3 ms·

The conclusion of this article mentions a book, "Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government" (https://press.princeton.edu/books/

The conclusion of this article mentions a book, "Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government" (https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691169446/democracy-for-realists https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691169446/de...) [2016] > It skewered what Achen and Bartels called the “folk theory of democracy.” By that, they meant the idea that voters support candidates who reflect the overall interests and goals of the citizenry. Instead, Achen and Bartels traced how other factors, such as group identities or national economic performance in the last six months before an election, mattered far more.

motohagiography 5y ago
Came to comment on that. Responsive government presumes it is not merely a necessary evil and a blunt instrument of last resort for which ancients developed democracy to mitigate the effects from more "responsive" governments like tyrannies and monarchies. It's stupid by design, and there is a one-to-one relationship between undemocratic powers and the powers to manage and rule. There will always be a cadre of technocrats vying for control because they think what it standing in their way is the freedom of others, which is circular reasoning in that the reason they are not in power is because people are not their subjects and slaves, and free people will not choose them or their policies. The only way they succeed is with deception and threats, and history is the story of what we have always had to do to dislodge them after tolerating the games that let the vampires in.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I'm not even sure what this means or what it's based on. Are human institutions imperfect? Absolutely, but that's all we have. Is democracy perfectly responsive or unresponsive? Of course not. But the track record of democracies is orders of magnitude beyond any other form of government. Look at all the most free, most prosperous, most safe countries in the history of the world - all exist now, and all are advanced democracies. > There will always be a cadre of technocrats vying for control ... There will also always be a cadre of people who believe in and work to do good for their fellow citizens, 'in order to form a more perfect union'. There is bad and good in people; it's not so dark. There's both bad and good in both you and me, and we can choose among them. > history is the story of what we have always had to do to dislodge them That's a core piece of democracy: Voting them out rather than fighting a war works much better.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > But the track record of democracies is orders of magnitude beyond any other form of government. To be fair, what the USSR did between their revolution in 1917 and, oh, somewhere around 1975 was completely amazing. They took a fundamentally feudal, largely agragian society and turned it into an industrial world power. In terms of economic well-being, health, safety and possibility, for most USSR citizens it was a huge step forward. I do not approve of the methods, and you could try to argue that they only succeeded at immense cost to both human lives and political freedom - I might not even disagree. But it is a reminder that sometimes massive changes can be pulled off by non-democratic government too. China over the last 35 years is likely a similar example.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > what the USSR did between their revolution in 1917 and, oh, somewhere around 1975 was completely amazing Tens of millions died of starvation, more died in wars, more suffered brutal oppression, forced relocation, and had no freedom to live their lives or even speak their mind, not to mention widespread poverty. What was accomplished for those people? We're not talking about 'methods', but outcomes. The outcome is all those people dying and suffering. You found a silver lining? Wow. Democracies provided much more prosperity (how about just a reliable food supply) without the nightmarish horrors. 'Much of my family died, ended up in brutal prisons, were forced to relocate, suffered brutal oppression - but it's all good because I have some material goods I didn't have 60 years ago.' The former USSR is still well behind the democracies. > you could try to argue that they only succeeded at immense cost to both human lives and political freedom - I might not even disagree These are the justifications of people who want power over others, it's well-worn propaganda: - 'I am needed to solve the problem, and my self-serving sadism is necessary'. You have examples, worldwide, of countries doing more economically, without the horrors, through freedom. Government leaders, chosen by the people, who do things without killing their population or oppressing them. What a joke. If these brutal dictators are so good for the population, why not hold elections? Who decides that they are good? > China over the last 35 years is likely a similar example. China did it through liberalization, economic and (until somewhat recently) political, starting under Deng Xiaoping. And Taiwan and Hong Kong, which embraced true freedom, did far more.

motohagiography 5y ago

Came to comment on that. Responsive government presumes it is not merely a necessary evil and a blunt instrument of last resort for which ancients developed democracy to mitigate the effects from more "responsive" governments like tyrannies and monarchies. It's stupid by design, and there is a one-to-one relationship between undemocratic powers and the powers to manage and rule. There will always be a cadre of technocrats vying for control because they think what it standing in their way is the freedom of others, which is circular reasoning in that the reason they are not in power is because people are not their subjects and slaves, and free people will not choose them or their policies. The only way they succeed is with deception and threats, and history is the story of what we have always had to do to dislodge them after tolerating the games that let the vampires in.

wolverine876 5y ago
I'm not even sure what this means or what it's based on. Are human institutions imperfect? Absolutely, but that's all we have. Is democracy perfectly responsive or unresponsive? Of course not. But the track record of democracies is orders of magnitude beyond any other form of government. Look at all the most free, most prosperous, most safe countries in the history of the world - all exist now, and all are advanced democracies. > There will always be a cadre of technocrats vying for control ... There will also always be a cadre of people who believe in and work to do good for their fellow citizens, 'in order to form a more perfect union'. There is bad and good in people; it's not so dark. There's both bad and good in both you and me, and we can choose among them. > history is the story of what we have always had to do to dislodge them That's a core piece of democracy: Voting them out rather than fighting a war works much better.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > But the track record of democracies is orders of magnitude beyond any other form of government. To be fair, what the USSR did between their revolution in 1917 and, oh, somewhere around 1975 was completely amazing. They took a fundamentally feudal, largely agragian society and turned it into an industrial world power. In terms of economic well-being, health, safety and possibility, for most USSR citizens it was a huge step forward. I do not approve of the methods, and you could try to argue that they only succeeded at immense cost to both human lives and political freedom - I might not even disagree. But it is a reminder that sometimes massive changes can be pulled off by non-democratic government too. China over the last 35 years is likely a similar example.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > what the USSR did between their revolution in 1917 and, oh, somewhere around 1975 was completely amazing Tens of millions died of starvation, more died in wars, more suffered brutal oppression, forced relocation, and had no freedom to live their lives or even speak their mind, not to mention widespread poverty. What was accomplished for those people? We're not talking about 'methods', but outcomes. The outcome is all those people dying and suffering. You found a silver lining? Wow. Democracies provided much more prosperity (how about just a reliable food supply) without the nightmarish horrors. 'Much of my family died, ended up in brutal prisons, were forced to relocate, suffered brutal oppression - but it's all good because I have some material goods I didn't have 60 years ago.' The former USSR is still well behind the democracies. > you could try to argue that they only succeeded at immense cost to both human lives and political freedom - I might not even disagree These are the justifications of people who want power over others, it's well-worn propaganda: - 'I am needed to solve the problem, and my self-serving sadism is necessary'. You have examples, worldwide, of countries doing more economically, without the horrors, through freedom. Government leaders, chosen by the people, who do things without killing their population or oppressing them. What a joke. If these brutal dictators are so good for the population, why not hold elections? Who decides that they are good? > China over the last 35 years is likely a similar example. China did it through liberalization, economic and (until somewhat recently) political, starting under Deng Xiaoping. And Taiwan and Hong Kong, which embraced true freedom, did far more.