They say they want big government. Doesn’t mean it’s true. Perhaps - though I’m not sure this jibes with your perspective - the conservatives are doing what the people want, which is to create a government that is more pro-active. Then again, if the guys in power now get their way and have enough time, we could see a drastic reduction in government programs and services and a privatization of damn near everything.
Isn’t this the Great Debates board? Don’t you bring issues here that you would like to see debated? Why is it that I have to be looking for something? I had a point of view that I thought would make for a decent debate and so I gave it a whirl.
Is this what is generally said when you don’t like someone’s opinion, Hansel? If an opinion just grates but you can’t quite think of how to debunk it then you change the subject and make the issue about the poster’s subconscious need for agreement (or something)? I’m kinda new and this is the first thread I’ve started so maybe I should get up to speed with the local customs.
As democracy is practiced, the politicians are empowered by the rich elite. So, at the end of the day the leisure class is senior to and has exclusive influence over the system itself. From what I understand, democracy was devised so as to take power out of the hands of the leisure class or aristocracy or monarchy and put the power back in the hands of the people. While democracy is certainly a lesser evil, it sure seems to still have an inherent quality that those who would exploit the greater population, still have the means to do so.
By corrupt I specifically mean that politicians are bought by those that have the cash to do so. Therefore the politicians quietly serve the interests of those with the bucks while proclaiming loudly to be champions for the people.
Perhaps democracy could be practiced in a manner that didn’t reward those that served special interests. In its modern form, however, it just doesn’t.
Having said that, I must acknowledge that all systems are corruptible. Some are less corruptible than others by their nature. Democracy is just more inherently corruptible than I would like it to be.
No, Lander, I won’t take it personally. I’ll just take it as meaning you are not interested in debating with me. Thiat’s fine.
John Mace:
If your argument is going to consist of personal evaluations (that of course aren’t meant to be taken personally), then I’m not too interested in debating with you.
I’m interested in debating the topic that I brought up in the OP.
Most of lander’s points are sound, however one need not conclude that the baby be thrown out with the bathwater.
Restrictions on political funding have come into force in Britain and the level of bad press raised by eg. the Ecclestone affair has led to doubts about whether the money gained by a party for sleazy favours is actually worth it. It seems likely that a cap on election spending will be brought into force at some point, and a very welcome one it would be.
SentientMeat:
Must agree. The bathwater can go. The baby can stay.
Perhaps a democracy can exist whereby it actually lives up to its meaning of “government by the people.” The million dollar question is: Will the wealthy power brokers let such a thing happen any time soon?
I must admit, I’m not at all familiar with the Ecclestone affair. I take it there was some scandal regarding political favors of some sort. I must say I’m not too confident that any major reform has taken place when I see Blair towing the line with the invasion of Iraq. That he supported Bush to his apparent political detriment indicated to me that he was serving some strong influence. Forgive if me I don’t take for granted that he was simply upholding a strong sense of integrity.
I agree,Lander’s observations are certainly correct.
Very few, if any, of the democratic countries are truly democratic, in the sense that the ‘will of the people’ actually is the ruling power.
The question ‘what is the alternative?’ is valid but at the same time implies that there is none, so what we have is the best available. Surely there can be improvements!
There can, as already suggested, be better checks and balances on the government. Or we could increase the level of democracy.
Regarding the level democracy, it raises an important question, and a touchy one, ‘do we really want the ‘will of the people’ to be the ruling force.?’ In this age it is certainly possible to have the public decide on important issues directly, through referendi. Instead of ‘electing’ members of the ruling elite, who then decide for us, we (the people) could decide for ourselves. A true democracy, a la Athens.
This, however, opens up a whole new can of worms; How to prevent ‘The Mob Rules’.
Let’s face it ,Mace, some people are ‘smarter’ than others. It is a fact of life.
Or rather: here are different levels in intelligence, skill and knowledge (and the will to acquire it). Degrees of ignorance, if you will.
Yes, I know, it is ‘not done’ to speak of this, we are all supposed to be equal. And we all know that is a bunch of …
If you fail to recognise this, or choose to ignore, there can be no practical basis for a rule by the people. There must be some sort of mechanism to stop ‘the people’ from taking rash, emotional, ill-informed or other very short term decisions.
An ‘intellectual census’, of sorts, seems unavoidable. You could have this census applied to the whole population or to some sort of ‘buffer zone’, a college that stops silly things before they become a voting issue. Apart from the question, on who decides and on what basis people are eligible to voting rights or admission to a ‘college’, inevitably this would result in a new kind of ruling elite.
In practice there would therefore still be an elitist form of government and a large part of the population that doesn’t have a say in how things are run. In effect we would just be swapping one ruling elite for another. Would this be a better ruling elite? Would I still not belong to it? What would be the dangers?
