Will Democracy survive the 21st Century?

[Trigon]

Discuss!

For the moment, I am currently leaning towards "not a chance in hell", but I'd be curious to hear the rest of your viewpoints. Personally I think the coming crises (political, economic, ecological) will prove too much for democracy as we know it to overcome, but I suppose you never know...

[Lilias]

Democracy as we know it is only about 100 years old. It's not like some ancient venerable institution is crashing down. Governments are shaped by their people, not the other way around. Flux is their natural condition.

[TaintedAndDelish]

While democracy has yet to stand the test of time, it has been very successful in the US and other countries in the last hundred or two years. If US style democracy fails, I would expect a newer hybrid version to emerge. Perhaps a democracy 2.0 that replaces the parts that failed with something else. This of course might not happen right away but I can't see the good parts of democracy being ignored for too long. What on earth is permanent?

[Nachtmahr]

Governments are shaped by their people, not the other way around.

At least, that is the hope. It is, however, hard not to feel like the opposite is true in a lot of places at the moment. Supposed bastions of democracy with governments that are going rogue on key issues and not bothering to take the popular opinion into account. In some cases it may be person zeal that drives these developments, in others it seems that corruption is to blame. Either way, the the idea of a truly representative democracy with a government that is elected fairly by the people, for the people, seems to be having a hard time.

I hope it will make it through and that things are going to get better in the coming years, but it's hard to say which way things are going to go. As the western world seems to be leaning more and more to the right on the political spectrum and the cleft between opposite sides grow, it looks like there's some rough patches ahead though.

[Renegade Vile]

Depends on what you mean by democracy, really. If you mean democracy as it has become, then I certainly hope not, because in most cases, modern day democracies are a farce. If you mean as a concept, I think it will be around for a long time to come, simply because the idea itself, makes perfect sense, even if it might be nearly impossible to implement and sustain in that form. Breaking ties by using a majority vote, using elected officials chosen by the people, you can't get more "fair" than that, in the purest sense.

[Cassandra LeMay]

Depends on what you mean by democracy, really. If you mean democracy as it has become, then I certainly hope not, because in most cases, modern day democracies are a farce. If you mean as a concept, I think it will be around for a long time to come, simply because the idea itself, makes perfect sense, even if it might be nearly impossible to implement and sustain in that form. Breaking ties by using a majority vote, using elected officials chosen by the people, you can't get more "fair" than that, in the purest sense.

As RV said, it all depends on how you define it.

All in all I would say democracy works great if it means a majority decision made by well-informed people who have all the relevant information at hand to make a rational decision.

So yeah, democracy will survive, only that it will (and is) turning into "soundbitecracy". People will call it democracy, and as long as everyone agrees that is what it should be called it will be just that. Greek philosophers will be spinning in their graves, but as long as you can convince 5 million people with a 5 minute YouTube video, who cares?

Then again, democracy is about the best of the bad systems we have come up with yet. Lets just make certain it doesn't turn into a demagogery.

[Renegade Vile]

As RV said, it all depends on how you define it.

All in all I would say democracy works great if it means a majority decision made by well-informed people who have all the relevant information at hand to make a rational decision.

So yeah, democracy will survive, only that it will (and is) turning into "soundbitecracy". People will call it democracy, and as long as everyone agrees that is what it should be called it will be just that. Greek philosophers will be spinning in their graves, but as long as you can convince 5 million people with a 5 minute YouTube video, who cares?

Then again, democracy is about the best of the bad systems we have come up with yet. Lets just make certain it doesn't turn into a demagogery.

Sometimes I just wish Doctor Doom was real, I'd let him rule everything. Sure, he's a maniac, but he actually -does- know better than just about everyone else so it's better than the maniacs we have right now!

[Oniya]

So yeah, democracy will survive, only that it will (and is) turning into "soundbitecracy". People will call it democracy, and as long as everyone agrees that is what it should be called it will be just that. Greek philosophers will be spinning in their graves, but as long as you can convince 5 million people with a 5 minute YouTube video, who cares?

And since those soundbites are provided by the media, that makes it a mediocracy, right?

[Trigon]

Then again, democracy is about the best of the bad systems we have come up with yet. Lets just make certain it doesn't turn into a demagogery.

Democracies were always vulnerable to demagoguery so I don't think that by itself will do it in, media hysteria aside. There are much bigger problems on the horizon that I think will bring the concept of democracy itself under scrutiny.

[TaintedAndDelish]

I don't mind the demagoguery and rhetoric. At least I can listen to it and decide if I want to vote for the candidate in question myself. I would prefer that over having someone else decide for me.

[TheGlyphstone]

What's that Churchill quote? "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others?"

[LostInTheMist]

There aren't any Democratic governments in the world that I am aware of. I have a degree in Political Science and could be considered an expert on the inner working of government in my country, The United States of America. I am not a "foremost expert", as for that, I would have to have a doctorate. I am not an expert on international politics as my focus was on national politics and the history of political thought at University. That said, I don't think there's a single true Democracy in the world. The United States is what we call a "Representative Democracy." In an ideal world we elect representatives (and Senators for some bizarre reason) and they act in our best interests and create laws, which the President signs or gives a veto.

The problem with this system of government is obvious in that one party (I'm not naming names, but we all know which one I'm talking about) is refusing to do its job of actually... you know... voting on things, or in fact, serving the will of the people. To them, it is in the best interests of the people that terrorists be unimpeded in the purchase of automatic weapons and grenade launchers. To them, it is in the best interests of the people that only the rich get higher education. As a result progressive laws preventing terrorists from owning guns and allowing poor people to go to college are anathema, so not only will they not be passed; they won't even be voted on....

Democracy didn't survive the Peloponnesian war. Don't kid yourself that it survives today.

The thing is that SOMEHOW this clusterfuck we call Democracy could get even worse if we're STUPID enough to elect Donald Trump president. Europeans must be horrified that a man like him could be NOMINATED at all.... They can at least take comfort in that he has alienated Latinos, Blacks, Asians, Women, Native Americans, and Democrats. So he's going to lose in a massive landslide to a not very popular Democratic nominee, because she's the "lesser of two evils" to enough of the populace.

I love my country, but goddamn, it is hard to love some times.

[Renegade Vile]

Indeed, I don't think anyone here is under the misconception that actual democracy exists. We used to have something resembling it, now we just have nepotism, greed and media manipulation... most of the time.

The thing is that SOMEHOW this clusterfuck we call Democracy could get even worse if we're STUPID enough to elect Donald Trump president. Europeans must be horrified that a man like him could be NOMINATED at all.... They can at least take comfort in that he has alienated Latinos, Blacks, Asians, Women, Native Americans, and Democrats. So he's going to lose in a massive landslide to a not very popular Democratic nominee, because she's the "lesser of two evils" to enough of the populace.

Not so sure about the alienation, I've seen other polls that show he has an oddly high amount of backing with certain minorities, despite the venom he spews on a daily basis. I am almost completely certain that a big part of the population are just sick of everything and want to see the US burn (figure of speech, I honestly think if Trump is elected you'll get four years of nothing. He's all big words, but his stupidest policies'll get blocked every time and he'll just be a figurehead to point at and laugh).

As for Europeans, we have our own idiots running for office, with varying degrees of success. None jump to mind quite as baffling as Trump, but we really don't have much of a high horse in that regard.
I, for one, consider Trump to be the lesser of two evils. At least you know he's honest in his lunacy. But, that's for another thread.

Basically: I agree, democracy died soon after it was conceived; it doesn't lend itself well to those in power staying in power.

[LostInTheMist]

*Sigh* You're wrong about why Democracy died so soon after its creation, but that's another thread entirely.

And if you think Trump is the lesser of two evils, guess which of the two major candidates have stated they would use nuclear missiles on the middle east? Guess which of the two candidates thinks of women as sex objects? Guess which of the two candidates consider NATO an outdated alliance we shouldn't have been a part of? Guess which of the two candidates think Putin and Kim Jong Un are strong leaders (and good people)?

Do I have to provide more examples?

[TheGlyphstone]

*Sigh* You're wrong about why Democracy died so soon after its creation, but that's another thread entirely.

And if you think Trump is the lesser of two evils, guess which of the two major candidates have stated they would use nuclear missiles on the middle east? Guess which of the two candidates thinks of women as sex objects? Guess which of the two candidates consider NATO an outdated alliance we shouldn't have been a part of? Guess which of the two candidates think Putin and Kim Jong Un are strong leaders (and good people)?

Do I have to provide more examples?

You could not have read his most more backwards. He was referring to Clinton as the lesser of two evils there.

because she's the "lesser of two evils" to enough of the populace.

Food for thought: if democracy is failed/unworkable..what can we replace it with? Socialism is out, every attempt at genuine socialism has invariably descended into totalitarianism within a generation at most. Dictatorships by their very nature drift into totalitarianism as well. And totalitarianism itself, which technically functional, struggles for long-term effectiveness because humans will only put up with so much before they start to fight back simply on the grounds that they have nothing left to lose. Anarchy isn't a government, and the vague and ill-defined cloud of 'libertarianism' generally hovers somewhere between socialism and anarchy depending on the degree of pseudogovernment desired by that specific individual.

[LostInTheMist]

For one, you're quoting his quote of my post. He very distinctly says that he thinks Trump is the lesser of two evils.

As for what we replace it with? I think an honest representative Democracy, where we elect our legislators, and they vote in the best interests of the population. People want more transparency. I disagree. I think we need to close every session of congress to the public and the press and just have them come out with the bills when they're done making them. No information on who voted how. Elect the person you think will represent your interests the best to the Congress, and then trust that they did that.

[Renegade Vile]

And if you think Trump is the lesser of two evils, guess which of the two major candidates have stated they would use nuclear missiles on the middle east? Guess which of the two candidates thinks of women as sex objects? Guess which of the two candidates consider NATO an outdated alliance we shouldn't have been a part of? Guess which of the two candidates think Putin and Kim Jong Un are strong leaders (and good people)?

Do I have to provide more examples?

Guess which of two candidates are massive trolls? Guess which of the two candidates will never be able to do any of that nonsense? Guess which of the two candidates might have a big mouth about nuking things and will actually go through with it? Trump says a lot of things. In fact, saying stupid nonsense is his biggest asset in this race simply because he continues to baffle with what he dares to say, yet still somehow gets votes.

Trump is a waste of space, but at least we know he won't get anything done, good or bad. Hillary on the other hand, is a complete serpent and has turned coat on just about every issue under the sun to suit the voting needs. I have no idea what she might try to do, why and to what end beyond her wallet. Trump is a greedy bastard, so everything he'll do is for his wallet. The lesser of two evils to me is the one where I know what he's going to do, and know he won't get any of it done. He'll be blocked before he even opens his mouth and he'll be an international laughing stock. Maybe then, next time, the US will put forth some decent candidates and not smother them when they get too dangerous to the status quo. I mean, you don't honestly think he will build an actual wall to keep out Mexicans, right? Or let me rephrase that: he will get the funding for that lunacy?

You could not have read his most more backwards. He was referring to Clinton as the lesser of two evils there.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. One's a joke who won't do anything, good or bad, the other's a snake that I don't know what she will actually do once in office. That's not an endorsement for Trump though, I'd prefer not to choose between them at all...

Food for thought: if democracy is failed/unworkable..what can we replace it with? Socialism is out, every attempt at genuine socialism has invariably descended into totalitarianism within a generation at most. Dictatorships by their very nature drift into totalitarianism as well. And totalitarianism itself, which technically functional, struggles for long-term effectiveness because humans will only put up with so much before they start to fight back simply on the grounds that they have nothing left to lose. Anarchy isn't a government, and the vague and ill-defined cloud of 'libertarianism' generally hovers somewhere between socialism and anarchy depending on the degree of pseudogovernment desired by that specific individual.

Technocracy? Those in power won't fight for votes anymore, but research grants!
Libertarianism gets some support from me, but most take it too far and you end up in what you describe, this haze where in the end, nothing will work and nothing will get done.

[TaintedAndDelish]

As for what we replace it with? I think an honest representative Democracy, where we elect our legislators, and they vote in the best interests of the population.

That sounds nice, but so too does our political system. I think the problem has more to do with human nature than with the system itself. People are biased, misinformed, dishonest, fearful and greedy to some extent and these characteristics (and others) influence the decisions they make. We don't always act rationally or the way we should. I don't think a system that depends on human purity is going to last very long. Eventually it will get corrupted.

