All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Hermit]

Rule by the majority may produce favorable outcomes, it may not. The claim as I understand it is that unfavorable outcomes are the result of a lack of participation. If more people participate, the outcomes will be better.

This isn't exactly analogous to majority rule, but the idea that the more people get involved the closer policy will be to favorable --ie progressive-- does rely on a majority being convinced to at least vote like progressives. Showing how majorities have often failed to support progress calls into question the viability of such a suggestion.

I asked you to demonstrate that unfavourable outcomes are a more likely result if policies are determined by majority vote. OK, let me rephrase that: Please demonstrate that unfavourable outcomes are a more likely result if more people get involved. Until you do that, your objection to that part of Monbiot's exposition remains a red herring.

[Sean Hayden]

It remains a valid reason for skepticism of the idea that more participation leads to better outcomes.

Prior to the Brexit vote the people weren't in charge of deciding whether or not to leave the EU. Putting the question to a majority vote has lead to an unfavorable result. This does not demonstrate that an unfavorable result is more likely, just that participation alone, democracy alone, is not enough to ensure a good result.

[JimC]

Millions have no interest in politics, what good is their opinion on these matters? What is the harm of acknowledging their inability to contribute meaningfully to difficult decisions?

Sorry, Sean, but this is an incredibly elitist position.

So, the great unwashed should be kept away from decision making that is best left to their betters?

What we need is a population that, perhaps little by little, does develop an interest, some expertise and a position on decisions that affect them, rather than leaving it to others, whose decisions will not only be informed by whatever expertise they have, but that will inevitably be skewed to their own self interest...

[Hermit]

Millions have no interest in politics, what good is their opinion on these matters? What is the harm of acknowledging their inability to contribute meaningfully to difficult decisions?

Sorry, Sean, but this is an incredibly elitist position.

It is indeed, but Sean is right in so far as millions have no interest in politics. As long as they can raise their families, pay the rent, watch the footy and so on you'll have great difficulties getting them to attend participatory forums, citizens assemblies, constitutional conventions on a regular basis, to listen to reports, vote in committees and whatnot. It is only when things get so intolerable that bread riots break out that they'll get active, but by then it's too late for those. Before you know it, white-collared, middle class professionals will take charge and the whole Animal Farm type routine will repeat. We will get fooled again.

[pErvinalia]

Robust democracy needs an educated population and an ethical media. . Unfortunately in the Anglo west we don't really have that in sufficient numbers.

[Hermit]

It remains a valid reason for skepticism of the idea that more participation leads to better outcomes.

If I missed the bit where Monbiot categorically stated that more participation leads to better outcomes you will be able to provide the time mark where he did, but I doubt you will find it. You have misinterpreted what he actually did say.

[Brian Peacock]

What he doesn't really engage with is the idea -- Monbiot's basic view -- that the 'The People' have unwittingly ceded the operation of democracy to a class of political operators who have a vested personal, political, and/or economic interest in the outcomes of the systems they control, one which stands apart from the general interests of 'The People': that the representative models we're currently operating seem to be failing to encourage and reward administrative competence and political honesty, and instead have led us to a point where incompetence, cronyism and corruption are not just tolerated, but appear to be accepted as a kind of norm.

I think it is more a challenge to the belief that the system is run by people who don't have "the people" and their interests in mind. A quick look at "the people" is enough to cast doubt on that idea. More than 70 million Americans are happy with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, which is the result of the work their representatives did. When the same representatives cut funding for social services, they are again doing what their base wants.

"The People" includes the potential for outcomes we don't like. Monbiot has claimed exactly the opposite. Unless I've misunderstood him, he's saying the unfavorable outcomes are the result of ignoring the will of "the people". He thinks more favorable outcomes --outcomes we agree with-- are more likely by including more people in the decision making.

But, in fact, many times it's exactly the opposite. The US people have been brought kicking and screaming against their will to the acceptance of equal rights under the law, and if the will of the people were to be honored, then in many places it still wouldn't be the law today.

