9 ms·

>Democracy is mostly a facade in the US anyway. But I agree, the US government isn't functioning 1) as originally intended or 2) for the benefit of the majori

>Democracy is mostly a facade in the US anyway. But I agree, the US government isn't functioning 1) as originally intended or 2) for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work, as they didn't have a whole lot of empirical data or existing republics/democracies to base their new government on. It honestly seems like like they intended the US government to function a lot more similarly to the EU than what we currently have. Although the EU has its own sets of problems, but at the very least seems more representative of the people than the US government.

lubujackson 7y ago
I am not so sure it is far from its intentions. The founders knew and expected most politicians operating as fronts for various groups and making bad faith arguments and backroom deals. That is nothing new! Most of what they did was try to prevent the government from being wholly brigaded by one minority perspective, and if so it would be moved along after a short time. So far, so good, despite warning signs to the contrary. Spielberg's "Lincoln" is particularly clear about displaying this dynamic at the country's most fractured moment.
- nck4222 7y ago
  Well they didn't foresee the formation of political parties. That alone upended a great deal of how the different bodies were supposed to interact. Half of congress is now lead by the executive branch, which completely undermines the checks/balances between them, which is the basis on how the government is supposed to be function. Never mind the judicial branch, which also frequently votes on partisan lines.
  - pinkfoot 7y ago
    Is it a fact that they didn't foresee political parties? After all, the Whigs were founded in the UK in 1678.
  - a_tractor 7y ago
    >Well they didn't foresee the formation of political parties. Not sure where you get this idea, but they most certainly did foresee such a thing, so much so you could say that it was the guiding and overriding concern arguing in favor of the United States as a federal Republic. At least two of the famous Federalist Papers dealt with this topic directly, no. 9 and no. 10. James Madison refutes your idea in the opening line for Federalist Paper no. 10[0] "AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction." Really hammering home his well-formed understanding of the problem of faction or political parties: >There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. >It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. Please tell me this does not show a perfect understanding of the unavailability of political parties: >The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. He goes on to enumerate a number of opposing interests that tend to form, especially that which exists between "Those who hold and those who are without property." He understands this potential to be "sown into the nature of man" and you think they didn't foresee political parties? To the point: >The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. And again: >To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. To think that the Founders did not understand the problem of "factions" between free people and the resulting consequence of the formation of political parties is not only wrong, but is to believe that the Founding architects of the United were themselves naive fools completely ignorant of history and the nature of man, which is completely absurd. [0] https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-10 https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Feder...
- thfuran 7y ago
  I don't think they ever intended political parties to be even close to as influential as they are now.
banads 7y ago
>Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work, as they didn't have a whole lot of empirical data or existing republics/democracies to base their new government on. They had plenty of examples to base their design on; democracy had been invented more than a thousand years before the US was formed. Like the vast majority of social institutions though, it was in the end based on fallible guesswork -- people like Thomas Jefferson were explicitly aware of this. What they could not have planned for was the industrial revolution, corporate proliferation/globalization, the information revolution of today, and the scale of it all.
- nck4222 7y ago
  >it was in the end based on fallible guesswork Right, that was my point. I wasn't suggesting they invented democracy.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
blaser-waffle 7y ago
> "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H.L. Mencken, The Smart Set (1915) > Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work Until the letter and spirit of the law are ironed out, it's hard to interpret what laws mean, specifically. A lot of rules, like how shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is not free speech, are essentially interpretations of what the people who wrote the laws intended when they wrote it. > It honestly seems like like they intended the US government to function a lot more similarly to the EU than what we currently have That was, and is, the intent of having states be their own, you know, sovereign states, with their own constitutions, laws, and courts. Unlike the EU, the US has a common language, history, and currency, so centralizing and strengthening a federal government is easier, and has some advantages.
- Raugharr 7y ago
  Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is a misquote https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
rukittenme 7y ago
> the US government isn't functioning for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' American democracy was never meant to benefit just the majority. Which is why we have undemocratic institutions (such as the Judiciary). Minorities (both long-standing and ephemeral -- e.g. a race of people versus the losing party in an election) exist and should be protected from the majority and should be represented in government. Only long-term, widely-held political thoughts can truly dominate minorities in this country. The fact that power swings from Republicans, back to Democrats, back to Republicans, and so on, illustrates that there is a very weak majority in this country and no consensus opinion on how to move forward. > Although the EU has its own sets of problems, but at the very least seems more representative of the people than the US government. From an outsiders perspective many aspects of the EU seem undemocratic and ad-hoc. Can you explain your view of the EU to me?
- trophycase 7y ago