I think the other problem - which was made quite clear by the Brexit mess is that people need to be able to trust their elected officials to some extent. Pehaps Cameron's warnings about financial and political damage would have been taken seriously my more voters if he was trusted more. Here in the US there seems to be quite a bit of distrust in politicians in general. I see now how dangerous that could be.

[Cassandra LeMay]

In an ideal world we elect representatives (and Senators for some bizarre reason) and they act in our best interests ...

(My emphasis)

That's a nice theory, but I do wonder if many people would actually realize if politicians did act in their best interest. National governments have to deal with big problems, while many people's worries are much smaller, more local than that. Someone from village A may have different ideas what is a "best interest" from someone from town B, who has different priorities than someone from city C, and so on. So what the government of a nation, taking everyone's interest into account (in an ideal world, and perhaps even sometimes in the real world), defines a "best" can be quite different from the multitude of individual interests among the voters.

I think democracy might not be as bad as its reputation. But, what it might need is more trust. And for the voters to trust the decisions politicians make, it would take more honesty on the part of the politicians. If politicians stoped saying "I will" and instead went for "I will try my best" that would be a huge step in the right direction. We are live in a complicated world and not everyone can get everything they want. Politicians should be honest enough to say so - and then do their best to explain what makes some things complicated and how that influences their decisions. The media also needs to follow suit and explain things, instead of going for soundbites.

I doubt either will happen within my lifetime, but I also see another problem and that is a sense of entitlement with many people. "I voted for party X, so they better do exactly what I want". That is a failure to see that a single voter is just a very small part of millions of people who may have voted for the same party (or candidate).  Yes, an elected politician is supposed to represent "you", but he is also supposed to represent a whole lot of other people, so don't expect to get every single thing you want. An "anti-establishment" vote will not get you better representation - and in many cases it might get you a worse representative.

So, in short, I don't think democracy needs replacing, or a radical makeover. What it needs is a healthy dose of realism on the part of everyone involved.

[Renegade Vile]

As for what we replace it with? I think an honest representative Democracy, where we elect our legislators, and they vote in the best interests of the population. People want more transparency. I disagree. I think we need to close every session of congress to the public and the press and just have them come out with the bills when they're done making them. No information on who voted how. Elect the person you think will represent your interests the best to the Congress, and then trust that they did that.

You are a very trusting man. I'm not one to be skeptical about everything every politician says, but this isn't any different from what we have now, only we get rid of the fact that our candidates are chosen for us by a party system. This helps with some of the issues, but the majority of successful politicians are still going to be the best liars and the best manipulators. Neither of those traits lend themselves to trustworthy legislation.
I agree that everyone needs to elect the person they think will represent them best, but given the corruption and deceit in politics, Id like the doors to Congress to be open even more than they are now so we can keep an eye on them as they do us. Just electing them and then having blind faith in them is not going to end well.

[Trigon]

Maybe then, next time, the US will put forth some decent candidates and not smother them when they get too dangerous to the status quo. I mean, you don't honestly think he will build an actual wall to keep out Mexicans, right? Or let me rephrase that: he will get the funding for that lunacy?

The fact that Trump is saying these things at all should be raising some red flags, and that we should keep him away from the White House. Whether or not he carries out anything that he says he will do is besides the point; the real point is that he has the potential to set back social progress by several decades, and cause a serious political and economic crisis in the not too distant future (basically, a Brexit on steroids!)

[Renegade Vile]

The fact that Trump is saying these things at all should be raising some red flags, and that we should keep him away from the White House. Whether or not he carries out anything that he says he will do is besides the point; the real point is that he has the potential to set back social progress by several decades, and cause a serious political and economic crisis in the not too distant future.

Hm, maybe, but I guess it depends on how many people - including his voters - take him seriously. This is just a very, very, veeeeeeeeeeeery weird election... I honestly look forward to Kanye West actually running as he said (or threatened) he would. And if he gets a ton of votes by the end of it, I'll be simultaneously laughing my rear off and sobbing in the corner.

[Trigon]

Hm, maybe, but I guess it depends on how many people - including his voters - take him seriously. This is just a very, very, veeeeeeeeeeeery weird election... I honestly look forward to Kanye West actually running as he said (or threatened) he would. And if he gets a ton of votes by the end of it, I'll be simultaneously laughing my rear off and sobbing in the corner.

I wonder if that's how the Germans of 1933 felt before deciding on their new heads of government...

(My emphasis)

That's a nice theory, but I do wonder if many people would actually realize if politicians did act in their best interest. National governments have to deal with big problems, while many people's worries are much smaller, more local than that. Someone from village A may have different ideas what is a "best interest" from someone from town B, who has different priorities than someone from city C, and so on. So what the government of a nation, taking everyone's interest into account (in an ideal world, and perhaps even sometimes in the real world), defines a "best" can be quite different from the multitude of individual interests among the voters.

This is a very good point. Especially when it comes to national or international politics.

[Renegade Vile]

I wonder if that's how the Germans of 1933 felt before deciding on their new heads of government...

Oh, come on now, you're not actually comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, now are you? The guy's a douchebag, a moron and a wealthy bastard, but Hitler he ain't. I'm all for hyperbole for comedic effect, but let's not go too far with it.

[TheGlyphstone]

For one, you're quoting his quote of my post. He very distinctly says that he thinks Trump is the lesser of two evils.

Aaaand that's why I shouldn't be quoting posts at 5AM. :-[

Oh, come on now, you're not actually comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, now are you? The guy's a douchebag, a moron and a wealthy bastard, but Hitler he ain't. I'm all for hyperbole for comedic effect, but let's not go too far with it.

Well, he did actually suggest at one point that all Muslims living in the U.S. should be required to be logged in a national security registry, which is sorta Hitlerian. It's not quite as bad as the claims that he wanted Muslims to wear an identifying mark sewn into their clothing (which is literally Hitlerian), but is still pretty bad.

Is Hitlerian a legitimate adjective? ???


As far as democracy - if it works at all, it has to be in a representative format, as has been noted. Direct democracy only worked for the Greeks because a tiny percentage of their actual population had voting rights. The only prominent example of a relatively modern direct democracy, the Polish-Lithuanian Sejim of the 15th to 18th centuries, is also famous for being a near-powerless body that was perpetually paralyzed by every member holding a veto. And there were only a few hundred of them, rather than millions upon millions of enfranchised voters.

Personally, I think the US representative system, at least, could go a long way simply by instituting term limits. If a senator or representative can't make a lifelong career in Washington, but gets at most 2-4, or 2-8 years in 2-year increments, they might not be so dedicated to feathering their long-term retirement nests. Aside from that, it's a matter that needs to be attacked from both ends; convince the general population to actually get out and vote as much as convince the politicians to vote in the interests of their electorate. Bernie Sanders didn't succeed in his electoral bid, but one thing he absolutely accomplished was getting a previously passive and apathetic demographic out in significant numbers. Something like BREXIT had, what, 48 percent of eligible voters actually cast a ballot on the referendum? That's a whole lot of apathy there as well, and I imagine other democratic nations aren't terribly different.

[HannibalBarca]

A democracy is only as good as its people.  Greek democracy is nearly unrecognizable to modern-day citizens of democratic nations, because it was only open to landowning males.  That's not very democratic when considering universal suffrage.  When you consider what the Founding Fathers of the U.S. had in mind as far as a democracy, it was closer to the Greeks than what we have today.  Some, like Adams, wanted the more well-off, educated class to do the voting.  Jefferson wanted an electorate of educated farmers--but he still wanted them educated.  There's a reason why well-educated people tend to be more liberal.

Currently in the U.S., there is a powerful conflict between the forces of science, education, and reason--and the forces of fundamentalist religion, which, like any cult, despises outside influences like...science, education, and reason.  There have been correlations to the conservative/liberal paradigm with emotion-dominant/reason-dominant brains.  Those who are more emotionally invested are more fired up, and more likely to vote.  Look at any non-presidential election, and see how many more conservatives turn out to vote than liberals.  The Brexit vote was much the same.  Polls may have shown that Labor had more people on its side, but they didn't turn out to vote like the Tories did.

Democracy requires an educated populace making informed decisions.  Without that, you end up with someone like Donald Trump as the candidate for a major party.  Or President.  Nations can't run on fear if they wish to remain free.

Also:  Trump is not an honest lunatic.  He isn't crazy.  He's a lying narcissist.  Any check on Youtube under 'Trump lies' will give documented evidence of such.  He's a greedy bastard surrounded by sycophants and loyal family, and that's not the sort of person you want in the position of most powerful man on Earth.  And while I agree that Hilary is a lying narcissist as well, she isn't going to install Supreme Court justices who will take away my son's rights as a transgender person, or women's abortion rights.

[Renegade Vile]

Also:  Trump is not an honest lunatic.  He isn't crazy.  He's a lying narcissist.  Any check on Youtube under 'Trump lies' will give documented evidence of such.  He's a greedy bastard surrounded by sycophants and loyal family, and that's not the sort of person you want in the position of most powerful man on Earth.  And while I agree that Hilary is a lying narcissist as well, she isn't going to install Supreme Court justices who will take away my son's rights as a transgender person, or women's abortion rights.

And neither will he succeed at doing so, and the jury's still out on whether he even means a single thing he says. Half the time what he says contradicts the nonsense he said the previous week. To me he just looks and sounds like the world's biggest troll who says whatever so long as he can fill his pockets. Which is why I think he won't do much of anything because he doesn't care about anything. And sometimes, four years of nothing is better than four years of uncertainty.

EDIT: And remember, a few years ago, Hillary was still staunchly against gay marriage, claiming the usual Christian reasons because it served the political climate. Now, she sees that she can gain more vote by playing the other side, and that's what she's done. You're allowed to change your mind, obviously, but she turns coat -constantly-. Which is what I mean by her being a wild card that is completely unpredictable.

[HannibalBarca]

I find her to be reliably predictable...because she goes where the money is.  She's like Obama--socially liberal, but fiscally moderate or even leaning right.  She saw that polls of the nation were heading in the direction of gay rights, so she switched.  She's a panderer.  Trump isn't, because he's a demagogue.  That, for the most part, is the big difference between them.  Both of them are full of themselves, but Hillary is much, much smarter--she knows how to get the most people to like her.  It's a numbers game to her, unlike Trump, who just expects everyone to bow to him out of deference to his utter 'superiority'.

[Renegade Vile]

I find her to be reliably predictable...because she goes where the money is.  She's like Obama--socially liberal, but fiscally moderate or even leaning right.  She saw that polls of the nation were heading in the direction of gay rights, so she switched.  She's a panderer.  Trump isn't, because he's a demagogue.  That, for the most part, is the big difference between them.  Both of them are full of themselves, but Hillary is much, much smarter--she knows how to get the most people to like her.  It's a numbers game to her, unlike Trump, who just expects everyone to bow to him out of deference to his utter 'superiority'.

I suppose you have point that she is predictable in where she's going -for now-. But once she has that office? I think even she knows there's no way she'll get it twice. I'm from Belgium, trust me, I know this depressingly well. Most politicians play the crowd, but continue to do so even after getting where they want to be, because they want to stay there longer. But there are those who say screw it, do whatever they want, get the cash, and eject before all blame is put on their shoulders. That's the type of vibe I get from her.
As for Hillary getting the most people to like her, she consistently hated by a large portion of Americans as far as I can tell, to the point where quite a few vote for Trump just because Bernie lost out to her.

[TaintedAndDelish]

But there are those who say screw it, do whatever they want, get the cash, and eject before all blame is put on their shoulders. That's the type of vibe I get from her.

Except that the position of US president is not as profitable as being a CEO of a very profitable business. It pays about 400K per year. That's a lot to most of us, but it's pocket change to the very wealthy. I think in Hillary's case, it's more about power and prestige - and possibly a bit of a pissing contest with her husband ( a former us president ). She has a boner for politics too, so I can see that as being another motivation.

In Trump's case, it's also not about the money. He makes enough money that the $400K for being president is a "nice to have" but that's about it. I think in his case, the chance to do more self serving things is what he's after. Being president would add value to his brand and possibly open up further business opportunities. If he is going to work to sharpen the US's finances, then it's only to benefit himself. In this case, his narcissism and greed could possibly benefit us so long as he doesn't prop up the country at our expense.

I think the motivation of the candidates is less important than the actual effect that they will have on the system once they are in. We need to ignore the flaws that drive them and look instead at their past accomplishments and failures.

