Democracy? I think not!

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=justanoldvet]
The people being " too ill-informed", " not knowing what they REALLY want/need", passionate, etc seems to me to be elitist and condescending. Whom the hells is the Gov. to tell me what’s best for me? As an adult, I would like to think I can make that decision for myself.. and if I’m wrong, I am willing to accept the consequences of my wrong decision. I don’t need, or want, the Gubbment telling me to buckle up, wipe my nose and otherwise treating me like a four year old. ..
[/QUOTE]
So, what is your position on how government investment in new energy technologies should be allocated? How should conflict of interest rules be changed in light of the subprime mortgage interest debacle? Are safety regulations for coal miners currently sufficient, and should hard rock miners be subject to the same standards? Do you believe the President budget contains the right amount of discretionary spending, and if not, where should additional money be added or cut?

Those are all real questions before the government today. I’ll eat my hat if the average citizen can make intelligent decisions about all of those issues and hundreds more that government deals with on a daily basis. Even if one wanted to be active and informed, there’s simply not time enough in the day for people to be conversant in all the subjects that bear upon running the country in a decent manner.

So when the Founding Fathers say that the people are too ill-informed to run a government themselves, I don’t really think that means that people are too stupid to make decisions. I think it means that there’s no way people can be well-informed on all these matters if it isn’t their full time job.

42

[QUOTE=jtgain]
How is Cuba a republic? It is under the control of a dictator who punishes any dissent with imprisonment…
[/QUOTE]

It describes itself as a republic. It has a president and a legislative assembly which is popularly elected (although under the president’s thumb, in a de facto one-party state). It has a constitution, and it lacks a monarchy.

43

[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
It describes itself as a republic. It has a president and a legislative assembly which is popularly elected (although under the president’s thumb, in a de facto one-party state). It has a constitution, and it lacks a monarchy.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but I’d say that the main thing in your list that shows Cuba is a republic is the fact it lacks a monarchy. Canada, in comparison, has a popularly elected parliament and a constitution, but since it is a monarchy it cannot be a republic. Today “republic” basically means “not a monarchy”.

44

[QUOTE=justanoldvet]
You lost me.
How can it be both? In a Democracy, everyone (eligible) gets an equal say.. in a Republic, the “ruling class”/“representatives” /whatever term you care to use gets to make the real choices. Is this not so , at least in general, over-simplified terms?
[/QUOTE]

Well, sure, as long as we’re using your personal definitions of those words.

But most people don’t.

You’re defining yourself into a classic logical fallacy, the fallacy of the excluded middle. You’re placing before us the argument that the United States is either a republic or it is a democracy, and by the definitions you have constructed, it is the former and not the latter, and the latter is preferable.

However, according to the definitions most people in the Western world use, the United States is in fact a mixture of both, and indeed any large, complex country with a legitimate democratic process is a mixture of both. (I realize that legally, Canada and the UK are not republics; according to justanoldvet’s limited definition in use here, however, they are, since a political elite makes the final decisions.) You are claiming that “the ruling class” get to make “The real choices,” whereas in a democracy, “Everyone (eligible) gets an equal say,” and implying that the two conditions are mutually exclusive. But in fact, in the USA and every other industrialized nation, BOTH statements are true; everyone DOES get an equal say, and a small group are making the final decisions. That is the case in all modern democracies, so far as I am aware.

You cannot take a nation-state of 300 million people and say “It’s a republic” and leave it at that. You just can’t state it that simplistically.

45

That seems like a poor definition of a republic: “not a monarchy” and I don’t think that is correct. Under that definition, Nazi Germany in WWII would be considered a Republic.

Perhaps Little Nemo could chime in…

46

[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
It describes itself as a republic.
[/QUOTE]

If I describe myself as an elephant, does that make me an elephant?

And just because it goes through the pretense of elections with only one candidate on the ballot and severe penalties for dissent, doesn’t mean that they really have elections.

In no way is this the people through their own FREE WILL placing a trust in their elected representatives.

47

[QUOTE=justanoldvet]
Hmmmmm
Maybe the term “middle class” means something different to me.

I think, to me, middle class means a nuclear family, with Male being the financial provider, the Female tending the home, which they own. not wealthy, but making a decent living, making the mortgage and meeting their financial obligations without undue hardship. ( grossly over-simplified, and no doubt sexist as hell, but there ya go
[/QUOTE]

Maybe you’re thinking about something that isn’t “middle class”. I’ve never seen it defined by gender roles-- only by family income. Can you give us a cite that “middle class” is defined that way?

