3 ms·

I disagree regarding Hillary Clinton, I think it's a disservice to her academic and professional accomplishments. She has an impressive academic record at Yale

I disagree regarding Hillary Clinton, I think it's a disservice to her academic and professional accomplishments. She has an impressive academic record at Yale while getting her JD, was a very popular senator in NY, and was widely respected SoS. She is far more qualified than most presidential candidates and probably more qualified than her husband. I know she is divisive and I'm going to be downvoted, but all those accomplishments are factual and I left things out. I wish people would pause and reflect about why they dislike her. I also disagree with you about Trudeau, almost to the point I would characterize your description of him as false. He started in the HoC 15 years ago, took that to a leadership position in a failing Liberal party and revitalized them. I think it's more problematic that Harper led a lobbying group for several years.. I am curious what you think has been disastrous? (never mind, I see your sibling comment) I think he is actually impressively aware of the political coordination with the American and Canadian right-wings. If I'm understanding you right, it's more of a problem with machine politics, and I'd agree with you. The solution has always been restrictions on donations, advertising, and otherwise limiting the influence of money on politics but that fight has mostly failed.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
I agree Clinton actually has a fairly impressive record. But so did plenty of other people. My point remains regardless: it is corrosive to democracy to let power consolidate in family power centres. Many kings and emperors of antiquity were very competent. And successful powerful families cultivated competency at ruling through elite education and patronage etc. But it was still a terrible form of government. Not the least because it becomes self-serving over time, but also because of its injustice: all the very competent people passed over because they did not have the right name or connections. Having a healthy democracy (literally: "people's rule") requires us to explicitly counteract concentration of power in lineage systems, party bureaucracies, and corporate dominance. Of these family lineage is one of the easiest to spot. Yes, we've always had this. No, it's not a good thing. And we need to actively counteract it, even if it means passing up very competent individuals. I liked Herbert's books, I don't want to live in the Dune universe :-)
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  I agree with you on just about everything you said :) I would probably have a slightly different nuance to my interpretation of the nature of power centers. I think that term limits counteract this pretty well for individual families and politicians. I'm more concerned about influence organizations and the individuals and families that fund them, like Heritage. They have enormous influence, don't disclose funding, and are completely unelected.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Re: term limits. if we're permitting family name marketing and dominance, that's irrelevant. Interests will simply rule through the next person in line in the family. Also, in the last two centuries of the western Roman Empire there was a new emperor every decade or less. Short terms did nothing to stop the authoritarian and tyrannical (and dysfunctional) nature of that rule. Sufficiently powerful individuals will make term limits disappear anyways. (See Putin, etc.)

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

I agree Clinton actually has a fairly impressive record. But so did plenty of other people. My point remains regardless: it is corrosive to democracy to let power consolidate in family power centres. Many kings and emperors of antiquity were very competent. And successful powerful families cultivated competency at ruling through elite education and patronage etc. But it was still a terrible form of government. Not the least because it becomes self-serving over time, but also because of its injustice: all the very competent people passed over because they did not have the right name or connections. Having a healthy democracy (literally: "people's rule") requires us to explicitly counteract concentration of power in lineage systems, party bureaucracies, and corporate dominance. Of these family lineage is one of the easiest to spot. Yes, we've always had this. No, it's not a good thing. And we need to actively counteract it, even if it means passing up very competent individuals. I liked Herbert's books, I don't want to live in the Dune universe :-)

throwaway5752 4y ago
I agree with you on just about everything you said :) I would probably have a slightly different nuance to my interpretation of the nature of power centers. I think that term limits counteract this pretty well for individual families and politicians. I'm more concerned about influence organizations and the individuals and families that fund them, like Heritage. They have enormous influence, don't disclose funding, and are completely unelected.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Re: term limits. if we're permitting family name marketing and dominance, that's irrelevant. Interests will simply rule through the next person in line in the family. Also, in the last two centuries of the western Roman Empire there was a new emperor every decade or less. Short terms did nothing to stop the authoritarian and tyrannical (and dysfunctional) nature of that rule. Sufficiently powerful individuals will make term limits disappear anyways. (See Putin, etc.)