit is the number of people who will feel they have't got what they thought they were voting for. Obviously that includes all the Remain voters, but a lot of Leave voters think they voted for reduced immigration, free trade and extra money for the NHS. (Some even seem to think they voted to send all existing immigrants home and the end of the metric system...). That they were misled doesn't alter the sense of disappointment they will likely feel - or already do feel since the leave campaigners started walking back those claims within hours of winning.
The whole Brexit vote seems almost to have been designed to make large swathes of people feel that either voting is a waste of time or that democracy doesn't work. Add in an economic downturn, resentment of outgroups and you've got fertile ground for "a strong leader who will sort things out."
posted by YoungStencil at 9:05 AM on July 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
I've posted this before. It bears repeating.
---------------------------------------------------------
Government isn’t for benefits — equal or otherwise.
Government is for opportunity. Equal opportunity, ideally.
Government is not worth having if used to fatten and comfort this generation.
Government is to provide the best opportunity for the _next_ generation, whoever they may be — all of the children, as there’s no way to predict which of them will give the best benefits back to society.
The children of this generation's rich will be neither smarter nor more decent than the children of this generation's poor and uneducated. Regression to the mean, as Jefferson and Tom Paine knew well, rules.
We create government so society gets all the benefits that the next generation can give, not to fatten today’s fat further. Those who fatten on society are eventually consumed in the next revolution.
__________________
Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils, and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests, & nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.
To George Wythe, from Paris, August 13, 1786
Excerpted here from The Quotable Jefferson, collected and edited by John Kaminski, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 84
____________
Tom Paine:
“… Whatever wisdom constituently is, it is like a seedless plant; it may be reared when it appears, but it cannot be voluntarily produced. There is always a sufficiency somewhere in the general mass of society for all purposes; but with respect to the parts of society, it is continually changing its place. It rises in one to-day, in another to-morrow, and has most probably visited in rotation every family of the earth, and again withdrawn.
“As this is in the order of nature, the order of government must necessarily follow it, or government will, as we see it does, degenerate into ignorance.
” … by giving to genius a fair and universal chance; … by collecting wisdom from where it can be found.
“… As it is to the advantage of society that the whole of its faculties should be employed, the construction of government ought to be such as to bring forward, by a quiet and regular operation, all that extent of capacity which never fails to appear in revolutions.”
—————————————–
Tom Paine, The Rights of Man
http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/c2-03.htm
posted by hank at 9:07 AM on July 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
---------------------------------------------------------
Government isn’t for benefits — equal or otherwise.
Government is for opportunity. Equal opportunity, ideally.
Government is not worth having if used to fatten and comfort this generation.
Government is to provide the best opportunity for the _next_ generation, whoever they may be — all of the children, as there’s no way to predict which of them will give the best benefits back to society.
The children of this generation's rich will be neither smarter nor more decent than the children of this generation's poor and uneducated. Regression to the mean, as Jefferson and Tom Paine knew well, rules.
We create government so society gets all the benefits that the next generation can give, not to fatten today’s fat further. Those who fatten on society are eventually consumed in the next revolution.
__________________
Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils, and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests, & nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.
To George Wythe, from Paris, August 13, 1786
Excerpted here from The Quotable Jefferson, collected and edited by John Kaminski, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 84
____________
Tom Paine:
“… Whatever wisdom constituently is, it is like a seedless plant; it may be reared when it appears, but it cannot be voluntarily produced. There is always a sufficiency somewhere in the general mass of society for all purposes; but with respect to the parts of society, it is continually changing its place. It rises in one to-day, in another to-morrow, and has most probably visited in rotation every family of the earth, and again withdrawn.
“As this is in the order of nature, the order of government must necessarily follow it, or government will, as we see it does, degenerate into ignorance.
” … by giving to genius a fair and universal chance; … by collecting wisdom from where it can be found.
“… As it is to the advantage of society that the whole of its faculties should be employed, the construction of government ought to be such as to bring forward, by a quiet and regular operation, all that extent of capacity which never fails to appear in revolutions.”