Keep in mind that the days of women wanting (or being told to want) that lifestyle are gone. With divorce being as easy and common as it is these days, a woman takes a huge risk by removing herself from the workforce in order to be a stay-at-home mom.

I think you’re pining for the proverbial good-old-days, which weren’t as good as our selective memory leads us to believe.

48

[QUOTE=jtgain]
That seems like a poor definition of a republic: “not a monarchy” and I don’t think that is correct. Under that definition, Nazi Germany in WWII would be considered a Republic.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, it was.

Again, dictionary.com:

49

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Without even knowing you, I can guarantee you are middle class from that description. What I think has changed is our aspirations-- the size of a house we want, and the number of toys we have, etc. Don’t take this personally, but the fact that you’re $1000 in the hole each month is more likely an indication that you are living beyond your means, not that you aren’t middle class.
[/QUOTE]

Except we live in a 930 sq.ft. condo, the cheapest housing we could find in the area; drive the next-to-bottom model of Kia (the Spectra), never eat out, conserve energy by only heating one room at night, etc., etc., etc. Living within our means would basically mean living a very poor lifestyle. I am saying that 50 years ago, a person with my job and my experience would be able to live much better on a single income. Now, our only way of surviving financially is to leave the US again (which we will probably do) or put our 3-year-old daughter in child care for 10 hours a day while my wife goes back to work (not a fucking chance). Not that we could afford full-time child care anyhow.

50

[QUOTE=justanoldvet]
I think you may have touched on what I meant.
Middle Class, to me anyway, meant a single wage earner, et al.. as I expounded earlier. Now it takes two incomes, and there is still not enough to make ends meet for a great many folks. The American Dream of owning your own home has become an impossibility for a great many. Yes, earning may be up.. but it takes twice the number of people/wage earners to make the same amount, in terms of buying power, etc.
[/QUOTE]

This is what I was trying to convey. You need to earn twice the money to have the same standard of living. Jobs don’t pay any more, so this means two incomes.

51

[QUOTE=justanoldvet]
Wasn’t the idea ( both then and now ) that " they know what’s best .. for US " ?
Kinda like the Gov. is acting like parents to/for the masses/children ?
( geez.. that’s about as inarticulate as hell . Hope you get what I mean )
The people being " too ill-informed", " not knowing what they REALLY want/need",
passionate, etc seems to me to be elitist and condescending. Whom the hells is the Gov. to tell me what’s best for me? As an adult, I would like to think I can make that decision for myself.. and if I’m wrong, I am willing to accept the consequences of my wrong decision. I don’t need, or want, the Gubbment telling me to buckle up, wipe my nose and otherwise treating me like a four year old. ..
“Trust us, we know what’s best for you”… But I digress.

Realistically, do you not think it is possible that “The Masses” could be presented with as much OBJECTIVE information as possible, and a vote held, and things would not be better than they are now? If we were to actually have a Democracy, would things like the infamous “bridge to nowhere”, and other pork slipped into bills, etc be so prevalent? Would there be 9 Billion ( and counting ) in graft in Iraq?
Would there even be a War, if we, the People, had been told facts ( such as there were no WMD, that NONE of the terrorists were from Iraq, etc,etc ad nausea, and allowed to vote? Yes, passions and emotions and tempers were high.. but I’d like to think that the majority of the people are thoughtful, intelligent and would have been calm and dispassionate enough to have seen the proposal for war as what it was/is. ( a VERY BAD IDEA ( keep in mind I say this as someone that has spent nearly their entire adult life in the military ).

I don’t understand what makes our “leaders” supposedly smarter, wiser, whatever: are they not people, like everyone else? Frankly, any time I hear " we know what’s best" it makes my teeth itch and my blood run cold.
[/QUOTE]

I think **RickJay ** nailed it in post #41. As a person who is an expert in precisely 2 things, I know just how much time and effort it takes to become an expert who is capable of making informed policy decisions. Even one person who does nothing else cannot be sufficiently informed to make informed decisions on all the policy issues confronting a government. Partly for this reason, legislators have staff members who brief them on the issues. And to be honest with you, since most US voters are too lazy even to make the modest effort of voting, much less educating themselves about the positions of the various people they are voting for, I think it is way beyond their scope to govern themselves. Call it elitist, if you want; I call it realistic. Specialized jobs–like performing surgeries, rebuilding transmissions, installing computer networks, and running the most powerful country on earth–should be done by specialists.

