5 ms·

I think Karl Popper ("The Open Society and its Enemies") puts it best: a democracy is not defined by how the governed elect our leaders, but how they get rid of

by litoE 7y ago

I think Karl Popper ("The Open Society and its Enemies") puts it best: a democracy is not defined by how the governed elect our leaders, but how they get rid of them. Popper came to this idea when looking at Hitler's Germany. Hitler came to power through elections and then used the existing laws to become absolute dictator. But clearly his government was not a Democracy, so clearly the fact that elections had been held did not define a democracy.

watwut 7y ago
Illegal and violent methods played large role in Hitlers ascent to total power. Hitler did not just used existing laws, he ignored them where possible and suited him, he used threat of violence and violence to ensure he will have power. Existing law did not defended democracy enough and we're easy to be exploited, but did not allowed actual complete take over of power.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I note in this context that threatening to lock up either Hillary or Trump are not helpful. Say that in 2020, Trump loses the election, and feels that if he leaves office, his political enemies will find a way to imprison him. He therefore has very strong incentive to find a way to stay in power. That really might not be what you want...
- Iv 7y ago
  I think it was a retired diplomat who was defending the highly criticized policy of offering retired dictators a comfortable and protected life in France. He was explaining that this was a condition to many peaceful transitions. This is balanced by the desire to keep leaders accountable and is a compromise against the rule of law. Saying that this applies to the US is really saying you have dictators who abuse their powers and are willing to bend the law in the name of a democratic transition. It can be an exceptional temporary measure, but certainly not a sustainable norm.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    1. Some on the left believe that Trump deserves prison, not just removal from office, and are quite public about saying so. 2. Some on the left fear that Trump will not leave office when the rules say that he must, and are at least somewhat public about saying so. You don't have to believe either of these things to see the problem. The more they shout about #1, the more likely they are to create the conditions for #2 to happen. I am not claiming that #2 would actually happen, even given the right conditions. I am merely pointing out that, given their stated beliefs, they should stop publicly calling for Trump to go to prison. A real cynic might suspect that such people don't actually believe what they say, and are just looking for anything possible to yell at Trump about. A cynic of a different flavor might suspect that they aren't bright enough to see the problem. A charitable person might suspect that different groups of people on the left are shouting #1, and darkly muttering about #2.
    - blotter_paper 7y ago
      ...unless you're optimising for other things, like keeping leaders accountable to laws. If you believed a given leader had broken laws which would theoretically result in their imprisonment under the current system, and you believed that pursuing their imprisonment would definitely cause them to seek illegal extensions of their power, you still couldn't come to a "should" statement about whether or not to pursue legal action without weighing the competing goals of "enforcing the rule of law" and "preventing further abuse of power" against each other and deciding which one you care about more (perhaps with some assumed probabilities of various outcomes attached) -- and that's if you accept that the ends justify the means, meanwhile the means-over-ends crowd will want to pursue justice even in the face of armageddon.
- yahwrong 7y ago
  What is this, don't call Trump on his shit because he might do something worse? Fuck that, don't be a pussy.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  I doubt it. Jailing Trump would be counterproductive. Taking such an extreme step would be destabilizing and make it more difficult to bury the whole affair of the Trump presidency. Would you really want a slow drip of Wikileaks about how compromised a US President was going public? If I were a victorious president-elect, I would offer to pardon him with the condition that he STFU, and appoint a special counsel to investigate his crooked family if he failed to remain silent, or some kid decided to run for Congress. With that kind of figure, it’s better to have him sell out and take away the mystique than to get a conviction and make him a martyr. The more you directly persecute him, the longer you’ll have people wearing Trump hats, etc.
  - Iv 7y ago
    On the other hand, normalizing corruption like has been done since the Iran-Contra affair, where people faced no consequences and were pardoned, is the reason why you end up with blatant corrupt administrations like we have today. If Nixon or Cheney had served jail time, there would probably be more push back against Trump's actions.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    The problem is that the president can only pardon for federal crimes, but it's quite likely that some of Trump's action also constitute state crimes - indeed, there are ongoing investigations. As president, he is still immune to prosecution on those grounds, but that ends the moment he leaves the office. And there's an especially strong motive for state-level actors in blue states to prosecute - it's a massive political boost with the electorate there, it'll score a lot of points.
    - nl 7y ago
      As a non-US observer I agree with this analysis. I think it's a difficult situation, and the only way I see out for the US is if someone developed another powerbase within the Republican party (quickly!) and it was in their interest to see him removed from office. Outside that it just breed contempt for the rule of law. Ether he is convicted in a Democrat state and Republicans explicitly use that in the culture wars, or he's not and people see that the powerful don't even have to pay lip service to the law. It seems pretty clear that in 30 years time we'll look back at this and think it is a miscarriage of justice that he wasn't removed from office (I'm assuming he won't be). But in 30 years it will be pretty irrelevant.
Spooky23 7y ago
Getting rid of leaders is also particularly relevant in the context of the article. President Wilson claimed extraordinary powers to conduct the war (sedition laws, espionage act, etc) and at the time the article was written, Wilson’s wife and aides were concealing that the President had been rendered infirm by a debilitating stroke. His wife was essentially functioning as the president. The author, Walter Lippmann, was a close advisor to Wilson and had been an intelligence officer in France. I wonder if he was aware of the President’s condition?