Any way, just musing along…
The problem is that you didn’t provide a very usefully debateable point. “Does democracy keep the government honest?” is ridiculously vague. The answer is trivially “no”, since any corruption at all makes democracy a failure, by that question. You won’t discuss alternatives that illustrate the particular failings of democracy; you have no particular evidence to cite that describes the extent of the problem. Your OP and your following posts appear to be little more than a cynical appraisal of democracy with rousing rhetoric but few examples.
A debate is more than just throwing out a provocative statement and letting the rest have at it. Dig in and articulate a more concrete point of view, and we can discuss it.
The problem with the OP is that he treats all monied interests as having the same agenda. This is not true at all. The steel industry has very different interests than the car industry. The trial lawyers have very different interests than the insurance industry. The environmentalists have different interests than the farmers. There are hundreds of these interest groups that are playing off of each other. This is what keeps democracy honest. If you read the Federalist papers the founding fathers counted on this interplay between factions and this is one of the reasons the US has had such a succesful government.
From lander2k2
“By corrupt I specifically mean that politicians are bought by those that have the cash to do so. Therefore the politicians quietly serve the interests of those with the bucks while proclaiming loudly to be champions for the people.”
lander2k2, isn’t this a very simplistic and unrealistic way of looking at things? Do you actually live in the US…and understand how the system works? From a simplistic view, you are right…politicians are ‘bought’ by the PACs, in the sense that they give money to the politician for their campain (and in some cases a bit on the side for that new house…thats where the corruption part comes in). However, this simplistic view doesn’t take into account that there are many, mutually exclusive, PACs out there. True?
Those PACs will tend to, in most cases, pick political candidates that espouse THEIR point of view, and support them. As an example, I’m sure GW isnt’ getting a lot of money from the various environmental/peace group PACs atm. When you vote for him (if you vote for him) you are voting for HIS agenda (standard republican economic fare, with some quasi-religious BS thrown in for flavor). His very postitions are made from the various PACs that support him, true, but its a position that HE wants to take anyway. In other words, the PACs that give him money, do so because he is sympathetic to their positions, and will support to a greater or lesser degree THIER agenda(s).
Voting for him or anyone else, you are voting for those same positions, meaning you AGREE with them (to a greater or lesser degree…the flaw here is that some people vote the party line no matter what, but thats a different issue). Only if you bury your head in the sand don’t you know what GW, or JL or DG’s agenda(s) are…they come right out and tell you. If you agree with (for example) GW’s policies (i.e. with the PAC positions he espouses), then you vote for him. If you agree with those from the other side, or a third party candidate, then you vote for them. You have a choice.
There is not monolithic political (or rich) elite out there running some shadow government to exploit the masses. Get a grip. There are various well financed groups out there, with their own agendas, who use their money and influence to get candidates that espouse THEIR agendas elected. This isn’t corruption (at this level at least)…its how democracies work. Its how ALL democracies, for all time, have ALWAYS worked. Even in Greece there were groups that worked like PACS to get their agendas put forward, and their candidates elected.
Now, if you want to debate the pros and cons of true referendum democracy, and thats you beef (because we have a representitive democracy now, not a ‘true’ democracy), thats a whole different question.
-XT
Puddleglum and xtisme, one little flaw in your view of things is that a lot of interest groups simply don’t have the money to compete with the big industrial interest groups.
Espescially in the US, you need lots of money to compete in the election’s propaganda circus. So someone that poses as a candidate and who’se agenda agrees with the big money’s, will have a BIG advantage. Not even concidering whether his agenda really is his own.
How many people actually knew about ‘The New American Century’ last election, you think?
From Latro
“How many people actually knew about ‘The New American Century’ last election, you think?”
I’m not a Bush fan, but I think in his case some of his policies have kind of come off the cuff, pressed on him by events. I seriously doubt his presidency would be anything like what it has become, if not for 9/11. I seriously doubt that all that ‘The New American Century’ crap would of been happening but for events. But for that, we would of gotten the standard Republican fare, as advertised…just like if Gore would of been elected (and if no 9/11) we would of gotten HIS standard fare as well.
As to the PACs, you are right…some of them don’t have the money to get their agendas put forth. I’d say that one of the reasons they DON’T, is they don’t have as much popular backing (and therefore as many donations) as the other social PACs. Certainly the eco PACs don’t seem to have problems with funds, because its a popular issue…and they support a wide variety of candidates on the left. Also, civil rights PACS (NAACP and such) don’t seem to lack for funds or influence either. Or am I wrong? Both example groups sure SEEM to have a lot of influence on American pendulum politics.
