5 ms·

The argument he's putting forth is so incredibly vapid and simple-minded that it's a stunning indictment of the lack of vision of a supreme court judge into the

The argument he's putting forth is so incredibly vapid and simple-minded that it's a stunning indictment of the lack of vision of a supreme court judge into the American zeitgeist. Americans understand the basic concept of the vote. A freaking six year old understands it. There are leaders, and they sycophantically grovel for the favor of the public, which the public gives freely in exchange for the politician promising to give them their hearts' desire. And then the public may or may not get what they want. If the politician cannot appropriately explain the reasons for this, they are dumped and the next sycophant is wrung through. That's about all they know, and all they need to know, because the people should not have to lobby their government in a democracy, the democratic leaders should already know what the people want and achieve it on their behalf, and in general do good for the people. But that is not what happens in America. Here, our political leaders don't serve the people. And the people know that. But the people can't do anything about it. And the reason they can't do anything about it is the people voted their way into this mess. Trying to vote their way out will just result in exactly the same thing. What the former Justice is saying is, the biggest problem in politics and public life is people don't understand how the legislative and judicial and executive processes work. But people do not need to know how this works, they merely need to voice their opinions and vote. And half of the people do vote. The other half don't vote either because they can't, or because they know what the result of voting is. The American democracy in the 20th and 21st century is an artisanal machine which produces a specific output. Votes and labor go in, and money comes out. But the machine is designed to mostly spit out money which can only be used by corporations and rich people; only a small percentage of that comes out in a form usable by the people. The people know their votes are mostly meaningless, but it is their only tangible method left to express their discontent. So they support the system that produces an awful result because it's the only way they can express that the machine produces an awful result. I think the people see this contradiction, and I think this is why so many do not vote: it's like complaining that your shoe hurts and then putting it on again to see how it will fit.

FooBarWidget 10y ago
I'm not an American and I don't really understand why you say this. Only a small percentage that the machine produces comes out in a form usable by non-rich people? Then what's, for example, Obamacare, which seems to be a system that finally resembles how health insurance works in many European countries? And isn't that same Obamacare under fire by lots of people who think that the machine shouldn't support the people and that everybody needs to support themselves instead of taking a piece of tax money? I'm more confused than before.
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  Except that's not how Obamacare works at all! It involves an expansion to Medicaid and Medicare, which are huge failures, and the forcing of healthy Americans into the health insurance market. In fact it has nothing to do with healthcare at all; it only has to do with health "insurance" as if by forcing more money into the system we'll somehow fix it. Because what the American health insurance industry - of which a very small part is healthcare, since even hospitals are putting most of their effort into getting as much money out of the public and private "insurance" schemes as possible - really needs to be "fixed" is more money! I use scare wires around "fixed" because, from the point of view of those running it, the health insurance industry is better than it's ever been.
- mirimir 10y ago
  No, Obamacare only pretends to resemble European-style healthcare. In fact, it merely forces everyone to sign up with private health insurance companies. Which still take their huge profits.
  - fennecfoxen 10y ago
    Yes, and private health insurance companies have profits so huge that they're pulling out of the insurance markets left and right and saying "sorry, we're just not interested in this business anymore!" Arizona's had it worst – many places there are on their last insurer – but that's just a taste of the phenomenon. The premium hikes are paying for the treatment of the "uninsurable" and chronically ill. Even the profitable for-profit insurers are only running margins of 3%, maybe 4% in a good year. You could turn them all nonprofit and it wouldn't really help premiums. (And people tried! Look at the health-care co-op collapses in Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, Nevada and Tennessee, and Oregon, as well!)
    - mirimir 10y ago
      OK, maybe Obamacare is melting down in some states. But national healthcare works in Europe, Canada, etc. So what's so special about the US?
saym 10y ago
> because the people should not have to lobby their government in a democracy, the democratic leaders should already know what the people want and achieve it on their behalf. I'd agree that people aren't any less knowledgeable now as they were as the former justice describes 'in his day'. I'd even give that it's not the most pressing issue, however, I think it's a far cry to expect a politician just inherently want to/do good for the people. Any system left unchecked gets warped. It's just as much the citizen's civic duty to pay attention as it is the politician's to do good for the people.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
elgenie 10y ago
His point is that if the voters don't have any knowledge about how government works, they can't evaluate (or check) politicians' explanations for the reasons that they did or did not get what they wanted. And the effect of this ignorance is that there's no reason for politicians to be accountable to voters or voters' interests. With first-past-the-post and no critical thinking in the electorate, "it's the other guys' faults" is an adequate explanation. Unsurprisingly, 98% of Congressional incumbents continue to get re-elected while Congress as a whole has an approval rating in the low teens.
- peterwwillis 10y ago
  This doesn't sound like a very sound argument at all, though. The people know they are being lied to. What good is it going to do to 'check' the explanations they are given when they know they are false? Instead of dealing with a liar after they fail to deliver, we have voted in someone we know is lying before they even take office. Trump is a habitual liar, and the only thing that all Trump supporters have in common is that they claim the opposition lies. We've passed the point where being informed will help. We are now in "Fuck it, pass the crytal meth" territory.
  - panic 10y ago
    Just electing a new president isn't enough to effect change: we saw that with Obama. People need to understand the role of congress as well. This attitude of "we keep electing liars and they keep failing to deliver" shows a poor understanding of how our democracy actually works -- that's the whole point the former justice is trying to make in the video.
    - peterwwillis 10y ago
      Can you help educate me, then? The people vote for representatives. And then....? Exactly what part of the process are people not doing, or not understanding? Is there some extra step involved? People tell their elected representatives what they want all the time. And people get ignored all the time. This is because the democratic process in our country is not simply citizens and politicians, it is also special interest groups, corporations, and a super-rich class whose interests supercedes the people's. And within the process, there are people who are paid to influence politicians for all sorts of groups, from citizens to corporations to foreign countries. Politicians have to weigh all of this, which is very difficult. But as far as the citizens, who are the subject of the justice's comments, are concerned, they only need to vote. Requiring all the citizens to be involved in political action committes just to, for example, retain their basic civil liberties or stay out of foreign wars for oil, is ridiculous. So, what is it i'm missing?

