Mein Gott in Himmel

[pecunium]

I think I just chased a couple of people out of the Peet's I'm in. They were talking politics, basically encouraging each other in their support of McCain. Which was whenI heard her (early twenties, still living at home, going to college; but ready to be done with it) say, "He's such an amazing orater, but I'm not sure he believes what he says, and that's really scary, because that's how Hitler came to power"

Which led to me to pay more attention... and when I heard her praising Palin, and saying she wanted to ask Obama supporters how they could compare the experience of the two... I went over and told them how and why.

The shocking thing... when I listed the qualification, including eight years in the Illinois Senate, and the con-law professorship and the Editor of the Harvard Law Review... she thought I was listing Palin's credits.

When I said that was Obama, and listed her failings in Wasilla, her companion (mid-twenties, male) said, "Well I guess you know who you're votong for."

They didn't look all that pleased when I said, "I was only anwering the question you asked," and went back to my work.

And they gathered up their things and left.

Comments

[wolodymyr.livejournal.com]

Although certain single reigns of single rulers seem to have been okay, the inevitable power grab periods between rulers - well, I can imagine mud hut economies (and pre-Elizabethan England is easily includable as a mud hut economy) surviving them, but not societies more complicated. The English, I think, agreed, which is part of why they moved, post-Elizabeth, to a more democratic system, and why they prospered after doing so. Also, when I look at the ancient periods, the democracies (limited and caveated as they were) seem to have functioned better.

I would rather, for example, live in parliamentary Germany than oligarchical Brazil.

And in fact, I invite you to suggest an oligarchical state you think is running better than a democratic one.

The democracies do appear to do better for larger numbers of people, and thus also to do very well for the rich within them. The rich have a tendency, though, to go goose-killing and limit, if not destroy, democratic and parliamentary institutions where they can.

[shunra.livejournal.com]

You've invited me to defend a position which I do not hold. I respectfully decline to do so.

Parliamentary German is indeed better aligned with my values than oligarchical Brazil - but all too recently a German democracy descended into tyranny. Has Brazil?

The U.S. is currently offering equal voting rights to people who think that Palin may have edited the Harvard Law Review and people who may have edited the Harvard Law Review. Krugman pointed out today in his blog (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/not-about-the-financial-crisis/) that "a significant fraction of the American population, backed by a lot of money and political influence, simply does not consider government by liberals (even very moderate liberals) legitimate."

In an ideal world, a functioning democracy is clearly best. Our world seems to fall short of the standard I set with the adjective "ideal".

[wolodymyr.livejournal.com]

"The U.S. is currently offering equal voting rights to people who think that Palin may have edited the Harvard Law Review and people who may have edited the Harvard Law Review."

Yes.

But can that be changed by limiting voting rights?

I look back over all my replies to you, and they're culpably rife with generalities. So I apologize that my response here is yet another one. It's this: people get smarter with resources when they have them. People historically do seem to want to chuck away responsibility whenever it's given them (much like the Rights in the Bill, defensively titled Inalienable).

When the perceived pie of resources is shrinking, authoritarian tendencies increase. That's why I think governmental forms can't be looked at in the abstract. They're related to the culture, AND to the general economic conditions of the culture.

If real wages have been shrinking since the 70s, what do we think people's political ideas will be like? Wealth makes liberals. The best way to make more liberals - I think it's to make more wealth. The rest is censorship and power struggle. Unless I'm wrong?

[shunra.livejournal.com]

We are clearly on the same wavelength - we both want to increase the power of the people by empowering the people. For example, by increasing the wealth and well-being by, for example, evening the distribution of power-in-the-form-of-money and power-in-the-form-of-education.

Problem! Our culture violently objects to more equitable distribution of power-in-various-forms. The only way to enforce it, when electoral preference has repeatedly demonstrated this objection would be a short-and-temporary seizure of power. Only...

...Is the only way to make more liberals by dragging them, kicking and screaming, into a situation where a more liberal point of view makes more sense than an authoritarian one?

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

hrmn.... I'd be happier, I think, if we consider the problems with measuring the, "success" of those ancient democracies. How many lived in Athens? How many had the vote? What was the chance of getting it, if one didn't possses it?

In a lot of ways, on the surface, Sparta posssessed democratic institutions, pity the helot who seemed above his station.

A lot depends on 1:the ability to gain the franchise and 2: how those who don't have it are treated.

Better to be a transient in Sparta then in Athens. Better to be a slave in Athens than in Sparta.