What I like about (our version of) capitalism and the free market is that it's driven by real demand. The market is merciless and promotes only what is demanded and at a price that is mutually acceptable (generally speaking). I think one of the things that make it work is that greed and competition work to keep it in balance and that works in world where people are greedy. ( Those who are taught not to be greedy are at a disadvantage) Like the free ( or somewhat free ) market, democracy needs to be implemented in a way that it works with real people. By real people, I mean people as they really are, not as they *should* be.

Politicians will do what it takes to get elected no matter how sleazy or dishonest. At this point, it's a competition and the only thing that matters is getting in. Once in, their character and their abilities matter more.

[Renegade Vile]

Except that the position of US president is not as profitable as being a CEO of a very profitable business. It pays about 400K per year. That's a lot to most of us, but it's pocket change to the very wealthy. I think in Hillary's case, it's more about power and prestige - and possibly a bit of a pissing contest with her husband ( a former us president ). She has a boner for politics too, so I can see that as being another motivation.

I don't know if it's like that over there, but over here most politicians still hold all manner of other positions on the side. Some are even still CEO, but likely because we do not really have the concept of a lobbyist so there is no immediate (obviously there is in reality, but try and prove it...) conflict of interest. Most are on hordes of committees and get all manner of other benefits so that, by the end of the day, being a politician on the side earns them a hefty, additional influx of cash. I guess I just assumed the same would be possible over there.
And why yes, Belgium's a corrupt heap of nonsense!

[TheGlyphstone]

I don't know if it's like that over there, but over here most politicians still hold all manner of other positions on the side. Some are even still CEO, but likely because we do not really have the concept of a lobbyist so there is no immediate (obviously there is in reality, but try and prove it...) conflict of interest. Most are on hordes of committees and get all manner of other benefits so that, by the end of the day, being a politician on the side earns them a hefty, additional influx of cash. I guess I just assumed the same would be possible over there.
And why yes, Belgium's a corrupt heap of nonsense!

Nope, that's strictly illegal for us - the President's sole paying job is being the President. Here, all the kickbacks and payouts and whatnot are delayed until after you leave office, and get a cushy consulting job or think tank position working for whatever bunch of lobbyists you championed while you had a seat. Or you just go on speaking tours and charge obscene amounts of money to give speeches at universities or whatnot.

[Renegade Vile]

Nope, that's strictly illegal for us - the President's sole paying job is being the President. Here, all the kickbacks and payouts and whatnot are delayed until after you leave office, and get a cushy consulting job or think tank position working for whatever bunch of lobbyists you championed while you had a seat. Or you just go on speaking tours and charge obscene amounts of money to give speeches at universities or whatnot.

It's comforting to know that, even when one part of the system is more fair and correct in one place, that another breaks down and is just as corrupt as everything else. It's nice to have that kind of consistency in the world...

[Devilyn Sydhe]

Democracy in its purest form is simply mob rule and could never work on a large scale.  Fortunately America has never been this as the end of slavery and women's right to vote, among other crucially historic events, might not have gotten a majority vote for decades if at all.

A representative democracy does depend on the population governed.  The people must maintain actual principles to be able to hold their representatives responsible.  Currently, American government is a product of human natural corruption.  It is natural for most to seek out whatever benefits themselves above any nation.  Special interest groups are always looking for handouts without regard to how the nation might be bankrupted by it.  Politicians know they can gain and hold their positions through promises that can't possibly be kept.  I completely agree with Congressional term limits as neither house was ever supposed to be a lifetime appointment.  I also wish there was a way to ban former congresspeople from working for lobbying groups or special interests afterward.  In the end, however, a society determines what they will allow from their representatives, and both left and right have dropped the ball in favor of getting theirs.

As for the travesty we are now presented with in Clinton vs Trump, both sides are mind numbingly foolish.  As much as any country reserves the right to control immigration, there will never be a wall built.  The funding was already there, it didn't happen.  Trump's will won't make it happen.  Illegal entry into any nation should be a concern as I doubt any country would willingly accept millions of foreigners just showing up and making demands.  European countries have tried this on a much smaller scale and it appears to be a growing disaster.  The wall is nothing but an empty campaign promise, however, as Trump hates Hispanics about as much as Clinton hates military vets and law abiding gun owners.  Neither is likely true despite the rhetoric both use to the contrary.  Neither is in any way comparible to Hitler even if one advocates making secret lists to deny American citizens their rights without due process.

As for the Supreme Court, it really all depends on whose ox is gored.  This is basically because the court has become nothing but a political tool and thus mostly irrelevant.  It is another threat to our democracy as the rule of law has been replaced by which side gets more advocates on the bench.  For every transgender or abortion threat there is an equal religious liberty or gun control fight.  For these laws to teeter on which party's con artist steals control in the fall says quite a bit about the country's downfall. 

I still have faith, however, that this democracy can survive.  I have seen people on both the left and right begin to question their own parties and it will probably take the destruction of both eventually.  Ted Cruz and a few others have the guts to be hated by his own establishment party for standing for what he believes in.  Bernie Sanders and his supporters didn't just sit down for the evil queen's coronation.  Both have been villified and ridiculed by the Media Mafia, but they are glimmers of hope for a greater uprising and return to a true representative democracy.

[Renegade Vile]

Democracy in its purest form is simply mob rule and could never work on a large scale.  Fortunately America has never been this as the end of slavery and women's right to vote, among other crucially historic events, might not have gotten a majority vote for decades if at all.

For that to be true, you'd need to believe every single person is maliciously intent on never changing their minds, never heeding the words of others and no-one is ever on the fence about something and can be swayed one way or the other through discussion/peer pressure (the latter being the bad one). Despite how cynical I am, that's a bit far even for me.
Democracy in its purest form relies on everyone being completely rational at all times and looking purely at facts, basing their opinion on that and then putting the remaining opinions up for a vote, with majority being the tie-breaker because in that ideal circumstance, odds are high that the majority is also correct. That's all a pipe dream of course, but THAT is it in its purest form. Mob rule is what you get when a significant portion of humanity is a bunch of mouth-breathing idiots. Which is what we have.

[HannibalBarca]

Pure Democracy is impossible in the modern world of nation-states with hundreds of millions of citizens.  But, the best we can do is have an educated, informed populace with the motivation to make those decisions that impact not only their own lives but the lives of others, including those who may be opposed to their viewpoints.  In other words, we need smart, skeptical, energetic people with empathy.  Our very modern standard of living with all of its creature comforts fights against being energetic and motivated.  Our system of mass media goes against being smart and skeptical.  Both combine to bleed empathy from people.  Human nature being what it is, people need to come into contact with different ideas and consider them to be empathetic.  People need to be taught to question everything and base their choices on facts, which strengthens skepticism and intelligence.  I haven't figured out the key to making people motivated, however--if anyone does, please send me a PM :P

[Lustful Bride]

Pure Democracy is impossible in the modern world of nation-states with hundreds of millions of citizens.  But, the best we can do is have an educated, informed populace with the motivation to make those decisions that impact not only their own lives but the lives of others, including those who may be opposed to their viewpoints.  In other words, we need smart, skeptical, energetic people with empathy.  Our very modern standard of living with all of its creature comforts fights against being energetic and motivated.  Our system of mass media goes against being smart and skeptical.  Both combine to bleed empathy from people.  Human nature being what it is, people need to come into contact with different ideas and consider them to be empathetic.  People need to be taught to question everything and base their choices on facts, which strengthens skepticism and intelligence.  I haven't figured out the key to making people motivated, however--if anyone does, please send me a PM :P

When you put it like that you make me think of Lt. Razchak, discussing the failure of democracy. Id honestly be happy in a way with the Starship Troopers government. Yes its oppressive but at least the politicians weren't all silver spoons and had given something back with their service. :P

But then again they had heavy fascist tones. If only we could have our cake and eat it too.

[ReijiTabibito]

The issue with democracy - particularly in America as it stands right now - is whether it can get over its current trend of swinging too far to the authoritarian side of things.  (And this is my argument against both the GOP and the Democrats right now.)

Authoritarian regimes are characterized primarily by four qualities.  (This comes from a work in 1964 regarding them.)

1 - limited political pluralism; that is, such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups.

2 - a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency.

3 - minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity. 

And 4 - informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers.


The US is currently undergoing massive problems with 2 and 3 - 1, to a degree, has always existed in our culture, and 4 can't happen because the President has clearly defined powers under the Constitution, so if that does happen, that should be our cue to GET OUT NOW - that have developed primarily because A: Americans have allowed themselves to become divided and turned on each other, and B: the slow ebb and drain on culturally shared morality over the last half-century.

Normally, I'm would start with 2, but I'm going to change my usual course and hit 3 because where I stand, 3 is the real cause of what's happened here.  So, minimal social mobilization.  First, the good news - the usual reasons for that lack of social mobility aren't the defined terms above; most people's lack of social mobility these days is tied to their lack of economic freedom.  The idea of America was that you could come here, from anywhere, and if you worked at it, and improved yourself, you and your family could rise above your circumstances - the rags to riches story is powerful in the American psyche for this very reason.

But economic freedom has requirement, and those requirements are slowly slipping away.  When my parents were my age, college was not a requirement in order to seek employment - you went there because you wanted to get ahead, but if you didn't go (or couldn't afford to), then you could go and get a job in manufacturing, working in a factory.  Those jobs peaked in 1979...and have been declining ever since, primarily because it was discovered to be easier to ship the job elsewhere.  Why?  Because in a place like China or India, which isn't as developed, you can pay workers far less than what's legally required here in the US.  Normally, this would be counterbalanced by things like import taxes, but trade agreements between various world governments have slashed them drastically, in the name of 'free trade.'

Nowadays, about the only jobs you can get without a college degree is flipping the grill at Burger King or stocking shelves at Wal-Mart.  So, more people started going to college.  Good thing, right?  Go there, get more education, more experience, more money, that will actually work out better for us in the long run, right?  Well, yes and no.

Yes - having a better-educated populace is one of the ideals that Jefferson strove for, because someone who is more intelligent and capable of critical thinking will be able to make better decisions than someone who is not.

No - because then you are resetting the economic start point at the level of 'college educated' rather than a high school degree. 

The question has been asked many times why it is that, with the often crippling debt that comes with student loans and tuition payments, young people continue to go to college.  The answer is quite simple - because they believe they have to.  Because if they don't, all they can look forward to is a life of standing in front of a hot grill or being told to head over to Housewares to unload a cart of box fans.

This reset would not be a problem, if the new level at which people were expected to start from was publicly available.  (And not 'publicly available' in the O'Reilly sense of the word.)  The government - pick a level - pays for the operation of every single public school within US borders.  Students are not required to pay the costs of educating them.  One of two things needs to happen, depending on what becomes of the economic start point.  The guiding principle needs to be this: economic freedom must be achievable through wholly public means.  To illustrate.

If you want to go with the 'no universal college' route, then that's fine - but then you need to make available jobs here in the US that can be attained with just a high school degree, or high school needs to be expanded so that it can occupy jobs that will provide a basic standard of living.  Otherwise, universal college needs to happen.

I can go on, but time is a constraint, sadly, and I can always elaborate later.

What the problems with social mobility have done is that they have inspired emotionally-based movements - on both sides of the political spectrum - to come forward and present their case to the American people, about how things feel wrong in America, and about how they're the only ones that can fix it, so please ignore our glaring faults and histories while we do that.  This is 2 on the four qualities of authoritarian regimes.

These movements - both on the left and on the right - have been gaining more and more momentum as the years go by. 

On the right, the movement is based on fear - fear of 'good old America' being taken away and replaced with a socialist hellhole that pays people (usually minorities) to go and irresponsibly have babies and generally be poor excuses for people, whereas 'real Americans'  are the ones who get up and go to work everyday and are suffering under the weight of a looming, oppressive government.

On the left, the movement is based on outrage - outrage over all the things that happened to minorities (most frequently blacks) in the past; outrage over the fact that not all opinions are equally valid, and that there are people who disagree with their opinions; outrage over this injustice and that wrong thing and so on.

Neither of these movements are good, because both of them basically want - in the end - a country where everyone ascribes to their particular vision of what the US should look like.  Both of them want to sanitize our history and our past - how they intend to do that, I'll leave up to your imaginations.