  "The fact that power swings from Republicans, back to Democrats, back to Republicans, and so on, illustrates that there is a very weak majority in this country and no consensus opinion on how to move forward." I think it better illustrates how really these parties are mostly the same. As AOC said, the Democratic party is a center conservative party for the most part. Biden and Trump are a lot more similar than people would like to admit. Just look at Biden's comments about video games and you can see how much of a reactionary conservative he actually is.
- nck4222 7y ago
  >The fact that power swings from Republicans, back to Democrats, back to Republicans, and so on, illustrates that there is a very weak majority in this country That only holds true if you believe that the two political parties accurately represent the views of the people. Political views are a spectrum of opinions. Boiling them down to one of two parties means you lose the majority of views. In the end you vote with the party that most closely resembles your opinions, but because the US has two choices, the party you choose doesn't end up representing your beliefs in a lot of cases. It just represents your beliefs more frequently than the other one.
- nybble41 7y ago
coldtea 7y ago
>Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work Not to mention they're just some random people, nation building or not. No rational reason to treat their work like some higher command centuries later.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >No rational reason to treat their work like some higher command centuries later. I think the "rational reason" over time really is that no one has come up with better ideas. My theory is that we look at the past through the filter of a lens, and this lens typically only lets the brightest shine through. Like them or not, Jefferson, Hamilton and Franklin left behind writings that were objectively superior in utility to many of the other founders. If you ever had the misfortune of being obliged to do an analysis of something like the Lincoln-Douglas transcript, you really can see that one set of ideas is so much better thought out than the other. American blacks had numerous leaders, but the reality was that MLK had ideas that were simply objectively superior to many other black american leaders. Throw in the almost Periclean eloquence of most of the guys I highlighted there, and you end up with a bar that's impossibly high to get over. It takes a generational type of steward to meet that kind of a standard. Which is why, over time, that standard starts to seem like a "higher command". You can set new standards that are in opposition to the established ones. However, you really would need well thought out ideas. Those ideas would have to grow the segment of people benefiting from the current ideas in a society. Finally, to top all that off, you'd need a steward for those ideas with a fervent commitment to them, an almost Socratic wisdom, and a Periclean eloquence. All these conditions are difficult to meet. In fact, it's only natural that all these conditions will rarely be met simultaneously. On balance I think this is good. I mean, at the other extreme we'd have the ideas of some user named MonkeyAnal on Youtube being taken as seriously as the ideas of Jefferson. Stability demands Jefferson's ideas carry the weight in that situation. At the same time, it is possible to attack Jefferson's ideas and change the standards he set. You just have to be Lincoln writing to Ripon, and not MonkeyAnal ranting on Youtube. Again, an almost impossibly high bar, I'll grant you that, but at the same time that bar provides certain safeguards.
- rayiner 7y ago
rayiner 7y ago
> But I agree, the US government isn't functioning 1) as originally intended or 2) for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' I disagree, and I think you need to take a look at three sets of poll results to understand why. (For all the poll results, keep in mind that voters skew more conservative than the overall population.) 1) A recent Gallup poll shows that the vast majority of Americans prefer free market to government solutions: https://news.gallup.com/poll/257639/four-americans-embrace-form-socialism.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/257639/four-americans-embrace-f.... Only in two areas did more people think the government should be primarily responsible: environmental protection, and online privacy. Even for healthcare, 53% though the free market should be primarily responsible, versus 44% for the government. 2) Since 1965, Gallup polling has shown that Americans consistently list "big government" as the "biggest threat facing the country in the future." https://news.gallup.com/poll/201629/americans-big-government-top-threat.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/201629/americans-big-government... Aside from a brief dip during 9/11, a majority of the country listed "big government" as the "biggest threat" since the late 1980s. Even during the 2009 recession, "big business" peaked at 32%, and is usually around 25%. In 2012, 72% of Americans listed big government as the biggest threat, and only 21% listed big business. 3) According to a 2014 Reason-Rupe survey, the majority of millennials want a "smaller government with less services and lower taxes." https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/assets/db/14048862817887.pdf https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/assets/db/140488628178.... See chart on page 47. 57% of millennials want lower taxes and less services, versus 41% who want more taxes and more services. In short, Americans distrust government, trust businesses, and don't want to pay high taxes. That's pretty much explains why we have the government we do. Half the country (Republicans) doesn't trust the government at all, and will push back on any new government programs or taxes. Out of the other half (Democrats), you've got several factions that are only loosely connected. A large faction comprises wealthier white progressives, for whom issues like gay marriage and abortion
- mrnobody_67 7y ago
  Related podcast on free market healthcare in the US (Oklahoma Surgical Center) - which publishes prices online and hasn't raised them in 20 years: http://www.econtalk.org/keith-smith-on-free-market-health-care/ http://www.econtalk.org/keith-smith-on-free-market-health-ca...
natmaka 7y ago
The EU is theoretically more representative than the US government, by the processes involved in Parliament members elections, however voter turnout is low and falling (down to 42% in 2009 and 2014). Compare with ~56% in the US during Presidential elections, and ~50% for House of Representatives elections. In the EU it climbed back to 50% in 2019 when voters massively bumped up parties not so pro-Europe (Farage, Le Pen and Salvini). It seems to me that, as the EU is less transparent and accountable than most member nations's governments, many voters lost interest then are now actively trying to (reform/destroy/escape from) it.

