3 ms·
Frankly it's bullshit. The Putinist narrative that democracy is a sham makes sense for a man isolated from the real world that doesn't use the internet, but it'
by simonh 3y ago
Frankly it's bullshit. The Putinist narrative that democracy is a sham makes sense for a man isolated from the real world that doesn't use the internet, but it's stunning to me how disconnected some people in the west can be from the society they live in.
I have family in the British military at a moderately high level. A friend was a researcher for an MP, and another a government adviser. Sure politics is messy, it's the art of the possible and expedient. Of course it's not ideal, but as the saying goes Democracy is the worst system of government except for all the others. You're never going to get perfect, the best you can get is consensus and the consent of the governed. We have that.
I revile Trump, but he did do one thing for us. He proved that US democracy is real. All the Washington consensus clubbyness was pushed aside, corporate capture and bought influence were bulldozed over. None of the establishment wanted him, but he's what we got through a massive grass roots movement. He was an utter disaster, but it was a genuine demonstration of democracy in action.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoTrump is case in point of the two government system between elected power and longstanding unelected power that remains between elections. He was just a loud mouthpiece to appease his political base basically. He, like presidents before him, did not do anything substantial to buck the steady march of the us hegemony. He was not unilaterally making any decisions. There is a lot of business in government and in military that the president is never briefed in. We like to think presidents are like a Napoleon figure, charismatic and in full control, but government would be so unstable if that were to be true and to turn over every four years. They are simply the presiding spokesperson of the hegemony, which is too large and well incentivized for the status quo for any one individual to meaningfully influence.
- simonh 3y agoBasically the parties and individual politicians have their own political areas of intention and aspiration, which all overlap with each other. What actually ends up happening is 90% within the overlap area. But that's just because there's a broad consensus in the country, both among the electorate and among the politicians they elect. In other words the people elect politicians that align with their desires and intentions. And that's a bad thing because.... help me out here.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoI don't see how a choice between A or B, both neoliberals, can possibly best represent the opinions of 350 million. Thats basically our two party system though. You might be forgetting things like COINTELPRO.