52

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Except we live in a 930 sq.ft. condo, the cheapest housing we could find in the area; drive the next-to-bottom model of Kia (the Spectra), never eat out, conserve energy by only heating one room at night, etc., etc., etc. Living within our means would basically mean living a very poor lifestyle. I am saying that 50 years ago, a person with my job and my experience would be able to live much better on a single income. Now, our only way of surviving financially is to leave the US again (which we will probably do) or put our 3-year-old daughter in child care for 10 hours a day while my wife goes back to work (not a fucking chance). Not that we could afford full-time child care anyhow.
[/QUOTE]

OK, without getting too personal here (I don’t want to ask for your income), it sounds like you are not a typical college professor. Are you still paying off student loans, or just getting started in your career?

I don’t know that college professors starting out 50 years ago lived all that well, btw. Can we have a cite that the average wages for that profession is lower now than it was 50 years ago (inflation adjusted, of course).

53

[QUOTE=John Mace]
OK, without getting too personal here (I don’t want to ask for your income), it sounds like you are not a typical college professor. Are you still paying off student loans, or just getting started in your career?
[/QUOTE]

I have been teaching since 1998, and am an associate professor, but in the humanities, so my pay sucks ($56,900 per annum, right, I notice, at the low median associate professor mark from your link). Our monthly, after-tax-retirement-health insurance income is around $3100. Subtract $1700 for mortgage, taxes and condo fees, $300 for car payment, $400 for the loan we took out to cover our daughter’s adoption expenses, $600 to have our daughter in Montessori for 3 hours a day so she can get socialized and learn to play with other kids. Then subtract gas, electricity, water, clothing, groceries, medication and doctor copays, activities for our daughter (tumbling, etc.), etc., etc., all the other stuff I’ve forgotten. We have a $600 dollar computer, I don’t even buy books for myself, much less electronic gadgets or electronic toys. Our stereo system is probably 20 years old; we inherited it from my grandmother when she died several years ago. We don’t have satellite or dish tv, or anything like that. We don’t go on trips. We don’t eat out. The stats tell me I’m middle class; my lifestyle tells me I’m anything but.

54

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
I have been teaching since 1998, and am an associate professor, but in the humanities, so my pay sucks ($56,900 per annum, right, I notice, at the low median associate professor mark from your link). Our monthly, after-tax-retirement-health insurance income is around $3100. Subtract $1700 for mortgage, taxes and condo fees, $300 for car payment, $400 for the loan we took out to cover our daughter’s adoption expenses, $600 to have our daughter in Montessori for 3 hours a day so she can get socialized and learn to play with other kids. Then subtract gas, electricity, water, clothing, groceries, medication and doctor copays, activities for our daughter (tumbling, etc.), etc., etc., all the other stuff I’ve forgotten. We have a $600 dollar computer, I don’t even buy books for myself, much less electronic gadgets or electronic toys. Our stereo system is probably 20 years old; we inherited it from my grandmother when she died several years ago. We don’t have satellite or dish tv, or anything like that. We don’t go on trips. We don’t eat out. The stats tell me I’m middle class; my lifestyle tells me I’m anything but.
[/QUOTE]

I live in the greater Boston area as well and I have sympathy for you. I have run the numbers myself many times and I don’t see how anyone can call themselves middle class here if they make less than 100K. The numbers simply don’t work for a single earner household especially with kids. I applaud you for finding a way to make things work. I know many people that earn a salary in your range and seem to have more material things than you do and it makes zero sense to me. I guess that is where the whole subprime scandal comes into play.

However, have you considered living in a cheaper area of the country? You could easily do what you are trying to accomplish in Mississippi, Alabama, Kansas, or North Dakota. There are plenty of good schools in weird places that would allow you to be much more comfortable financially.

55

[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
However, have you considered living in a cheaper area of the country? You could easily do what you are trying to accomplish in Mississippi, Alabama, Kansas, or North Dakota. There are plenty of good schools in weird places that would allow you to be much more comfortable financially.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve thought about it. There are two problems: (1) Cheaper areas of the country are cheaper, as a general rule, because nobody wants to live there. Okay, that is an offensive overgeneralization, but we’re not too keen on living in the US in the first place, and so if you move us to a cheaper (generally more rural) area, we would be even less happy, though presumably more financially solvent. (2) Jobs in my field are incredibly hard to find. My department chair told me, after I was hired, that there were 300 applicants for my job. So in academics, unless you are really a superstar, you have to go where the jobs are. In my case, that turned out to be Massachusetts.

