3 ms·
Hmm, USA isn't governed by a relatively small group of elites? You have elections where the presidency can either go to a slightly right-wing candidate or a muc
by pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Hmm, USA isn't governed by a relatively small group of elites? You have elections where the presidency can either go to a slightly right-wing candidate or a much more-right-wing candidate. Until January the president's family were all employed in political positions, weren't they? How's that for a small group of elites?? You've got major political and financial dynasties that seem pretty good at preserving power and keeping it in a small group.
>The nature of US policy has been shaped over the centuries in the open, //
That really doesn't seem to be true. Do you teach in schools about all the democracies that those in power have chosen to meddle with? Is it in election manifestos? Like "if elected we will depose the democratically elected leaders of country X in order to impose a dictator who is covertly in our employ".
>China's policies and doctrines are sometimes changed overnight //
Exactly like presidential edicts? How much of the population voted to leave the Paris Agreement on climate change, for example?
I'm not saying China ain't bad, their leadership clearly aren't great either.
- throwaway894345 6y agoIgnoring the silly Overton window flamebait and the conflation of legislation and executive order, if we can't understand the difference between a de jure single-party system and a two party system with mild corruption, then we're lost.
- riskneutral 6y ago> if we can't understand the difference between a de jure single-party system and a two party system with mild corruption, then we're lost. Lost in translation. "Single party system" is a fancy way of saying "totalitarian dictatorship." "Two party system with mild corruption" is a fancy way of saying "modern plutocracy." I agree that modern plutocracy is better than totalitarian dictatorship. It's not great but it could be worse.