5 ms·

This is just a microcosm of the greater political climate created in the US over the past 40 or so years. Business interests completely control every single leg

This is just a microcosm of the greater political climate created in the US over the past 40 or so years. Business interests completely control every single legislative decision made. We're all just along for the ride now.

kevinh 9y ago
It seems a bit disingenuous to call out imply all sides are the same when one party put into place these rules and the other party is removing them.
maxxxxx 9y ago
With the importance of lobbying the people who will benefit financially from legislation will be able to afford most lobbying and ultimately almost always get their way. That's a real problem.
etplayer 9y ago
There's an interesting essay about democracy in America (well, there are hundreds if not thousands probably) but what's unique is that it's a criticism levelled against the idea of democratic pluralism, and from where it emerges - the 'tolerance' of the democracy, the idea that rather than the individual action expounded by the classical liberals (for all their faults) there is now a system in which representative voices are heard - whether those are religious or ethno-groups or worker groups or business groups. The key part, though, is that the group is recognised as legitimate by the others and only then will it be tolerated. The idea of this tolerance is a kind of peaceful existence, which, the author argues, is inadequate for democracy but makes us feel good. The essay is "Beyond Tolerance" by Robert Wolff, and it's part of a three essay book called Critique of Pure Tolerance, which as the name may not suggest to the reader is written from a strongly left-wing point of view (it even contains an essay by Frankfurt School critical theorist Herbert Marcuse!). You can read the PDF of it here, I hope others are as enlightened by it as I was: https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Wolff_Moore_Marcuse_A_Critique_of_Pure_Tolerance.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Wolff_Moore_Marcuse_A_Criti...
- pas 9y ago
  Do you maybe care for a tl;dr? I see, that it's not long (124 small form pages), but I'm very interested in what do you [or others] think of the essence of the essays, what are the insights that it gives to the reader. What was unexpected? What was expected? I also see that it's from 1968. How has it aged?
  - etplayer 9y ago
    Although the book is long, the essay which I pointed to, which is the most poignant to the point of American democracy, is the only the first one (which is 52 pages long). The second essay concerns the benefits of using science (this term used broadly) to understand human society, and a rejection of the tolerance of some other methods. The third essay concerns what kind of political action should be tolerated in society, and the author argues for the tolerance of the Left wing, which is regarded as subversive, and positing that this subversive element is increasingly blocked in modern capitalist society through mass media, and this blocking may need to be cleared using apparently anti-democratic means such as the silencing of Right views. The sense of the first essay is that pluralistic democracy functions in such a way that groups, once recognised, have some of their needs met at various levels of bureaucracy, however none of them get all that they ask for and all of them get a little. What they ask for tends to affect only their own group with little overreach. Although this seems like a good idea, it also functions on the principle of simply blocking out those "fringe", "radical", "extreme" groups which aren't regarded as legitimate; it does not do this by denying their claim to the platform of groups, but it does this by denying their existence or plight in the first place. The author uses the examples of those left in poverty in America before Kennedy and those who campaigned for disarmament before the Cold War. As examples of groups on the platform, he uses religious ones (Protestants and Jews in particular) and ethnic ones. He argues that there is another model of pluralism, which he calls the 'referee' model, which contends that so far as the government is instituted to merely protect interest groups from colliding, it favours the stronger ones over the weaker ones. He writes in support of this, >In the field of regulation of labor unions, for example, the federal agencies deal with the established leadership of the unions. In such matters as the overseeing of union elections, the settlement of jurisdictional disputes, or the setting up of mediation boards, it is the interests of those leaders rather than the competing interests of rankandfile dissidents which are favored. In the regulation of agriculture, again, the locally most influential farmers or 1eaders of farmers' organizations draw up the guidelines for control which are then adopted by the federal inspectors. In each case, ironically, the unwillingness of the government to impose its own standards or rules results not in a free play of competing groups, but in the enforcement of the preferences of the existing predominant interests. I don't think my summary is adequate, as I first read the essay a long time ago, and I'm not sure if I completely agree with it or not (the author cites Durkheim when he talks about the flaws and advantages of classical liberalism and conservatism, how they together spawn pluralistic democracy) so I would recommend reading it if you get time. Edit: as for the importance of the first essay, from my point of view not much has changed, though I can't say for sure beacuse I only hear about America on the news. As for the last essay, I would say that it is extremely important considering the current political climate in Western countries, though many (especially on HN) would disagree with my view.
benlorenzetti 9y ago
This is the great tragedy of American democracy through all its history. One camp sees that there are big businesses that have achieved rentier positions in the economy and advocates passing laws or using force to punish them. The other camp sees that it is usually federal rules + global competition which created behemoths in the first place and advocates against further restrictive laws. The two camps fight about whether there should be more rules or less. Meanwhile the problems are left to fester until the next crisis, when the New Rules are able to win. The civil war, the banking crises of the industrial revolution, the Great Depression, and the "great" recession, etc.
- belorn 9y ago
  While I agree with the conclusion that the problems are left to fester, I don't think that those two camps has really existed like that for a long while now. Both camps are in desperate need to have close connection with big businesses during election time, so what they do is employing different tactics to siphon private money into politics. One camp does this by back rooms deal and government contracts, positioning companies to stay ahead of the competition. Big businesses have to pay or the competition will do it. The other camp does this through removing rules which otherwise would allow competition to grow into a threat. The methods of the first camp get describe by the second as threats, and big businesses have to pay to remove both. No one is paying to deal with next crisis.
  - benlorenzetti 9y ago
    I did not mean to equate "camps" just with the republican and democratic parties of today. I meant camps to describe groups of people with similar opinions at the same time in history. For example in the civil war era you had northern opinions which wanted tariffs, more navy power, etc. and saw plantations as rentiers on "property" they should not have ever owned. In the other camp you had southerners who opposed federal restrictions on trade and were very conscience of the competition between global powers, with England wanting cotton yet also outlawing the gulf stream slave trade. And I should have been more articulate: I am not refuting the parent post about when perhaps the current camps formed. Just that the formation of such camps is not unusual in American history.
colordrops 9y ago
Can it be still called a democracy then?
- cmurf 9y ago
  It is not a democracy, was never a democracy, was not designed to be a democracy. It could be considered a "prelude to a democracy if it really wishes to be and is willing to work hard to get there". The U.S. was invented at a time of monarchy. Three things it innovated were polyarchy (a ruling class of many rather than one, a king), a written constitution (power comes from people who grant a revocable mandate of authority to the polyarchy, rather than mandate from heaven to the monarch), and one person one vote. Of course who gets to vote is not by any means democratic: you had to be citizen, be a man, be white, and own land. It's become much more democratized since then, on paper. And it could become a democracy at any moment. However if you look at the ethnic and economic make up of the country compared to their representatives, the polyarchy is still overwhelmingly landed elite, male, and white. The average net worth of a Congressperson is around $7 million. And there's no meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans when that's broken down, so I'd say we have a one party system with two factions. It's distinctly non-democratic, still, in practice. And it even looks more like an evangelical prosperity theology driven church than a democracy. But most people don't vote. And most voters, vote party line. It's a tribal system, most voters are deeply ignorant of issues. They're sufficiently happy being peasants and serfs, and having a polyarchy of lords rule them.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    Uh huh. So every news outlet give Trump's a snowball's chance in hell of winning and Hillary Clinton is a member of the political establishment, but there's no democracy; plebian votes don't count. People may it may not reach" correct" conclusions, but America is most certainly democratic.
hsod 9y ago
In a sense, we did vote for it. We elected Trump, who spoke out against NN (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716...) and who had obvious pro-business leanings.