—————————————–
Tom Paine, The Rights of Man
http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/c2-03.htm
posted by hank at 9:07 AM on July 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
If we spent half our tax base on belly rubs for puppies rather than the military-industrial complex it would probably be an improvement. Of course, just setting the money on fire would be an improvement in my book.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:08 AM on July 15, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:08 AM on July 15, 2016 [18 favorites]
My only desire is to live long enough to see the human race conquered and subjugated by a superior alien species.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:11 AM on July 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:11 AM on July 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
Just more Straussian mumbo-jumbo from the juju men.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:20 AM on July 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:20 AM on July 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
*spend decades courting the angry violent racist vote then have it demand you give it what they want* "I guess we're just TOO democratic"
posted by The Whelk at 9:22 AM on July 15, 2016 [31 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 9:22 AM on July 15, 2016 [31 favorites]
I guess I'd be okay with government comforting this generation, personally. I know a lot of people who could do with some comfort in the shape of food, housing, medical care, retirement assistance, heat, etc.
In fact, I'd say that the purpose of government is NOT equality of opportunity but making life better for us than can be achieve if we're all cutting each other's throats for a little advantage.
posted by Frowner at 9:22 AM on July 15, 2016 [49 favorites]
In fact, I'd say that the purpose of government is NOT equality of opportunity but making life better for us than can be achieve if we're all cutting each other's throats for a little advantage.
posted by Frowner at 9:22 AM on July 15, 2016 [49 favorites]
My only desire is to live long enough to see the human race conquered and subjugated by a superior alien species.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:11 PM on July 15 [+] [!]
I would also accept intelligent robots, as long as they agreed to keep a few of us around as pets.
posted by Chrischris at 9:24 AM on July 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:11 PM on July 15 [+] [!]
I would also accept intelligent robots, as long as they agreed to keep a few of us around as pets.
posted by Chrischris at 9:24 AM on July 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you don't see equality of outcome, how can you claim to have achieved equality of opportunity?
posted by rustcrumb at 9:27 AM on July 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by rustcrumb at 9:27 AM on July 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
I would also accept intelligent robots, as long as they agreed to keep a few of us around as pets.
I keep saying "BUILD THE CULTURE" but nobody listens.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:28 AM on July 15, 2016 [23 favorites]
I keep saying "BUILD THE CULTURE" but nobody listens.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:28 AM on July 15, 2016 [23 favorites]
If you don't see equality of outcome, how can you claim to have achieved equality of opportunity?
By claiming some people are just naturally undeserving, lazy, or too immoral to succeed, of course!
posted by saulgoodman at 9:45 AM on July 15, 2016 [17 favorites]
By claiming some people are just naturally undeserving, lazy, or too immoral to succeed, of course!
posted by saulgoodman at 9:45 AM on July 15, 2016 [17 favorites]
It's really interesting to me how, at various times, you get to see how people REALLY feel about the constitution and, in a larger sense, our democracy. It's pretty clear that some people view it is a set of guiding principles that maybe aren't perfect but are still pretty good. And it's also clear that some people view it as an annoying obstacle.
If your view of democracy is "It's fine as long as I agree with the way people vote" then you probably fall into the obstacle camp.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 9:58 AM on July 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
If your view of democracy is "It's fine as long as I agree with the way people vote" then you probably fall into the obstacle camp.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 9:58 AM on July 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Government is for whatever the government says it's for. In practice, that means things like:
Sometimes this aligns with the broad "will of the people" or "popular mandate", and often it does not. But because it provides a lot of jobs for people, and power for those who run large departments, it gets justified one way or another.
posted by theorique at 10:04 AM on July 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
- maintaining internal order and safety (police, fire, etc)
- defending against external threats (national defense)
- regulating disputes (law, courts)
- redistribution of wealth to avoid revolt of the poor (welfare, health care, etc)
Sometimes this aligns with the broad "will of the people" or "popular mandate", and often it does not. But because it provides a lot of jobs for people, and power for those who run large departments, it gets justified one way or another.
posted by theorique at 10:04 AM on July 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
rustcrumb: "If you don't see equality of outcome, how can you claim to have achieved equality of opportunity?"
Maybe don't make achieving equality of outcome/opportunity your goal, instead make trying to achieve equality of outcome/opportunity your goal. You'll never reach the ideal, but you'be traveling the right path.
posted by chavenet at 10:13 AM on July 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe don't make achieving equality of outcome/opportunity your goal, instead make trying to achieve equality of outcome/opportunity your goal. You'll never reach the ideal, but you'be traveling the right path.
posted by chavenet at 10:13 AM on July 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you don't see equality of outcome, how can you claim to have achieved equality of opportunity?