[Trigon]

The issue with democracy - particularly in America as it stands right now - is whether it can get over its current trend of swinging too far to the authoritarian side of things.  (And this is my argument against both the GOP and the Democrats right now.)...

Well, we now know that the answer is indeed "no". One only needs to look at the story so far regarding Trump's transition in order to understand the gravity of the situation.

I will simply reiterate the statement, posted elsewhere, that the 2016 election has indeed discredited US-style democracy as a viable political project. We could argue, as has been done earlier on this thread, whether or not the US government was truly democratic to begin with. But whatever our personal viewpoints, I think we can all agree that it was perceived as a democracy by the majority of the population throughout much of its existence. And it was this model that most the rest of the world compared itself with over the past two centuries, when building their own versions of democratic governance. But as things stand, it is quickly losing credibility, especially to the younger generations.


At this stage, I have no idea how long the new authoritarianism will last. My personal view is that the answer to that will depend largely on how soon it finds itself engulfed in a nuclear war, or a global pandemic that will soon follow the post-antibiotic era (or both). How it will come to that will be anyone's guess, but there are a number of credible threats on the horizon that could trigger this (i.e. rogue states, climate change impacts, emerging new diseases, etc.). In the absence of any credible resistance or political alternatives, the crises coming ahead will be inevitable.

What comes next will be up to the future generations that will soon inherit this mess.

[Prosak]

Democracy as we know it is only about 100 years old. It's not like some ancient venerable institution is crashing down. Governments are shaped by their people, not the other way around. Flux is their natural condition.

Modern democracy is only a hundred years old, ancient greece is the bedrock to democracy. And rome actually had democracy somewhat into practice within the senate. In fact the us system is a mirror to romes in many ways. Especially in the fact that we are a republic, much like Rome was. More accurately the us is:  A constitutional republic. Any way point here being, Democracy is actually a little older then you give it credit for. But that's just heresay theresay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My take on this question: The only threat to democracy is the way, the far far left and the far far right takes stances on handling today's issues. Creating moral issues where there is none and taking moral authority in any debate with the intention to silence the other side whilst holding onto the microphone. The only difference between the two being that the Right calls for smaller government. The left these days seem to call for bigger government. Meaning higher taxes, more over reach, etc. Which does indeed put a threat on the democratic spectrum. Asking for the government to play a part in matters that should not ever concern the government, only takes power further away from the people. A few off the cuff reasons big government will never work the way idealists wish it would:

1) The government is doing things it shouldn't be doing: How do you think Burger King would do at selling perfume? How would you feel about eating Purina brand hamburger? How about discount shoes sold by Rolex? If the government were simply building roads, throwing up a few street signs, securing the borders and making sure rotten horse meat isn't being sold as steak in the local supermarket, it would probably be relatively good at its jobs. But, when we have the government declaring your yard a wetland because it rains, micro managing what kind of light bulbs you're allowed to buy, bailing out big corporations and forcibly taking over our health care, of course the government does it badly. Just as you couldn't be a talented brain surgeon, race car driver AND Navy SEAL all at the same time, the federal government simply cannot be all things to all people.

2) The late, great Milton Friedman once said,

“When everybody owns something, nobody owns it, and nobody has a direct interest in maintaining or improving its condition. That is why buildings in the Soviet Union — like public housing in the United States — look decrepit within a year or two of their construction…” Our government already has a lack of responsibility for it's actions. All governments do. Bigger the government, the bigger their shrug when they want a lack of accountability. As an example, Obama takes no personal responsibility for the Affordable care act not being so affordable, Hilary Clinton takes no real responsibility for the dangers her Email scandal put on foreign agents or her role in Benghazi, and Our president elect Donald J, Trump is doing the good old government shrug. "I dunno about no Russian hacking" lol. Point is, when your accountable for something the best thing you can do is ignore it and never say sorry. Just like when you get in a car accident, never say sorry or else you take responsibility for what had taken place. Our politicians are very practiced at it.

As you can already tell, I personally agree with this poster actually: ReijiTabibito :

The issue with democracy - particularly in America as it stands right now - is whether it can get over its current trend of swinging too far to the authoritarian side of things.  (And this is my argument against both the GOP and the Democrats right now.)...

People have public outrage over many small issues these days and look to the government over what can be easily argued as; Personal grievances of an ideological standard. Bringing the government deeper into our lives like this in order to police inner circle issues between race, gender, etc makes a bigger government and is not in your best interest for democracy. All in all this is what a career politician wants. They want you to try and bring these kinds of walls down so they can build them back up with less and less of 'your rights' to stop them. Like gun control: Of coarse the left wants to take your guns away, it is your number one defense against your goverment. I dont know how or why most people dont know, but I blow away a lot of peoples minds by informing them that the second amendment was not put into place so a bunch of rednecks can go hunting but rather, it was put in place by our founding fathers. Fresh off of fighting a war for their own liberty, from the tyranny of their own goverment. So that in the inevitability that the Constitution fails to protect it's people, the US people can rise up against their own goverment. Anarchists literally putting in a kill switch for future anarchists. They knew that any government, including the one they were forming, could inevitably fail it's people. And that is some special lack of hubris right their on part of the founding fathers. Bravo *slow clap.* Also, just to put that point on gun control home: I dont own a gun, only ever fired a pistol once and cant tell the difference between a semi auto or fully auto assualt rifle and even I knew the important fundamentals of why our second ammendment is crucial to our constitution. I mean, unless you want to have our future uprising be a bunch of pistol's versus swat with tanks. (Yep, there is inner city police departments fitted with military grade APC's these days. : http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a18590/when-police-get-armored-personnel-carriers/ )

None the less it is this authoritarian mindset people have begun to grasp onto that is literally choking democracy in Europe and here in the US. In fact, and I know this is controversial to say. But the most democratic action any of these governments made in a long time was the UK leaving the EU. Wether it was better for the country is up to debate, but no one can argue the solid fact that the people voted and their government obliged. Leaving what I dare say, is the least democratic thing in this modern day democratic circle jerk. (Cough cough, the EU cough.)

~ The EU: Making democracy more socialist, one step at a time.  :D




Joking about the EU and it's slow, slow, slow inevitable failure aside: In the end if your a tinfoil hat wearing mother fucker like me, your real concern for the future of democracy mirrors the original Deus Ex game, government bail outs for corporations and dependency on corporate funding wrapping them up in corporate schemes. This is the truest threat to every ones freedom: The inevitability that the government will be so entrenched within corporations that it is truly the corporations running us all.

[midnightblack]

Discuss!

For the moment, I am currently leaning towards "not a chance in hell", but I'd be curious to hear the rest of your viewpoints. Personally I think the coming crises (political, economic, ecological) will prove too much for democracy as we know it to overcome, but I suppose you never know...

Well, there's nothing really new here. The romans figured out that you can exploit the system by around 100 BC. If you can play the crowd properly, then any political (with shortcut to personal) ambition is in reach. Not surprisingly, they ditched it shortly after.  :-)

If you'll take a train ride through history, from Augustus to Napoleon, you'll notice that societies typically flourish when the rods of power are employed discretionary by a single man (or woman, see Queen Elizabeth I of England or Catherine II of Russia) with many flaws and two big redeeming qualities: the leader has a sound vision and is talented at getting surrounded with underlings whom, while having a much more narrow perspective, are terrific at carrying out instructions in their given fields. The downside to this approach is that more often than not you end up with an idiot in charge and you are stuck like that for life, unless you take extraordinary measures. Periodic elections at least give you the chance to replace a bunch of idiots with other idiots.

I am jaded beyond grief by the current implementation of democracy, at least given the way it works in my country (from what I've learned in my travels, everyone and their pets have something to complain in regard to it, but I could not possibly comment on matters outside of my immediate experience). Nearly three decades ago, people younger than me had their lives taken by the thousands, either by a bullet or beaten to death by the agents of some authority that has never been revealed thereafter. They died fighting for what they believed to be a future of freedom. Now, with the free elections taking place almost 30 years later, the majority of the population decided not to participate, and those that did show up voted overwhelmingly for the same (slightly rebranded) communist bastards that have kept them poor and underdeveloped since the fall of the soviet union. This is one of the main reasons why I believe the current system is still deeply flawed and open to being exploited by populists through the same methods discovered thousands of years ago (mostly promising free money and magical solutions to all of humanity's problems).

While I do have (reasonable but inapplicable) opinions on how to make the system more true to its spirit, I think it's best that I keep them to myself. Nothing good has ever come out of debating politics over the Internet.

[CopperLily]

When you put it like that you make me think of Lt. Razchak, discussing the failure of democracy. Id honestly be happy in a way with the Starship Troopers government. Yes its oppressive but at least the politicians weren't all silver spoons and had given something back with their service. :P

But then again they had heavy fascist tones. If only we could have our cake and eat it too.

Ignoring of course that the silver spoons have always found ways to make military service more comfortable and safer than it is for everyone else.

[HannibalBarca]

The Founding Fathers made it clear that a democracy would only work with an informed electorate, not a minimally educated group of citizens.  Skeptics make the best citizens--not paranoid survivalists or angry know-nothings.  The current situation of our citizens is a double-edged knife.  The internet can be a tool for knowledge--or it can be a way to preserve the bubble of ignorance you live in.

[Inkidu]

The Founding Fathers made it clear that a democracy would only work with an informed electorate, not a minimally educated group of citizens.  Skeptics make the best citizens--not paranoid survivalists or angry know-nothings.  The current situation of our citizens is a double-edged knife.  The internet can be a tool for knowledge--or it can be a way to preserve the bubble of ignorance you live in.

Such as the bubble democrats found out popped when they lost this current election. It's called false-consensus bias.

"I only talk to people who share my ideas, my favorite talk-show hosts all hate the Republicans, no one in Hollywood likes who I hate. How can my side lose?"

Political ideology is not a line. It's a horseshoe. If you want to look at why such fundamentalist Republicans managed to take an election, you need to look at how the worst elements of the opposite side could push the majority of people into a unified front against it. People did not vote for Trump because of his various faults. They voted for him in spite of those things, and that's an important distinction to grasp.

The sad truth is that there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans when both sides are willing to outright hate one another for no really reasonable reason, how can their be anything but extremes?

[TheGlyphstone]

Such as the bubble democrats found out popped when they lost this current election. It's called false-consensus bias.

"I only talk to people who share my ideas, my favorite talk-show hosts all hate the Republicans, no one in Hollywood likes who I hate. How can my side lose?"

Political ideology is not a line. It's a horseshoe. If you want to look at why such fundamentalist Republicans managed to take an election, you need to look at how the worst elements of the opposite side could push the majority of people into a unified front against it. People did not vote for Trump because of his various faults. They voted for him in spite of those things, and that's an important distinction to grasp.

The sad truth is that there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans when both sides are willing to outright hate one another for no really reasonable reason, how can their be anything but extremes?

Someone had posted an interesting infographic in one of our eleventy billion political discussion threads here. It was a representation of politically aligned Twitter accounts and who they followed/retweeted on a spectrum, showing the echo-chamber clusters at the respective ends of the scale. I wish I could find it, cause it was that pale and all-too-thin space in the middle that was the important bit.

[Prosak]

Hope you do find it Glyph, sounds interesting. Id like to see the findings. I am certain theres a lot on both sides. Political bias is all to easy.

[Inkidu]

Just remember that democracies only die because the voters no longer want a democracy. No one party ever kills a democracy. To be able to vote is a burden. It is not a freedom. It weighs, and many people not just Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals simply don't wish to shoulder it. It might have a violent end, but Trump won't bring it by simply being president.

Democracies die when enough people just put down the burden. It dies quietly and alone.

[Cassandra LeMay]

People did not vote for Trump because of his various faults. They voted for him in spite of those things, and that's an important distinction to grasp.

I am not so sure we can be altogether certain of the "despite, not because" aspect. There were several reasons people might have voted for Trump, and people whose most important reasons were partisanship or economic anxiety might well have found Trump's racist and sexist attitudes a price worth paying. But racism and sexism were strong predictors of Trump support.

How racist or sexist someone was made very little difference for their decision to vote for McCain or Romney. But with Trump, the more sexist or racist a voter was the higher the likelihood of them voting Trump over Clinton, and we are talking about significant differences between people with different social attitudes. (Source)

What no one can answer for certain yet (and maybe never) is if that is just a case of correlation, or causation. Did people who are inherently sexist or racist just find it easier to ignore those aspects of Trump's personality? Or did those people actually vote for him because he shared their own attitudes? No one knows, but personally, I think the correlation is so strong that I wouldn't categorically state that no one voted for Trump because of his sexism or racism.