I think Monbiot is just saying that the interests of 'the people' need to be better represented than they have been of late. I think we also need to acknowledge the role those who already have power, influence and control over the operation of democracy play in generating the social-political agenda and in manufacturing consent in ways which are counter-productive to the broader interests of the citizen at large - both domestically and abroad.

I'm questioning more and more our tendency to make a clear distinction between our leaders and ourselves. If you want to discuss the way in which the powerful generate our agenda, I want to discuss the ways in which we influence them to do so.

Our leaders are not aliens. Ted Cruz is Texas, at least a lot of Texas is in Ted Cruz...ditto Bush...yadda, yadda

Oh there's definitely feedback there, how could there not be? Even a dictatorship lives with that feedback, even if it's from a population that hates their guts. (I know that wasn't necessarily your point.)

Politicians are of "We, The People": they're 100% of 'the people' by dint of being equal members of society; in order to acquire a governing role in society they have to appeal (in both senses) to a broad swathe of the population, and appealing to a population entails promising to work for-and-in the interest of that population, therefore; when an elected politician fails to work for-and-in the interests of a population then that population only have themselves to blame - the failure of political and/or democratic processes are basically a 'people problem' which 'the people' can easily remedy at the next election. That's the theory anyway - we get the governments we deserve, as the old maxim goes.

I guess what I'm questioning more and more is our leader's tendencies to make clear distinctions between themselves and us, questioning the nature of the feedback between politicians and the populous and asking if "We, The People" elect them to work for-and-in our interests why are a lot of important things seemingly getting worse for us rather than better. If the answer to that is that we've just got what we voted for then I'd ask who voted for more inequality, falling wages against prices, increasing levels of individual and household debt, failing public services, greater job insecurity and poorer workplace protections, higher levels of evictions and repossessions, not to mention environmental degradation, global heating and planetary death?

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Robust democracy needs an educated population and an ethical media. . Unfortunately in the Anglo west we don't really have that in sufficient numbers.

When I think of ways to get out of this dilemma, of "Trumpism" where I live, my only idea is education. How else can we get out of it when half of my country don't know how to judge reliable information and just go along with what their neighbors and family tell them. Trump 2nd amendment! That's how far many conservative voters think to make their choices.
I'd focus on giving kids a good education, before they even get to college age. State colleges should be free. Who cares if we have to pay for rich people kids. That's a red herring imo, because rich families will for the most part still send their kids to private universities. I think it was Neil Degrasse Tyson who said that critical thinking should be a subject. If I was king of the world that subject would start somewhere before the age of 10. Conservatives always seem to want to cut funds for education, and many times they do. Not to mention wanting religion in the classroom. It's almost like they know an uneducated populous won't even know they're being ripped off by the upper class. <-------rant included

[Sean Hayden]

It remains a valid reason for skepticism of the idea that more participation leads to better outcomes.

If I missed the bit where Monbiot categorically stated that more participation leads to better outcomes you will be able to provide the time mark where he did, but I doubt you will find it. You have misinterpreted what he actually did say.

That's definitely possible, and why I've been careful to say things like "as I understood" him.

It's been an interesting discussion regardless.

[Sean Hayden]

Millions have no interest in politics, what good is their opinion on these matters? What is the harm of acknowledging their inability to contribute meaningfully to difficult decisions?

Sorry, Sean, but this is an incredibly elitist position.

So, the great unwashed should be kept away from decision making that is best left to their betters?

What we need is a population that, perhaps little by little, does develop an interest, some expertise and a position on decisions that affect them, rather than leaving it to others, whose decisions will not only be informed by whatever expertise they have, but that will inevitably be skewed to their own self interest...

This is the state of affairs for most important decisions, questioning the sense of abandoning those best practices when it comes to government is only right.

I agree that it feels very wrong.

[Brian Peacock]

Robust democracy needs an educated population and an ethical media. . Unfortunately in the Anglo west we don't really have that in sufficient numbers.