Ask Harrison Bergeron.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:23 AM on July 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ask Harrison Bergeron.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:23 AM on July 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
He is usually of the elite but has a nature in tune with the time — given over to random pleasures and whims, feasting on plenty of food and sex, and reveling in the nonjudgment that is democracy’s civil religion. He makes his move by “taking over a particularly obedient mob” and attacking his wealthy peers as corrupt.
I didn't think Sully had it in him to finally criticize his own leadership of The New Republic. Mega-kudoes!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:54 AM on July 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
I didn't think Sully had it in him to finally criticize his own leadership of The New Republic. Mega-kudoes!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:54 AM on July 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
And Brutus is an honorable man...
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:20 AM on July 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:20 AM on July 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
The rise of Trump isn't a failure of Democracy, it is a symptom of a broken nomination and general election.
posted by humanfont at 11:25 AM on July 15, 2016
posted by humanfont at 11:25 AM on July 15, 2016
If you are going to discuss Trump, Democracy, et al, then you need to consider the changing demographics and the loss of jobs that gave many a middle class status but jobs that are now gone. Those two changes have led to the triumph of trumpism and the resurgence of anti immigrant and anti-non-white divisions in our nation.
posted by Postroad at 11:32 AM on July 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Postroad at 11:32 AM on July 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also widespread disenfranchisement of minorities, either directly or through a campaign of incarceration and disenfranchisement of those incarcerated. These assholes have been undermining and eroding democracy for decades, and now democracy itself is a problem? Bullshit.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:21 PM on July 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 12:21 PM on July 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
I mean we even see it here in threads about rural or white poverty in Appalachia and The South. "These goddamn rubes won't accept I know what's best for them and they just keep voting the way they want! Psh! Can you believe that?!"
That sort of contempt for the masses is running through a lot of the backlash to modern developments. I'm reminded of some of the post-Brexit evaluation where the Stay side had to concede "Well, our pleas to emotional fear didn't work because they already thought their lives were shit."
Maybe that's, I dunno, something to be addressed rather than calling them racist/xenophobic/idiot rubes?
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 12:27 PM on July 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
That sort of contempt for the masses is running through a lot of the backlash to modern developments. I'm reminded of some of the post-Brexit evaluation where the Stay side had to concede "Well, our pleas to emotional fear didn't work because they already thought their lives were shit."
Maybe that's, I dunno, something to be addressed rather than calling them racist/xenophobic/idiot rubes?
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 12:27 PM on July 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
For the US at least, the fact that they have legitimate economic grievances in no way keeps them from being racist/xenophobic/idiot rubes. Indeed it makes it impossible to solve their legitimate economic grievances because the only solutions they can see are the racist/xenophobic/idiot ones.
I'm sorry if it makes me insufficiently democratic, but I'm not prepared to let people vote to get rid of democracy forever. Which is what I see them doing this cycle.
posted by Naberius at 12:31 PM on July 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
I'm sorry if it makes me insufficiently democratic, but I'm not prepared to let people vote to get rid of democracy forever. Which is what I see them doing this cycle.
posted by Naberius at 12:31 PM on July 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
The rise of Trump is evident when you see the metaphorical rodentia leaving a sinking ship. Conservatives made their bed. The problem is that they are making the rest of us sleep in it, too. That's a good reason to strongly reconsider how much influence and control that right-wingers have over the marketplace of ideas — people like Sullivan are the ones who profited greatly from leading a gullible public to this point — but it's not a reason to reconsider democracy or democratic ideals.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:36 PM on July 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:36 PM on July 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you'd like a serious analysis on what led to Trumpism -- and one that's based on thorough research and reporting, not navel-gazing -- let me suggest this ProPublica piece out today, looking at my onetime home of Dayton, Ohio as a microcosm of what's at play. It's some terrific reporting, looking at decades of political and economic change, and it's illuminating. (Disclosure: Friends involved in the reporting.)
posted by martin q blank at 12:52 PM on July 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by martin q blank at 12:52 PM on July 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
If you don't see equality of outcome, how can you claim to have achieved equality of opportunity?
