|
|
| Author |
Message |
jfletcher
Will work for food
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 3150
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: The truth about politics |
 |
|
In reading the discussion about the merits of our various presidential and vice presidential candidates, I've come to believe more than ever that the following is true...
Everyone can pick out some legitimate reason to be against any of the candidates. No one has everything on his or her resume. Either it's a lack of Washington experience, a lack of foreign policy experience, too much Washington experience, misunderstanding of social issues, misunderstanding of economic issues, yada yada.
You weigh the issues depending on which ones favor the candidate that you likely would have favored in the first place.
None of us has any clue what it really takes to be a good president. It's such a huge, multi-layered job, one in which the person gets a lot of credit and blame for things over which he or she has little or no control.
Mostly you know what your party has told you the requirements are, and that varies from year to year by who the candidates are. (Republicans didn't care about John Kerry's brave service to his country, but now it seems to be an important trait for a candidate.)
What it comes down to is that most of us are Republicans or Democrats, either because that's the way our parents were or that's the way we were pushed by someone at some point long before we knew who was running for president in 2008.
I'm not suggesting that we all just throw up our hands and ignore the election. I realize that democracy is the best system there is, flawed as it may be. I guess my only point is that everyone ought to just chill out a little when going after the other side, realizing that your side is just as much full of crap as theirs, and at the end of the day none of us really knows what we're talking about.
Discuss... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bugsbunny
Wascally
Joined: 07 Apr 2004
Posts: 7622
Location: Drinking Carrot juice
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I realize that democracy is the best system there is, flawed as it may be |
I would state that that is false. Pure democracy is a terrible form of government. Our Founding Fathers agreed with me, which is why they gave as a republican form of government, as opposed to a democracy.
"Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic if you can keep it" responded Benjamin Franklin.
Democracy is not freedom, it is a dictatorship by the majority (or possibly plurality).
"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." - Alexander Hamilton
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." -John Adams
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Thomas Jefferson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -Winston Churchill
One of the problems with democracy is that the masses will always opt for bread and circuses. The more this country heads down the road to a pure democracy the more trouble we will find ourselves in. One of the problems with any form of elective government is that the electors should be educated about what they are voting on. This is too often not the case.
Sometimes I'm of the mind that we should go back to forcing people to pass some sort of basic civics test before they would be allowed to vote. They should at least have a basic understanding of issues before they get to vote on them.
One more point. This is from a citizenship manual issued by the US War Department, November 30,1928:
| Quote: | CITIZENSHIP Democracy:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
CITIZENSHIP Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of
(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rocketplayer
Sugar Daddy
Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 2741
Location: The market is a nightmare but I'm in cash!
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think the worst thing about this system is that politics is a profession rather than an act of public service. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darvon
BCS Neutral
Joined: 28 Feb 2004
Posts: 5326
Location: Detroit
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bugs,
Although I believe I understand the definitions of republic and democracy, I don't understand how they are different in steady state.
Because in a Republic, the representative makes many legislative decisions before being standing election iteratively, it makes the process slower to change, which might be a good characteristic. But it steady state, the representative will reflect the tastes of the electorate.
And in a Republic, it doesn't seem possible that the selected rep will make better decisions than the electorate who made a decision to select them?
I just don't see the fundamental diffference as a machine between democracy and democratically elected republic.
Are you saying that the decisions of a republic are fundamentally different than those of the democratic masses.
In all of those pithy comments about democracy, I don't see much difference between "Three Wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner" and "Three wolves and a lamd electing a cook" Either way, I am pretty sure what's for dinner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darvon
BCS Neutral
Joined: 28 Feb 2004
Posts: 5326
Location: Detroit
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What it comes down to is that most of us are Republicans or Democrats, either because that's the way our parents were or that's the way we were pushed by someone at some point long before we knew who was running for president in 2008. |
Fletch, Iconcur.
Although I don't see it as some pre-natal patterning, but rather simply a decision. There are 125 national issues and we have opinions on them and weighting factors. How you fall and rank shape what tent you are in.
My electoral model, as I have posted in glorious detail and frequency, is that there are Ds and Rs and motivated and unmotivated camps in each. There might be a 5th camp of switch hitters, but I believe that segment to be small, much smaller than normally discussed in the media.
So the R people are probably gonna vote R or not vote. The D people are gonna vote D or not vote. Occasional exceptions, but those are exceptions. The candidates don't really determine WHO you are voting for, but rather IF you vote, but the splits in the US demographic make this non-voting bloc large and a key "swing vote", in fact THE key swing vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wade
Should be Banned
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 3054
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| darvon wrote: | | Occasional exceptions, but those are exceptions. |
While I have no idea who I will be voting for yet - not voting is not an option. I am a registered republican who is considering voting Dem this year. I also voted Perot fwiw.
