4 ms·

> "They only change when their positions are threatened (i.e. being voted out of office in the civilized case)." This is only true in some cases, not in all. T

by mcv 6y ago

> "They only change when their positions are threatened (i.e. being voted out of office in the civilized case)." This is only true in some cases, not in all. The first Dutch king, Willem I, was originally made an absolute king and liked it that way, but later decided to have Thorbecke write a liberal constitution that would severely limit his power. Of course there were plenty calls in the country to do that, but he wasn't facing a revolution, and couldn't be voted out. Unless you count the Belgian independence from a couple of years earlier, but that had already happened and wasn't prevented by this decision. There are plenty of other cases where people decided to do the right thing because they saw it was the reasonable thing to do without being forced to. But the US refusing to change the broken electoral system from 250 years ago is also on the voters themselves, who keep voting for parties that don't want to improve the system. Keep voting out all incumbents until they fix the problem.

rapsey 6y ago
People are not robots. Obviously there will be some selfless individuals. But the discussion was on general terms and politicians as a class. As for blaming voters, that is entirely useless and simplistic.
- mcv 6y ago
  Is defeatism the only option here? Politicians are (almost) all selfish, and you can't blame the voters for voting for them? I strongly disagree on both points. There are politicians who take their responsibility seriously, and voters have a responsibility to vote for better politicians. Ultimately, voters get the government they choose, and if they choose corrupt politicians, that's what they get. The corrupt politicians aren't going to change as long as people keep voting for them. But better people exist, and it's up to voters to elect them.
  - rapsey 6y ago
    Society is a system not a collection of individuals. You are talking about some idealistic system that does not exist anywhere. People are easily mislead by corrupt media spreading lies and doubt about anyone. Powerful interests can derail any threat to them. This is why things seldom change in any real way. Take US presidential candidates Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard. Completely reasonable politicians who had to deal with constant lies about them being spread by the media.
    - mcv 6y ago
      Sure, but a country doesn't have to have corrupt media. Many don't. Like you say, it's a system. And as a society, you design that system to suit what you want. It's not like some impersonal outside force is forcing it upon you; it's made by you, by the people in that society. And it changes when the people want it to. It's absolutely true that the US system is incredibly corrupt, and it may be hard to see a way out of that, but a lot of countries are different, and many countries have seen real change. The US could do that too, but the people have to want it.
      - rapsey 6y ago
        When the good times are rolling corruption in the media does not reveal itself. Chomsky was writing about corruption in the US media in the 80s and pointing out the things that are plain as day now. Very few listened. Media has always been beholden to powerful interests. Especially now when their revenue streams are drying up. Saying many don't is naive. You just don't see it, because the corruption reveals itself about what they don't print. For that to be obvious you have to be aware what they are hiding from the public.
        mcv 6y ago
        I do not disagree that a lot of US media are corrupt, I merely disagree that that is the only way it can be. There are many countries where the media aren't that corrupt. The problem is really the toxic situation in the US, not the concept of media itself. Independent media is absolutely essential for a functioning democracy. Of course there's some tension between capitalism and the idea of independent media, because in capitalism, you sell that for which there is a demand, so many US media just say/write whatever their readers want to hear, and if those readers care more about having their own prejudices confirmed and stoking the toxic tribalism that's dominating their country, then that's what purely capitalist media will write. But in many other countries, journalists are more idealistic than that, and have editorial independence. And when the media owner threatens that independence, journalists cry foul and leave. Arguing that media can only be corrupt, is basically arguing that there can not be any democratic accountability. Instead of arguing it cannot be improved, it would be more constructive to demand improvement, demand editorial independence, and follow and pay for those media that offer that.

by mcv 6y ago

rapsey 6y ago

People are not robots. Obviously there will be some selfless individuals. But the discussion was on general terms and politicians as a class. As for blaming voters, that is entirely useless and simplistic.

mcv 6y ago
Is defeatism the only option here? Politicians are (almost) all selfish, and you can't blame the voters for voting for them? I strongly disagree on both points. There are politicians who take their responsibility seriously, and voters have a responsibility to vote for better politicians. Ultimately, voters get the government they choose, and if they choose corrupt politicians, that's what they get. The corrupt politicians aren't going to change as long as people keep voting for them. But better people exist, and it's up to voters to elect them.
- rapsey 6y ago
  Society is a system not a collection of individuals. You are talking about some idealistic system that does not exist anywhere. People are easily mislead by corrupt media spreading lies and doubt about anyone. Powerful interests can derail any threat to them. This is why things seldom change in any real way. Take US presidential candidates Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard. Completely reasonable politicians who had to deal with constant lies about them being spread by the media.
  - mcv 6y ago
    Sure, but a country doesn't have to have corrupt media. Many don't. Like you say, it's a system. And as a society, you design that system to suit what you want. It's not like some impersonal outside force is forcing it upon you; it's made by you, by the people in that society. And it changes when the people want it to. It's absolutely true that the US system is incredibly corrupt, and it may be hard to see a way out of that, but a lot of countries are different, and many countries have seen real change. The US could do that too, but the people have to want it.
    - rapsey 6y ago
      When the good times are rolling corruption in the media does not reveal itself. Chomsky was writing about corruption in the US media in the 80s and pointing out the things that are plain as day now. Very few listened. Media has always been beholden to powerful interests. Especially now when their revenue streams are drying up. Saying many don't is naive. You just don't see it, because the corruption reveals itself about what they don't print. For that to be obvious you have to be aware what they are hiding from the public.
      - mcv 6y ago
        I do not disagree that a lot of US media are corrupt, I merely disagree that that is the only way it can be. There are many countries where the media aren't that corrupt. The problem is really the toxic situation in the US, not the concept of media itself. Independent media is absolutely essential for a functioning democracy. Of course there's some tension between capitalism and the idea of independent media, because in capitalism, you sell that for which there is a demand, so many US media just say/write whatever their readers want to hear, and if those readers care more about having their own prejudices confirmed and stoking the toxic tribalism that's dominating their country, then that's what purely capitalist media will write. But in many other countries, journalists are more idealistic than that, and have editorial independence. And when the media owner threatens that independence, journalists cry foul and leave. Arguing that media can only be corrupt, is basically arguing that there can not be any democratic accountability. Instead of arguing it cannot be improved, it would be more constructive to demand improvement, demand editorial independence, and follow and pay for those media that offer that.