[Silk]

I am not so sure we can be altogether certain of the "despite, not because" aspect. There were several reasons people might have voted for Trump, and people whose most important reasons were partisanship or economic anxiety might well have found Trump's racist and sexist attitudes a price worth paying. But racism and sexism were strong predictors of Trump support.

How racist or sexist someone was made very little difference for their decision to vote for McCain or Romney. But with Trump, the more sexist or racist a voter was the higher the likelihood of them voting Trump over Clinton, and we are talking about significant differences between people with different social attitudes. (Source)

What no one can answer for certain yet (and maybe never) is if that is just a case of correlation, or causation. Did people who are inherently sexist or racist just find it easier to ignore those aspects of Trump's personality? Or did those people actually vote for him because he shared their own attitudes? No one knows, but personally, I think the correlation is so strong that I wouldn't categorically state that no one voted for Trump because of his sexism or racism.

Even if it is a matter of causation, you need to be sure it's the causation that is being claimed. You can say its more people who are racist are more likely to vote for Trump, while I can argue that it's people who are growing tired of the identity politics agenda (and by classification of groups become racist) voted for Trump. We've already gone quite far recently into just how malleable and exploitable terms like racist are to make it fit a narrarive. After all I've been called racist in the past because I said I think scholarships designed only for specific races is in of itself racist and shouldn't exist. So which of us is racist in that situation?

[Vekseid]

Well there's also the drug addiction/alcohol abuse study.

[Inkidu]

Well there's also the drug addiction/alcohol abuse study.

Could that be because the rural poor are basically being choked out on meth? :\

EDIT: Which is to say that's exactly what the article is about. They're not voting for him because they're druggies. They're voting for him because they're desperate and feel they've been neglected not only by eight years of the Obama administration, but that general beltway oligarchy.

[Cassandra LeMay]

EDIT: Which is to say that's exactly what the article is about. They're not voting for him because they're druggies. They're voting for him because they're desperate and feel they've been neglected not only by eight years of the Obama administration, but that general beltway oligarchy.

One thing to note here is that Trump doing well in areas of "economic distress" does not necessarily mean he won among voters who suffer from actual, current  hardship or drug addiction.

Exit polls showed that Clinton did better than Trump among low income voters. The poor didn't vote strongly for Trump. Where he did better than Clinton were the middle-income voters. Those are the people that suffer not from "economic hardship" (i.e. actual poverty or joblessness), but "economic anxiety" (i.e. fear of future hardship). It's not surprising that those middle-income voters have a greater fear of future decline in areas that already show strong signs of decline, and therefore came out strongly for Trump.

[Inkidu]

You know what? I don't want democracy to survive, because this whole thing in America has convinced me that not one of us deserve universal suffrage. You have one side attempting to de-legitimize the president elect because... they don't like him on a personal level? They find him disagreeable? They lost? What? Why? The democrats have terrible people in their ranks, too. Trump makes sexual comments. Worst human being ever. Bill Clinton undoubtedly sexually assaults women. Meh...

There is ZERO perspective or self-awareness from anyone. If Trump had the democratic ballot for President I know this whole thing would be fucking flipped on its head with no since of irony whatsoever.

I quit. No one deserves it. It's too high an ideal for us terrible people. Heinlein was right, and to a lesser extent so was Plato. Democracy or more correctly democracy that you don't have to work for is evil. It's indolent and leads to an unearned since of entitlement and an earned air of irresponsibility.

I'm done. >:(

[Vekseid]

Don't go full fascist. It is not good for health.

The sheer irony - or hypocrisy - of people complaining about questioning a birther's legitimacy would be hilarious if it were not so troubling.

Except, you know, the people questioning Trump's legitimacy actually have evidence to back up their positions. The only thing backing people questioning Obama's legitimacy was bigotry.

To quote Teddy Roosevelt:

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Trump has said some ridiculous things. These things deserve scorn and criticism.

Trump has done some horrible things. These things deserve scorn and criticism.

Two of these things - his appointment of Jeff Sessions and his opposition to Network Neutrality - directly impacts your ability to access Elliquiy.

Because we live in a democracy with an unprecedented respect for the freedom of speech, however, we can do something about Trump's actions in this regard.

[Cassandra LeMay]

... Trump has said some ridiculous things. These things deserve scorn and criticism.

Trump has done some horrible things. These things deserve scorn and criticism. ...

Not to mention that he has proposed (at least during the campaign) policies that would be patently illegal or unconstitutional.

[Inkidu]

Don't go full fascist. It is not good for health.

The sheer irony - or hypocrisy - of people complaining about questioning a birther's legitimacy would be hilarious if it were not so troubling.

Except, you know, the people questioning Trump's legitimacy actually have evidence to back up their positions. The only thing backing people questioning Obama's legitimacy was bigotry.

To quote Teddy Roosevelt:

Trump has said some ridiculous things. These things deserve scorn and criticism.

Trump has done some horrible things. These things deserve scorn and criticism.

Two of these things - his appointment of Jeff Sessions and his opposition to Network Neutrality - directly impacts your ability to access Elliquiy.

Because we live in a democracy with an unprecedented respect for the freedom of speech, however, we can do something about Trump's actions in this regard.

And many a democrat has done some horrible and ridiculous thing that deserve scorn and criticism, but when it's Your Side (patent pending) it's just amazing what people are willing to float by but turn around with no sense of hypocrisy at all. It's apparently in the job description of being a politician that you have to do some horrible things, and well, billionaires are always one too many Persian cats away from Bond villainy

Look, I never jumped on the Obama isn't a US citizen thing. If there had been any real evidence it would have been found. That kind of thing is way too easy to get a hold of. I mean if it were difficult PI's would be out of a job. I could probably find Obama's birth certificate, but what what birth-based evidence can you level against Trump in return? He was born on US soil as far as I know. If it's his tax returns that's silly, because everyone's tax returns go to one place and one place only, and can be looked up at just about anyone's leisure.

Yet, what's the evidence? I mean dissatisfaction with the electoral college is not evidence that nulls his election to office. If you want to change that part of our government you've got a long fight that goes beyond Bush, Obama, or Trump.

If it's voter fraud or Putin can we just put those to bed. Our whole electoral process was not hijacked by Putin. Yes, he's the closest thing to an actual Bond villain that has ever existed, but for goodness sake there's no great conspiracy here. Just like Obama isn't secretly some extremist Muslim plant to undermine America. Though honestly some of his final-days stuff is really beginning to make me think he's had some kind of... break.

Anyway, I wasn't even thinking about birther whatever when I wrote this. I just know without a shadow of a doubt that if Hillary had won and the Republicans raised this level of criticism and protest they would be smacked down and ridiculed just as hard by the Democrats. And you can tell me that you don't view all grievances the same, and that's true to a point, but at some level there has to be a since of parity about this. Just a small glimmer of self-awareness that the two sides are really more alike than they'd like, but I see none.

There is a genuine belief that the people who voted for Trump are at best ignorant, fascist racists, and at worst, some kind subhuman hatred monsters, which isn't true. And yes, you can tell me you shouldn't judge the whole party by its extremes, but that's exactly what the the Democrats are doing to the Republicans and they them, in a oruboros of self-feeding hatred on all sides. It's insanity.

So don't accuse me of going full-fascist because the democracy as is is a stone's throw away, because nothing screams fascist like believe what I say or else, and it's coming from both sides, and the democrats just happen to be screaming it the loudest from what I'm hearing. Demanding responsibility and a little skin in the game from the voting populace really only seems the sane option in this current climate.

Because at the end of the day if the democrats succeed in de-legitimizing Trumps election to office that's it for the government as is anyway. Accuse me of being dramatic if you want, but it's the same thing that happened to Rome. When you strip the consul of his station by using the populace's outcry, you set up a dangerous precedent.

What about the next Democratic president? What's to prevent them from being protested out of office? Then the next one? Then the next? What's to stop senators and representatives if the outcry for "justice" is strong enough? Nothing really. You kill one consul you can kill another. You drag one senator into the street you can drag another. You have one revolution, one civil war, you can have another.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand there are grievances, and people always believe their grievances are founded, and facts could indeed give them basis. That's why we have right to peaceful assembly and free speech, but they are unbelievably fragile things as history has shown this country over and over again And more fragile than we really know. The Founding Fathers actually made it really easy to burn down the whole government in revolution, because they themselves revolted and saw the need for it.

But there has to be care taken with it. Once you go outside the system in a drastic way. I mean Trump isn't being impeached or brought up on charges, he's being protested. The vote of the American people at most and the electoral college at least is being protested. There was a large bulwark of voters of whatever makeup more unified against a Democrat president than there were Democrats against Trump, and so they lost. I'm not seeing any big marches in the streets about changing the electoral college, because that might actually get it done this time. The attack is totally focused on the victorious, and as far as anyone knows he won like any other American elected president in the past.

All I'm seeing on the horizon is one hell of a Pyrrhic victory. So I just can't believe in Universal Suffrage anymore. The right to vote is too powerful to hand out to everyone just because. It's too big a responsibility, but go on. Call me a fascist it's what our political system does. It takes incredibly complex issues and boils them down into the simplest, worst possible ideas.  Just because I don't believe everyone should have the vote doesn't mean I don't believe everyone should have the Bill of Rights.

I don't know maybe I picked the wrong SF author. Maybe Frank Herbert was right.

[Silk]

I can see the Trump situation going the same way as Brexit at the moment, everyones trying to undermine it, which will only make it worse for everyone in the long run. Antagonise your President and a good portion of your electorate college, undermine the confidence that the UK can show when going into negotiations with the EU and other countries. It's cutting your nose to spite your face, Sure Trump may be bad, but the way I see a lot of people acting is hardly going to improve the situation, quite the opposite, it will only serve to make the situation worse.

[ReijiTabibito]

A democracy is only as good as the worst citizen who has the right to vote.  Now, 'worst' could be used in a number of different ways - intellectually, morally, others - but when it comes to governance, I prefer this definition:

The worst citizen in a democracy is the one who either does not inform themselves on the issues, or ignores the information in favor of their own personal biases.

There's quite a few Democrats I've talked to (I live in New England) who have said that the problem with Trump voters was not that they were racist or bigoted or any of those deplorable things that the media keeps screaming about, but that they were uninformed on the issues.  With that carried an undertone of 'if they were just well-educated and in the know on the major issues, then they wouldn't have voted for him.'

I disagreed, and I explained why with an analogy.  You are driving home from work, late at night, and coming up to a stoplight, which has just turned yellow.  You know that it will be red by the time that you actually get there.  There are no cops around, no other cars, just you and the stoplight.  You were hoping to swing by Wendy's to pick up some food before it closes, but if you get stopped by that light, you'll never make it - you know this.

Do you run the red light?

Now, some people would say 'no, the law is the law, and the food isn't really all that important anyways.'  But some people would say 'yes, I run the light, it's not hurting anyone and I want that food.'  Anyone who drives a car knows that a red light is a universal signal for stop - there is no ignorance of this fact.  But people run red lights anyways, because they judge their own personal self-interest is more important.

In short, education alone does not solve the problem democracies across the world face.  In Plato's Apology, Socrates noted that there is a limit to what education can do - I am paraphrasing, but what he said is that education can enhance learning, enhance rationality, but it cannot enhance morality.  A teacher may live out a virtuous life as example for his students to emulate, but no more than that.

The modern trap that democracies are falling into now is the thing that JFK warned us about:  "Ask not..."  We are overmuch concerned with how the government can be used to improve the life of me, myself, and I, and not with how government is to be used to improve the lives of those what need most improving.  Universal suffrage is not impossible, but it's magnitudes harder to sustain as a society grows in numbers AND when that society preaches the self and the individual above all other considerations.  There's a quote from the movie The Patriot that I usually pull out when I describe the modern state of our democracy, which is this: "Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

The things we are seeing now in our democracy, I contend, are not 'bugs in the system' as is sometimes put.  We are seeing democracy function exactly as it should under the circumstances we are currently in.  The solution is not to 'fix the system,' the solution is to start making better, more moral people to inhabit that democracy.  Except we can't do that because then somehow you get people screaming about the freedom to do what they want and how any infringement upon that freedom is un-democratic.