A system that makes Donald Trump destitute and homeless... that's a good start.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:09 PM on July 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
A system that makes Donald Trump destitute and homeless... that's a good start.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:09 PM on July 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wait, was part of this an actual call for a return to the monarchy as the peasants can't govern themselves? Yeah... I'll pass on that logic.
If you want to govern a populace that makes good decisions, encourage dissent, encourage political involvement, encourage skin in the game. Also, make paid public service - be it military or trash collection and infrastructure creation a mandatory two year requirement.
posted by Nanukthedog at 1:20 PM on July 15, 2016
If you want to govern a populace that makes good decisions, encourage dissent, encourage political involvement, encourage skin in the game. Also, make paid public service - be it military or trash collection and infrastructure creation a mandatory two year requirement.
posted by Nanukthedog at 1:20 PM on July 15, 2016
Democracy means every age-qualified person being able to vote. If you start excluding people for any reason, then we're moving away from democracy.
The US has never been a democracy by that metric. They started by only counting landowners. Women only just got the vote, in relative terms. A vast number of people are restricted by felony convictions today.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:52 PM on July 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
The US has never been a democracy by that metric. They started by only counting landowners. Women only just got the vote, in relative terms. A vast number of people are restricted by felony convictions today.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:52 PM on July 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
If a working class American lost a decent manufacturing job to outsourcing and had to replace it with a lower wage service job, does anyone honestly believe they are going to bothered even a tiny bit that the well fed establishment is sneering at them for supporting Trump? For them, voting for Trump is a once in a lifetime opportunity to give a well deserved FU to the ruling class, and the ruling class has had it coming for a very long time.
This is short sighted thinking (especially considering Supreme Court nominations), but let's not pretend it's only the working class who fall victim to being short sighted, when the ruling class practically specialize in it.
posted by Beholder at 2:08 PM on July 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
This is short sighted thinking (especially considering Supreme Court nominations), but let's not pretend it's only the working class who fall victim to being short sighted, when the ruling class practically specialize in it.
posted by Beholder at 2:08 PM on July 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
Andrew Sullivan is always one of those people who the most interesting question about them is: is this guy a moron or an asshole? His latest essay points to moron. In order to evaluate the claim that democracies end when the are too democratic, he consults... ancient texts. FFS there's a whole empirical literature on this topic that you know, examines actual cases from today.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:41 PM on July 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:41 PM on July 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
I vaguely recall, a few decades ago, some academic published a piece saying that, over the past several centuries, one sure predictor of revolution was the steepness of the inequality of wealth, and noting that as the piece was published, only two countries had unevenly distributed wealth indicating a revolution was predictable. One of them was the Soviet Union. The other was, and is, the USA.
Hm. Then there's John Walker's famous bumper sticker ...
posted by hank at 4:53 PM on July 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hm. Then there's John Walker's famous bumper sticker ...
posted by hank at 4:53 PM on July 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hasn't wealth inequality in Russia only increased since the fall of Communism?
posted by Justinian at 8:49 PM on July 15, 2016
posted by Justinian at 8:49 PM on July 15, 2016
Ok, but none of this addresses the howling void in my soul, and perhaps we should consider that demoncracy is working to at least the current limits of our imagination.
Say the left got control. The left left. Basic income for all. Not so many jobs. No one starves, health and equality for everyone. This doesn't even touch the howling void in my soul.
Say the right got control. Freedom for every father. Traditional family values. Still not so many jobs. It's much easier to die, which is convenient because this also doesn't even touch the howling void in my soul.
People need not just to meet their basic needs, they need purpose, value. We tried to fill that with work, but there's just bullshit work now. We have lifestyles and bucket lists hollowing us out from the inside. Suburban hell and desperation. I don't know what we should be valuing now. To not be atoms? To try? To make? To be part of something... great again?
posted by pfh at 11:47 PM on July 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Say the left got control. The left left. Basic income for all. Not so many jobs. No one starves, health and equality for everyone. This doesn't even touch the howling void in my soul.
Say the right got control. Freedom for every father. Traditional family values. Still not so many jobs. It's much easier to die, which is convenient because this also doesn't even touch the howling void in my soul.