kevinh 9y ago

It seems a bit disingenuous to call out imply all sides are the same when one party put into place these rules and the other party is removing them.

maxxxxx 9y ago

With the importance of lobbying the people who will benefit financially from legislation will be able to afford most lobbying and ultimately almost always get their way. That's a real problem.

etplayer 9y ago

There's an interesting essay about democracy in America (well, there are hundreds if not thousands probably) but what's unique is that it's a criticism levelled against the idea of democratic pluralism, and from where it emerges - the 'tolerance' of the democracy, the idea that rather than the individual action expounded by the classical liberals (for all their faults) there is now a system in which representative voices are heard - whether those are religious or ethno-groups or worker groups or business groups. The key part, though, is that the group is recognised as legitimate by the others and only then will it be tolerated. The idea of this tolerance is a kind of peaceful existence, which, the author argues, is inadequate for democracy but makes us feel good. The essay is "Beyond Tolerance" by Robert Wolff, and it's part of a three essay book called Critique of Pure Tolerance, which as the name may not suggest to the reader is written from a strongly left-wing point of view (it even contains an essay by Frankfurt School critical theorist Herbert Marcuse!). You can read the PDF of it here, I hope others are as enlightened by it as I was: https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Wolff_Moore_Marcuse_A_Critique_of_Pure_Tolerance.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Wolff_Moore_Marcuse_A_Criti...