[Vekseid]

And many a democrat has done some horrible and ridiculous thing that deserve scorn and criticism, but when it's Your Side (patent pending) it's just amazing what people are willing to float by but turn around with no sense of hypocrisy at all. It's apparently in the job description of being a politician that you have to do some horrible things, and well, billionaires are always one too many Persian cats away from Bond villainy

The thing about Democrats doing bad things is you rarely find a Republican who goes against those things. To get action we need the likes of Google or otherwise drive mass popular outrage a la SOPA or e.g. the recent attempts by House Republicans to gut ethics.

Hell, getting Democrats to support net neutrality took an act of fucking God - the outrage of the technical population actually got to Wheeler.

Look, I never jumped on the Obama isn't a US citizen thing. If there had been any real evidence it would have been found.

Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen. His birth certificate is irrelevant. That is kind of the point - there is zero question as to Obama's legitimacy. Anyone who did objected to his skin color.

That kind of thing is way too easy to get a hold of. I mean if it were difficult PI's would be out of a job. I could probably find Obama's birth certificate, but what what birth-based evidence can you level against Trump in return? He was born on US soil as far as I know. If it's his tax returns that's silly, because everyone's tax returns go to one place and one place only, and can be looked up at just about anyone's leisure.

Really? Please let me know where I can access Trump's tax returns.

Yet, what's the evidence? I mean dissatisfaction with the electoral college is not evidence that nulls his election to office. If you want to change that part of our government you've got a long fight that goes beyond Bush, Obama, or Trump.

That discussion is going to get louder over the next few years.

If it's voter fraud or Putin can we just put those to bed. Our whole electoral process was not hijacked by Putin. Yes, he's the closest thing to an actual Bond villain that has ever existed, but for goodness sake there's no great conspiracy here. Just like Obama isn't secretly some extremist Muslim plant to undermine America. Though honestly some of his final-days stuff is really beginning to make me think he's had some kind of... break.

It's about the money, in part. Though I've been thinking of doing a sticky post on all the shit Russia has been up to. Just focusing on Putin's alleged compromise of Trump does not really do justice to what is going on.

The Firehose of Falsehood is truly something else. They supported Trump - and Jill Stein. Guess who is sponsoring #Calexit.

Anyway, I wasn't even thinking about birther whatever when I wrote this. I just know without a shadow of a doubt that if Hillary had won and the Republicans raised this level of criticism and protest they would be smacked down and ridiculed just as hard by the Democrats. And you can tell me that you don't view all grievances the same, and that's true to a point, but at some level there has to be a since of parity about this. Just a small glimmer of self-awareness that the two sides are really more alike than they'd like, but I see none.

At this point claiming the two sides are alike is a farce.

Seriously have you paid attention to what House Republicans have tried to pull since the elections? Thank fuck there are a few sane Republican senators.

Even then, how do you defend Betsy DeVos, or Michael Flynn, or Jeff Sessions?

About the only thing that is the 'same' is the coterie of Goldman Sachs bankers that Trump is bringing in. You would rightly criticize Clinton for that, but sweep the fact that Trump has done objectively worse under the rug.

There is a genuine belief that the people who voted for Trump are at best ignorant, fascist racists, and at worst, some kind subhuman hatred monsters, which isn't true. And yes, you can tell me you shouldn't judge the whole party by its extremes, but that's exactly what the the Democrats are doing to the Republicans and they them, in a oruboros of self-feeding hatred on all sides. It's insanity.

Conservatives have been dehumanizing liberals for decades. Have turned it into a swear word. Breitbart even used a Nazi phrase threatening the lives of scientists as an article title.

So yeah, you're going to see some of that hate reflected back on conservatives. Burke would be ashamed to think he had anything to do with the modern 'conservative' movement.

Republicans are becoming increasingly anti-intellectual. Belligerently so. Scientists - people who have given their lives to make the world a better place - get death threats.

When is that okay, Inkidu?

So don't accuse me of going full-fascist because the democracy as is is a stone's throw away, because nothing screams fascist like believe what I say or else, and it's coming from both sides, and the democrats just happen to be screaming it the loudest from what I'm hearing.

Do find me a Democratic or liberal publication of similar reach to Breitbart that calls for murder.

I won't hold my breath.

Demanding responsibility and a little skin in the game from the voting populace really only seems the sane option in this current climate.

Because at the end of the day if the democrats succeed in de-legitimizing Trumps election to office that's it for the government as is anyway. Accuse me of being dramatic if you want, but it's the same thing that happened to Rome. When you strip the consul of his station by using the populace's outcry, you set up a dangerous precedent.

...who is our Sulla in your narrative?

What about the next Democratic president? What's to prevent them from being protested out of office? Then the next one? Then the next? What's to stop senators and representatives if the outcry for "justice" is strong enough? Nothing really. You kill one consul you can kill another. You drag one senator into the street you can drag another. You have one revolution, one civil war, you can have another.

Oh, I don't know, maybe having a president who releases their tax returns, divests themselves of their business interests, doesn't give shady greedy fuckwits cabinet positions, doesn't try to influence policy via Twitter, doesn't maintain shady ties to foreign governments, and comports themselves as a respectable human being.

Is that really too much to ask from our president?

Now don't get me wrong. I understand there are grievances, and people always believe their grievances are founded, and facts could indeed give them basis. That's why we have right to peaceful assembly and free speech, but they are unbelievably fragile things as history has shown this country over and over again And more fragile than we really know. The Founding Fathers actually made it really easy to burn down the whole government in revolution, because they themselves revolted and saw the need for it.

No they didn't. They were some smart fucking cookies who built a document that held us together for over two hundred years - one of the longest continuing governments on Earth. They made mistakes. Many mistakes.

The United States is rare in that it is one nation that has only had one government - outside of the South. You don't see that often. It's part of why foreigners accuse us of not having much history.

But there has to be care taken with it. Once you go outside the system in a drastic way. I mean Trump isn't being impeached or brought up on charges, he's being protested. The vote of the American people at most and the electoral college at least is being protested. There was a large bulwark of voters of whatever makeup more unified against a Democrat president than there were Democrats against Trump, and so they lost. I'm not seeing any big marches in the streets about changing the electoral college, because that might actually get it done this time. The attack is totally focused on the victorious, and as far as anyone knows he won like any other American elected president in the past.

He is being investigated, however.

All I'm seeing on the horizon is one hell of a Pyrrhic victory. So I just can't believe in Universal Suffrage anymore. The right to vote is too powerful to hand out to everyone just because. It's too big a responsibility, but go on. Call me a fascist it's what our political system does. It takes incredibly complex issues and boils them down into the simplest, worst possible ideas.  Just because I don't believe everyone should have the vote doesn't mean I don't believe everyone should have the Bill of Rights.

I don't know maybe I picked the wrong SF author. Maybe Frank Herbert was right.

You are directly tying people's speech - political speech at that - to your disagreement with universal suffrage.

So yeah. The one treading dangerous ground here is you.

[Inkidu]

I've already spent more time in this forum than I like. I guess the coming inauguration outcry has me a little more antsy about these things than I'd normally be. There is no point in arguing politics in this climate anyway. Being right isn't going to make me happy in this case. So this is me bowing out. 

[Cassandra LeMay]

I've already spent more time in this forum than I like.

Why? And yes, that is a serious question. Why did you do that?

Maybe I am slightly slow on the uptake because it is going on 1am and I am mildly intoxicated, but if you you do not like spending time in this particular forum, why did you?

[Trigon]

The Economist has now downgraded the USA from a "full democracy" to a "flawed democracy": https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex2016

Things are beginning to not look so good for democracy in America indeed.

[Cassandra LeMay]

The Economist has now downgraded the USA from a "full democracy" to a "flawed democracy": https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex2016

Things are beginning to not look so good for democracy in America indeed.

That's not a new development. The trend has been going on for a while now, thanks to gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and other meassures that make access to the ballot box harder (or less meaningful for some individuals). Trump may have done a lot to erode trust in political institutions, but there are other elements to this downgrading that started before the ascend of Trump.

[ReijiTabibito]

It's also worth pointing out that the score of a nation through the Democracy Index consists of five overall categories.

Electoral Process and Pluralism
Functioning of Government
Political Participation
Political Culture
Civil Liberties

The place where the US really lags behind is in categories 2 and 3, which makes sense.  The current political elites basically want the same dozen issues to contend to the people over and over and over again so they can earn endless re-election, and with the exception of this past cycle (up until Bernie Sanders had to drop out), voter apathy and non-participation in national elections was part of a rising trend.

Furthermore, with the exception of only 4 nations, all the 'Full Democracies' are located in Western Europe.  Yet look at the news reports coming out of those countries about the problems they're facing right now.  A full democracy, by itself, doesn't mean things that people want to ascribe to it.

Lastly, a number of other nations are right along with the US in that 'top of Flawed' category.  Japan.  Italy.  France.  South Korea.  Portugal.  Israel.  And the list goes on.

[Trigon]

The real problem, I think, is the overall trend of declining faith in democracy, especially with the millennial generation: https://qz.com/848031/harvard-research-suggests-that-an-entire-global-generation-has-lost-faith-in-democracy/

The recent downgrade, I think, is in fact a reflection of the above lack of faith (the election of Trump is just merely a symptom...)

[ReijiTabibito]

I don't blame them.  Vox populi is hardly the governing principle of today.  Today it's more vox aurum.  This particular election cycle was not kind to Millennials, either.  Everyone and their brother knew that the GOP represents the party of the retired, the religious, the affluent, the elect.

What my generation was disabused of was the notion that because Republicans were Bad Guys, the Democrats must be Good Guys.  The DNC had the chance to bring forward a candidate that the younger generation was - and still is! - excited about.  People are probably going to get tired of me harping about Bernie, but I will point out to you that he's been on the warpath and doing everything he promised - keeping the new administration honest, fighting for the rights of the average American - ever since he lost.  What's HRC been doing?  If you believe the news reports, hiding out in the woods.

That the DNC committed actions that were no better than things their opposition did - whether this cycle or in past ones - thoroughly shook the Democratic base awake.  The Democrats are not Good Guys.  Nobody are Good Guys simply based on their political alignment.

That said, there is one other reason I can think of why the younger generations would lose faith in democracy.  It's a generation that believes a very different thing about government than generations that came before it.  I don't want to be right, but the possibility that Millennials are throwing a fit over the fact that 'government isn't doing what I want it to do, it must be broken' has crossed my mind.

Government has no requirement to do anything for the people beyond what it needs to to survive.  If it does do something beyond that, then that is a government that is interested in something, though what that something is can vary.  The USG did not, for 150 years after its founding, offer retirement benefits to its citizens.  Why?  Because it did not think it was required to, so it didn't.  Circumstances and times change, though, so at times what government is required to do changes.

[TheGlyphstone]

Heck, Trump deliberately harnessed that lack of faith as part of his demagoguery. He was all about 'returning power to the people' and making the 'average American' feel like their vote mattered. Right up until he actually got the power in question, at least.

[Cassandra LeMay]

There is a very interesting article in German weekly newspaper Die Zeit today. (German original)

What the article argues is that populism can grow in a democracy because many people feel the politicians don't listen to them. That's not a new idea, but the article goes on to argue that this problem exists because what we define as democracy (and how it should work) changed with the French and American revolutions, that those events led to the model that democracy is best served by a few "good, superior men" ruling in the name of the whole population. before that an element of randomness was seen as a cornerstone of government by the public for the public, from ancient Greece to Montesquieu and Rousseau, who argued that governing was a burden that should be shared fairly among the people and that assigning people to governing duties by lot was the only fair method to spread that burden among all (eligible) people.

What the authors argue for as a solution (and a return to those older ideals of democracy) is not public votes or referenda on major questions (which they critizize for the risk of people voting more on their gut feelings than informed opinions, an opinion I share), but something based on the Constitutional Convention and Citizens' Assembly in Ireland.

Personally I find this idea of a random selection of the population coming together to hear from experts, have debates among themselves over a period of time, become informed on a topic before making a recommendation highly appealing and a model that should be used in more countries. You have a selection of everyday people, which gives the process legitimacy as something actually representing the will of the people, but the format of hearings and regular debates also ensures that the result is based on more than the gut instincts of an ill-informed mass.

(The article cites one man who participated in the Constitutional Convention, which had (among other things) the task to make a recommendation for or against same-sex marriage. He went into the convention highly negative of gays, after having been raped as a child by a man. In the end he voted for same-sex marriage after having actually met gay and lesbian people there and hearing from them.)

