5 ms·

One of the benefits a working democracy conveys to its citizens is that they largely don't have to care about politics. They can trust that government action is

One of the benefits a working democracy conveys to its citizens is that they largely don't have to care about politics. They can trust that government action is relatively consistent over time, that laws will be enforced fairly enough, that their property will be protected to a reasonable degree, that the currency will be reasonably stable, that the roads will be maintained, that some public transport will be available, that sudden wars won't erupt around them, and so on. That's what makes working democracies successful. But it seems that it also makes democracies vulnerable because people don't realize they have these benefits because they live in a working democracy. They start to think these benefits have nothing to do with politics and are just the way things are, like the laws of nature.

demosito666 2y ago
Interestingly, I believe that the reality is exactly the opposite: on the political regimes' spectrum of democratic -> authoritarian -> totalitarian only the middle one doesn't require people's participation. Both democracy and totalitarism need to be actively maintained by significant part of the population, otherwise they converge to the "natural" state of things - authoritarian order. None of the stuff you listed (fair laws, property rights, etc.) occur naturally once it has been set up at some point in past. That's why they talk about "checks and balances" all the time, and they are impossible without active participation.
- pjc50 2y ago
  What distinction are you making between authoritarian and totalitarian here?
  - demosito666 2y ago
    I think the most significant distinction is exactly that: Authoritarian - leaves people alone in general as long as they stay out of politics. Examples: 90% of regimes throughout human history. Almost all post-soviet countries, almost all of Middle East and Africa, Singapore, etc. Totalitarian - forces people into actively participating in leader's political goals and penetrates the daily life. North Korea, USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy.
    - Braxton1980 2y ago
      >Authoritarian - leaves people alone in general as long as they stay out of politics. Directly, yes, but their policies still affect people. For example, if an authoritarian leaders enacts economic decisions that damage the economy everyone is affected. If I pay more for goods and services due to Tariffs aren't I being forced to participate in the leader's political goals?
      - jowea 2y ago
        The distinction is fuzzy, but I think what is meant here is more directly political. In a totalitarian system, it is considered important for everyone to know and openly and regularly support state ideology with words and deeds. In the least totalitarian but authoritarian system, the state just wants apathy and obedience from its citizenry. So it would be totalitarian leaning for a leader to make a speech (watching is mandatory btw) saying that buying foreign is anti-patriotic and generating social censure, in addition to the tariffs, for people seen with foreign goods.
        Braxton1980 2y ago
        >it is considered important for everyone to know and openly and regularly support state ideology with words and deeds. People literally do this on social media and they aren't even being forced. As for the remainder, I do see the forced part but I'm not sure of how meaningful that is. If I don't agree with Trump but I'm forced to watch his speeches what does this do? As for supporting state ideology, while not forced, there are hats, bumper stickers, flags to identify yourself Imagine Trump forced everyone to wear his MAGA hat. What effect does it have? I don't think being forced to do this and that has much value
        jowea 2y ago
        > People literally do this on social media and they aren't even being forced. I think applying the authoritarian-totalitarian distinction in a democracy gets weird because democracies like totalitarian systems but unlike the archetypal authoritarian system expect the average person to engage in politics. So it's not a straight spectrum from democracy to totalitarian with autocracy in the middle. And if someone forces everyone to wear their symbols, then it becomes obvious who the open dissenters are, and it becomes hard to tell who is neutral, who is enthusiastic, and who is silently dissenting, everyone looks like a supporter and people may start becoming more supporting simply because of apparent social consensus. Anyway, here's what Wikipedia has to say. Maybe it clears up > In exercising the power of government upon society, the application of an official dominant ideology differentiates the worldview of the totalitarian régime from the worldview of the authoritarian régime, which is "only concerned with political power, and, as long as [government power] is not contested, [the authoritarian government] gives society a certain degree of liberty."[6] Having no ideology to propagate, the politically secular authoritarian government "does not attempt to change the world and human nature",[6] whereas the "totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of its citizens",[5] by way of an official "totalist ideology, a [political] party reinforced by a secret police, and monopolistic control of industrial mass society."[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism#Definitions
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  Yeah, I should have phrased this better. When I said that >citizens (...) largely don't have to care about politics I didn't mean that it wasn't harmful if they didn't care; I meant that there was no clear, immediate incentive.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    >I meant that there was no clear, immediate incentive. What about tariffs, that causes price increased. What about changes to the law, like congestion pricing in NYC
Braxton1980 2y ago
>One of the benefits a working democracy conveys to its citizens is that they largely don't have to care about politics The citizens elect the government so how can you not care about poltiics?
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  >The citizens elect the government so how can you not care about poltiics? I don't think there's a direct correlation between the ability to vote and caring about politics. People usually care about politics when it affects them negatively. I would guess that most people in most democratic systems don't have strong negative experiences with their governments and, thus, are not incentivized to care about politics. Note that I'm not making an argument that they should not care. I think they should, but the very system that allows participation probably also decreases the incentive for most people to participate.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    >. I would guess that most people in most democratic systems don't have strong negative experiences with their governments Opinion polls about political parties and leaders seem to always hover near the bottom end, at least in the US [1] [1] there are always bumps after elections (change), war (nationalism), and tragedy (group sympathy)
- jowea 2y ago
  Well, a bit. A part of liberal democracy is that elections don't matter that much. The losers can trust that they aren't going to be arrested, have their property confiscated etc. The established system like the courts, constitutions separation of powers and other anti-majoritarian things will prevent most extreme measures. And in at least some political systems, it is expect that no matter what some minimally competent people will win and govern not that differently from what the election loser was going to do. And remember voting is not mandatory and a lot of people don't vote. Those people are ultimately letting others decide, and a lot of them are hoping the voters are going to pick well, or at least decently.
silverquiet 2y ago
And yet the Republicans have campaigned on tearing down government for my entire life. And people treated me like a fool for believing them.