When I think of ways to get out of this dilemma, of "Trumpism" where I live, my only idea is education. How else can we get out of it when half of my country don't know how to judge reliable information and just go along with what their neighbors and family tell them. Trump 2nd amendment! That's how far many conservative voters think to make their choices.
I'd focus on giving kids a good education, before they even get to college age. State colleges should be free. Who cares if we have to pay for rich people kids. That's a red herring imo, because rich families will for the most part still send their kids to private universities. I think it was Neil Degrasse Tyson who said that critical thinking should be a subject. If I was king of the world that subject would start somewhere before the age of 10. Conservatives always seem to want to cut funds for education, and many times they do. Not to mention wanting religion in the classroom. It's almost like they know an uneducated populous won't even know they're being ripped off by the upper class. <-------rant included

Absolutely. I'd love our education systems to focus on the personal development of the individual rather than setting tests as a qualification for the workplace. An education system geared towards fostering critical thinking skills and developing personal interests would go a long way to increasing political engagement and reducing our all-too-human susceptibility to comforting narratives and weaponised political slogans. It would take 20 years or so to work through of course but I'm pretty sure it would pay off in terms of skills, innovation and creativity, social cohesion, equality, tolerance and inclusivity, economic output, blah blah blah etc etc...

[Sean Hayden]

I guess what I'm questioning more and more is our leader's tendency to make clear distinctions between themselves and us, questioning the nature of the feedback between politicians and the populous and asking if "We, The People" elect them to work for-and-in our interests why are a lot of important things seemingly getting worse for us rather than better. If the answer to that is that we've just got what we voted for then I'd ask who voted more inequality, falling wages against prices, increasing levels of individual and household debt, failing public services, greater job insecurity and poorer workplace protections, higher levels of evictions and repossessions, not to mention environmental degradation, global heating and planetary death?

Indeed. But millions don't see it that way. People will defend their right to lower pay, less vacation, higher risk of cancer, and more. A person will vote to limit welfare, and then complain when they can't find a way to cheat Uncle Sam on taxes. Tell them everyone needs help sometimes and they'll agree, but swear others are taking advantage.

The point is that it's much more than a lack of understanding on their part, I think it's more than we have any right to expect democratic processes to overcome.

[Seabass]

But you don't need gerrymandering. Rurals always win. And even more:

Why Big-City Dominance Is a Problem for Democrats
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ts/617161/

This is truly fucking awful. What a disaster. The founding fathers really were a bunch of stupid cunts.

This problem is only going to get worse. One analysis of Census Bureau data projected that by 2040, roughly half of the population will be represented by 16 senators; the other, more rural half will have 84 senators at their disposal. If Democrats don’t find a way to broaden their coalition into less populous states with smaller metro areas, it may be impossible to pass liberal laws for the next generation.

[JimC]

The tyranny of the red-neck country hick...

[Brian Peacock]

I guess what I'm questioning more and more is our leader's tendency to make clear distinctions between themselves and us, questioning the nature of the feedback between politicians and the populous and asking if "We, The People" elect them to work for-and-in our interests why are a lot of important things seemingly getting worse for us rather than better. If the answer to that is that we've just got what we voted for then I'd ask who voted more inequality, falling wages against prices, increasing levels of individual and household debt, failing public services, greater job insecurity and poorer workplace protections, higher levels of evictions and repossessions, not to mention environmental degradation, global heating and planetary death?

Indeed. But millions don't see it that way. People will defend their right to lower pay, less vacation, higher risk of cancer, and more. A person will vote to limit welfare, and then complain when they can't find a way to cheat Uncle Sam on taxes. Tell them everyone needs help sometimes and they'll agree, but swear others are taking advantage.

If true, then my question is who's telling us these are the kind of things that are good for us? If these things are value-based where are we getting our values from? But if these things are features of the systems we've created then what's stopping us from creating new, different, better systems?

The point is that it's much more than a lack of understanding on their part, I think it's more than we have any right to expect democratic processes to overcome.

Do you think we might have reached peak progress, at least in the social-economic sense?