Democracy: It doesn't work.

[Lemur866]

@Agnostic_Pagan

How do we choose competent professionals in general? How do we ‘select’ doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, etc? We don’t. We create a system where those who wish to be so can try to achieve the required training and credentials. And that only gets them in the door. They actually have to produce or they will be unemployed, and if they fuck up, they can be censured or barred from practice. Who hires the professional technocrats? That would be the primary purpose of administrative positions.

Well, the United States has a truly massive civil service. It ain’t like we elect individual sanitation workers and postal clerks.

For the Federal government voters actually only vote on four offices: President (with appended Vice-President), 2 Senators, and 1 Representative. That’s IT. So it’s not like we’re suffering from an excess of democracy at the federal level. Every other position in the Federal government is either civil service, or chosen by some combination of one or more of the above offices.

It’s all the other state and local offices where we have to elect judges and port commissioners and school board members and county council and city council and sheriffs and ballot measures and on and on.

So the Federal Government is almost entirely composed of a permanent professional class, and an overseeing appointed class, which is appointed largely by one person, the President, and we only get an up or down vote on the President every 4 years if we don’t like how he and his cronies are managing things. So where’s the excess democracy?

[Ravenman]

@Kearsen

Did you miss the ‘secondary’ earnings statement?

I did gloss over that. What do you mean secondary earnings?

Do you mean things like honoraria, in which someone is paid to make a speech somewhere?

[BrainGlutton]

Clearly the only defensible political ideology is “Bob”'s surreavolutionary doctrine of Patrio-Psychotic Anarcho-Materialism: “Every yard a kingdom, every child and dog a serf!”

[Kearsen]

@Ravenman

I did gloss over that. What do you mean secondary earnings?

Do you mean things like honoraria, in which someone is paid to make a speech somewhere?

Somewhat. In other cases, I am talking about the back door dealings that could come at a considerable sum.
The problem with ‘politicians’ is the systemic corruption that can be found in all human beings over a period of time.

Power corrupts. Which is why the suggested term limits has been a hot topic of discussion these past months/years.

[Ravenman]

@Kearsen

Somewhat. In other cases, I am talking about the back door dealings that could come at a considerable sum.

I’m not quite clear what you’re talking about. Honoraria has been banned for 20 years, outside income is severely restricted (Senator Coburn cannot practice medicine while he’s in Federal office, for example) and there are new post-public service restrictions on lobbying.

Maybe if you could reference specific cases I would know what you’re referring to, but I’m also not entirely sure that you realize how many rules are already in place that prohibit “secondary” income.

[Kearsen]

It isn’t the ‘while’ they are in office that is particularly problematic.

[marshmallow]

I think a mistake that both worshippers and critics of democracy make is treating it as some strange form wholly different than all other systems for rulers over ruled. To quote IOZ:

Whether examined on the basis of internal politics or relations with foreign nations, democracies in their various incarnations have historically behaved exactly as have all other nations: sometimes despotically, sometimes benevolently; sometimes liberated, sometimes tyrannical; sometimes peacefully, sometimes aggressively; sometimes inward-looking, sometimes expansionistic.

An analysis that critics the class system or lobbyists or the MIC or the financialization of the economy or whatever as a failure of democracy (or whatever you call what we Americans have – I prefer duopoly) is all well and good, except that it applies to every political system ever made. Human beings instinctively organize themselves into hierarchical institutions. America is powerful and rich, so we have particularly vicious strains. The same would happen to Finland. It was ever thus.

IOW, there’s nothing stopping a MIC or a predatory private power from arising in an anarchist voluntary association, or whatever other alternative you propose.

As an aside, the phrase “excess of democracy” is a funny one to describe the current era. It was first used AFAIK by American elites who were crapping their pants in the late 60s and early 70s and who discussed ideas to atomize the rebellious hordes and turn them into apathetic, powerless labor. Right now the closest we have to a democratic movement is the Tea Party. Yeah.

[Agnostic_Pagan]

@Lemur866

Well, the United States has a truly massive civil service. It ain’t like we elect individual sanitation workers and postal clerks.

For the Federal government voters actually only vote on four offices: President (with appended Vice-President), 2 Senators, and 1 Representative. That’s IT. So it’s not like we’re suffering from an excess of democracy at the federal level. Every other position in the Federal government is either civil service, or chosen by some combination of one or more of the above offices.

It’s all the other state and local offices where we have to elect judges and port commissioners and school board members and county council and city council and sheriffs and ballot measures and on and on.

So the Federal Government is almost entirely composed of a permanent professional class, and an overseeing appointed class, which is appointed largely by one person, the President, and we only get an up or down vote on the President every 4 years if we don’t like how he and his cronies are managing things. So where’s the excess democracy?