by litoE 7y ago

watwut 7y ago

Illegal and violent methods played large role in Hitlers ascent to total power. Hitler did not just used existing laws, he ignored them where possible and suited him, he used threat of violence and violence to ensure he will have power. Existing law did not defended democracy enough and we're easy to be exploited, but did not allowed actual complete take over of power.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

I note in this context that threatening to lock up either Hillary or Trump are not helpful. Say that in 2020, Trump loses the election, and feels that if he leaves office, his political enemies will find a way to imprison him. He therefore has very strong incentive to find a way to stay in power. That really might not be what you want...

Iv 7y ago
I think it was a retired diplomat who was defending the highly criticized policy of offering retired dictators a comfortable and protected life in France. He was explaining that this was a condition to many peaceful transitions. This is balanced by the desire to keep leaders accountable and is a compromise against the rule of law. Saying that this applies to the US is really saying you have dictators who abuse their powers and are willing to bend the law in the name of a democratic transition. It can be an exceptional temporary measure, but certainly not a sustainable norm.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  1. Some on the left believe that Trump deserves prison, not just removal from office, and are quite public about saying so. 2. Some on the left fear that Trump will not leave office when the rules say that he must, and are at least somewhat public about saying so. You don't have to believe either of these things to see the problem. The more they shout about #1, the more likely they are to create the conditions for #2 to happen. I am not claiming that #2 would actually happen, even given the right conditions. I am merely pointing out that, given their stated beliefs, they should stop publicly calling for Trump to go to prison. A real cynic might suspect that such people don't actually believe what they say, and are just looking for anything possible to yell at Trump about. A cynic of a different flavor might suspect that they aren't bright enough to see the problem. A charitable person might suspect that different groups of people on the left are shouting #1, and darkly muttering about #2.
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    ...unless you're optimising for other things, like keeping leaders accountable to laws. If you believed a given leader had broken laws which would theoretically result in their imprisonment under the current system, and you believed that pursuing their imprisonment would definitely cause them to seek illegal extensions of their power, you still couldn't come to a "should" statement about whether or not to pursue legal action without weighing the competing goals of "enforcing the rule of law" and "preventing further abuse of power" against each other and deciding which one you care about more (perhaps with some assumed probabilities of various outcomes attached) -- and that's if you accept that the ends justify the means, meanwhile the means-over-ends crowd will want to pursue justice even in the face of armageddon.
yahwrong 7y ago
What is this, don't call Trump on his shit because he might do something worse? Fuck that, don't be a pussy.
Spooky23 7y ago
I doubt it. Jailing Trump would be counterproductive. Taking such an extreme step would be destabilizing and make it more difficult to bury the whole affair of the Trump presidency. Would you really want a slow drip of Wikileaks about how compromised a US President was going public? If I were a victorious president-elect, I would offer to pardon him with the condition that he STFU, and appoint a special counsel to investigate his crooked family if he failed to remain silent, or some kid decided to run for Congress. With that kind of figure, it’s better to have him sell out and take away the mystique than to get a conviction and make him a martyr. The more you directly persecute him, the longer you’ll have people wearing Trump hats, etc.
- Iv 7y ago
  On the other hand, normalizing corruption like has been done since the Iran-Contra affair, where people faced no consequences and were pardoned, is the reason why you end up with blatant corrupt administrations like we have today. If Nixon or Cheney had served jail time, there would probably be more push back against Trump's actions.
- int_19h 7y ago
  The problem is that the president can only pardon for federal crimes, but it's quite likely that some of Trump's action also constitute state crimes - indeed, there are ongoing investigations. As president, he is still immune to prosecution on those grounds, but that ends the moment he leaves the office. And there's an especially strong motive for state-level actors in blue states to prosecute - it's a massive political boost with the electorate there, it'll score a lot of points.
  - nl 7y ago
    As a non-US observer I agree with this analysis. I think it's a difficult situation, and the only way I see out for the US is if someone developed another powerbase within the Republican party (quickly!) and it was in their interest to see him removed from office. Outside that it just breed contempt for the rule of law. Ether he is convicted in a Democrat state and Republicans explicitly use that in the culture wars, or he's not and people see that the powerful don't even have to pay lip service to the law. It seems pretty clear that in 30 years time we'll look back at this and think it is a miscarriage of justice that he wasn't removed from office (I'm assuming he won't be). But in 30 years it will be pretty irrelevant.

Spooky23 7y ago

Getting rid of leaders is also particularly relevant in the context of the article. President Wilson claimed extraordinary powers to conduct the war (sedition laws, espionage act, etc) and at the time the article was written, Wilson’s wife and aides were concealing that the President had been rendered infirm by a debilitating stroke. His wife was essentially functioning as the president. The author, Walter Lippmann, was a close advisor to Wilson and had been an intelligence officer in France. I wonder if he was aware of the President’s condition?