4 ms·

I find it curious that the author brings up populism as opposition to democracy. I think it should be the other way around: populism can show the danger of demo

I find it curious that the author brings up populism as opposition to democracy. I think it should be the other way around: populism can show the danger of democracy. A tyranny of the majority is not a good thing. I think a constitutional republic is the best at keeping the danger of democracy away and it also keeps the country democratic. That is, as long as people care for the rule of law and follow the (likely reasonable) constitution. >For instance, much of today’s American democracy (one of the best versions on the market right now) would by Athenian standards be judged “oligarchic.” I fail to see how it would genuinely be called oligarchic. The current president is someone that wasn't much in politics before running. Yes, he's rich, but it still shows that even outsiders can come in and attain political power. On another note, I don't think people would call the democracy ancient Athenians had as democracy either. Too few people had a say in politics.

the-dude 7y ago
> but it still shows that even outsiders can come in and attain political power. Only if you have money.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Obama didn’t have money. Bill Clinton didn’t have money. Carter didn’t have money.
  - the-dude 7y ago
    Parent was talking about outsiders, insiders raise money through their parties.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      None were "insiders" in any meaningful sense of the phrase. (Unless you deem everyone an "insider" unless they jump directly into the presidency without any prior political involvement.)
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    Obama did have Warren Buffet's backing. The Democrat billionaire who actually got his candidate into the White House, but for some peculiar reason nobody gives two shits about, for those of you out there who love spooky bedtime stories about George Soros.
naravara 7y ago
By Athenian standards voting for a representative to whom you delegate lawmaking powers is oligarchic. “Democracy,” in their view would have involved staffing political positions by drawing a lottery of qualified citizens. Elections are an oligarchic feature in the Ancient Greek context since they presume governance is a specialized function that needs a career professional to undertake rather than an obligation of citizenship. Jury duty, in contrast, is an example of a democratic impulse.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
inflatableDodo 7y ago
Populism is ochlocracy, rather than democracy though. One defining feature of democracy is that it is 'supposed' to take some account of minority views and rights when legislating for the majority. People claiming winning mandates to steamroller policies from knife edge splits, inflict some of the severest damage on democracies.
- vixen99 7y ago
  So you get to define it? As Wikipedia suggests, 'There is no single definition of the term, which developed in the 19th century and has been used to mean various different things'. Included in these is a non-perjorative one as in 'a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite or The movement organized around this philosophy.' (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English) A personal agenda will decide which one to pick.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >A personal agenda will decide which one to pick. My personal agenda was to go with the usage in context. You can introduce other uses of the term, for sure. My point is that populism, in the context of "populism can show the danger of democracy. A tyranny of the majority is not a good thing." is rule of the mob and so is actually ochlocracy, not democracy, as the demos is all of the people. A good example is wealth redistribution. A democracy might decide that it is good for society as a whole to tax and spend its way to a more even society, an ochlocracy is more apt to sieze that which is owned by whoever is currently most unpopular. Not all populist movements are ochlocratic, but all ochlocratic movements are in some way populist. Is hard to form a public mob without being populist.
spamizbad 7y ago
Is Trump an outsider? He comes from a wealthy family, obtained an elite education, spent most of his adult life hobnobbing with powerful people in the nation’s wealthiest and most populous city, and was a fixture of celebrity and popular culture since the 1980s. His only outsider bonafides are that he hadn’t been elected to political office before running. But he started with money, connections, and name recognition.
- krapp 7y ago
  He really isn't, but he managed to campaign and win as an outsider more or less simply because he didn't act (or speak) like a politician, didn't have political experience and was self-funded. And for some reason the people who were upset at the globalists and elites and the failures of crony capitalism ate it up.
buboard 7y ago
Plato and aristotle both seemed wary of the mob, and they'd probably concider this "oligarchy" a good thing. But Wealth is probably a bad choice of criterion here
- voidhorse 7y ago
  On a related note, Kant and Plato both argue that an enlightened despot or philosopher king is probably the best person to rule...so they more likely would accept a “sophogarchy” or leadership by the wisest, not the wealthiest. Unfortunately, as other thinkers have pointed out, such individuals are also the least likely persons to desire rule or power
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    Kant and Plato both probably thought that it should be them however, and I wouldn't trust either of them with control of a state.
    - JetSpiegel 7y ago
      OTOH, if someone comes out in defense of someone other than themselves to rule, you can most likely write them of as shills.
deogeo 7y ago
> today’s American democracy (one of the best versions on the market right now) Having a choice of two whole parties sure doesn't sound as 'one of the best'. Countless countries have have ten or more parties in their parliaments, meaning there's a much greater chance you can vote for someone decent.

