people power
July 5, 2024 8:28 AM Subscribe
democracy has always defied clear definition. Taken literally, the term is an amalgam of two Greek words – “demos”, meaning people, and “kratos”, meaning power, but nobody has ever really been able to agree on what the ensuing “people power” should mean.[cambridge]
a History of People Power: Six times (so far) the American people have overruled SCOTUS to secure the rights of Americans
[“a simple and powerful goal: passage of the For Our Freedom constitutional amendment to restore reasonable limits on money in our campaigns and elections”: American Promise]
Installed the same month as the city’s Octavius Catto statue (the first monument in Philadelphia dedicated to a historic person of color on public land), and amid public debates about the Frank Rizzo statue, Willis’s temporary monument prompted conversations about equal justice and civic belonging. [monumentlab:] Hank Willis Thomas, All Power to All People
46:15 when i did join the Black Panther Party, we thought that you just had to have a gun and that was it. And i was told that ‘you were wrong’ what you had to do was pick up some books…
All Power to the People: the Black Panther Party & Beyond [content note: violence; 1h56m]
a History of People Power: Six times (so far) the American people have overruled SCOTUS to secure the rights of Americans
[“a simple and powerful goal: passage of the For Our Freedom constitutional amendment to restore reasonable limits on money in our campaigns and elections”: American Promise]
Installed the same month as the city’s Octavius Catto statue (the first monument in Philadelphia dedicated to a historic person of color on public land), and amid public debates about the Frank Rizzo statue, Willis’s temporary monument prompted conversations about equal justice and civic belonging. [monumentlab:] Hank Willis Thomas, All Power to All People
46:15 when i did join the Black Panther Party, we thought that you just had to have a gun and that was it. And i was told that ‘you were wrong’ what you had to do was pick up some books…
All Power to the People: the Black Panther Party & Beyond [content note: violence; 1h56m]
Back in the late 60’s, in high school, given all the stuff going on then, I decided that “democracy” was just a platitude papered over all the racism, sexism, capitalism, etc. “But we live in a democracy…” A lot of it was just knee jerk anti communism. Nothing since then has changed my mind. “But we get to vote…” Has anyone bothered to look at the quality offered in our current elections? “But now we have to vote to save democracy…” What exactly are we trying to save versus what are we trying to prevent? Democracy is the excuse given both for putting religion in public schools and keeping religion out of public schools. So no one has a clear definition of the word? Maybe we need to dump the platitudes and start dealing with reality.
posted by njohnson23 at 9:32 AM on July 5 [2 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 9:32 AM on July 5 [2 favorites]
All we need is a constitutional amendment? Good to know, thanks.
posted by hypnogogue at 9:34 AM on July 5 [2 favorites]
posted by hypnogogue at 9:34 AM on July 5 [2 favorites]
Bill McKibben says people power (as the movement for Indian independence, in US Civil Rights movement, the mobilization which felled the Marcoses, etc) is one of the 20th century's great discoveries.
posted by doctornemo at 10:58 AM on July 5 [3 favorites]
posted by doctornemo at 10:58 AM on July 5 [3 favorites]
constitutional amendment?
Equal Rights Amendment?
challenge accepted [vox]
posted by HearHere at 11:15 AM on July 5 [1 favorite]
Equal Rights Amendment?
challenge accepted [vox]
posted by HearHere at 11:15 AM on July 5 [1 favorite]
I half feel that the original sortition method (think "jury duty") would still be better than what we have now.
In particular I think we need a "bottom-up" system where citizens are selected for a short (2 year?) period.
There would be an "inner" and "outer" body (lower/upper).
The inner body is this legislative organization made of randomly selected citizens and handles all the intra-jurisdictional affairs.
The outer body handles inter-unit representation. It would be more like a "diplomat" representing the innerbody. This diplomat is elected by the lower body to represent it's wishes to the next level in the hierarchy.
(municipal-> county for example; or county->state).
This would go on up the chain to the national government. This would be like a "senate". Only the lower bodies would inform/field, step by step up to the "state" level.
I haven't fully thought this through, but I think each higher level also deserves some sortition representation as well. So you would still have 2 houses : a mass-sortitioned "House of Commons/Sortition" representing the pure random selection. And an "Upper House/Representative" that is filled by elected members of the lower sorted house. This guarantees sortition at each level in one house, while the lower houses get a say into representation from their districts to the higher level (e.g. ambassador style).
Perhaps the Executive/Speaker is elected in a mass voting by the general populace, selected from this pool of sortitioned members (or maybe outside? that would retain some of the crappiness from our politics, but it also allows a chance for someone who can seem capable of maintaining some power - but I think it would have to be weaker/balanced to prevent a pure charm offensive of people who are good at advertising vs people who are just normies and not so politically astute.
