Politics - Reality Soap Opera Entertainment - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

alansmithee · 04-23-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so in the end, what keeps cropping up here is that democracy is too much a hassle...like bernard shaw said, socialism would be nice if it didnt eat up so much in the way of evenings and weekends. reversing this, what the same argument would say is that leisure is more important that anything apporaching actual democratic processes. so for example....the ability to lay about in a chaise lounge, drinking mai tais and dreaming that you are james bond, is more important than exercizing anything approaching control over the situations that shape your life.

[[for the record, i have no problem whatsoever with the laying about in a chiase lounge drinking mai tais and imagining i am james bond part----it is like going to a cool amusement park---what i dont understand is the conception that this type of----o what shall we call it---leisure structured by a rum line--so straight leisure, level leisure---is somehow antithetical to a democracy.]]

on the other hand, i can perhaps imagine where this kind of thing comes from if i take off from the---at best mangled----understanding of athenian democracy in the post above. if you dont know anything about athenian democracy but insist that it is the model for thinking about democracy, if you dont know anything about the history of athens, if you dont seem to know anything about basic methodological problems with thinking about history (ever hear of the teleological fallacy? want a textbook example? read your post again, alansmithee) i guess you could arrive at this kind of conception of democracy and its implications for vital leisure time.

perhaps all this functions together in trying to imagine people having and exercizing real power somehow wedged on top of the present american socio-cultural order. if you stay trapped in this sorry frame of reference, of course democracy would not easily fit here because the socio-cultural system operates to the exclusion of it.
except as a nice word that makes people feel better by saying it, a kind of discursive prozac you can pop when the reality of your situation gets too depressing and the urge to actually think about why shit is as it is gets too strong to fight any other way.

i dont get it. democracy in any serious form would require massive changes in how the present order operates at every level.

but before i get too carried away, i feel my chaise lounge beckoning. i'll make myself another mai tai and turn up the volume on the sound system, which gives me access to secret agent net radio. i am sure that if i drink enough maitais the arguments in favor of the total disempowerment of people that keep coming up in this thread---- which i think was going in a quite different at its outset----will make sense.
or maybe it wont matter.
either way, i get to be james bond for a while.

I don't know where to begin with this. You took a very small portion of my post and somehow ignored the rest. Do you dispute that Athens was a true democracy? Or is it easier to talk down to someone without even trying to show where they are wrong (because they aren't). Show where in my post I used a teleological fallacy. You can't, because it's not there. I talked about the CURRENT burdens placed upon the populace by the CURRENT government. There was no historical context for my main point. You can chose to ignore points that you don't agree with, but that doesn't make them any more true.

Honestly I don't know if I should be more offended by your arrogance and condecending tone, or stunned by your basic lack of reading comprehension and ability to ignore my point in order to attempt to talk down at me. I am not one of your students to be lectured, nor am I impressed at your attempt to seem smarter than everyone else. If you cannot disagree in a civil manner, don't bother responding just to stroke your own ego.

alansmithee · 04-23-2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supple Cow

I don't disagree. As I have expressed since this post you quoted me on, I was more pointing out that even modifying the government in the specific ways mentioned would not result in what I'd call a paradigm shift.

Of course we don't have a true democracy. I don't have any major objections to this as a positive assertion (outside what roachboy has just said).

Here's where we get into trouble. This, to me, is a good argument for veering toward a far more authoritarian government than a republic is. I don't think our government should get any more authoritarian and so this is not an idea I like to encourage or propagate.

Personally, I'm for a more authoritarian rule, but that's not the point. My original point was that because it's not realistic to think people will pay attention to issues in a way that allows for a truly informed populace, you end up with the current system where it's all sizzle and no steak, and where you can have talking (or, screaming) heads actually help influence people's opinions on issues. You also have lobbyists dictating a large majority of policy, simply because they provide the money that allows the candidates to get votes. A candidate could have views that mesh with 80% of the population, but he would have zero chance of winning if he couldn't get the financial support to make himself known to the people who are voting and to show voters that he's in line with their views.

And as for solutions, I don't think eliminating lobbyists will change anything. That won't instantly make people involved in politics. It will still come down to not the best candidate, but the candidate who can sell himself best to the people. And that isn't done by being knowledgable, but by looking nice fore the camera and being likeable. As was said earlier, people will still get elected because they look nice, or seem like they'd be fun to hang out with, not because they will do their job well.

Manx · 04-23-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

You have some good ideas but I think it will be up to us voters to shake things up as well as or instead of some of the reforms you mention.

Unfortunately, I don't see any practical measures of forcing people to become active. Practical measures are what gov't does best (if it does anything well) - create a law to enforce a particular reaction within the populace. You want people to pay attention? Create an environment where paying attention is nearly a requirement for participation.

I do see a high likelyhood of a paradigm shift based on the fundamentals of what I outlined above. And I see this as probable based on recent events. Look at the campaign finance reforms that passed a few years ago. They were hardly significant enough - yet look at the significant result: massive influx of 527s during the last election and their methods of affecting political discussion of that election. And those reforms were very minor in comparison to the fundamentals of what I outlined.

Change the provided methods of interaction and people will, by necessity, have to change their methods of interacting.

You can't wait for everyone to wake up - you have to set the alarm clock.

Supple Cow · 04-23-2005, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Thus, my misgivings about a full democracy do not mean that I want a dictatorship. They mean that I want a representative democracy, which fortunately is what I have. This is good because it means we don't have to start by changing the entire system, only by remembering how it works best.

Yes. And most people don't remember that 'how it works best' involves staying relatively informed in order to keep the elected officials honest. I suppose that's a much better way of saying what I tried to say earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supple Cow

Not taking responsibility for ourselves as members of a democracy is a failing of the populace. Whether it feels this way or not, doing something other than helping to run the government for a living is a privilege that comes with responsibilities. It is not a free ticket to stay uninformed and pretend that politics and the government do not exist.

Mea culpa.

filtherton · 04-24-2005, 07:01 PM

I don't know if it's pessimism or realism, but i think the problem with our system, or any political-socio-economic system in general is that it is run by humans. I'm certainly not the first to express it, but i subscribe to the belief that any system created by and for humanity eventually falls victim to a certain portion of the population that figures out how to game the system and acquire much more in the way of resources than it actually deserves. I think that any system we can come up with is doomed to fail from the outset due to the simple fact that humanity isn't capable of stable long term self-government.

I think that the current state of american politics is just another example of our impending self destruction. Whether america can overcome this impending descent into mediocrity i think will depend on who picks up the pieces. Given that most of our current leaders subscribe to an ideology whose very centerpiece is a prophecy of the apocalypse, i can only hope that someone else steps to the plate.

04-24-2005, 07:01 PM	#45 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I don't know if it's pessimism or realism, but i think the problem with our system, or any political-socio-economic system in general is that it is run by humans. I'm certainly not the first to express it, but i subscribe to the belief that any system created by and for humanity eventually falls victim to a certain portion of the population that figures out how to game the system and acquire much more in the way of resources than it actually deserves. I think that any system we can come up with is doomed to fail from the outset due to the simple fact that humanity isn't capable of stable long term self-government. I think that the current state of american politics is just another example of our impending self destruction. Whether america can overcome this impending descent into mediocrity i think will depend on who picks up the pieces. Given that most of our current leaders subscribe to an ideology whose very centerpiece is a prophecy of the apocalypse, i can only hope that someone else steps to the plate.