the-dude 7y ago

> but it still shows that even outsiders can come in and attain political power. Only if you have money.

rayiner 7y ago
Obama didn’t have money. Bill Clinton didn’t have money. Carter didn’t have money.
- the-dude 7y ago
  Parent was talking about outsiders, insiders raise money through their parties.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    None were "insiders" in any meaningful sense of the phrase. (Unless you deem everyone an "insider" unless they jump directly into the presidency without any prior political involvement.)
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  Obama did have Warren Buffet's backing. The Democrat billionaire who actually got his candidate into the White House, but for some peculiar reason nobody gives two shits about, for those of you out there who love spooky bedtime stories about George Soros.

naravara 7y ago

By Athenian standards voting for a representative to whom you delegate lawmaking powers is oligarchic. “Democracy,” in their view would have involved staffing political positions by drawing a lottery of qualified citizens. Elections are an oligarchic feature in the Ancient Greek context since they presume governance is a specialized function that needs a career professional to undertake rather than an obligation of citizenship. Jury duty, in contrast, is an example of a democratic impulse.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

inflatableDodo 7y ago

Populism is ochlocracy, rather than democracy though. One defining feature of democracy is that it is 'supposed' to take some account of minority views and rights when legislating for the majority. People claiming winning mandates to steamroller policies from knife edge splits, inflict some of the severest damage on democracies.

vixen99 7y ago
So you get to define it? As Wikipedia suggests, 'There is no single definition of the term, which developed in the 19th century and has been used to mean various different things'. Included in these is a non-perjorative one as in 'a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite or The movement organized around this philosophy.' (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English) A personal agenda will decide which one to pick.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >A personal agenda will decide which one to pick. My personal agenda was to go with the usage in context. You can introduce other uses of the term, for sure. My point is that populism, in the context of "populism can show the danger of democracy. A tyranny of the majority is not a good thing." is rule of the mob and so is actually ochlocracy, not democracy, as the demos is all of the people. A good example is wealth redistribution. A democracy might decide that it is good for society as a whole to tax and spend its way to a more even society, an ochlocracy is more apt to sieze that which is owned by whoever is currently most unpopular. Not all populist movements are ochlocratic, but all ochlocratic movements are in some way populist. Is hard to form a public mob without being populist.

spamizbad 7y ago

Is Trump an outsider? He comes from a wealthy family, obtained an elite education, spent most of his adult life hobnobbing with powerful people in the nation’s wealthiest and most populous city, and was a fixture of celebrity and popular culture since the 1980s. His only outsider bonafides are that he hadn’t been elected to political office before running. But he started with money, connections, and name recognition.

krapp 7y ago
He really isn't, but he managed to campaign and win as an outsider more or less simply because he didn't act (or speak) like a politician, didn't have political experience and was self-funded. And for some reason the people who were upset at the globalists and elites and the failures of crony capitalism ate it up.

buboard 7y ago

Plato and aristotle both seemed wary of the mob, and they'd probably concider this "oligarchy" a good thing. But Wealth is probably a bad choice of criterion here

voidhorse 7y ago
On a related note, Kant and Plato both argue that an enlightened despot or philosopher king is probably the best person to rule...so they more likely would accept a “sophogarchy” or leadership by the wisest, not the wealthiest. Unfortunately, as other thinkers have pointed out, such individuals are also the least likely persons to desire rule or power
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  Kant and Plato both probably thought that it should be them however, and I wouldn't trust either of them with control of a state.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    OTOH, if someone comes out in defense of someone other than themselves to rule, you can most likely write them of as shills.

deogeo 7y ago

> today’s American democracy (one of the best versions on the market right now) Having a choice of two whole parties sure doesn't sound as 'one of the best'. Countless countries have have ten or more parties in their parliaments, meaning there's a much greater chance you can vote for someone decent.