-XT
You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion, hansel. But what puzzles me is why you would go to bother of bitching about how the topic is vague or not useful. Personally, if I don’t like a topic and think it isn’t worth debating, I just go find another thread. Don’t make a topic out of “is this topic appropriate” because you find my stance offensive and yet can’t formulate an argument on the point raised. Shit, lodge a complaint or something if you think it’s that bad.
As I said, I’m not going to personally go into alternatives to democracy because of the scope of the issue. I think the issue of an entirely new system is extensive and the topic would call for its own thread. If you want to talk alternatives, fine, go ahead, but I’ll leave it for another time. This subject is democracy, not alternatives to democracy.
A debate is opposing views exchanging points on an issue. You may have noticed that one or two don’t agree that the answer to the OP question is “trivially ‘no’” and there is something of a debate occurring over it.
Sorry if my view offends or is provocative, but I’m not going to modify my view out of consideration for your passionate feelings.
Are, but all moneyed interests do have the same agenda—their own. The point is that if a special interest pushes its own agenda exclusive of what may be good for the country or world at large then a few benefit while the populace at large pays the price. And if an elected representative bows to those interests knowing that the good of the people he/she represents is being compromised, then he/she is not being honest.
Just because someone has money, doesn’t mean that their interests include the greater interests of the people. I will concede that certain sectors and industries can find a balance as they face off against one another, but it is a strained and precarious balance at best that can readily be tipped one way or the other under certain economic conditions, resulting in thousands of job losses and the like.
I realize I am addressing the subject with hypothetical concepts but I’m sure you can think of examples of how it may be. An obvious, if extreme example, would be the interests of arms manufacturers who plainly have an interest in wars being waged. Wars are never in the interests of anyone, except where defending against a war that has already been declared. However military contractors still have the agenda and have billions riding on the fact of munitions being spent and hardware being used.
I thought that I had registered a complaint when I said that you need to flesh out the OP a bit. And I expressed a fairly clear opinion on the OP’s topic that you’ve ignored, presumably because I didn’t support your cynicism.
I believe that is one of the inherent flaw of democracy. Even under the best of circumstances - no corruption, no special interests, etc - it is difficult if not impossible to apply the same weight too all the concerns of 250 million people. The best you can hope for is a kind of moderate mediocrity that doesn’t piss off any one group too much.
xtisme:
I am addressing the subject from a broad and general view, and while it does seem pretty simple to me, I don’t think that it is simplistic. It seems all too realistic and manifest to me.
You see I hold that the essential purpose of a leader to be: Do what is best for the population at large. If a politician serves interests that basically are essential to him attaining and retaining his job at the expense of his essential purpose, then I think he/she has been corrupted. Corrupted not in the sense of breaking a law or taking bribes, but corrupted as in diverting from what is fundamentally honorable or morally sound.
I do acknowledge that there are many mutually exclusive special interests that are pushed independent of one another. The problem is that an incumbent president (for example) is only serving a certain select group of those interests during any given tenure. So for that term, certain sectors and industries can get screwed while others win out. Then in the next term perhaps a different set of interests will have their turn. But during either term, the broad scene and the greater good of the general populace is prone to be ignored. Yes, the circumstances can be such that the country or even the world can benefit at times, but they can, and often do, get screwed as well. The good of the people should be the driving principle of government policy; not special interests. Wasn’t that the scene the founding fathers seemed to be shooting for when they framed that constitution?
As for your ridicule, “There is not monolithic political (or rich) elite out there running some shadow government to exploit the masses. Get a grip.” I never said anything about a “monolithic” group. While there are secret societies like CFR that have been touted to constitute the “monolith,” I am not necessarily advocating such a notion. (I actually can’t say much about what those guys get up to since it is done in secret). It may be easier for you to argue with something if you hit it with the paranoid and conspiracy theory variety of retorts that seem so popular, but it just strikes me as a cop-out since it is big on empty spite and short on actual logic. I think it is amusing to juxtapose your ridicule with your supposed statement of fact: “There are various well financed groups out there (political {or rich} elite out there), with their own agendas, who use their money and influence to get candidates that espouse THEIR agendas elected (running some shadow government to exploit the masses).” You just seemed to have given a loose euphemism for the ridiculed stance that you assigned to me.
“moderate mediocrity that doesn’t piss off any one group too much.”
MSMITH: Somewhat depressing, I guess, but probably true. 
Fortunately we live in a country where the gov’t isn’t really a major factor in our lives, unless we want it to be.
I meant register a complaint with the moderators or something. (I’m sure you can do something like that, can’t you?)
Well shit, hansel, I didn’t take up what you origianlly said cause I pretty much agreed with your view. From what I understood, you regarded the question of governmental honesty under democracy as a “trivial ‘no’” but that it still is a better gig than totalitarianism. Can’t argue with that. Maybe I misunderstood your stance. Sorry if I did so.