This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1proximity1
No real, meaningful, effective democracy needs a "social compact." A democracy worthy of the name _is_, de facto, a social compact. When the democracy fails, the social compact has failed with it.
Talk of reconstituting a social compact in the face of a failed democratic order is both a tacit admission of failure as well as a demonstration of one's political naivete and misunderstanding of first principles. It is tantamount to proposing to paint a dirt-floor and follow that by laying a carpet over the result.
Our social compact can be read, regretted and, if one is so inclined, mourned, by turning to its text--the same text which, nine days from today, during his inauguration-day events, the new president shall take an oath to protect and defend.
Talk of reconstituting a social compact in the face of a failed democratic order is both a tacit admission of failure as well as a demonstration of one's political naivete and misunderstanding of first principles. It is tantamount to proposing to paint a dirt-floor and follow that by laying a carpet over the result.
Our social compact can be read, regretted and, if one is so inclined, mourned, by turning to its text--the same text which, nine days from today, during his inauguration-day events, the new president shall take an oath to protect and defend.
2jjwilson61
I disagree. I think most people would say a country is a Democracy if it has the laws on the books and procedures on the ground for selecting candidates and voting for them. But if people don't vote or they don't pay attention, what you might call the social compact, then it doesn't work.
3proximity1
>2 jjwilson61: --> "I think most people would say a country is a Democracy if it has the laws on the books and procedures on the ground for selecting candidates and voting for them."
By your reckoning as expressed above, Russia qualifies as such a "Democracy" since it cerrtainly has "laws on the books and procedures on the ground for selecting candidates and voting for them."
My point is rather different. To be meaningful, the name, the term, "democracy" must actually translate into effective government which is regularly, reliably and effectively repsonsive to the real majoritiarian interests and desires as these are made repeatedly known in their open claims and accurately-tracked and recorded opinions.
Otherwise, it's just so much phony window-dressing covering a fraud.
" But if people don't vote or they don't pay attention," it has been shown again and again over history, it is virtually always because they've been schooled by hard experience to recognize and understand that their votes and their attentions cannot be shown to produce any reasonably significant results as far as their desires are concerned---which brings us back to my original qualifying phrase:
"No real, meaningful, effective democracy needs a "social compact." A democracy worthy of the name _is_, de facto, a social compact. When the democracy fails, the social compact has failed with it."
When the system is responsive and effective, it earns and keeps the public's attention and participation for as long as it remains responsive and effective. There are, of course, powerful interests always opposing this outcome. But it's the democratically-minded public's duty to understand this and thwart it.
All you've done is point out the obvious: numerous (virtually all of them currently) systems proclaiming themselves as "democracies" don't in actual fact prove to be real, meaningful, effective. Instead, they're sham operations. That they are ineffective is not in dispute.
By your reckoning as expressed above, Russia qualifies as such a "Democracy" since it cerrtainly has "laws on the books and procedures on the ground for selecting candidates and voting for them."
My point is rather different. To be meaningful, the name, the term, "democracy" must actually translate into effective government which is regularly, reliably and effectively repsonsive to the real majoritiarian interests and desires as these are made repeatedly known in their open claims and accurately-tracked and recorded opinions.
Otherwise, it's just so much phony window-dressing covering a fraud.
" But if people don't vote or they don't pay attention," it has been shown again and again over history, it is virtually always because they've been schooled by hard experience to recognize and understand that their votes and their attentions cannot be shown to produce any reasonably significant results as far as their desires are concerned---which brings us back to my original qualifying phrase:
"No real, meaningful, effective democracy needs a "social compact." A democracy worthy of the name _is_, de facto, a social compact. When the democracy fails, the social compact has failed with it."
When the system is responsive and effective, it earns and keeps the public's attention and participation for as long as it remains responsive and effective. There are, of course, powerful interests always opposing this outcome. But it's the democratically-minded public's duty to understand this and thwart it.
All you've done is point out the obvious: numerous (virtually all of them currently) systems proclaiming themselves as "democracies" don't in actual fact prove to be real, meaningful, effective. Instead, they're sham operations. That they are ineffective is not in dispute.
4southernbooklady
>2 jjwilson61: But if people don't vote or they don't pay attention, what you might call the social compact, then it doesn't work.
Don't you think abstention is it's own form of participation? "Democracy" implies not that everyone votes, but that everyone has the opportunity to vote. An abstention would be a comment on the vote, not the processes of democracy itself.
Don't you think abstention is it's own form of participation? "Democracy" implies not that everyone votes, but that everyone has the opportunity to vote. An abstention would be a comment on the vote, not the processes of democracy itself.