The major bureaucracies are civil service and do a fairly decent job with the resources they are given. But the administrators are primarily political appointees with the only qualification apparently is that they have a connection to the White House. Replace those with credentialed professionals equivalent to accountants or engineers.

And it is a gross oversimplification to say voters will only support 4 given federal candidates during an election. Anyone can give any amount of money, time and resources they wish to any candidate they wish as the last election proved.

But I never said we had an excess of democracy. For myself, the problem is that the American model of democracy simply does not work. And the main issue with that are the conflicting mandates given by the legislatures, which is the bedrock of democracy - every government has had some form of administration, only modern democracies have had a representative parliament or congress. And partisan politics seems only to serve to increase the dysfunction of government, not increase the well-being or prosperity of its constituents.

A different legislative model similar to how professional standard boards set their policies may be a better model, i.e. proposals, drafts, comment periods, a few public forums, and then a vote by a select committee. Save the elections for those committees members, and make them meet professional standards. Not nearly as sexy as debates on the House floor, but that is a bonus in my book.

America has been very successful as a society, again, in spite of our government, which I find very odd, since the government is us. Americans do great work together in nearly every organizational model - churches, NGOs, business, except what I consider the most important one since it is the one in which everyone is a member. When we pursue our private interests, there is almost no stopping of the American spirit. When we try to pursue our public interests, America aint all that beautiful. I am actually surprised we managed to build the Interstate and put men on the moon. But both of those exercises were the product of unique leadership and circumstance - exceptions which prove the rule: American democracy is inherently dysfunctional.

[Lemur866]

Well, there you go.

First you say that America’s government flat-out doesn’t work. Then you note that, actually, it turns out it does work. It ain’t pretty, it ain’t nice, it ain’t clean, but it works well enough that our country hasn’t gone down the shitter yet.

And all those other countries? The ones where everything works cleanly without the fuss and bother we have here? If you moved there, you’d find that it isn’t so clean and organized as it seems from outside. It’s just that we never hear about backroom backscratching in Belgium, because nobody cares about Belgian politics except the Belgians.

There’s no magic cure to take the politics and special interests out of government, except constant continuous everlasting work from the citizenry keeping the level of shit down to a dull roar. That ain’t gonna go away just because the Secretary of Defense is a civil service job rather than an appointee, it just removes the politics to behind closed doors.

It’s only the very upper levels of the bureaucracy that are political appointees, and the reason they’re appointees rather than civil service is because they work for the American People, not for themselves. We elect the president, and the president appoints his cronies to oversee the permanent civil service, and every 4 years we get to vote up or down on the job they do. Without democratic oversight of the bureaucracy and you have no accountability, and suddenly the departments become private fiefdoms.

And we only get to vote for 4 actual offices. There aren’t any other elected Federal offices. One presidential slate, 2 senators, 1 representative. That’s it as far as voting goes. Oh, you can work for other people? You can support them and try to convince other people to vote for them? You can write about them, you appear on TV to argue for them, and so on? Yes, yes, you can, but you can only vote for 4 of them, your one representative every 2 years, two senators every six years, and one president every 4 years. That’s not much.

[Algher]

@Scuba_Ben

Where do I sign up?

At Olivegarten, of course. Large portions of governance, mediocre taste, scorn from other nations and unlimited breadsticks.

[RickJay]

@Scumpup

Things worked reasonably well when we still had appointed senators. When we moved to elected senators, that removed a protective layer from between the mob and power.

By what measure did the United States run better before the 17th Amendment than after?

[foolsguinea]

@Walther_Ego

In a democracy, the idiocy of the people in power is revealed, even to the most stupid, in a decade. After that they get changed to others, who may or may not be idiots. If there is no transparency (and it seems there never is in a non-democracy), you’re stuck with the same idiots forever.

Exactly backwards. In a democracy, the electorate is itself the masses–the people in power are the People, in power. In a tyranny, a bad king can in theory die from one shot, or be exiled by force. In a democracy, the people are blind to their own idiocy because it’s their idiocy. How do you stage a coup against an entire people?

[Deeg]

@Scumpup

Things worked reasonably well when we still had appointed senators. When we moved to elected senators, that removed a protective layer from between the mob and power. Appointed senators did not have to pander to the mob in order to insure re-election. They could actually make decisions based on what was in the best interest of the nation without worrying about what the voters would think, though they didn’t always do so.

The scandal of appointing Obama’s successor in the US Senate is an example of why I believe the 17th Amendment was a wise addition.

[Deeg]

@foolsguinea

Exactly backwards. In a democracy, the electorate is itself the masses–the people in power are the People, in power. In a tyranny, a bad king can in theory die from one shot, or be exiled by force. In a democracy, the people are blind to their own idiocy because it’s their idiocy. How do you stage a coup against an entire people?

Can you give any examples in history where the following were true:

1. A tyrant was forcibly replaced;
2. The new government was not some form of democracy;
3. The new government was noticeably better than the previous.

