![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why it's going to be hard to rebuld the United States that was
Democracy is hard. It is, in fact, probably the hardest system of goverment people have tried.
It is fundamentally unstable. Get a large enough group together, and it will fail, because it becomes too unwieldy (the estimates of largest stable size which come to me are about 5,000 people; for direct, one person: one vote, on all decisions of note). Too many people, and too much lag time in the making of decisions, as well as the ablity for a demagogue to sway a majority, and so oppress a large enough minority that things fall apart.
We get around this, in the modern age of large states, but having a system which puts my vote in the hand of another, who is holding a number of other proxies. This has flaws too, because the population can get so large that either the number of proxies is guaranteed to make it impossible to satisfy the constiuency, or the number of delgates to the "thing" will become too large to get business done.
But, so long as some criteria are met, these are both survivable.
But, right now, according to this poll of Rightwing bloggers, it seems we're screwed.
First, the good news. This is a small, and non-random poll of self-responders, so it's not likely to be really accurate.
If it is, the one of the fundamental requirements of democracy is in grave danger.
Do you think that a majority of Democrats in Congress would like to see us lose in Iraq for political reasons?
Yes (53)-- 84%
No (10) -- 16%
That's a terrifying ratio.
Because the primary belief required of the citizens of a democracy is that the general interest of all is pointed in the same direction. That those in political opposition aren't evil, merely mistaken, at worst misguided. It's why democracies value a level of homogeniety; why the myth of the melting pot is so strong in the United States.
When a significant part of the population believes the rest aren't looking out for common interests... the system is in trouble. If the belief gets to be too large, if too many of the minority come to this way of thinking, that state is doomed.
A smaller number, will leave. A larger number will foment discontent. In some cases they will rebel. The U.S. did this to create itself. Later it had several rebellions testing just what the social contracts were (Shay's and The Whiskey Rebellions, as well as the Civil War).
The things these bloggers believe isn't that the "Democrats" think the war is lost, fruitless, a waste of blood, treasure and stature in the world; no, they think the "Liberals" want us to lose, and so lose place in the world and become a lesser power.
They don't believe this is because of a difference of opinion, or understanding... they think it is being done, just to gain political power, and lord it over them.
That's a problem, even if they are just a small segment of the Republican Party it's a problem, because these are the people who have the pulpit. They weren't chosen at random, they were chosen because they have fame. They are shapers of seconday opinion and this is a corrosive idea.
If this is what they believe, they are likely to poison the well, and make a happy medium impossible, which will further the spread of this way of thinking, and so the cycle will continue, until the strain is more than can be borne, and the United States could pass from the stage.
It is fundamentally unstable. Get a large enough group together, and it will fail, because it becomes too unwieldy (the estimates of largest stable size which come to me are about 5,000 people; for direct, one person: one vote, on all decisions of note). Too many people, and too much lag time in the making of decisions, as well as the ablity for a demagogue to sway a majority, and so oppress a large enough minority that things fall apart.
We get around this, in the modern age of large states, but having a system which puts my vote in the hand of another, who is holding a number of other proxies. This has flaws too, because the population can get so large that either the number of proxies is guaranteed to make it impossible to satisfy the constiuency, or the number of delgates to the "thing" will become too large to get business done.
But, so long as some criteria are met, these are both survivable.
But, right now, according to this poll of Rightwing bloggers, it seems we're screwed.
First, the good news. This is a small, and non-random poll of self-responders, so it's not likely to be really accurate.
If it is, the one of the fundamental requirements of democracy is in grave danger.
Do you think that a majority of Democrats in Congress would like to see us lose in Iraq for political reasons?
Yes (53)-- 84%
No (10) -- 16%
That's a terrifying ratio.
Because the primary belief required of the citizens of a democracy is that the general interest of all is pointed in the same direction. That those in political opposition aren't evil, merely mistaken, at worst misguided. It's why democracies value a level of homogeniety; why the myth of the melting pot is so strong in the United States.
When a significant part of the population believes the rest aren't looking out for common interests... the system is in trouble. If the belief gets to be too large, if too many of the minority come to this way of thinking, that state is doomed.