5proximity1
>4 southernbooklady:
This prompts me to add that, in the context here, massive voter abstention--and I don't doubt or deny for a moment that this is very common in even the most vociferously proud "democratic" systems--would suggest a prior breach of the so-called social compact.
That is, widespread voter indifference, abstention, suggests in and of itself that the electoral processes are not seen as effective and, thus, they are shunned. Thus, the compact has been broken already at this point. (QED.)
Turnouts consistently prove to be robust wherever and whenever an electorate's hopes and expectations in an effective plebescite are rejuvenated--even, amazingly, after being repeatedly and brutally abused cynically by the political class.
______________
ETA
So, I argue that, rather than a form of "participation," or "a comment on the vote, not the processes of democracy itself," massive voter abstention is indeed a comment, par excellence, on "the processes of democracy itself"-- I think it can be fairly characterized, if very persistent over a long period, as being the clearest indication of an erstwhile electorate's last resort at repudiation of such a "democracy." This is why in certain so-called democracies, eligible voters are threatened with legal sanctions (rarely enforced ) if they do not turn out to the polling places and cast a ballot. On the other hand, there's nothing to stop them, once in the voting booth, from voting a blank ballot, an embarrassment to the system when these outnumber all other contenders.
This prompts me to add that, in the context here, massive voter abstention--and I don't doubt or deny for a moment that this is very common in even the most vociferously proud "democratic" systems--would suggest a prior breach of the so-called social compact.
That is, widespread voter indifference, abstention, suggests in and of itself that the electoral processes are not seen as effective and, thus, they are shunned. Thus, the compact has been broken already at this point. (QED.)
Turnouts consistently prove to be robust wherever and whenever an electorate's hopes and expectations in an effective plebescite are rejuvenated--even, amazingly, after being repeatedly and brutally abused cynically by the political class.
______________
ETA
So, I argue that, rather than a form of "participation," or "a comment on the vote, not the processes of democracy itself," massive voter abstention is indeed a comment, par excellence, on "the processes of democracy itself"-- I think it can be fairly characterized, if very persistent over a long period, as being the clearest indication of an erstwhile electorate's last resort at repudiation of such a "democracy." This is why in certain so-called democracies, eligible voters are threatened with legal sanctions (rarely enforced ) if they do not turn out to the polling places and cast a ballot. On the other hand, there's nothing to stop them, once in the voting booth, from voting a blank ballot, an embarrassment to the system when these outnumber all other contenders.
6prosfilaes
>4 southernbooklady: Don't you think abstention is it's own form of participation?
It can be done with that intent, but it's not really an effective action. It does nothing to change the result or even distinguish one's action from the people who weren't able or chose not to vote.
It can be done with that intent, but it's not really an effective action. It does nothing to change the result or even distinguish one's action from the people who weren't able or chose not to vote.
7RickHarsch
>6 prosfilaes: Utter nonsense. A political choice of that magnitude (next to nothing, just like one vote) is a political choice.
Are you feeling effective lately?
Are you feeling effective lately?
8lriley
The old cliche that if you don't vote you can't complain always sounded idiotic to my ears. Not voting very often is complaining--among other things that there isn't a good choice to be made. IMO you have to be a bit masochistic participating in a lesser of two evils battle. Thrown off a 20 story building as opposed to being thrown over a 5 story building is not really a choice.
As we've seen in this latest election getting 3 million more voters than the other guy doesn't necessarily mean you win. So much for the individual voter. And as we've seen with Supreme Court decisions--it's okay if you're super wealthy or a corporation/bank to buy and peddle influence--something that is not accessible to the average ordinary voter. We have a democracy I suppose but it's one you can buy if you have enough wherewithal.
As we've seen in this latest election getting 3 million more voters than the other guy doesn't necessarily mean you win. So much for the individual voter. And as we've seen with Supreme Court decisions--it's okay if you're super wealthy or a corporation/bank to buy and peddle influence--something that is not accessible to the average ordinary voter. We have a democracy I suppose but it's one you can buy if you have enough wherewithal.
9southernbooklady
>8 lriley: Not voting very often is complaining--among other things that there isn't a good choice to be made. IMO you have to be a bit masochistic participating in a lesser of two evils battle.
On the flip side, how often is any voter presented with an entirely good choice? I think most people vote for people who represent their side of the issues that are (most) important to them - the things they really can't compromise on, and that feel the most immediate to them. In that sense every vote is a "lesser of two evils" choice, because nobody ever really represents everything that we personally stand for. The only person who would, would be ourselves.