lubujackson 7y ago

I am not so sure it is far from its intentions. The founders knew and expected most politicians operating as fronts for various groups and making bad faith arguments and backroom deals. That is nothing new! Most of what they did was try to prevent the government from being wholly brigaded by one minority perspective, and if so it would be moved along after a short time. So far, so good, despite warning signs to the contrary. Spielberg's "Lincoln" is particularly clear about displaying this dynamic at the country's most fractured moment.

nck4222 7y ago
Well they didn't foresee the formation of political parties. That alone upended a great deal of how the different bodies were supposed to interact. Half of congress is now lead by the executive branch, which completely undermines the checks/balances between them, which is the basis on how the government is supposed to be function. Never mind the judicial branch, which also frequently votes on partisan lines.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  Is it a fact that they didn't foresee political parties? After all, the Whigs were founded in the UK in 1678.
- a_tractor 7y ago
  >Well they didn't foresee the formation of political parties. Not sure where you get this idea, but they most certainly did foresee such a thing, so much so you could say that it was the guiding and overriding concern arguing in favor of the United States as a federal Republic. At least two of the famous Federalist Papers dealt with this topic directly, no. 9 and no. 10. James Madison refutes your idea in the opening line for Federalist Paper no. 10[0] "AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction." Really hammering home his well-formed understanding of the problem of faction or political parties: >There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. >It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. Please tell me this does not show a perfect understanding of the unavailability of political parties: >The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. He goes on to enumerate a number of opposing interests that tend to form, especially that which exists between "Those who hold and those who are without property." He understands this potential to be "sown into the nature of man" and you think they didn't foresee political parties? To the point: >The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. And again: >To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. To think that the Founders did not understand the problem of "factions" between free people and the resulting consequence of the formation of political parties is not only wrong, but is to believe that the Founding architects of the United were themselves naive fools completely ignorant of history and the nature of man, which is completely absurd. [0] https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-10 https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Feder...
thfuran 7y ago
I don't think they ever intended political parties to be even close to as influential as they are now.

