4 ms·

>Where are the voices that seek a structured shift away from personality cult politics? Part of the issue is populism, which is as strong on HN as anywhere els

>Where are the voices that seek a structured shift away from personality cult politics? Part of the issue is populism, which is as strong on HN as anywhere else. If I said 'hey the US & other countries should move away from a presidential system to a parliamentary one, because by making choosing the leader less democratic it reduces the cult of personality', I'll get a ton of downvotes. If I said 'the US shouldn't have primaries but instead let party elites choose their candidates [the way the rest of the world operates] to reduce the cult of personality', I'd get a ton of downvotes. If I said 'hey strong political parties are actually a good thing, and candidate-centered politics where candidates can appeal directly to the voters without party elites gatekeeping out demagogues is actually really bad'- I mean, same. The way to 'shift away from personality cult politics' is boring and technocratic, and we're in the middle of a populist, anti-elites age. Less direct elections, more appointed offices in our democracy, stronger parties, more gatekeeping & no primaries- it's exactly what we need, and it's exactly what the mood of the 2020s doesn't want right now

wjmao88 5y ago
I can see where you are coming from, but all the points you made are actually still relying on the mental health of a small group of indivduals. What prevents them from picking the cult of personality for personal gain over their public responsibility? Not to mention some of these people aren't even democratically elected. You don't need to look further than the current US republican support for Trump.
vzcx 5y ago
Well this is interesting: my perspective is that we are actually already living in the age of the bureau and the technocrat, with only some vestigial democratic traditions, and we have been since 20th century wars. Burnham (who is well worth reading, in my opinion) called this the "managerial system". Of course, it still calls itself "democracy" despite not really being democratic at all. In fact, whenever you hear the word "democracy" -- a word which tends to have positive valence in society -- in the official press, you can substitute "managerial system" for a more neutral term without loss of meaning. That age might be coming to an end, but it's less about some vague general mood of the 2020s and mostly due to proliferated networked communications. This allows people to find their frens exchange ideas and coordinate actions. Oh and everyone starts to see how transparently duplicitous the official lines are. We perceive all this as "populism." From Arab Springs to meme stocks to Donald Trump, the phenomena are clearly a form of network dynamics. Is it bad? Is it good? Well... it's certainly disruptive, and is probably both good and bad in different cases and at different times. Which are which depends on your point of view. But disruption of any kind is certainly bad for the managers, so the natural reaction is precisely what you suggest, effectively, sinification: tighter control ("moderation") of online communications, suppression of opposition parties. Policy drafted by career mandarins. The CCP has done alright, so I suppose if (big if) they can execute it well it might buy them some more time. But unless you are a party insider, I'm not sure why you would throw your lot in with them.
spupe 5y ago
Biden was essentially appointed by party elites, Obama and a few other leaders decided it would be him, the party immediately followed. I don't think that Biden or Hillary Clinton had millions of people clamoring for them to run. Meanwhile, the least terrible president of the past 30 years was Obama, who would never have been appointed in a backroom. There are many things to reform in the US democracy, but it is obvious that it is highly oligarchic already.

wjmao88 5y ago

I can see where you are coming from, but all the points you made are actually still relying on the mental health of a small group of indivduals. What prevents them from picking the cult of personality for personal gain over their public responsibility? Not to mention some of these people aren't even democratically elected. You don't need to look further than the current US republican support for Trump.

vzcx 5y ago

Well this is interesting: my perspective is that we are actually already living in the age of the bureau and the technocrat, with only some vestigial democratic traditions, and we have been since 20th century wars. Burnham (who is well worth reading, in my opinion) called this the "managerial system". Of course, it still calls itself "democracy" despite not really being democratic at all. In fact, whenever you hear the word "democracy" -- a word which tends to have positive valence in society -- in the official press, you can substitute "managerial system" for a more neutral term without loss of meaning. That age might be coming to an end, but it's less about some vague general mood of the 2020s and mostly due to proliferated networked communications. This allows people to find their frens exchange ideas and coordinate actions. Oh and everyone starts to see how transparently duplicitous the official lines are. We perceive all this as "populism." From Arab Springs to meme stocks to Donald Trump, the phenomena are clearly a form of network dynamics. Is it bad? Is it good? Well... it's certainly disruptive, and is probably both good and bad in different cases and at different times. Which are which depends on your point of view. But disruption of any kind is certainly bad for the managers, so the natural reaction is precisely what you suggest, effectively, sinification: tighter control ("moderation") of online communications, suppression of opposition parties. Policy drafted by career mandarins. The CCP has done alright, so I suppose if (big if) they can execute it well it might buy them some more time. But unless you are a party insider, I'm not sure why you would throw your lot in with them.

spupe 5y ago

Biden was essentially appointed by party elites, Obama and a few other leaders decided it would be him, the party immediately followed. I don't think that Biden or Hillary Clinton had millions of people clamoring for them to run. Meanwhile, the least terrible president of the past 30 years was Obama, who would never have been appointed in a backroom. There are many things to reform in the US democracy, but it is obvious that it is highly oligarchic already.