Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dragdeler]

-

[SalmonGod]

To clarify, my perspective isn't just in regards to Sanders. Him, Warren, Buttigieg... some others I can't think of off the top of my head- they've all indicated positions that could be regarded as pulling further down the route towards autocracy.

The US's history with its flawed democracy should not be the basis to throw it away today. Yes, it has screwed up considerably in the past (even more-so than you indicate- think Alien and Sedition Acts), but that should not be the basis to say that "since it has never been truly a democracy, then it doesn't matter". The issue isn't that "we aren't losing it if we've never had it"- democracy isn't all-or-nothing. Personally, I view democracy in a different way. Imagine every person in a country as a point on a level surface. Their height above that surface is the electoral power that that individual holds. Imagine now the surface constructed by those points of people. The more democratic a government, the more level this surface is- each individual has roughly an equal electoral power. You can think of a measure of how "level" the system is by imagining putting that surface into a box, and then filling it with water until the entire thing is covered. Then pour out water until just the tip of the tallest peak shows. The more water that remains, the more unlevel your system.

Hence, when I speak of the sacrifice of democracy, I mean moving further towards the unlevel. Regardless of the distribution of electoral power throughout US history, it's still possible to move more towards level or more towards unlevel.

Yeah, I get that it's not a binary.  We can get more or less democratic.  I'm just putting things in perspective.  How harmful to our democracy is the stuff we're talking about, really, given the scope of how bad it is already?  What does it mean when we talk about sacrificing our democracy when the alternative is sacrificing a majority of people who are excluded from meaningful participation in that democracy? 

Or... is it really sacrificing democracy if we use undemocratic means to increase democratic equality?

For example

A.  Racial minorities are more heavily policed and more likely to be charged felonies for the same crimes than white people
B.  Felonies make you ineligible to vote
C.  The USA has a larger prison population than any other country on earth has had in the last 100 years, so clearly this is not nitpicking

Given this, aren't you bettering democracy by addressing those problems, even if you use undemocratic means to do it?  Let's say you abuse executive power and pack the courts and so on to overhaul our criminal justice system so that it doesn't disenfranchise millions of people.  Is the end result a country with better or worse democracy?

Btw, Bernie's criminal justice reform proposals are fucking killer.  Achieving just 1/10 of it would be an incredible step.  Achieving half would revolutionize the country in a very positive way.

[dragdeler]

-

[dragdeler]

-

[SalmonGod]

Right, but such changes have to get past the fact that the administration following that would pursue even more undemocratic means to undo those very actions, or bolster their own coalition to such extreme electoral power as to render those actions moot. That's the escalation of un-democracy. Perhaps I'm thinking too long-term, but that is where my concern lies.

Any action taken that furthers the extent of undemocratic means to achieve ends will inherently leave the next administration able to pursue yet-even-more-undemocratic means. To "win" is to take such an action that irreversibly prevents the opposition from ever attaining power again. That is the game at hand. If you reach too far down undemocratic means, but not far enough such that you ensure victory, then you give victory to your opponent. This is why Republicans preserve the filibuster- the gain they attain from removing it now does not outweigh the further lax of rules that would benefit their opponents the next time around. Such reform that you suggest, if done undemocratically, would open the door to the next Republican administration taking actions yet further down the undemocratic route. This is the escalation that concerns me. The only way to avoid this is to "win".

Would such reform ensure that no Republican could ever hold the office of President afterwards?

Would the actions that need to be taken to ensure that is the case be beyond what the next President (regardless of who) could do?

I don't remember what the issue was, but you could look back and find me making the exact same arguments in one of our politics threads in the early 2010's during Obama's tenure.  I think the details matter here, though.  What Obama was up to that I was cautioning against was not something that increased democratic equality.  I remember that much.

Regardless, I just wanted to challenge you on hypotheticals.  I know you're not just talking about Bernie, but he's the only one I support, and I don't believe that he's proposed any undemocratic courses of action.

So if the strategy is to fill the governement with "aoc-squad" types by perpetuating the popular movement I fail to see how that's autocratic.

This is basically the way I see it, too.  The type of language Bernie uses in his speeches is very focused on movement building.  He wants to get things done by building popular pressure, which as I said before is how everything significant gets done.

[Kagus]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50671570

So the impeachment charges are officially getting filed. Then there's the vote, and then maybe even a trial, but at least it made it past the first hurdle.

It's a step in the right direction, aye?

[scriver]

To clarify, my perspective isn't just in regards to Sanders. Him, Warren, Buttigieg... some others I can't think of off the top of my head- they've all indicated positions that could be regarded as pulling further down the route towards autocracy.