I'd like to think that I am not the only "exception" out there this time. I bet there are plenty like me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
niin
ITH Software Programmer
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 4485
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| darvon wrote: | | And in a Republic, it doesn't seem possible that the selected rep will make better decisions than the electorate who made a decision to select them? |
Because the populace won't (and can't) be well-versed in all aspects of government. That's why they hire a representative to represent their interests. Representing interests isn't just as simple as doing what the majority of those who you represent want you to do.
Also, decisions made by representatives are often on a grander scale; it's unreasonable to expect everyone to know every issue everywhere in the country. It's not so unreasonable to expect 500-ish people to get together and figure out what's best for everyone.
A well-versed voting populace would be similar to a republic, but that really just isn't practical to expect.
Basically, we're hiring someone to go do the job that we don't have time to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darvon
BCS Neutral
Joined: 28 Feb 2004
Posts: 5326
Location: Detroit
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| niin wrote: | | darvon wrote: | | And in a Republic, it doesn't seem possible that the selected rep will make better decisions than the electorate who made a decision to select them? |
Because the populace won't (and can't) be well-versed in all aspects of government. That's why they hire a representative to represent their interests. Representing interests isn't just as simple as doing what the majority of those who you represent want you to do.
Also, decisions made by representatives are often on a grander scale; it's unreasonable to expect everyone to know every issue everywhere in the country. It's not so unreasonable to expect 500-ish people to get together and figure out what's best for everyone.
A well-versed voting populace would be similar to a republic, but that really just isn't practical to expect.
Basically, we're hiring someone to go do the job that we don't have time to do. |
I agree with that. But look at bugs' post that I was responding to (and was similar to what I have heard before). It states/implies that the Reps are intellectually(and almost morally) superior to the masses. There is no reason that Rep govt produces "better" decisions than direct dem, other than your reason of 40 hours a week. I am REALLY against the concept of "ruling elite" which seems to sneak into Republic discussions. And on the major issues, I think the masses have enough time to make an informed decision, and the Reps certainly have the opportunity to make an non-informed decision, like the time McCain admitted that although he had voted for the Campaign Reform Act, without actually READING the version he voted on, even though HE was the main author.
PLUS the whole concept of "regulation" is deferring the high-resolution details of a law because the legislators don't wish to actually bother defining them. As I have learned about the whole "regulation" process I have grown more and more appalled.
There is one more reason to NOT like a Republic form, and that is voter apathy. Remember that the REAL majority votes for NONE OF THE ABOVE.
It is one of the reasons that I would love to see National Ballot Initiatives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darvon
BCS Neutral
Joined: 28 Feb 2004
Posts: 5326
Location: Detroit
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think I need a new political bumper sticker.
If a Democracy is having 3 wolves and a sheep vote on dinner, then what's the alternative? Don't send the Sheep to Washington. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darvon
BCS Neutral
Joined: 28 Feb 2004
Posts: 5326
Location: Detroit
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
How about another bumper sticker.
"I have seen you drive, please don't VOTE." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bugsbunny
Wascally
Joined: 07 Apr 2004
Posts: 7622
Location: Drinking Carrot juice
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll respond in more detail later sometime but:
| Quote: | | three wolves and a lamb electing a cook |
Maybe the cook is a vegetarian, or doesn't like mutton, or feels that there's not enough sheep and that if he kills it he won't be able to get any more mutton in the future so it's in the wolves best interests not to kill the sheep at this time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darvon
BCS Neutral
Joined: 28 Feb 2004
Posts: 5326
Location: Detroit
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
uh-huh.
I am sure that 3 wolves will vote for a Vegan chef.
If they do...."Let them eat cake" (gluten free). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bugsbunny
Wascally
Joined: 07 Apr 2004
Posts: 7622
Location: Drinking Carrot juice
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe he didn't tell them he was a vegan and simply stressed nutrition in his campaign. Anyway metaphors start to breakdown when you try to apply them too far (as you well know). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bugsbunny
Wascally
Joined: 07 Apr 2004
Posts: 7622
Location: Drinking Carrot juice
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will extend the metaphor somewhat though.
3 wolves, 2 sheep, and 2 penguins are voting for a cook (3 candidates, one cooks meat, the other makes grass soup, the third makes fish. Each candidate campaigns only among his own constituency)
In a democracy the wolves win and end up eating both the sheep and the penguins. In a republic each district (the wolves, sheep, and penguins districts) elects their own representative (who then choose a cook) and the wolves don't get to eat the other representatives constituents, since neither the birds or the sheep are going to vote for a cook likely to cook them.
The sheep and penguins get together and come up with a plan where the cook makes fish and grass salad enabling him to feed everyone (since the wolves can also eat fish) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darvon
BCS Neutral
Joined: 28 Feb 2004
Posts: 5326
Location: Detroit
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK. My turn.
The problem is that IIRC the definition of Republic means "1 level of indirection" in engineering speak. Not quantization thru "districts". I think you just made the case for the Electoral College. 
BTW. Your quote about Democracy and Republic definitions (which is a great launch point BTW) not only has slanted rhetoric, but throws all sorts of other features into a republic definition, like 3 branches of Gov, which aren't really a part of Republic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