A smaller number, will leave. A larger number will foment discontent. In some cases they will rebel. The U.S. did this to create itself. Later it had several rebellions testing just what the social contracts were (Shay's and The Whiskey Rebellions, as well as the Civil War).
The things these bloggers believe isn't that the "Democrats" think the war is lost, fruitless, a waste of blood, treasure and stature in the world; no, they think the "Liberals" want us to lose, and so lose place in the world and become a lesser power.
They don't believe this is because of a difference of opinion, or understanding... they think it is being done, just to gain political power, and lord it over them.
That's a problem, even if they are just a small segment of the Republican Party it's a problem, because these are the people who have the pulpit. They weren't chosen at random, they were chosen because they have fame. They are shapers of seconday opinion and this is a corrosive idea.
If this is what they believe, they are likely to poison the well, and make a happy medium impossible, which will further the spread of this way of thinking, and so the cycle will continue, until the strain is more than can be borne, and the United States could pass from the stage.
Insufficient information to conclude "these bloggers believe isn't..."
(Anonymous) 2007-03-11 02:06 am (UTC)(link)It is quite true that many Americans, including some of today's Congresscritters, celebrated the fall of Saigon and did in fact "like to see us lose" in Vietnam for political reasons - and that regardless of whether the ARVN would or would not have repelled the NVA invasion if given the aid then President Ford requested. This makes credible, at least in the sense of not impossible, a notion that Congresscritters "would like to see us lose in Iraq for political reasons."
Curiously enough some Congressional Democrats who speak for an immediate exit from Iraq also speak in favor of intervention in Darfur without making it clear why there are greater prospects for success in Darfur.
For another example of the defects of Democracy consider the Washington Post which finds it intolerable that the District should be prevented from imposing the will of the people by so slight a thing as the Bill of Rights.
"We get around this, in the modern age of large states, but having a system which puts my vote in the hand of another, who is holding a number of other proxies." Consider too the difference between Burkean Representation and the notion of implied referendum in which the proxy holder truly votes proxies - that is the representative's vote in assembly is weighted by the number of supporters not by district.
CEM
Re: Insufficient information to conclude "these bloggers believe isn't..."
Who shall keep the register? Without such a register how can I rescind my proxy? What if I refuse to give a proxy? Am I refused a say in the "thing" or do I get to vote for myself?
And those who have large proxy counts would become powerful beyond reason, and the targets of all sorts of less than savory suasion. Duke Cunningham represented one of the smallest groups we have (because our representatives are not evenly apportioned, Wyoming voters equal something like seven California voters) and he was offered, and took, large bribes.
How much more tempting the man who holds unequal power, because he has more proxies.
Demagogues become players. Lyndon LaRouche and the Aryan Nation would both be guaranteed seats at the table.
The Post, for all you disagree with them, is not a defect of democracy. They don't get to impose that difference; with proxies they might (the "will of the people" when applied as you use it isn't all that honest either. Have you taken a referendum, and so measured the will of those people? Or is it a case of the bench making a ruling because a small group [in this case six people] has brought a case, and the interpretation of the law happens to co-incide with your prejudice? Absent a clear statement from "the people" either is a claim which can be asserted. Since the legislative body which decides on the laws of The District is the House of Representatives, there are lots of flaws to be ascribed to pretty much any piece of legislation; not the least of which it isn't the will of those people; even by proxy, since they don't get to elect a single one of those who decide; that is done by the rest of us).
So too is your use of Darfur a red herring, since the cases aren't parallel. If we were there, and the cause was doomed, and they were saying, "Stay the course, lets just toss some more troops in, and see if that fixes it" then you would be right.
But peacekeeping is a different thing (and we have a model which works, as well as the likelihood of both a passsed UN resoltion, and allies), which means they are apples and oranges.
Pickett almost certainly knew the odds of success were slim. Skorzeny, not so much; because he was a low-level operative. But both of those cases are also different in kind, because they were actually in the thick of things, they had their necks on the line (and Skorzeny ended up with his in the noose, so to speak [sense he was shot]). None of these bloggers has been willing to enlist, and when those who are supportive, and eligible, have been asked, they turn out to have, "other priorities."
TK