This is part of why we are seriously looking abroad for next year. Teaching abroad offers the same salary, vanishingly small taxes, much lower cost of living, and in general all the things you need to live on a single income and not leave your kid in child care all day. Besides, I am addicted to the expat lifestyle; I am here more or less through force majeure.

ETA–And thanks for your commiseration, Shagnasty. I could use some sympathy!

56

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I don’t know that college professors starting out 50 years ago lived all that well, btw. Can we have a cite that the average wages for that profession is lower now than it was 50 years ago (inflation adjusted, of course).
[/QUOTE]

I’ve been trying to figure out if this is the case, but sucky Google-fu + sucky economics-fu = zero useful results.

57

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
I’ve been trying to figure out if this is the case, but sucky Google-fu + sucky economics-fu = zero useful results.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry this got into a discussion about the details of your personal financial situation. One key difference between today and 50 years ago is if you told someone you had to send your pre-school daughter to private school in order to ensure that she socialized with other children, you’d get some pretty funny looks-- even from many rich people. I applaud you for putting her welfare at such a high priority, but that is still an unusual move to make even today.

But, as you noted, you aren’t a typical example of your profession (being at the low end of the pay scale), and you live in one of the most expensive parts of the country. I think it would be a mistake to draw broad conclusions from your rather unusual circumstances.

I’ll drop this line of discussion unless you want to take it away from your personal situation and talk about trends and averages for the country as a whole. That was what brought out my original comment, anyway.

58

[QUOTE=John Mace]
One key difference between today and 50 years ago is if you told someone you had to send your pre-school daughter to private school in order to ensure that she socialized with other children, you’d get some pretty funny looks-- even from many rich people.
[/quote]

True, but it’s tough, especially around here. Most couples we know are two-income families; the kids are in school or daycare all day. There’s not the constant flow of kids and out of our house that there was in Beirut, because the demographic is so different. So for our daughter to spend significant time with other kids her age, we really don’t see any alternative but to pay to send her to school for a few hours per day.

It doesn’t really bother me; I’m just a username to people here, so it’s not like it’s really *personal * information in the full sense of the word. But I am becoming the hijack king in GD, either by directly causing or by aiding and abetting, so maybe I should re-examine my posting methods. But like I said, I really don’t have the expertise to talk about economic trends, so I probably shouldn’t even try.

59

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
True, but it’s tough, especially around here. Most couples we know are two-income families; the kids are in school or daycare all day. There’s not the constant flow of kids and out of our house that there was in Beirut, because the demographic is so different. So for our daughter to spend significant time with other kids her age, we really don’t see any alternative but to pay to send her to school for a few hours per day.
[/quote]

I understand that completely.

Frankly, I find this discussion a lot more interesting than the semantic quibble that the OP raises. Yeah, we’re not a pure democracy. I think I had (and finished) that argument in Jr. High School.

60

[QUOTE=justanoldvet]
Was raised in an orphanage, which provided my education. From there I went into the Marines, then transfered to the Navy. my entire life has been spent , more or less, in systems in which everything was black and white, no gray areas. Either a thing is.. or it isn’t. College, with it’s shades of gray, numerous viewpoints and the like got me thinking.. really thinking about things, for the first time. now, as an old fart, I find myself questioning things I used to believe without question. America as a Democracy is one of those things.
[/quote]
Maybe I’m still misunderstanding you, but making a first cut does not mean you see things in black and white. It is simply a convenient way to group things so you have names for everything you’re talking about. Some people really seem to have a problem with that idea, mainly, I think, because they don’t realize that I realize that everything gets fuzzy around the edges.

I think it does. I think the problems with electronic voting in the system we have demonstrates that Direct Democracy would be so difficult to establish it would preclude all other business of government for too long.

The alternative is to take a second full-time job: Monitoring the government and voting on every bill that could affect you. A retired person or a young person could manage, and obviously the very rich and the unemployed poor could, but the middle-aged middle class and working poor would be up a creek. That is another reason Direct Democracy can’t work.

That is the hallmark of a Federal system, which a Republic (and certainly a Democracy) need not be. The flip side is that the Federal government can force businesses to adopt child labor laws and OSHA and end slavery. (Our current rather strong Federal model was born out of the Civil War and the Great Depression.) That said, I don’t like it very much either most of the time.

And here I disagree with the definition, and note that you are moving into slippery concepts without any real point of reference to reality.