But if we are faced with a choice between two candidates that we truly can't support at all -- if both held positions on some issue that we absolutely, fundamentally cannot bring ourselves to tolerate even for a moment, then abstention would be the logical choice, and a perfectly legitimate one.
On the flip side, how often is any voter presented with an entirely good choice? I think most people vote for people who represent their side of the issues that are (most) important to them - the things they really can't compromise on, and that feel the most immediate to them. In that sense every vote is a "lesser of two evils" choice, because nobody ever really represents everything that we personally stand for. The only person who would, would be ourselves.
But if we are faced with a choice between two candidates that we truly can't support at all -- if both held positions on some issue that we absolutely, fundamentally cannot bring ourselves to tolerate even for a moment, then abstention would be the logical choice, and a perfectly legitimate one.
10lriley
#9--there is never a perfect choice. An individual voter is left to balance things out as best they can. The way things currently are--the location of the voter can even play a part in the decision they make. Votes in certain states are just more crucial than in other states. New York, for instance will vote democrat and in the unlikely event that the state went republican it's almost a sure bet that the election will be a landslide for the republican as was the case when Reagan won the state many, many years ago.
In any event--ending the wars in Afghanistan and Northern Africa are a big deal for me, the environment is another and I don't like the neoliberal, neoconservative capitalist economic system. Universal health care as in what works well in Scandinavia or Canada is another thing. The curtailing of the predatory loan system that is undermining the ability of young people to go to school and support themselves later on. Our embarrassing incarceration rate, militarized policing, our surveillance state--none of these are good things. Too many people and not just on the right accept all the above as some kind of norm.
In any event--ending the wars in Afghanistan and Northern Africa are a big deal for me, the environment is another and I don't like the neoliberal, neoconservative capitalist economic system. Universal health care as in what works well in Scandinavia or Canada is another thing. The curtailing of the predatory loan system that is undermining the ability of young people to go to school and support themselves later on. Our embarrassing incarceration rate, militarized policing, our surveillance state--none of these are good things. Too many people and not just on the right accept all the above as some kind of norm.
11RickHarsch
>9 southernbooklady: The last four decades or so lead me to wonder whether a good old fashioned choice between a relatively progressive Democrat and a Republican might get me to vote again. As it stood this year, I came as close as I have since I stopped in the early 80s. Was Planned Parenthood enough to get me to forget everything that prevents me from voting? It was a close call. I couldn't do it.
12southernbooklady
>11 RickHarsch: Planned Parenthood, and women's reproductive health, was the main issue I was voting for, if I had to pick one.
13RickHarsch
>12 southernbooklady: My hope is that it is so visible that it will be one of the main issues that coalesces opposition.
14proximity1
People who would trade their chances to create a more genuinely democratic order for the illusion of "reproductive 'security' " shall find they lose them both.
15proximity1
A. Barton Hinkle column: The case for Trump
in The Richmond Times-Dispatch
Saturday, February 11, 2017 9:00 pm
by A. Barton Hinkle
“The spirit of liberty,” wrote Judge Learned Hand, “is the spirit that is not too sure it is right.” Authoritarianism starts with absolute certainty: Why tolerate any dissent when it is so clearly wrong? Why allow people their own choices if they choose incorrectly?
The antidote to absolute certainty is a spirit of inquiry — but that spirit runs up against various mental habits we’re all wired with, such as confirmation bias and the backfire effect: People confronted with information that contradicts their belief often end up digging in their mental heels.
In one experiment, conservatives were presented with Bush administration claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Some also were given information refuting those claims. Thirty-four percent of the first group accepted the administration’s claim. But 64 percent of those presented with the refutation accepted the administration’s claim. The contradictory evidence made them truculent.
This has serious consequences in more than one way. As Bloomberg columnist and George Mason University economics professor Tyler Cowen recently wrote, “a few years ago, when I read people I disagreed with, they swayed my opinion in their direction to some degree. These days, it’s more likely that I simply end up thinking less of them.” (His comment is reminiscent of Santayana’s remark about newspapers: “When I read them I form perhaps a new opinion of the newspaper, but seldom a new opinion on the subject discussed.”)
As an antidote to such cognitive biases, Cowen suggests not merely reading things you disagree with, but actually writing them — and, he further advises, “try to make them sound as persuasive as possible.” The exercise is similar to the invention of another GMU economist, Bryan Caplan, who came up with the Ideological Turing Test: Try to write an essay in the voice of an ideological opponent. If a neutral judge can’t tell the difference, then you pass. ...
Link to full article : http://www.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/bart-hinkle/article_86ee78b9-0908-5d...