This would also go up the chain, then to national. In my ideal world, the united states would not be organized as they are now, but perhaps there would be a middle-level "regional" vote (an outer-body to represented by the states to the regional level, before even the national - so regions would be like state-clusters, and they would be denominated by shared cultural and bio-regional interests).
Further, the "outerbody" at the highest/national level then is actually acting as the State Department/Ambassador/outside representation to the outer world. I think this would allow for a better selection of candidates that more properly reflects the localities, while still allowing for minority voices. (though I think that would bring it's own issues, obviously; probably far too many that I could never foresee, and the structure built around this would need to take a lot of care to prevent abuse and systemic modification (oh dear, here we go - sounding like a conservative states rights bastard trying to prevent too much radical change - but the concern of a charm offensive by well placed conspiracists/miscreants is not a feature one should be in denial of, and work to protect against...)
There's no way anything like this would exist (at least in the US; but I doubt anywhere in the world except IDK, like Iceland or Estonia who would be 2 of the weird, small populated countries I could see trying something like this)
SORTITIONITY NOW!
posted by symbioid at 11:56 AM on July 5 [3 favorites]
In particular I think we need a "bottom-up" system where citizens are selected for a short (2 year?) period.
There would be an "inner" and "outer" body (lower/upper).
The inner body is this legislative organization made of randomly selected citizens and handles all the intra-jurisdictional affairs.
The outer body handles inter-unit representation. It would be more like a "diplomat" representing the innerbody. This diplomat is elected by the lower body to represent it's wishes to the next level in the hierarchy.
(municipal-> county for example; or county->state).
This would go on up the chain to the national government. This would be like a "senate". Only the lower bodies would inform/field, step by step up to the "state" level.
I haven't fully thought this through, but I think each higher level also deserves some sortition representation as well. So you would still have 2 houses : a mass-sortitioned "House of Commons/Sortition" representing the pure random selection. And an "Upper House/Representative" that is filled by elected members of the lower sorted house. This guarantees sortition at each level in one house, while the lower houses get a say into representation from their districts to the higher level (e.g. ambassador style).
Perhaps the Executive/Speaker is elected in a mass voting by the general populace, selected from this pool of sortitioned members (or maybe outside? that would retain some of the crappiness from our politics, but it also allows a chance for someone who can seem capable of maintaining some power - but I think it would have to be weaker/balanced to prevent a pure charm offensive of people who are good at advertising vs people who are just normies and not so politically astute.
This would also go up the chain, then to national. In my ideal world, the united states would not be organized as they are now, but perhaps there would be a middle-level "regional" vote (an outer-body to represented by the states to the regional level, before even the national - so regions would be like state-clusters, and they would be denominated by shared cultural and bio-regional interests).
Further, the "outerbody" at the highest/national level then is actually acting as the State Department/Ambassador/outside representation to the outer world. I think this would allow for a better selection of candidates that more properly reflects the localities, while still allowing for minority voices. (though I think that would bring it's own issues, obviously; probably far too many that I could never foresee, and the structure built around this would need to take a lot of care to prevent abuse and systemic modification (oh dear, here we go - sounding like a conservative states rights bastard trying to prevent too much radical change - but the concern of a charm offensive by well placed conspiracists/miscreants is not a feature one should be in denial of, and work to protect against...)
There's no way anything like this would exist (at least in the US; but I doubt anywhere in the world except IDK, like Iceland or Estonia who would be 2 of the weird, small populated countries I could see trying something like this)
SORTITIONITY NOW!
posted by symbioid at 11:56 AM on July 5 [3 favorites]
That said - looking at the 28th amendment text, it seems the "construed not to place limits on the 1st amendment" seems at odds with the past rulings of the court - or is this implying that this is an electoral remedy of previous campaign limits. Is it because it devolves it to the states and not a federal issue that it would fly?
Personally - in WI, there is a move by the GOP to stop "outside of the state donors" from being active, but of course they just mean social groups like Zuck's initiatives (that helped GOTV efforts) and never about limiting out-of-state contributions from THEIR corporate buddies (I just posted a rant on FB about that).
I'm like if you fuckers really believe on limiting "outsider" money you'll do it across the board, to your donor base, to corporations from outside, etc. If you allow corporate donations it should ONLY be within state, and ONLY in corporations held by individuals who have lived in the state a minimum of x years (like 6 years) to prevent carpetbaggers from running shop. Primary Residents only, and corps OWNED by primary residents.