People need not just to meet their basic needs, they need purpose, value. We tried to fill that with work, but there's just bullshit work now. We have lifestyles and bucket lists hollowing us out from the inside. Suburban hell and desperation. I don't know what we should be valuing now. To not be atoms? To try? To make? To be part of something... great again?
posted by pfh at 11:47 PM on July 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
national greatness!*[1,2,3,4,5] (witness japan ;)
cf. When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism - "And how moral psychology can help explain and reduce tensions between the two." ('Disagree. Trump is not an American nationalist, he's a white-nationalist. Those are almost opposite things'.) [1,2,3]
viz. How the GOP Grows by Shrinking the Middle Class - "The emerging Republican Party is a self-sustaining machine of perpetual rage, suppressing the prospects of working-class men while being powered by their growing frustration." ('What you get when you match Paul Ryan's head to Donald Trump's soul'.)
Not so many jobs.
Dems Need Better Answers for the Working Class - "To counter the rising tide of right-wing populism, Democrats need to stop pushing higher education as the one true path to economic security." ('stop insinuating... non–college educated workers are destined to live miserable lives because thr skills are obsolete'*)
Why rich parents are terrified their kids will fall into the 'middle class' - "As the income gap has widened at the top, the consequences of falling out of the upper middle class have worsened." ('Wonder why upper-middle-class parents are so insane and micro-managing. Yep, it's inequality'.*)
also btw...
-Is the left's big new idea a 'right to be lazy'?
-Human Work in the Robotic Future: Policy for the Age of Automation
-Is This Time Different? The Opportunities and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence
re: equality of opportunity
-The case against equality of opportunity
-What's so Great about Equality of Opportunity?
-Mobility is no answer to dispersion
-Don't Give Up on Equality of Opportunity
In fact, I'd say that the purpose of government is NOT equality of opportunity but making life better for us than can be achieve if we're all cutting each other's throats for a little advantage.
Government Holds the Promise of Faster Growth - "Investing in public goods[*] boosts productivity, the one thing that makes all of us richer." ('stop thinking about how govt bogs things down and start thinking about how it could solve the problem'*)
Beyond meritocracy - "What matters is not the pursuit of an unattainable and repellent meritocracy but rather a more egalitarian society in which everyone can live well. Such a society requires not just the redistribution of income, but of power and respect too."
Rationality, anxiety, and meaninglessness - "Our economic policy, driven by this rationalism, has morphed into a national version of the Hunger Games, pitting every worker against each other."
posted by kliuless at 1:49 AM on July 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
cf. When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism - "And how moral psychology can help explain and reduce tensions between the two." ('Disagree. Trump is not an American nationalist, he's a white-nationalist. Those are almost opposite things'.) [1,2,3]
viz. How the GOP Grows by Shrinking the Middle Class - "The emerging Republican Party is a self-sustaining machine of perpetual rage, suppressing the prospects of working-class men while being powered by their growing frustration." ('What you get when you match Paul Ryan's head to Donald Trump's soul'.)
Not so many jobs.
Dems Need Better Answers for the Working Class - "To counter the rising tide of right-wing populism, Democrats need to stop pushing higher education as the one true path to economic security." ('stop insinuating... non–college educated workers are destined to live miserable lives because thr skills are obsolete'*)
Why rich parents are terrified their kids will fall into the 'middle class' - "As the income gap has widened at the top, the consequences of falling out of the upper middle class have worsened." ('Wonder why upper-middle-class parents are so insane and micro-managing. Yep, it's inequality'.*)
also btw...
-Is the left's big new idea a 'right to be lazy'?
-Human Work in the Robotic Future: Policy for the Age of Automation
-Is This Time Different? The Opportunities and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence
re: equality of opportunity
-The case against equality of opportunity
-What's so Great about Equality of Opportunity?
-Mobility is no answer to dispersion
-Don't Give Up on Equality of Opportunity
In fact, I'd say that the purpose of government is NOT equality of opportunity but making life better for us than can be achieve if we're all cutting each other's throats for a little advantage.
Government Holds the Promise of Faster Growth - "Investing in public goods[*] boosts productivity, the one thing that makes all of us richer." ('stop thinking about how govt bogs things down and start thinking about how it could solve the problem'*)
Beyond meritocracy - "What matters is not the pursuit of an unattainable and repellent meritocracy but rather a more egalitarian society in which everyone can live well. Such a society requires not just the redistribution of income, but of power and respect too."