banads 7y ago

>Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work, as they didn't have a whole lot of empirical data or existing republics/democracies to base their new government on. They had plenty of examples to base their design on; democracy had been invented more than a thousand years before the US was formed. Like the vast majority of social institutions though, it was in the end based on fallible guesswork -- people like Thomas Jefferson were explicitly aware of this. What they could not have planned for was the industrial revolution, corporate proliferation/globalization, the information revolution of today, and the scale of it all.

nck4222 7y ago
>it was in the end based on fallible guesswork Right, that was my point. I wasn't suggesting they invented democracy.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

blaser-waffle 7y ago

> "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H.L. Mencken, The Smart Set (1915) > Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work Until the letter and spirit of the law are ironed out, it's hard to interpret what laws mean, specifically. A lot of rules, like how shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is not free speech, are essentially interpretations of what the people who wrote the laws intended when they wrote it. > It honestly seems like like they intended the US government to function a lot more similarly to the EU than what we currently have That was, and is, the intent of having states be their own, you know, sovereign states, with their own constitutions, laws, and courts. Unlike the EU, the US has a common language, history, and currency, so centralizing and strengthening a federal government is easier, and has some advantages.

Raugharr 7y ago
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is a misquote https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

rukittenme 7y ago

> the US government isn't functioning for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' American democracy was never meant to benefit just the majority. Which is why we have undemocratic institutions (such as the Judiciary). Minorities (both long-standing and ephemeral -- e.g. a race of people versus the losing party in an election) exist and should be protected from the majority and should be represented in government. Only long-term, widely-held political thoughts can truly dominate minorities in this country. The fact that power swings from Republicans, back to Democrats, back to Republicans, and so on, illustrates that there is a very weak majority in this country and no consensus opinion on how to move forward. > Although the EU has its own sets of problems, but at the very least seems more representative of the people than the US government. From an outsiders perspective many aspects of the EU seem undemocratic and ad-hoc. Can you explain your view of the EU to me?

trophycase 7y ago
"The fact that power swings from Republicans, back to Democrats, back to Republicans, and so on, illustrates that there is a very weak majority in this country and no consensus opinion on how to move forward." I think it better illustrates how really these parties are mostly the same. As AOC said, the Democratic party is a center conservative party for the most part. Biden and Trump are a lot more similar than people would like to admit. Just look at Biden's comments about video games and you can see how much of a reactionary conservative he actually is.
nck4222 7y ago
>The fact that power swings from Republicans, back to Democrats, back to Republicans, and so on, illustrates that there is a very weak majority in this country That only holds true if you believe that the two political parties accurately represent the views of the people. Political views are a spectrum of opinions. Boiling them down to one of two parties means you lose the majority of views. In the end you vote with the party that most closely resembles your opinions, but because the US has two choices, the party you choose doesn't end up representing your beliefs in a lot of cases. It just represents your beliefs more frequently than the other one.
nybble41 7y ago

coldtea 7y ago

>Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work Not to mention they're just some random people, nation building or not. No rational reason to treat their work like some higher command centuries later.