Queen Elizabeth I might qualify (although the Irish and Catholics would probably disagree). I can’t think of too many. Usually it ends up being worse.

[Inigo_Montoya]

@Algher

At Olivegarten, of course. Large portions of governance, mediocre taste, scorn from other nations and unlimited breadsticks.

Mmm…breadsticks… Tax me at 50% and give me all the garlic butter breadsticks and sauce I can eat.

[furt]

@RickJay

By what measure did the United States run better before the 17th Amendment than after?

This is not precisely a “run better” issue, but since the 17th amendment we’ve seen a strong shift of the balance of power from the states to the federal. It is almost always true that the larger the size of the portfolio, the less efficient the governance. Less flexibility, less adaptability, worse customer service. Moreover, doing everything from Washington reduces the ability of states to experiment and innovate.

You can argue that the benefits of unity and size outweigh the benefits of more local control; but it’s obvious there are benefits and drawbacks to both.

[Lemur866]

So who’s more efficient: WalMart, or Mom and Pop’s Things and Stuff?

[Agnostic_Pagan]

@Lemur866

Well, there you go.

First you say that America’s government flat-out doesn’t work. Then you note that, actually, it turns out it does work. It ain’t pretty, it ain’t nice, it ain’t clean, but it works well enough that our country hasn’t gone down the shitter yet.

well, the initial recession is over, but the recovery still has a ways to go. And having spent too much time in north St Louis, I would hate to see what this country looks like after it has gone down the shitter. The amount of urban decay in this country is disgusting considering the resources we have at our disposal.

Yet it is true that our government can do a decent job when given the resources. It is just rarely that Congress does so, along with most levels of government. Personally I think we do ask government to ‘solve’ too many issues, such that no one area has sufficient resources to actually provide a solution since no one seem to want to pay for public goods in this country.

And all those other countries? The ones where everything works cleanly without the fuss and bother we have here? If you moved there, you’d find that it isn’t so clean and organized as it seems from outside. It’s just that we never hear about backroom backscratching in Belgium, because nobody cares about Belgian politics except the Belgians.

I have made no claims about other countries having superior systems. China looks like an interesting model of a non-partisan government, but has many problems of its own. When I look at the better run cities in America though, I have noticed the prevalence of city-manager systems over strong mayoral governments. And the levels of politics is significantly lower since there is less payoff to play politics.

There’s no magic cure to take the politics and special interests out of government, except constant continuous everlasting work from the citizenry keeping the level of shit down to a dull roar. That ain’t gonna go away just because the Secretary of Defense is a civil service job rather than an appointee, it just removes the politics to behind closed doors.

As I noted before, one of the keys to better democracy is a strong independent civic sector and a strong media. And the goal is to not remove politics, but to allow it to lead to constructive progress not partisan gridlock. FASB has a shitload of political battles, but it still gets its job done.

It’s only the very upper levels of the bureaucracy that are political appointees, and the reason they’re appointees rather than civil service is because they work for the American People, not for themselves. We elect the president, and the president appoints his cronies to oversee the permanent civil service, and every 4 years we get to vote up or down on the job they do. Without democratic oversight of the bureaucracy and you have no accountability, and suddenly the departments become private fiefdoms.

I would prefer oversight by professionals, not cronies. And the civil service works for the American people, certainly not only for themselves. Anyone worth a damn would make more in the private sector. No one enters the bureaucracy to get rich. Not necessarily true of the political appointees who created the revolving door between industry and government.

And we only get to vote for 4 actual offices. There aren’t any other elected Federal offices. One presidential slate, 2 senators, 1 representative. That’s it as far as voting goes. Oh, you can work for other people? You can support them and try to convince other people to vote for them? You can write about them, you appear on TV to argue for them, and so on? Yes, yes, you can, but you can only vote for 4 of them, your one representative every 2 years, two senators every six years, and one president every 4 years. That’s not much.

And to say that voting is the end all be all of democracy - its not worthy of discussion…

[foolsguinea]

@Deeg

Can you give any examples in history where the following were true:

1. A tyrant was forcibly replaced;
2. The new government was not some form of democracy;
3. The new government was noticeably better than the previous.

Queen Elizabeth I might qualify (although the Irish and Catholics would probably disagree). I can’t think of too many. Usually it ends up being worse.

Vespasian & Bonaparte were generally regarded as better than their predecessors, although popular sentiment was not exactly objective; there was a good deal of “glory in conquest” in both of their programs.

[foolsguinea]

For that matter, if we take the French Revolution from Bourbon to Bonaparte, yes, France was probably on a better legal & social footing by the end, despite the desperate failure of the egalitarians in the middle.

I’m a democrat by bias; I want to say that Robespierre was right. But Bonaparte was apparently a better ruler.