Rationality, anxiety, and meaninglessness - "Our economic policy, driven by this rationalism, has morphed into a national version of the Hunger Games, pitting every worker against each other."
posted by kliuless at 1:49 AM on July 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm reminded of some of the post-Brexit evaluation where the Stay side had to concede "Well, our pleas to emotional fear didn't work because they already thought their lives were shit."
Maybe that's, I dunno, something to be addressed rather than calling them racist/xenophobic/idiot rubes?
Hardly any post-Brexit commentary from the Remain side has in fact gone this way. Most of it now is aimed at keeping 'Project Fear' on the road with predictions of how much more shit everyone's life is going to be without the EU. And the challenger to Corbyn for Labour leader, Owen Smith, has said that he'll run the referendum again if elected.
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:59 AM on July 16, 2016
Maybe that's, I dunno, something to be addressed rather than calling them racist/xenophobic/idiot rubes?
Hardly any post-Brexit commentary from the Remain side has in fact gone this way. Most of it now is aimed at keeping 'Project Fear' on the road with predictions of how much more shit everyone's life is going to be without the EU. And the challenger to Corbyn for Labour leader, Owen Smith, has said that he'll run the referendum again if elected.
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:59 AM on July 16, 2016
There's a lot to be miserable about the Brexit campaign and result, but the most worrying is the "Why to do we let these idiots vote?" response of a few people. We worry about people like Trump as a threat to democracy, but it's people who would give up democracy in order to avoid some "stupid" votes who are a big threat. Democracy means every age-qualified person being able to vote. If you start excluding people for any reason, then we're moving away from democracy.
But there's already a filter in place with the constraint "age-qualified": people under the age of majority aren't able to vote. So in some sense we have already "moved away" from perfect democracy of all citizens. OK, so perhaps we admit that younger people are in a process of becoming full citizens. It seems like a reasonable constraint.
But there also exist obvious special cases of adults who aren't qualified to vote: the mentally disabled, the medically incapable (e.g. comatose), and so forth. And then this could creep further but become more politicized: as mentioned, in the USA there are constraints on felons' voting. Some people think there should be a basic civic knowledge test before voting, which raises a question: how "stupid" or "foolish" can a person be, before you say, "no, this person really must not be permitted to vote".
Most of these calls for filters, at least in the USA, are partisan: Republicans want to filter Democrats out of the electorate, and Democrats want to filter Republicans out of the electorate. Both parties may exploit the rhetoric of "democracy", but they also want to win.
posted by theorique at 3:08 AM on July 16, 2016
But there's already a filter in place with the constraint "age-qualified": people under the age of majority aren't able to vote. So in some sense we have already "moved away" from perfect democracy of all citizens. OK, so perhaps we admit that younger people are in a process of becoming full citizens. It seems like a reasonable constraint.
But there also exist obvious special cases of adults who aren't qualified to vote: the mentally disabled, the medically incapable (e.g. comatose), and so forth. And then this could creep further but become more politicized: as mentioned, in the USA there are constraints on felons' voting. Some people think there should be a basic civic knowledge test before voting, which raises a question: how "stupid" or "foolish" can a person be, before you say, "no, this person really must not be permitted to vote".
Most of these calls for filters, at least in the USA, are partisan: Republicans want to filter Democrats out of the electorate, and Democrats want to filter Republicans out of the electorate. Both parties may exploit the rhetoric of "democracy", but they also want to win.
posted by theorique at 3:08 AM on July 16, 2016
I suspect that direct democracy, where possible every issue is voted on, would also have issues in practice. But the current system, where a hugely complex question is boiled down to a choice for the lesser of two evils, also seems not to be working too well these days either.
However, with computers doing the counting these days, it seems another question could be added to follow up without terribly complicating matters: why?
Make it an optional multiple choice question, or maybe short written answer. For example, the brexit vote. There are many possible reasons to vote "leave" but only the individual voters knows why they voted. Was it the bus ad? Fear of the brown-skinned Muslim family down the street? A hope that a Leave vote will bring blue-collar manufacturing jobs back? Let the voters say why, instead of speculating!