The US's history with its flawed democracy should not be the basis to throw it away today. Yes, it has screwed up considerably in the past (even more-so than you indicate- think Alien and Sedition Acts), but that should not be the basis to say that "since it has never been truly a democracy, then it doesn't matter". The issue isn't that "we aren't losing it if we've never had it"- democracy isn't all-or-nothing. Personally, I view democracy in a different way. Imagine every person in a country as a point on a level surface. Their height above that surface is the electoral power that that individual holds. Imagine now the surface constructed by those points of people. The more democratic a government, the more level this surface is- each individual has roughly an equal electoral power. You can think of a measure of how "level" the system is by imagining putting that surface into a box, and then filling it with water until the entire thing is covered. Then pour out water until just the tip of the tallest peak shows. The more water that remains, the more unlevel your system.

Hence, when I speak of the sacrifice of democracy, I mean moving further towards the unlevel. Regardless of the distribution of electoral power throughout US history, it's still possible to move more towards level or more towards unlevel.

Yeah, I get that it's not a binary.  We can get more or less democratic.  I'm just putting things in perspective.  How harmful to our democracy is the stuff we're talking about, really, given the scope of how bad it is already?  What does it mean when we talk about sacrificing our democracy when the alternative is sacrificing a majority of people who are excluded from meaningful participation in that democracy? 

Or... is it really sacrificing democracy if we use undemocratic means to increase democratic equality?

For example

A.  Racial minorities are more heavily policed and more likely to be charged felonies for the same crimes than white people
B.  Felonies make you ineligible to vote
C.  The USA has a larger prison population than any other country on earth has had in the last 100 years, so clearly this is not nitpicking

Given this, aren't you bettering democracy by addressing those problems, even if you use undemocratic means to do it?  Let's say you abuse executive power and pack the courts and so on to overhaul our criminal justice system so that it doesn't disenfranchise millions of people.  Is the end result a country with better or worse democracy?

Btw, Bernie's criminal justice reform proposals are fucking killer.  Achieving just 1/10 of it would be an incredible step.  Achieving half would revolutionize the country in a very positive way.

Right, but such changes have to get past the fact that the administration following that would pursue even more undemocratic means to undo those very actions, or bolster their own coalition to such extreme electoral power as to render those actions moot. That's the escalation of un-democracy. Perhaps I'm thinking too long-term, but that is where my concern lies.

Any action taken that furthers the extent of undemocratic means to achieve ends will inherently leave the next administration able to pursue yet-even-more-undemocratic means. To "win" is to take such an action that irreversibly prevents the opposition from ever attaining power again. That is the game at hand. If you reach too far down undemocratic means, but not far enough such that you ensure victory, then you give victory to your opponent. This is why Republicans preserve the filibuster- the gain they attain from removing it now does not outweigh the further lax of rules that would benefit their opponents the next time around. Such reform that you suggest, if done undemocratically, would open the door to the next Republican administration taking actions yet further down the undemocratic route. This is the escalation that concerns me. The only way to avoid this is to "win".

Would such reform ensure that no Republican could ever hold the office of President afterwards?

Would the actions that need to be taken to ensure that is the case be beyond what the next President (regardless of who) could do?

What's the English name for that game (type) where you have a bunch of sticks and every turn you have to put away a number (often between 1-5) of sticks of your choosing, and the one who is left with having to put away the last stick loses?

[Kagus]

"Nim", apparently.

Curiously, if you try and Google search for NIM, the suggestion "NIM game" has a picture of Nicolas Cage next to it.

[scriver]

Ah, that rings a bell. Neat that the site reminded me of the version where you win by taking the last stick as well, since that was what I originally thought off and the metaphor doesn't work with the lose version

[Iduno]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50671570

So the impeachment charges are officially getting filed. Then there's the vote, and then maybe even a trial, but at least it made it past the first hurdle.

It's a step in the right direction, aye?

Yep. I don't have much expectation that anything will come of it, but they made it look like they tried.

[Frumple]

I doubt senate would convict, but I would say it's fairly likely the proceedings have a good bit of impact despite that. We'll just have to wait and see, more or less.

[Bumber]

Of course the Senate gets to start subpoenaing whoever they want once the impeachment gets to them. I think Republicans have expressed interest in bringing in the Bidens and Adam Schiff (over whistle-blower contact,) so there's going to be that circus. Plus they get to take up the time of the Democratic Senators running for President the longer they draw it out. I'm not convinced this is actually a wise move for Dems.

[wierd]

wise or not, it has become necessary.

The sitting president has solicited the assistance of a foreign government in election manipulation, via what is essentially cointelpro.

[sluissa]

Just because you know the guy's dad is buddies with the lpcal judge and will never see jail time doesn't mean you don't bother going through the motions if you catch him doing something wrong. Besides, there's always the chance.the judge decides enough is enough.

[Lord Shonus]

Going into the election with a "Look. We're doing our job by holding the people in power accountable - even if it doesn't work we are doing everything we can. If you want a more effective and accountable government, vote for us!" is a huge win for the country no matter what the results wind up being.