FooBarWidget 10y ago

I'm not an American and I don't really understand why you say this. Only a small percentage that the machine produces comes out in a form usable by non-rich people? Then what's, for example, Obamacare, which seems to be a system that finally resembles how health insurance works in many European countries? And isn't that same Obamacare under fire by lots of people who think that the machine shouldn't support the people and that everybody needs to support themselves instead of taking a piece of tax money? I'm more confused than before.

belovedeagle 10y ago
Except that's not how Obamacare works at all! It involves an expansion to Medicaid and Medicare, which are huge failures, and the forcing of healthy Americans into the health insurance market. In fact it has nothing to do with healthcare at all; it only has to do with health "insurance" as if by forcing more money into the system we'll somehow fix it. Because what the American health insurance industry - of which a very small part is healthcare, since even hospitals are putting most of their effort into getting as much money out of the public and private "insurance" schemes as possible - really needs to be "fixed" is more money! I use scare wires around "fixed" because, from the point of view of those running it, the health insurance industry is better than it's ever been.
mirimir 10y ago
No, Obamacare only pretends to resemble European-style healthcare. In fact, it merely forces everyone to sign up with private health insurance companies. Which still take their huge profits.
- fennecfoxen 10y ago
  Yes, and private health insurance companies have profits so huge that they're pulling out of the insurance markets left and right and saying "sorry, we're just not interested in this business anymore!" Arizona's had it worst – many places there are on their last insurer – but that's just a taste of the phenomenon. The premium hikes are paying for the treatment of the "uninsurable" and chronically ill. Even the profitable for-profit insurers are only running margins of 3%, maybe 4% in a good year. You could turn them all nonprofit and it wouldn't really help premiums. (And people tried! Look at the health-care co-op collapses in Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, Nevada and Tennessee, and Oregon, as well!)
  - mirimir 10y ago
    OK, maybe Obamacare is melting down in some states. But national healthcare works in Europe, Canada, etc. So what's so special about the US?

saym 10y ago

> because the people should not have to lobby their government in a democracy, the democratic leaders should already know what the people want and achieve it on their behalf. I'd agree that people aren't any less knowledgeable now as they were as the former justice describes 'in his day'. I'd even give that it's not the most pressing issue, however, I think it's a far cry to expect a politician just inherently want to/do good for the people. Any system left unchecked gets warped. It's just as much the citizen's civic duty to pay attention as it is the politician's to do good for the people.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

elgenie 10y ago

His point is that if the voters don't have any knowledge about how government works, they can't evaluate (or check) politicians' explanations for the reasons that they did or did not get what they wanted. And the effect of this ignorance is that there's no reason for politicians to be accountable to voters or voters' interests. With first-past-the-post and no critical thinking in the electorate, "it's the other guys' faults" is an adequate explanation. Unsurprisingly, 98% of Congressional incumbents continue to get re-elected while Congress as a whole has an approval rating in the low teens.

peterwwillis 10y ago
This doesn't sound like a very sound argument at all, though. The people know they are being lied to. What good is it going to do to 'check' the explanations they are given when they know they are false? Instead of dealing with a liar after they fail to deliver, we have voted in someone we know is lying before they even take office. Trump is a habitual liar, and the only thing that all Trump supporters have in common is that they claim the opposition lies. We've passed the point where being informed will help. We are now in "Fuck it, pass the crytal meth" territory.
- panic 10y ago
  Just electing a new president isn't enough to effect change: we saw that with Obama. People need to understand the role of congress as well. This attitude of "we keep electing liars and they keep failing to deliver" shows a poor understanding of how our democracy actually works -- that's the whole point the former justice is trying to make in the video.
  - peterwwillis 10y ago
    Can you help educate me, then? The people vote for representatives. And then....? Exactly what part of the process are people not doing, or not understanding? Is there some extra step involved? People tell their elected representatives what they want all the time. And people get ignored all the time. This is because the democratic process in our country is not simply citizens and politicians, it is also special interest groups, corporations, and a super-rich class whose interests supercedes the people's. And within the process, there are people who are paid to influence politicians for all sorts of groups, from citizens to corporations to foreign countries. Politicians have to weigh all of this, which is very difficult. But as far as the citizens, who are the subject of the justice's comments, are concerned, they only need to vote. Requiring all the citizens to be involved in political action committes just to, for example, retain their basic civil liberties or stay out of foreign wars for oil, is ridiculous. So, what is it i'm missing?