Voting Hillary? Only because you can't vote Sanders? Just say so on the (computerized) ballot!
posted by fragmede at 5:23 AM on July 16, 2016
However, with computers doing the counting these days, it seems another question could be added to follow up without terribly complicating matters: why?
Make it an optional multiple choice question, or maybe short written answer. For example, the brexit vote. There are many possible reasons to vote "leave" but only the individual voters knows why they voted. Was it the bus ad? Fear of the brown-skinned Muslim family down the street? A hope that a Leave vote will bring blue-collar manufacturing jobs back? Let the voters say why, instead of speculating!
Voting Hillary? Only because you can't vote Sanders? Just say so on the (computerized) ballot!
posted by fragmede at 5:23 AM on July 16, 2016
But there also exist obvious special cases of adults who aren't qualified to vote: the mentally disabled, the medically incapable (e.g. comatose), and so forth.
Voting is a fundamental right. Restricting some people as "too disabled to vote" amounts to stripping people of their fundamental rights (plural, because once you take away the franchise, in practical terms you've just made it a thousand times easier to strip away everything else) because they are a member of a protected class. Moreover, at least in the United States, such a restriction violates the ADA.
posted by gauche at 5:41 AM on July 16, 2016
Voting is a fundamental right. Restricting some people as "too disabled to vote" amounts to stripping people of their fundamental rights (plural, because once you take away the franchise, in practical terms you've just made it a thousand times easier to strip away everything else) because they are a member of a protected class. Moreover, at least in the United States, such a restriction violates the ADA.
posted by gauche at 5:41 AM on July 16, 2016
Most of these calls for filters, at least in the USA, are partisan: Republicans want to filter Democrats out of the electorate, and Democrats want to filter Republicans out of the electorate. Both parties may exploit the rhetoric of "democracy", but they also want to win.
Don't appeal to equivalency here. It's very clear that Republicans want to disenfranchise Democrats. They've done as much, in states all around the country.
Democrats have sought (far less effectively, I might add) to broaden voting rights -- to add the chance to register at the polls, for example.
These things are not equal at all, in terms of their impact on democracy.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 5:50 AM on July 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
Don't appeal to equivalency here. It's very clear that Republicans want to disenfranchise Democrats. They've done as much, in states all around the country.
Democrats have sought (far less effectively, I might add) to broaden voting rights -- to add the chance to register at the polls, for example.
These things are not equal at all, in terms of their impact on democracy.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 5:50 AM on July 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
Andrew Sullivan is always one of those people who the most interesting question about them is: is this guy a moron or an asshole? His latest essay points to moron.
Those are not mutually exclusive traits, of course.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:06 AM on July 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Those are not mutually exclusive traits, of course.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:06 AM on July 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
These things are not equal at all, in terms of their impact on democracy.
The Democratic party gets much more of its support from minority communities, newly naturalized citizens, young people, etc, so it's in the interests of the Democratic party to "get out the vote" among these groups.
The Republican party gets more of its support from older, mostly white, people - groups who are already more broadly politically involved, and registered to vote in larger percentages. (They don't like to appeal to this constituency too explicitly, of course, because they will face charges of racism.)
The two parties act pretty much as we'd expect them to, in order to increase their share of the pie at the expense of their counterpart.
posted by theorique at 6:09 AM on July 16, 2016
The Democratic party gets much more of its support from minority communities, newly naturalized citizens, young people, etc, so it's in the interests of the Democratic party to "get out the vote" among these groups.
The Republican party gets more of its support from older, mostly white, people - groups who are already more broadly politically involved, and registered to vote in larger percentages. (They don't like to appeal to this constituency too explicitly, of course, because they will face charges of racism.)
The two parties act pretty much as we'd expect them to, in order to increase their share of the pie at the expense of their counterpart.
posted by theorique at 6:09 AM on July 16, 2016
Yes, both are acting in their own interest. That doesn't magically change the fact that what's in the Republican self-interest is stopping eligible voters from casting ballots based on race or income, while the Democratic self-interest is to get as many qualified people to vote as possible. One of those is a small-d democratic goal and the other undermines the Constitution.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 6:34 AM on July 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 6:34 AM on July 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
Republicans want to filter Democrats out of the electorate, and Democrats want to filter Republicans out of the electorate
I'm guessing by "want" you mean "desire" since I don't really see any action on the part of the US left to disenfranchise voters of any kind, conservative or otherwise. In which case, the existence of "want" on the left side of the electorate is pure speculation.