But that's not what they actually want. Eff em. If they can have their big bucks from oil industry lobbyists, we can have our GOTV on a mass level. Not my fault your dipshit "conspiracy" minded hicks refused money and then whine about how unfair it is. YOU HAD THE CHANCES ASSHOLES. YOU chose not to use it, so don't whine about it later.
posted by symbioid at 12:04 PM on July 5
Personally - in WI, there is a move by the GOP to stop "outside of the state donors" from being active, but of course they just mean social groups like Zuck's initiatives (that helped GOTV efforts) and never about limiting out-of-state contributions from THEIR corporate buddies (I just posted a rant on FB about that).
I'm like if you fuckers really believe on limiting "outsider" money you'll do it across the board, to your donor base, to corporations from outside, etc. If you allow corporate donations it should ONLY be within state, and ONLY in corporations held by individuals who have lived in the state a minimum of x years (like 6 years) to prevent carpetbaggers from running shop. Primary Residents only, and corps OWNED by primary residents.
But that's not what they actually want. Eff em. If they can have their big bucks from oil industry lobbyists, we can have our GOTV on a mass level. Not my fault your dipshit "conspiracy" minded hicks refused money and then whine about how unfair it is. YOU HAD THE CHANCES ASSHOLES. YOU chose not to use it, so don't whine about it later.
posted by symbioid at 12:04 PM on July 5
Hey Swedes...It's althing
posted by clavdivs at 1:20 PM on July 5 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 1:20 PM on July 5 [1 favorite]
The Supreme Court just ruled that experts are irrelevant in governing just as legislators and judges are now defining medical practice without knowing anything about medicine. One of the primary issues regarding any sense of rule by the people is that a lot of governing requires expertise in a lot of technical areas. How does the people demonstrate having this expertise prior to making decisions that require that expertise? In our culture, experts are now anathema or everybody is already an expert in everything. What about education? Yeah, what about education!? Book banning, bibles in the classroom, science denial, history denial, etc. People power? But who are those people?
posted by njohnson23 at 3:13 PM on July 5 [3 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 3:13 PM on July 5 [3 favorites]
I generally think about 99% of the people who endorse a big change in the decision making system will stop endorsing it at the point that it becomes clear it would deliver outcomes they don't like.
That's one reason we got where we are now with the Supreme Court: Lots of left-liberals my age thought the narrative was that the court protected rights against the mob, from desegregating schools in 1954 to allowing gay marriage in 2015. But the outcomes got worse and worse during that period, it's more clear it's an undemocratic institution we count on. (And one part of the overreach is people want them to defer to unelected bureaucrats in policy matters, heh.)
Certainly the first link is playing some tricks to make "people power" sound anachronistically appealing to the left. "Oh, we (the British) could have avoided the Iraq war if we were like Athens!" The actual Athenian voters were pro-war, pro-imperial conquest and opposed to expanding the franchise. They also liked deciding who was allowed to stay in the city. Athens, love it or leave it.
I do think liberal democracy is worth saving, and I think it needs to be small-d democratic. I don't believe there's some magical organization that bypasses messy politics, though; the only advantage of a massive system change would be what it gets us in the next ten years.
posted by mark k at 8:46 PM on July 5 [2 favorites]
That's one reason we got where we are now with the Supreme Court: Lots of left-liberals my age thought the narrative was that the court protected rights against the mob, from desegregating schools in 1954 to allowing gay marriage in 2015. But the outcomes got worse and worse during that period, it's more clear it's an undemocratic institution we count on. (And one part of the overreach is people want them to defer to unelected bureaucrats in policy matters, heh.)
Certainly the first link is playing some tricks to make "people power" sound anachronistically appealing to the left. "Oh, we (the British) could have avoided the Iraq war if we were like Athens!" The actual Athenian voters were pro-war, pro-imperial conquest and opposed to expanding the franchise. They also liked deciding who was allowed to stay in the city. Athens, love it or leave it.
I do think liberal democracy is worth saving, and I think it needs to be small-d democratic. I don't believe there's some magical organization that bypasses messy politics, though; the only advantage of a massive system change would be what it gets us in the next ten years.
posted by mark k at 8:46 PM on July 5 [2 favorites]
Absolute democracy didn't survive long in Athens and sometimes delivered chaotic, unpleasant results in the process. The classical examples here are the Mytilenean Debate and the Melian Dialogue.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:38 AM on July 6 [2 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:38 AM on July 6 [2 favorites]
What about education?
“Education is that which remains, if one has forgotten everything learned in school.”
~ Albert Einstein [4 page pdf]
posted by HearHere at 5:54 AM on July 6
“Education is that which remains, if one has forgotten everything learned in school.”
~ Albert Einstein [4 page pdf]
posted by HearHere at 5:54 AM on July 6
« Older Anecdotes go here | Beyond kingdoms and empires Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by HearHere at 8:30 AM on July 5