3 ms·

"I'm always stunned and disappointed at how easy it is to game the American political system" Isn't that the point of a political system without hegemon? And o

by fsloth 6y ago

"I'm always stunned and disappointed at how easy it is to game the American political system" Isn't that the point of a political system without hegemon? And open political system is not one that is fair to all. It is a system that is open to gaming by all. A democracy and a "completely fair system" are completely different things. I don't think anyone has any idea how the latter would work.

sebmellen 6y ago
If a political system can be controlled by using power or capital to change political outcomes, without relying on the will or consent of the people, it's hard to argue that that's democratic. In that case, the hegemon is a faceless allocation of capital and dark interests as opposed to a strongman. This setup is probably better for individual freedoms than a dictatorship, but "results may vary" for anything else. I don't think a plutarchy is an open political system; a plutarchy is, by definition, closed to all without obscene amounts of capital, or access to it. The Wikipedia article on plutocracy is an interesting read on that [0]. There is a gray line, like Prop 22 in CA, where Uber, Lyft, et al. convinced voters to vote yes on Prop 22 by spending over $220 million on ads and campaigning [1]. Does this constitute a plutarchy? I would say no, because the voters were still the ones who chose the outcome! That's a big difference from a backdoor deal with a politician or inviting a them to a $43,000 "lunch" which will change their mind on your issue. However, it does highlight another issue — that of political advertising — but that's something for another time. The main issue here is that the US did not adequately plan for mitigating the influence of money in politics. The NY Times ran an article highlighting the shock and horror with which the British see the American political system [2]: > Justin Fisher, a professor of political science at Brunel University London, said the American system was seen in Britain “as the worst of all worlds,” focused on “raising money and not about getting ideas across.” Living in Switzerland, I came to the conclusion that their political setup is demonstrably better than that of the US (though also, arguably, more workable because of Switzerland's small size). In Switzerland, it would be nearly impossible for a lobbyist to pay a Swiss politician to make an important policy change and get away with it. And in most other Western European countries it would be a scandal/make big news if a politician got €50k to change their mind on something. In the US, that happens every day. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy#United_States [1]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Here-s-what-you-re-paying-for-Prop-22-15870617.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Here-s-what-you... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com./2015/05/05/world/europe/britains-campaign-finance-laws-leave-parties-with-idle-money.html https://www.nytimes.com./2015/05/05/world/europe/britains-ca...
- masonic 6y ago
  the voters were still the ones who chose the outcome But it doesn't get on the ballot in the first place without Uber, Doordash, etc. spending millions in paid canvassing.
  - sebmellen 6y ago
    Fair point, and I don't think that was right. I was just trying to differentiate between voters actually voting on an issue vs. a politician changing their position without any input from their constituents.

by fsloth 6y ago

sebmellen 6y ago

If a political system can be controlled by using power or capital to change political outcomes, without relying on the will or consent of the people, it's hard to argue that that's democratic. In that case, the hegemon is a faceless allocation of capital and dark interests as opposed to a strongman. This setup is probably better for individual freedoms than a dictatorship, but "results may vary" for anything else. I don't think a plutarchy is an open political system; a plutarchy is, by definition, closed to all without obscene amounts of capital, or access to it. The Wikipedia article on plutocracy is an interesting read on that [0]. There is a gray line, like Prop 22 in CA, where Uber, Lyft, et al. convinced voters to vote yes on Prop 22 by spending over $220 million on ads and campaigning [1]. Does this constitute a plutarchy? I would say no, because the voters were still the ones who chose the outcome! That's a big difference from a backdoor deal with a politician or inviting a them to a $43,000 "lunch" which will change their mind on your issue. However, it does highlight another issue — that of political advertising — but that's something for another time. The main issue here is that the US did not adequately plan for mitigating the influence of money in politics. The NY Times ran an article highlighting the shock and horror with which the British see the American political system [2]: > Justin Fisher, a professor of political science at Brunel University London, said the American system was seen in Britain “as the worst of all worlds,” focused on “raising money and not about getting ideas across.” Living in Switzerland, I came to the conclusion that their political setup is demonstrably better than that of the US (though also, arguably, more workable because of Switzerland's small size). In Switzerland, it would be nearly impossible for a lobbyist to pay a Swiss politician to make an important policy change and get away with it. And in most other Western European countries it would be a scandal/make big news if a politician got €50k to change their mind on something. In the US, that happens every day. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy#United_States [1]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Here-s-what-you-re-paying-for-Prop-22-15870617.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Here-s-what-you... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com./2015/05/05/world/europe/britains-campaign-finance-laws-leave-parties-with-idle-money.html https://www.nytimes.com./2015/05/05/world/europe/britains-ca...

masonic 6y ago
the voters were still the ones who chose the outcome But it doesn't get on the ballot in the first place without Uber, Doordash, etc. spending millions in paid canvassing.
- sebmellen 6y ago
  Fair point, and I don't think that was right. I was just trying to differentiate between voters actually voting on an issue vs. a politician changing their position without any input from their constituents.