demosito666 2y ago

Interestingly, I believe that the reality is exactly the opposite: on the political regimes' spectrum of democratic -> authoritarian -> totalitarian only the middle one doesn't require people's participation. Both democracy and totalitarism need to be actively maintained by significant part of the population, otherwise they converge to the "natural" state of things - authoritarian order. None of the stuff you listed (fair laws, property rights, etc.) occur naturally once it has been set up at some point in past. That's why they talk about "checks and balances" all the time, and they are impossible without active participation.

pjc50 2y ago
What distinction are you making between authoritarian and totalitarian here?
- demosito666 2y ago
  I think the most significant distinction is exactly that: Authoritarian - leaves people alone in general as long as they stay out of politics. Examples: 90% of regimes throughout human history. Almost all post-soviet countries, almost all of Middle East and Africa, Singapore, etc. Totalitarian - forces people into actively participating in leader's political goals and penetrates the daily life. North Korea, USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    >Authoritarian - leaves people alone in general as long as they stay out of politics. Directly, yes, but their policies still affect people. For example, if an authoritarian leaders enacts economic decisions that damage the economy everyone is affected. If I pay more for goods and services due to Tariffs aren't I being forced to participate in the leader's political goals?
    - jowea 2y ago
      The distinction is fuzzy, but I think what is meant here is more directly political. In a totalitarian system, it is considered important for everyone to know and openly and regularly support state ideology with words and deeds. In the least totalitarian but authoritarian system, the state just wants apathy and obedience from its citizenry. So it would be totalitarian leaning for a leader to make a speech (watching is mandatory btw) saying that buying foreign is anti-patriotic and generating social censure, in addition to the tariffs, for people seen with foreign goods.
      - Braxton1980 2y ago
        >it is considered important for everyone to know and openly and regularly support state ideology with words and deeds. People literally do this on social media and they aren't even being forced. As for the remainder, I do see the forced part but I'm not sure of how meaningful that is. If I don't agree with Trump but I'm forced to watch his speeches what does this do? As for supporting state ideology, while not forced, there are hats, bumper stickers, flags to identify yourself Imagine Trump forced everyone to wear his MAGA hat. What effect does it have? I don't think being forced to do this and that has much value
        jowea 2y ago
        > People literally do this on social media and they aren't even being forced. I think applying the authoritarian-totalitarian distinction in a democracy gets weird because democracies like totalitarian systems but unlike the archetypal authoritarian system expect the average person to engage in politics. So it's not a straight spectrum from democracy to totalitarian with autocracy in the middle. And if someone forces everyone to wear their symbols, then it becomes obvious who the open dissenters are, and it becomes hard to tell who is neutral, who is enthusiastic, and who is silently dissenting, everyone looks like a supporter and people may start becoming more supporting simply because of apparent social consensus. Anyway, here's what Wikipedia has to say. Maybe it clears up > In exercising the power of government upon society, the application of an official dominant ideology differentiates the worldview of the totalitarian régime from the worldview of the authoritarian régime, which is "only concerned with political power, and, as long as [government power] is not contested, [the authoritarian government] gives society a certain degree of liberty."[6] Having no ideology to propagate, the politically secular authoritarian government "does not attempt to change the world and human nature",[6] whereas the "totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of its citizens",[5] by way of an official "totalist ideology, a [political] party reinforced by a secret police, and monopolistic control of industrial mass society."[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism#Definitions
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
Yeah, I should have phrased this better. When I said that >citizens (...) largely don't have to care about politics I didn't mean that it wasn't harmful if they didn't care; I meant that there was no clear, immediate incentive.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  >I meant that there was no clear, immediate incentive. What about tariffs, that causes price increased. What about changes to the law, like congestion pricing in NYC

Braxton1980 2y ago

>One of the benefits a working democracy conveys to its citizens is that they largely don't have to care about politics The citizens elect the government so how can you not care about poltiics?

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
>The citizens elect the government so how can you not care about poltiics? I don't think there's a direct correlation between the ability to vote and caring about politics. People usually care about politics when it affects them negatively. I would guess that most people in most democratic systems don't have strong negative experiences with their governments and, thus, are not incentivized to care about politics. Note that I'm not making an argument that they should not care. I think they should, but the very system that allows participation probably also decreases the incentive for most people to participate.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  >. I would guess that most people in most democratic systems don't have strong negative experiences with their governments Opinion polls about political parties and leaders seem to always hover near the bottom end, at least in the US [1] [1] there are always bumps after elections (change), war (nationalism), and tragedy (group sympathy)
jowea 2y ago
Well, a bit. A part of liberal democracy is that elections don't matter that much. The losers can trust that they aren't going to be arrested, have their property confiscated etc. The established system like the courts, constitutions separation of powers and other anti-majoritarian things will prevent most extreme measures. And in at least some political systems, it is expect that no matter what some minimally competent people will win and govern not that differently from what the election loser was going to do. And remember voting is not mandatory and a lot of people don't vote. Those people are ultimately letting others decide, and a lot of them are hoping the voters are going to pick well, or at least decently.

silverquiet 2y ago

And yet the Republicans have campaigned on tearing down government for my entire life. And people treated me like a fool for believing them.