[Trigon]

I concur to a large extent. We should also keep in mind, however, that a large part of this feeling stems from the fact that our elective representatives are easily influenced by the donor class (i.e. the "1% class"). And this can be traced to the ideology of Neoliberalism.

I think this article best describes the current era: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/14153678

As the liberal center has collapsed, the immediate future will be determined by the movements of both the World-"Right", and the World-"Left". Since the primary goal of the "Right" is to repeal the social progress of the 20th century, this means that, by default, I am on the "Left". I suspect that this division will grow over the next 25 years.

For those who want to be a "centrist", you should understand that at this point it is unstable...

[ReijiTabibito]

As the liberal center has collapsed, the immediate future will be determined by the movements of both the World-"Right", and the World-"Left". Since the primary goal of the "Right" is to repeal the social progress of the 20th century, this means that, by default, I am on the "Left". I suspect that this division will grow over the next 25 years.

Be careful.  This is the thing I was talking about earlier - the idea that if the Right are Bad Guys, then the Left must be Good Guys.  Yes.  The right has its fair share of 'get back in the kitchen woman,' 'no abortions allowed,' and 'gays cause earthquakes' crazies.  These are not people who should be listened to.  At the same time, the left has its fair share of crazies: 'hate speech is not free speech,' 'Muslims are an oppressed minority,' and the general Social Justice movement, which more resembles a cult than the student protest movements of the 60s.

I suspect you and I are on the same page culturally when it comes to certain things: we don't mind who you marry or if you choose to stay at home or have a career, people smoking a bit of weed around us doesn't set us off, cultural liberalism - you do your thing and as long as it doesn't interfere with my thing, we're cool.  The people who want to repeal things like women's lib and LGB progress, they are authoritarian - they want to use the power of government and the state to force people to live they way they believe that people should live.

[TheGlyphstone]

Don't forget the anti-vaxxers; they're close to the top of far-left fringe factions that are definitely not Good Guys.

[Trigon]

Don't forget the anti-vaxxers; they're close to the top of far-left fringe factions that are definitely not Good Guys.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. At the very least, this position is also mirrored by the Far-Right. For instance, we only need to look at one of Trump's nominees: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/trump-taps-vaccine-skeptic-to-chair-committee-on-vaccine-safety/512708/

That's not to say that this sentiment is felt on some segments on the "Left" (for instance, Jill Stein). But I'm sure that many of the "Left" are not anti-vax (I certainly am not!). We should keep in mind that it is the Far-Right, and not the "Left", that is capitalizing on this...

Be careful.  This is the thing I was talking about earlier - the idea that if the Right are Bad Guys, then the Left must be Good Guys.  Yes.  The right has its fair share of 'get back in the kitchen woman,' 'no abortions allowed,' and 'gays cause earthquakes' crazies.  These are not people who should be listened to.  At the same time, the left has its fair share of crazies: 'hate speech is not free speech,' 'Muslims are an oppressed minority,' and the general Social Justice movement, which more resembles a cult than the student protest movements of the 60s.

I suspect you and I are on the same page culturally when it comes to certain things: we don't mind who you marry or if you choose to stay at home or have a career, people smoking a bit of weed around us doesn't set us off, cultural liberalism - you do your thing and as long as it doesn't interfere with my thing, we're cool.  The people who want to repeal things like women's lib and LGB progress, they are authoritarian - they want to use the power of government and the state to force people to live they way they believe that people should live.

Yes, that is true; you and I are on the same page for most things. But we all have to keep in mind what each of these sides actually represent. At best, the Conservatives (i.e the Center-Right) are about maintaining the status quo. With perhaps the exception of the Libertarians (who are socially liberal and wouldn't care about individual lifestyles), the Conservatives don't want anything else to change, at best. At worst, well, we've seen what the GOP wants to do with regards to the social gains of the 20th century...

I don't deny that the far-left has its flaws. Very deep flaws as a matter of fact (for instance, its reluctance to forgo its totalitarian past). But historically, they have otherwise been on the side of social emancipation. For instance, we need only to take a look at Rosa Luxenburg's writings (or Emma Goldman, Murray Bookchin, etc.)

There have been many theories as to why the 'Left" has failed, no doubt! But in my view, I suspect the reason is related to the fact that it has so far been unable find a way to move beyond the intrinsic logic of the world capitalist system (so, the Soviet Union was actually a form of State Capitalism, as is present day China, and increasingly, Trumpism..) 

A viable alternative model is perhaps Bookchin's "Communalism". Another one is the idea of Economic Democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy

[TheGlyphstone]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. At the very least, this position is also mirrored by the Far-Right. For instance, we only need to look at one of Trump's nominees: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/trump-taps-vaccine-skeptic-to-chair-committee-on-vaccine-safety/512708/

That's not to say that this sentiment is felt on some segments on the "Left" (for instance, Jill Stein). But I'm sure that many of the "Left" are not anti-vax (I certainly am not!). We should keep in mind that it is the Far-Right, and not the "Left", that is capitalizing on this...

Of course not - that's why I mentioned them as an example of the far-left, rather than the mainstream Left like most of us here. There's some anti-vaxxers in the Right undoubtedly, since they tend to be slightly more hostile towards science overall, but in general it's people like Jill Stein and Jenny McCarthy that make me associate anti-vaxxers with the lunatic fringe of the left, whereas the 'anti-science' wing of the right is more dominated by their climate change deniers.

A viable alternative model is perhaps Bookchin's "Communalism". Another one is the idea of Economic Democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy

How would Economic Democracy be adapted to function as a government, rather than a means of running a business?

[Trigon]

Of course not - that's why I mentioned them as an example of the far-left, rather than the mainstream Left like most of us here. There's some anti-vaxxers in the Right undoubtedly, since they tend to be slightly more hostile towards science overall, but in general it's people like Jill Stein and Jenny McCarthy that make me associate anti-vaxxers with the lunatic fringe of the left, whereas the 'anti-science' wing of the right is more dominated by their climate change deniers.

Yes that is true, I will in fact concede that the anti-vaxxer crowd is a bit more diverse.. But we have to keep in mind the big picture here; the majority of the anti-science crowd are on the Right. Actually, I would say the vast majority of the anti-science crowd are firmly on the Right.


Another thing, I actually wouldn't consider Jenny McCarthy as part of the "Left" (Jill Stein is unambiguously a Left-Liberal, but it would be quite a stretch to call her "far-left"). I also don't differentiate between the "Mainstream Right/Left" (Centrist suffices for this, a position which has imploded as of late).... But these are just technicalities :D

How would Economic Democracy be adapted to function as a government, rather than a means of running a business?

Common Dreams actually has a good summary of its pros and cons, and how it would directly impact the political process: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/05/18/case-economic-democracy

But in my view, at minimum it would level the playing field between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in our society, especially when it comes to aggregate political power. Since governmental policy is determined, to a large extent, by private sector interests (in the form of what monetary policies are pursued, what technologies are researched, etc), this would help, at the very least, allow us "average" citizens to gain far more leverage in our political process.

Political power and economic power are in fact one and the same; something recognized by both the Left and the Right. The Economist, for instance, discusses this somewhat: http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/02/economics-and-democracy. Of course, they are only looking at the populists on the Right, which is probably just a consequence of the fact that this is the group that has so far gained ground in the English speaking world.

But I wouldn't count out the Left just yet, if the Sanders crowd is anything to go by: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/the-democratic-resistance-movement-is-growing/

[HannibalBarca]

I've watched the debacle of a press conference by Trump.  I waited for a show of journalistic integrity by at least one of the press corps, but it was not forthcoming.  Someone to give this sort of response to our current Inanity-In-Chief.

However this is not so much a rant about Trump, but about the populace and atmosphere that allowed him to be elected.

I've read more books, articles, and reports on history than I could possibly recount and remember.  I know I've forgotten a fair amount of it, but...the meta of it all is that this cerebral collection of data is sifted through and assessed by my brain, and then placed within a larger framework; a framework for an understanding, a conceptualization, of humanity and how it functions on a micro and macro scale.

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

--John Adams

It is one of the goals of any conscientious generation to give a better life to the generation that comes after it.  That goal, however, must be tempered with the knowledge that too much comfort will rob future generations of the wisdom of experiencing some things themselves.

It was when I took an ancient Chinese history class that I had the epiphany of this particular cycle of the human experience.  Thousands of years ago, the usual cycle of rulership began something like this: a corrupt Emperor is overthrown by a warlord who arose from the provinces.  Befitting a hero of the people, he is virtuous and competent.  He rules wisely, and teaches his son wisdom as well.  Coming of age in that first golden era, the son is a model of wisdom as well, though most of it comes from being tought, not living it as his father did.  As he becomes the next emperor, his son--the grandson of the original warlord--is taught as well, but this one is two generations removed from the darkness of the original emperor's rule, so he does not retain the experiences of those harsh times in his memory.  And so it goes, as father passes to son, and each new generation is further removed from the experiences that began the cycle, and each new emperor has fewer experiences of hardship to draw on, to fully appreciate the virtues that come from experiencing difficulties.  Eventually, many generations later, a son finally comes of age who is as fully corrupt as the original emperor, and this begets a new warlord who will overthrow him.

This was not fiction.  This was how the political and cultural system within China functioned for many hundreds of years.  I am sure there are parallels in other countries and eras in our world as well.  Human nature is universal, after all.

I look now on the accomplishments of the modern world, and wonder, right now, if the creature comforts, reduction of the necessity of manual labor for most Americans, and the general reduction of hardship in general (pertaining to food, clothing, and shelter)...have brought us to a point where the average American truly has no inkling of just what they partake in, as far as possessions, basic necessities, peace, and access to knowledge.  Taking things for granted comes naturally to every generation that does not have to suffer, but it becomes a burden when such comfort has been present for several generations in a row.

Too, I remember Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, particularly the first book.  Much of the concepts of a Galactic Republic and Empire for Star Wars came from that series, but seeing as how Lucas was shooting for an adventure tale and not an allegory for history as much as Asimov, it left out some of the ironies we can see in civilization today.  At one point in the book, after 10,000 years of technological advancement, the engineers of the book's present had become unable to repair the advanced machinery that kept their planets and fleets functional.  There wasn't anyone left who could comprehend it...no one had bothered to learn such advanced engineering for generations because there were too many other lucrative and enjoyable careers to take instead.

What I think I'm finally coming to, with all of these words, is that I believe...unfortunately...that the United States is due for a stretch of harsh experiences that it has not been through in some time...but those experiences will serve the populace well for appreciating what should be appreciated, and taking the actions that must be taken to secure the blessings of liberty.

Or the populace will fail at that task, and this Great Experiment will finally come to an end, to be replaced with something akin to a corporatocracy on steroids.

[ReijiTabibito]

I've watched the debacle of a press conference by Trump.  I waited for a show of journalistic integrity by at least one of the press corps, but it was not forthcoming. 

Personally, that press conference was not the sign that journalistic integrity is gone from the country for me.  The press conference was the final nail in the coffin that we've seen exposed over the course of the last few years, especially when it comes to the mainstream media.

Frankly, the press today isn't the press of the era of 'heroic journalism' that we fondly think of it as; this is the same press, the same media outlets, that tried to crucify PewDiePie for being a Nazi, for his 'populist revolt' (according to the NYT).  If the media wants its integrity back, it needs to stop spewing politicized BS just to make a small handful of Americans happy.

Someone to give this sort of response to our current Inanity-In-Chief.

There is no more 'common' decency.  There is only what the individual thinks is decent.  If I think that 'decent' wear is an oxford and black slacks with slightly-upper-style shoes, and John Jr McButtface thinks 'decent' is a bathrobe, banana hammock, and flip-flops, who am I to challenge his conception of decency?

It is one of the goals of any conscientious generation to give a better life to the generation that comes after it.  That goal, however, must be tempered with the knowledge that too much comfort will rob future generations of the wisdom of experiencing some things themselves.

We have a Finding Nemo generation - a set of parents and elders who were so traumatized by all the bad things that happened to them that they swore they would never let any bad stuff happen to us ever.  But as you've pointed out, bad stuff is a part of life, you can't shout them down or close them out.  Instead of constructing walls around us to make sure we were never injured (whether that be physical or emotional or otherwise), they should have been giving us the tools to navigate our own way, but no, that's too hard and things might still go wrong.