And if you do mean "desire" when you say "want", I'd follow up by saying wishing is usually not illegal or immoral, whereas taking active steps to realize those desires might be. I'm thinking of conservative-backed voter ID laws, in particular.
posted by mistersquid at 6:39 AM on July 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm guessing by "want" you mean "desire" since I don't really see any action on the part of the US left to disenfranchise voters of any kind, conservative or otherwise. In which case, the existence of "want" on the left side of the electorate is pure speculation.
And if you do mean "desire" when you say "want", I'd follow up by saying wishing is usually not illegal or immoral, whereas taking active steps to realize those desires might be. I'm thinking of conservative-backed voter ID laws, in particular.
posted by mistersquid at 6:39 AM on July 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Huh, I recall being rather sharply dismissive of the Jonathan Rauch article when it was cited in one of the politics threads. Glad to know I'm not the only person who found him an insufferable twit.
posted by sotonohito at 6:39 AM on July 16, 2016
posted by sotonohito at 6:39 AM on July 16, 2016
theorique, not to pile on, but increasing democratic participation is not the same as stifling it. One is a multiplier, the other a filter.
posted by mistersquid at 6:41 AM on July 16, 2016
posted by mistersquid at 6:41 AM on July 16, 2016
There's a lot to be miserable about the Brexit campaign and result, but the most worrying is the "Why to do we let these idiots vote?" response of a few people. We worry about people like Trump as a threat to democracy, but it's people who would give up democracy in order to avoid some "stupid" votes who are a big threat.
My question would be more like: "Why do we give the tabloid media, in the UK and elsewhere, free rein to misinform voters about these very serious issues." You can see this happening in the US right now, as polls find that the gap between Clinton and Trump is getting smaller and smaller. They're at the gate, and the jockeys are in position...
posted by sneebler at 8:23 AM on July 16, 2016
My question would be more like: "Why do we give the tabloid media, in the UK and elsewhere, free rein to misinform voters about these very serious issues." You can see this happening in the US right now, as polls find that the gap between Clinton and Trump is getting smaller and smaller. They're at the gate, and the jockeys are in position...
posted by sneebler at 8:23 AM on July 16, 2016
. Moreover, at least in the United States, such a restriction violates the ADA.
Last I looked, at least half a dozen states don't allow you to vote if you are under guardianship for an intellectual disability - so it's possible they're violating the ADA and nobody has brought the case yet, but it definitely happens.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 12:44 PM on July 16, 2016
Last I looked, at least half a dozen states don't allow you to vote if you are under guardianship for an intellectual disability - so it's possible they're violating the ADA and nobody has brought the case yet, but it definitely happens.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 12:44 PM on July 16, 2016
How David Cameron’s plan to screw Labour cost him the EU referendum.
Last year, as he prepared to rush the electoral roll change through, Cameron ignored warnings from the Electoral Commission, who said - breaking character - that it would be “hugely damaging to our democracy”. On June 24th, as democracy skidded out of his control like a broken trolley, he must have wondered what he had done.
posted by rory at 9:08 AM on July 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Last year, as he prepared to rush the electoral roll change through, Cameron ignored warnings from the Electoral Commission, who said - breaking character - that it would be “hugely damaging to our democracy”. On June 24th, as democracy skidded out of his control like a broken trolley, he must have wondered what he had done.
posted by rory at 9:08 AM on July 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:52 PM on July 22, 2016
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:52 PM on July 22, 2016
Thomas Frank, The world is taking its revenge against elites. When will America's wake up?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:46 AM on July 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:46 AM on July 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mary Beard: The slipperiness of democracy
Conor Farrington: Unelected upper chambers can play a legitimate democratic role in wider political systems
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:54 AM on July 26, 2016
Conor Farrington: Unelected upper chambers can play a legitimate democratic role in wider political systems
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:54 AM on July 26, 2016
Can we shame people into better voting?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:39 PM on July 28, 2016
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:39 PM on July 28, 2016
« Older We Are the Superhumans | The Count Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
*a genuinely disturbing number of someones, lately, and from very nearly every corner.
**There's probably a previously.
posted by The Gaffer at 8:19 AM on July 15, 2016 [10 favorites]