pas 9y ago
Do you maybe care for a tl;dr? I see, that it's not long (124 small form pages), but I'm very interested in what do you [or others] think of the essence of the essays, what are the insights that it gives to the reader. What was unexpected? What was expected? I also see that it's from 1968. How has it aged?
- etplayer 9y ago
  Although the book is long, the essay which I pointed to, which is the most poignant to the point of American democracy, is the only the first one (which is 52 pages long). The second essay concerns the benefits of using science (this term used broadly) to understand human society, and a rejection of the tolerance of some other methods. The third essay concerns what kind of political action should be tolerated in society, and the author argues for the tolerance of the Left wing, which is regarded as subversive, and positing that this subversive element is increasingly blocked in modern capitalist society through mass media, and this blocking may need to be cleared using apparently anti-democratic means such as the silencing of Right views. The sense of the first essay is that pluralistic democracy functions in such a way that groups, once recognised, have some of their needs met at various levels of bureaucracy, however none of them get all that they ask for and all of them get a little. What they ask for tends to affect only their own group with little overreach. Although this seems like a good idea, it also functions on the principle of simply blocking out those "fringe", "radical", "extreme" groups which aren't regarded as legitimate; it does not do this by denying their claim to the platform of groups, but it does this by denying their existence or plight in the first place. The author uses the examples of those left in poverty in America before Kennedy and those who campaigned for disarmament before the Cold War. As examples of groups on the platform, he uses religious ones (Protestants and Jews in particular) and ethnic ones. He argues that there is another model of pluralism, which he calls the 'referee' model, which contends that so far as the government is instituted to merely protect interest groups from colliding, it favours the stronger ones over the weaker ones. He writes in support of this, >In the field of regulation of labor unions, for example, the federal agencies deal with the established leadership of the unions. In such matters as the overseeing of union elections, the settlement of jurisdictional disputes, or the setting up of mediation boards, it is the interests of those leaders rather than the competing interests of rankandfile dissidents which are favored. In the regulation of agriculture, again, the locally most influential farmers or 1eaders of farmers' organizations draw up the guidelines for control which are then adopted by the federal inspectors. In each case, ironically, the unwillingness of the government to impose its own standards or rules results not in a free play of competing groups, but in the enforcement of the preferences of the existing predominant interests. I don't think my summary is adequate, as I first read the essay a long time ago, and I'm not sure if I completely agree with it or not (the author cites Durkheim when he talks about the flaws and advantages of classical liberalism and conservatism, how they together spawn pluralistic democracy) so I would recommend reading it if you get time. Edit: as for the importance of the first essay, from my point of view not much has changed, though I can't say for sure beacuse I only hear about America on the news. As for the last essay, I would say that it is extremely important considering the current political climate in Western countries, though many (especially on HN) would disagree with my view.

benlorenzetti 9y ago

This is the great tragedy of American democracy through all its history. One camp sees that there are big businesses that have achieved rentier positions in the economy and advocates passing laws or using force to punish them. The other camp sees that it is usually federal rules + global competition which created behemoths in the first place and advocates against further restrictive laws. The two camps fight about whether there should be more rules or less. Meanwhile the problems are left to fester until the next crisis, when the New Rules are able to win. The civil war, the banking crises of the industrial revolution, the Great Depression, and the "great" recession, etc.

belorn 9y ago
While I agree with the conclusion that the problems are left to fester, I don't think that those two camps has really existed like that for a long while now. Both camps are in desperate need to have close connection with big businesses during election time, so what they do is employing different tactics to siphon private money into politics. One camp does this by back rooms deal and government contracts, positioning companies to stay ahead of the competition. Big businesses have to pay or the competition will do it. The other camp does this through removing rules which otherwise would allow competition to grow into a threat. The methods of the first camp get describe by the second as threats, and big businesses have to pay to remove both. No one is paying to deal with next crisis.
- benlorenzetti 9y ago
  I did not mean to equate "camps" just with the republican and democratic parties of today. I meant camps to describe groups of people with similar opinions at the same time in history. For example in the civil war era you had northern opinions which wanted tariffs, more navy power, etc. and saw plantations as rentiers on "property" they should not have ever owned. In the other camp you had southerners who opposed federal restrictions on trade and were very conscience of the competition between global powers, with England wanting cotton yet also outlawing the gulf stream slave trade. And I should have been more articulate: I am not refuting the parent post about when perhaps the current camps formed. Just that the formation of such camps is not unusual in American history.

colordrops 9y ago

Can it be still called a democracy then?

cmurf 9y ago
It is not a democracy, was never a democracy, was not designed to be a democracy. It could be considered a "prelude to a democracy if it really wishes to be and is willing to work hard to get there". The U.S. was invented at a time of monarchy. Three things it innovated were polyarchy (a ruling class of many rather than one, a king), a written constitution (power comes from people who grant a revocable mandate of authority to the polyarchy, rather than mandate from heaven to the monarch), and one person one vote. Of course who gets to vote is not by any means democratic: you had to be citizen, be a man, be white, and own land. It's become much more democratized since then, on paper. And it could become a democracy at any moment. However if you look at the ethnic and economic make up of the country compared to their representatives, the polyarchy is still overwhelmingly landed elite, male, and white. The average net worth of a Congressperson is around $7 million. And there's no meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans when that's broken down, so I'd say we have a one party system with two factions. It's distinctly non-democratic, still, in practice. And it even looks more like an evangelical prosperity theology driven church than a democracy. But most people don't vote. And most voters, vote party line. It's a tribal system, most voters are deeply ignorant of issues. They're sufficiently happy being peasants and serfs, and having a polyarchy of lords rule them.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  Uh huh. So every news outlet give Trump's a snowball's chance in hell of winning and Hillary Clinton is a member of the political establishment, but there's no democracy; plebian votes don't count. People may it may not reach" correct" conclusions, but America is most certainly democratic.

hsod 9y ago

In a sense, we did vote for it. We elected Trump, who spoke out against NN (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716...) and who had obvious pro-business leanings.