bilbo0s 7y ago
>No rational reason to treat their work like some higher command centuries later. I think the "rational reason" over time really is that no one has come up with better ideas. My theory is that we look at the past through the filter of a lens, and this lens typically only lets the brightest shine through. Like them or not, Jefferson, Hamilton and Franklin left behind writings that were objectively superior in utility to many of the other founders. If you ever had the misfortune of being obliged to do an analysis of something like the Lincoln-Douglas transcript, you really can see that one set of ideas is so much better thought out than the other. American blacks had numerous leaders, but the reality was that MLK had ideas that were simply objectively superior to many other black american leaders. Throw in the almost Periclean eloquence of most of the guys I highlighted there, and you end up with a bar that's impossibly high to get over. It takes a generational type of steward to meet that kind of a standard. Which is why, over time, that standard starts to seem like a "higher command". You can set new standards that are in opposition to the established ones. However, you really would need well thought out ideas. Those ideas would have to grow the segment of people benefiting from the current ideas in a society. Finally, to top all that off, you'd need a steward for those ideas with a fervent commitment to them, an almost Socratic wisdom, and a Periclean eloquence. All these conditions are difficult to meet. In fact, it's only natural that all these conditions will rarely be met simultaneously. On balance I think this is good. I mean, at the other extreme we'd have the ideas of some user named MonkeyAnal on Youtube being taken as seriously as the ideas of Jefferson. Stability demands Jefferson's ideas carry the weight in that situation. At the same time, it is possible to attack Jefferson's ideas and change the standards he set. You just have to be Lincoln writing to Ripon, and not MonkeyAnal ranting on Youtube. Again, an almost impossibly high bar, I'll grant you that, but at the same time that bar provides certain safeguards.
rayiner 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

> But I agree, the US government isn't functioning 1) as originally intended or 2) for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' I disagree, and I think you need to take a look at three sets of poll results to understand why. (For all the poll results, keep in mind that voters skew more conservative than the overall population.) 1) A recent Gallup poll shows that the vast majority of Americans prefer free market to government solutions: https://news.gallup.com/poll/257639/four-americans-embrace-form-socialism.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/257639/four-americans-embrace-f.... Only in two areas did more people think the government should be primarily responsible: environmental protection, and online privacy. Even for healthcare, 53% though the free market should be primarily responsible, versus 44% for the government. 2) Since 1965, Gallup polling has shown that Americans consistently list "big government" as the "biggest threat facing the country in the future." https://news.gallup.com/poll/201629/americans-big-government-top-threat.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/201629/americans-big-government... Aside from a brief dip during 9/11, a majority of the country listed "big government" as the "biggest threat" since the late 1980s. Even during the 2009 recession, "big business" peaked at 32%, and is usually around 25%. In 2012, 72% of Americans listed big government as the biggest threat, and only 21% listed big business. 3) According to a 2014 Reason-Rupe survey, the majority of millennials want a "smaller government with less services and lower taxes." https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/assets/db/14048862817887.pdf https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/assets/db/140488628178.... See chart on page 47. 57% of millennials want lower taxes and less services, versus 41% who want more taxes and more services. In short, Americans distrust government, trust businesses, and don't want to pay high taxes. That's pretty much explains why we have the government we do. Half the country (Republicans) doesn't trust the government at all, and will push back on any new government programs or taxes. Out of the other half (Democrats), you've got several factions that are only loosely connected. A large faction comprises wealthier white progressives, for whom issues like gay marriage and abortion

mrnobody_67 7y ago
Related podcast on free market healthcare in the US (Oklahoma Surgical Center) - which publishes prices online and hasn't raised them in 20 years: http://www.econtalk.org/keith-smith-on-free-market-health-care/ http://www.econtalk.org/keith-smith-on-free-market-health-ca...

natmaka 7y ago

The EU is theoretically more representative than the US government, by the processes involved in Parliament members elections, however voter turnout is low and falling (down to 42% in 2009 and 2014). Compare with ~56% in the US during Presidential elections, and ~50% for House of Representatives elections. In the EU it climbed back to 50% in 2019 when voters massively bumped up parties not so pro-Europe (Farage, Le Pen and Salvini). It seems to me that, as the EU is less transparent and accountable than most member nations's governments, many voters lost interest then are now actively trying to (reform/destroy/escape from) it.