The US is not a democracy.

Great Debates
41

OK, kimstu and plutocracy: I agree that many of the Kimster’s points would be bad things; I don’t agree with all of them by any means.
I also agree that the U.S. is further away from being a plutocracy than it was in the 1870-1929 era. I think any politician who stated “the business of America is business”, like Coolidge did, would be in trouble today.
I further think that the risks of plutocracy has been further lessened by the end of the Cold War, which has weakened the “what is good for GM is good for America” mentality.
Finally, the strong and occasionally irrational suspicion of corporations in the American electorate is a strong safeguard against plutocracy.

Cleaning up a few points:

  1. American voting patterns. Sure, Americans vote less often than in other democracies. Americans have historically had lower voting turnout. Further, many other democracies make voting mandatory. If people choose not to vote, that is their right in a free society, and I think mandatory voting laws are a bad idea.
    Personally, I’ve never understood the motivation of those who don’t vote. But I don’t agree with your position that money politics make people believe that their vote doesn’t matter. I’d say it’s more likely that the think that because 100 million people are voting, their vote is more or less irrelevant. Hell, it wasn’t until 1992 that I voted for anybody in a major general election that actually won, and it’s been pretty rare since. Absolutely, my vote is pretty much irrelevant. I keep voting because it’s my duty.

  2. My “inexplicably pugnacious” attitude. Pugnacious, sure. Inexplicable, no. The OP starts off with a strange assertion that the U.S. is the least representative liberal democracy on Earth because of the influence of money in politics. That is ridiculous.
    IMO, influence of money on politics is closely related to corruption - not a perfect match, admittedly, but there is a strong correlation. According to Transparency International , we tie for the 16th least corrupt society in the world. We should do better, but we are ranked above such liberal democracies as Germany, Chile, Belgium, Portugal, France, Spain, Japan, Taiwan, Greece and Italy. Canada and the Nordic countries make up most of the nations who rank above us, and I envy them their admirable political systems.
    So, I dispute the OP’s assertion, and Mandelstam, you assume that I am “complacent” about the American system of government. So yes, I got “pugnacious”, and I believe it was an appropriate response. Because I disputed a bad assertion, you made an assumption about my politics. It’s a form of intellectual laziness that is all too common on these boards, and only serves to discourage reasoned debate. I got irritable with you because you were the one doing it to me in this instance.
    Hey, at least you didn’t call me a “Pat and Jerry christian”, like Brian Bunnyhurt once did. I hounded that SOB for a long time after that. :slight_smile:

Sua

42

Sua: “For you, Mandelstam”

<gush> Sua, you shouldn’t have…

“I agree that many of the Kimster’s points would be bad things; I don’t agree with all of them by any means.”

Should I conclude that some of Kimster’s points would be good things? If so, which?

“I also agree that the U.S. is further away from being a plutocracy than it was in the 1870-1929 era. I think any politician who stated “the business of America is business”, like Coolidge did, would be in trouble today.”

Hmmmm… Well, George Bush just recently said, “What some call globalisation is in fact the triumph of human liberty stretching across national borders.” I guess that’s what passes for Coolidge-speak these days. That said, I also agree with the historical point.

"I further think that the risks of plutocracy has been further lessened by the end of the Cold War, which has weakened the “what is good for GM is good for America” mentality."

Hmmmm… I don’t quite see that. The mentality seems now to be crude Fukuyamism: i.e., neo-liberal economic policy as the “end of history.” Poor Hegel…

“Finally, the strong and occasionally irrational suspicion of corporations in the American electorate is a strong safeguard against plutocracy.”

I don’t disagree; but I do get concerned at how offset that sometimes is by the strong and frequently irrational belief among many that not only a specific government but all government is always responsible for every manner of evil.

“Hell, it wasn’t until 1992 that I voted for anybody in a major general election that actually won, and it’s been pretty rare since.”

Really? Who the heck have you been voting for if you don’t mind my asking?

Thanks, btw, for the Transparency link: most interesting.

On pugnaciousness, inexplicable or otherwise…

“…I dispute the OP’s assertion, and Mandelstam, you assume that I am “complacent” about the American system of government.”

Where did I say “complacent”? And also, if you check back, I was very careful to make clear that I was making an inference about your beliefs.

“Because I disputed a bad assertion, you made an assumption about my politics. It’s a form of intellectual laziness that is all too common on these boards, and only serves to discourage reasoned debate.”