It was when I took an ancient Chinese history class that I had the epiphany of this particular cycle of the human experience.  Thousands of years ago, the usual cycle of rulership began something like this: a corrupt Emperor is overthrown by a warlord who arose from the provinces.  Befitting a hero of the people, he is virtuous and competent.  He rules wisely, and teaches his son wisdom as well.  Coming of age in that first golden era, the son is a model of wisdom as well, though most of it comes from being tought, not living it as his father did.  As he becomes the next emperor, his son--the grandson of the original warlord--is taught as well, but this one is two generations removed from the darkness of the original emperor's rule, so he does not retain the experiences of those harsh times in his memory.  And so it goes, as father passes to son, and each new generation is further removed from the experiences that began the cycle, and each new emperor has fewer experiences of hardship to draw on, to fully appreciate the virtues that come from experiencing difficulties.  Eventually, many generations later, a son finally comes of age who is as fully corrupt as the original emperor, and this begets a new warlord who will overthrow him.

This was not fiction.  This was how the political and cultural system within China functioned for many hundreds of years.  I am sure there are parallels in other countries and eras in our world as well.  Human nature is universal, after all.

The Mandate of Heaven.

It was the basis of Chinese government for almost 2000 years, from the very first dynasty until the end of the Qing in the early part of the 20th century.

The Mandate, in a strange sense, was its own meritocracy - to possess the Mandate of Heaven, you did not need to be of royal blood or possess any special inherent quality; all you needed was to be a virtuous and wise ruler.  (Or at least virtuous, you could leave the wise up to your advisors.)  Likewise it was a populist sort of governance - Chinese emperors knew that if the populace grew unhappy with them, there were always those who might seek to overthrow him and take the Mandate for themselves, so keeping the people happy was a necessary part of ruling.  (Unlike today.)

I look now on the accomplishments of the modern world, and wonder, right now, if the creature comforts, reduction of the necessity of manual labor for most Americans, and the general reduction of hardship in general (pertaining to food, clothing, and shelter)...have brought us to a point where the average American truly has no inkling of just what they partake in, as far as possessions, basic necessities, peace, and access to knowledge.  Taking things for granted comes naturally to every generation that does not have to suffer, but it becomes a burden when such comfort has been present for several generations in a row.

Certain parts of modern advancement have been good.  The Industrial Revolution allowed for the mass production of good, as well as advances in farming technology de-shackling people from having to work a farm just to provide food for the populace.  (I'm not sure of the precise numbers, but I've heard that pre-Industrial Revolution, over 90% of the populace of the world was in farming, and today it's something like only 10-20%.)  Those events allowed for the rise of modern science and medicine and for their widespread practice and opening of availability to the common man - you no longer needed to be one of the wealthy elites for it.

The problem, as I see it, is progress simply for progress' sake.  You can't simply change things 'just because,' there needs to be a reason, a motivation behind it.  The thing I always think of is Ian Malcom's statement from Jurassic Park: "Yeah, but you guys were so busy thinking about whether or not you could, you never stopped to think whether or not you should."

Give you an example using technology.  Advancing computers beyond vacuum tubes and punch cards had a use - it allowed for modern computing, as well as making computers much more compact and affordable to institutions, and available to the public.

Cutting the current size of the iPhone by 20% 'because we can' has none.  Yes, it's wonderful that you can make an iPod that's the size of a pack of gum; but what am I going to use it for compared to my previous one?

Too, I remember Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, particularly the first book.  Much of the concepts of a Galactic Republic and Empire for Star Wars came from that series, but seeing as how Lucas was shooting for an adventure tale and not an allegory for history as much as Asimov, it left out some of the ironies we can see in civilization today.  At one point in the book, after 10,000 years of technological advancement, the engineers of the book's present had become unable to repair the advanced machinery that kept their planets and fleets functional.  There wasn't anyone left who could comprehend it...no one had bothered to learn such advanced engineering for generations because there were too many other lucrative and enjoyable careers to take instead.

People keep asking me about 'what'll happen when automation takes all our jobs.'  The one thing about machinery?  It breaks down.  And there will always be a need for it to be fixed.  I usually get 'well, we'll just make a repair robot.'  Alright.  Who takes care of that robot, if it breaks down?  Automation is wonderful, but it hits an infinite recursive because of this very question and answer. 

That said, people will go on into other careers, but I think the thing we should worry more about is a culture hostile to the modern world and intellect, more akin to A Canticle for Leibowitz' Simplification Movement, arising and throwing everything into the drink.

What I think I'm finally coming to, with all of these words, is that I believe...unfortunately...that the United States is due for a stretch of harsh experiences that it has not been through in some time...but those experiences will serve the populace well for appreciating what should be appreciated, and taking the actions that must be taken to secure the blessings of liberty.

Jefferson, tree of liberty, blood of patriots, yadda yadda yadda - but for entirely a different reason and entirely a different meaning.

[Prosak]

The real danger in this day and age is the assumption of knowledge and the confirmation bias there in. (Assumption of knowledge: The assumption that you are right, or what your proffessor says is true, or what the media says is true etc: Based souly on the fact that what they say supports how you 'feel') Let's do a thought experiment (And I will trust people to be honest.) Let's take gun violence into consideration.

The first part I will be fair about and just give you the answer. How many guns are in america? 360 million guns are in america. That means there are more guns, then there is actually people. Now , if your a lay man that does not do his or her own research, then I know what your thinking. If there is that many guns. At least 1 percent of them have to have  been used in murders every day, right?  If that 1 percent of all guns being used to kill people every day were the case then that is around 3 million murders in a day by guns. Right? Well, lets ask that. How many people, in a day, get murdered by guns? Now is 3 million your guess? Or do you think 1 percent is a low number and it is more? No? If the answer is no, good job. But I am genuinely curios to know how many murders you people think are committed by guns, in one day. Maybe we go way, way lower and say like, 1 million gun related murders a day? Wow, what a radical number right? I will give you a second, think on it and tell me the number that came to your head in your response. And please, be honest. Here is the answer: 32.... No, not 32 thousand. Just... 32.... Out of 360 million guns in america, more guns then there are PEOPLE in america. Only 32 people die by gun related murder in a single day. Now don't get me wrong, 1 is to many. But think on that. with more guns, then there are PEOPLE. Only 32 people in a day, die by gun related murder.

Now, lets get into what I mean by disinformation and the assumption of knowledge. If you look at the braidy campaign website, it is biased. It will start by saying there are 92 acts of gun violence in a day. This is deceptive language. Because they also include gun related suicides, 58 people in a day: Gun related accidents: about 1 person a day: Police intervention: 1 person a day (Your more likely to get hit by lightning then shot by a cop.) : And Intent unknown: 1 percent. The majority of gun related deaths is suicide, more people kill themselves with guns then killing each other. (Think about that, for a second. MORE PEOPLE SHOOT THEIR OWN BRAINS OUT, THEN THEY DO OTHER PEOPLE.) All these other factors are jambled together so they can say, 92 acts of gun violence in a day. They intentionally put the numbers together to try and conflate it to a number that sounds more serious, because they want you to just listen and believe and follow their lead. (they do of coarse specify which is which, but they start by keeping 92 on the forefront. And even though they do specify after boldly stating 92 gun deaths, it doesn't change the fact they try to make a equivalency with suicide, cop's protecting and serving, and accidents. With murder, Something that should be put on a entirely different standard then the other 3. But they put them all in the same camp, For the soul purpose to conflate their number to as high as they can push it.) They want you to be fooled by the bigger number. The left does this all the time, conflating numbers to serve their conformation bias. The reality is, only 32 people die in a day by gun related murder, it is not some widespread problem (More people die in work related accidents then by guns!) It is just.... 32. So forgive me if I find it incredibly unbelievable for people to actually believe gun violence is some widespread problem in america. If you at any time believed gun violence is a wide spread problem then your proving yourself to only look for and listen to biased bullshit. And if this information doesn't prove it to you and it does not convince you to turn off leftist mainstream media, then nothing will.

My point: I dont care if your republican, democratic, an elephant, a donkey, feminist, egalitarian, MRA or fucking MGTOW. For christs sake. START RESEARCHING EVERYTHING YOU HEAR! Stop taking everything at face value. I implore you to look up everything I just said about gun related murder. Do not just look at the first 2 google links that support your personal opinions. Keep looking, look up everything you can and learn for yourself. Stop taking what your professors say at face value, argue with them and debate them. Challenge them and challenge your self and you will unlock the simple easy to get through door into proper knowledge, Popper learning and into reality where you can actually educate yourself and grow into a self thinking person. Rather then another drone. This is what it truly means to obtain academic freedom. Think for yourself, challenge everything and consider other peoples perspectives. 

[Kythia]

Out of curiosity, why do you feel that conflating those categories is wrong?  You've just kind of stated they are/should be, but I'm a little unclear on the logic behind that.  In all of those cases a gun is being used to kill someone.  If we are counting the number of times a gun is used to kill someone, we should count those categories ("accidental" I agree there could be some argument about, but I'm fine with it being there.  If you want it gone I'm not going to argue though).  Those suicides wouldn't be dead if they didn't have a gun, those people wouldn't be dead if the cop didn't have a gun. 

Also, the "I think most people would assume about 1% of guns are used for murders" seems like a bit of a strawman.  I own a nice set of cooking knives, eleven in total.  Each sharp enough to kill someone if I set my mind to it.  When you add in assorted others, there's probably twenty knives in my two person house.  Assuming we're average there's 10 times as many knives in the UK as there are people.  As a layman - without doing research and from what I gather not even in the UK - would you think for even a fraction of a second that 1% of them are used in murders every day (also - every day?  Seriously?  So you're claiming that people think someone who owns one gun kills someone three times a year?)  It seems a little like you've made up a position no one in the world has ever held just to show how silly it is.

[HannibalBarca]

Jefferson, tree of liberty, blood of patriots, yadda yadda yadda - but for entirely a different reason and entirely a different meaning.

I was thinking much older than the American Revolution.  Human nature didn't end when American Democracy was invented, after all.  Some people in my country are of the mind that, now that the U.S.A. is here, we're past all that bad stuff in the ancient world.  Humans can still do everything they did in the past, regardless of technology and its advancement.  The only thing that separates us from our early ancestors of 20,000 years ago is that we have education.  But education is only good if you take it and learn from it.  History is the collective memory of the human species.  Skipping the lessons in it, ancient or recent, is a recipe for disaster, whether on a local scale or a global one.

[Lustful Bride]

I was thinking much older than the American Revolution.  Human nature didn't end when American Democracy was invented, after all.  Some people in my country are of the mind that, now that the U.S.A. is here, we're past all that bad stuff in the ancient world.  Humans can still do everything they did in the past, regardless of technology and its advancement.  The only thing that separates us from our early ancestors of 20,000 years ago is that we have education.  But education is only good if you take it and learn from it.  History is the collective memory of the human species.  Skipping the lessons in it, ancient or recent, is a recipe for disaster, whether on a local scale or a global one.

We have changed very little from those old days. We are still very tribal, its just that the tribes have gotten much bigger and our tools have gotten more complex.

We must also be wary not to fall into a trap and thinking that our knowledge is infallible and we don't have to listen to others. That then leads to the dangers of echo chambers, which are sadly far too common (on both sides) Of colleges lately :/

Of all ignorance, the ignorance of the educated is the most dangerous. Not only are educated people likely to have more influence, they are the last people to suspect that they don’t know what they are talking about when they go outside of their narrow fields —
Thomas Sowell. (1931-) American economist

[Trigon]

There was a recent article posted on CounterPunch which discusses some of the difficulties that our current system of electoral politics has when confronting the question of climate change: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/24/can-the-climate-survive-electoral-democracy-maybe-can-it-survive-capitalism-no/

One of the main takeaway points from the article is that part of the difficulty in getting the US political system to commit to an aggressive alternative energy program is not only the entrenched business interests, but also the perception by our elected officials that getting voters to actually vote for the common good, or for that matter even bringing it up, would constitute political suicide. So rather than discuss the problems of our time and the necessity of resolving them (of which averting dangerous climate change is perhaps the most important of them all), they instead will continue to cater to the individual self-interest of the voters.

Essentially selling themselves, if you will. It is perhaps one of the most visible traits of the idea of the Tragedy of the Commons, where catering to individual self interest eventually leads to collective ruin.

The article ends on a cautious note, with the author stating that their belief that our system of representative politics may still be capable of doing what it needs to do. All I will say is that we just have to be careful that it doesn't become an either/or question.