I confess, I’ve pleaded guilty to many sins while in cyberspace: but this would have to be a first for intellectual laziness! For better or worse, my approach on message boards is often to offer someone a glimpse of where I perceive them as coming from–just to try to clarify. Honestly, I didn’t mean to cast aspersions on you, which is why I said it would be interesting to hear your viewpoint. I’m sorry that you took offense and what turned out to be mischaracterization of your views.

May I suggest that you make better use of the subordinate clause? This is a general problem for laywers: the effect of writing up too much litigation ;).

That is, somewhere in your response to an OP such as this one you might want to tip off newer posters such as myself with something along the lines of, “While I do have certain concerns about the state of US democracy, I…”

“I hounded that SOB for a long time after that. :)”

Perhaps you just like a good feisty sparring now and then. I know I do sometimes. But I think you’ll find me a bit harder to hound than Brian Bunnyhurt. Grrrrr… :wink:

43

Sorry I took so long to get back to yas

Well, the top one would be term limits. I’m in favor of term limits, and Kimstu disagrees. To a lesser extent, I don’t agree with Kimstu’s concerns about union membership, though I agree weakening the NLRB would be a bad thing, and I don’t agree that tax cuts are of themselves bad things.

But globalization is a good thing for Third-world countries, and I firmly believe that those in favor of economic improvements in the third world should support globalization. That, however, is a different debate.

Short list - the only successful candidates for major office I have voted for have been Clinton and Chuck Schumer.

“…I dispute the OP’s assertion, and Mandelstam, you assume that I am “complacent” about the American system of government.”

Where did I say “complacent”? And also, if you check back, I was very careful to make clear that I was making an inference about your beliefs.
[/QUOTE]

My bad. I read “comfortable” as “complacent”. Don’t know why I did it, and had I read it correctly, I wouldn’t have gotten so pugnacious.

Perhaps intellectual laziness is the wrong phrase, but your approach really is a bad habit. The underlying assumption that leads one to infer political points of view, etc. from statements of fact is that people will only use and/or distort facts that bolster their POV. Generally speaking, people in GD here (or at least those who last) tend to be more intellectually honest.

I hope that on this Board, that is not necessary - that people here are honest enough that it is irrelevant what a person’s POV is when they post factual assertions.

I don’t think I’ll have to interact with you the way I did with BB, one of the classic SDMB loons. You made an assumption that, unfortunately, is all too often justified in our current “intellectual” society - people very often do pretend facts unhelpful to their POV do not exist. I did find it irritating, and I did overract a tad (mea culpa), but you weren’t acting, as BB was, like a jerk.

I look forward to scrapping with you in the future. :slight_smile:

Sua

44

I had written: “Hmmmm… Well, George Bush just recently said, “What some call globalisation is in fact the triumph of human liberty stretching across national borders.” I guess that’s what passes for Coolidge-speak these days.”

Sua replied: "“But globalization is a good thing for Third-world countries, and I firmly believe that those in favor of economic improvements in the third world should support globalization. That, however, is a different debate.”

Yes, of course, globalization is a good thing in the abstract and I don’t know anyone who opposes it in the abstract. But in the concrete world there are good and bad forms of globalizing development (see the thread on this subject if you haven’t already). So being an uncritical cheerleader for globalization is, to my mind, today’s equivalent of Coolidgism.

“Perhaps intellectual laziness is the wrong phrase, but your approach really is a bad habit. The underlying assumption that leads one to infer political points of view, etc. from statements of fact is that people will only use and/or distort facts that bolster their POV.”

That is not at all my assumption: I always give people the benefit of the doubt, unless they deserve otherwise. However the issues we were discussing were statements of interpretation, not simple fact, and were therefore much more likely to convey an overall attitude: e.g., comfort or discomfort with the state of US democracy.

“Generally speaking, people in GD here (or at least those who last) tend to be more intellectually honest.”

Generally speaking, I’ve found it rather easy to discern a person’s position on a debate; that was my only intention.

“You made an assumption that, unfortunately, is all too often justified in our current “intellectual” society - people very often do pretend facts unhelpful to their POV do not exist.”

Sua, I think you are really making far too much of my inference. In fact, your current reply to NiceGuy’s latest thread on the subject siggests to me the very same difference in perspective that I sensed in the first place. My level of concern is much more in line with Kimstu’s; I sensed then and now sense again that your concerns were and are less grave. On the whole, I think my first impression was right. The “facts” as you perceive them suggest it to me. It’s nothing to do with laziness or dishonesty–and, I might add, it’s simply ungracious of you to insist that it is!

I will be away for a few weeks and perhaps when I return we can have a fresh start. :slight_smile: