4 ms·

There's a couple of aspects to it that, in my opinion, need to come together. Bypassing and/or undermining democratic institutions (media, courts, bureaucracy)

There's a couple of aspects to it that, in my opinion, need to come together. Bypassing and/or undermining democratic institutions (media, courts, bureaucracy) and claiming exclusive representation - "I alone represent The People" - come to mind. Mass deportations, without more context, in and of themselves are more a policy and less a political style. You can execute this policy in a democratic or populist fashion.

EnPissant 1y ago
> media, courts, bureaucracy This is a gross redefinition of democracy. But we can go down this path if you wish. If a judge rules that only men can vote by their interpretation of the constitution, is that democracy?
- rayiner 1y ago
  It’s Schrödinger’s democracy. Roe voiding nearly every state’s abortion laws was “democracy,” but Dobbs returning the issue to the states was “judicial fiat.”
- whatnow37373 1y ago
  I have a more maximalist view of what democracy means which is I believe more common in Europe and I suspect that's where most of your disagreement stems from. First of all no single judge will be capable of upholding this, but let's say the entire judiciary has indeed decided to disenfranchise half the population I'd say they are grossly failing at their job. But anyway, your question was: is that democracy? Well, it depends. In my democracy it would not be, because freedom is a big part of what democracy means here - even if The People decide freedom is unimportant. That's what we don't like about naked democracy, it easily leads to mob rule in which freedom is stripped and the tyrannical majority overrides all other concerns. In my mind democracy is a broad system of checks, balances and institutions in which the will of the people is just one element. An important one, but definitely not the only one. Just for entertainment consider this: if The People vote to keep women out of the electoral process, is that democracy?
  - EnPissant 1y ago
    Then I think we can summarize your position as follows: Democracy is when you like policies, and populism is when you don't.
    - whatnow37373 1y ago
      Populism is on the rise in my country as well but that’s orthogonal to my evaluation of individual policies. I dislike little-d dictators proclaiming to serve the needs of The People because as an European I am intimately aware of what that engenders. I like serving a System not a Person. If a policy is enacted that I don’t like - which happens daily - then I shrug and reinvigorate my will to vote next time around. I don’t really see how your conclusion follows from anything I said.
rayiner 1y ago
> Bypassing and/or undermining democratic institutions (media, courts, bureaucracy) Those are all explicitly anti-democratic institutions! You can argue that we’re not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic, and those are appropriate checks on democracy. But that is a different argument. It’s important to keep the terminology straight so you can think of the situation clearly. To address the mass deportation hypothetical: judges are very different from the people. They are cognitive elites with degrees from elite institutions. Insofar as judges interpret laws to check deportation efforts—for example, expansively interpreting the criteria for asylum, which they have done—you should understand that what’s happening is a conflict between voters on one hand, and elites who are far more sympathetic to immigration. In a functional democracy, these anti-democratic checks should be maintained within their proper scope. For example, judges should avoid allowing the pro-immigrant sympathies of their class to color their legal opinions.
- whatnow37373 1y ago
  Something I just realized that might be germane to this little discussion: I am European, not American. We often use the word "democracy" as the vast eco-system underlying and upholding modern liberal societies in general, not just the elected parts. Whether that's correct use of the word - I suspect you think it's not - I leave open for discussion. If you want I can use the narrow definition in which case we are mostly in agreement. Judges should exercise due caution and be mindful of their obvious biases. However, this works both ways. Officials cater to their often not so well-informed electorate and this group, The People, is as susceptible to biases - if not more - as the so called elites are. Both should exercise restraint and be mindful of their biases, not just the judiciary. It takes a populist to claim The People are always right. As you can tell I am also very much an amateur. I suggest you don't approach me as someone who has studied political science because I'll have a hard time keeping up.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    I didn’t know this was something europeans did, because it’s alien to how americans historically have used the term. During the founding, there were explicit debates about democracies versus republics. The Democratic party originated as what europeans might call a “populist” party. And over time we changed the original constitutional structure to make it more democratic and less of a republic (such as direct election of senators). > People, is as susceptible to biases - if not more - as the so called elites are. Both should exercise restraint and be mindful of their biases, not just the judiciary. It takes a populist to claim The People are always right. But the biases of people are legitimate, while the biases of the elites are illegitimate. If the people vote for mass deportations, for example, the only job of the elite should be to figure out how to do it efficiently while protecting legally recognized rights (but not trying to undermine the policy by invoking protecting rights as a pretext). As usual, the scandinavians have figured this out.

EnPissant 1y ago

> media, courts, bureaucracy This is a gross redefinition of democracy. But we can go down this path if you wish. If a judge rules that only men can vote by their interpretation of the constitution, is that democracy?

rayiner 1y ago
It’s Schrödinger’s democracy. Roe voiding nearly every state’s abortion laws was “democracy,” but Dobbs returning the issue to the states was “judicial fiat.”
whatnow37373 1y ago
I have a more maximalist view of what democracy means which is I believe more common in Europe and I suspect that's where most of your disagreement stems from. First of all no single judge will be capable of upholding this, but let's say the entire judiciary has indeed decided to disenfranchise half the population I'd say they are grossly failing at their job. But anyway, your question was: is that democracy? Well, it depends. In my democracy it would not be, because freedom is a big part of what democracy means here - even if The People decide freedom is unimportant. That's what we don't like about naked democracy, it easily leads to mob rule in which freedom is stripped and the tyrannical majority overrides all other concerns. In my mind democracy is a broad system of checks, balances and institutions in which the will of the people is just one element. An important one, but definitely not the only one. Just for entertainment consider this: if The People vote to keep women out of the electoral process, is that democracy?
- EnPissant 1y ago
  Then I think we can summarize your position as follows: Democracy is when you like policies, and populism is when you don't.
  - whatnow37373 1y ago
    Populism is on the rise in my country as well but that’s orthogonal to my evaluation of individual policies. I dislike little-d dictators proclaiming to serve the needs of The People because as an European I am intimately aware of what that engenders. I like serving a System not a Person. If a policy is enacted that I don’t like - which happens daily - then I shrug and reinvigorate my will to vote next time around. I don’t really see how your conclusion follows from anything I said.

rayiner 1y ago

> Bypassing and/or undermining democratic institutions (media, courts, bureaucracy) Those are all explicitly anti-democratic institutions! You can argue that we’re not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic, and those are appropriate checks on democracy. But that is a different argument. It’s important to keep the terminology straight so you can think of the situation clearly. To address the mass deportation hypothetical: judges are very different from the people. They are cognitive elites with degrees from elite institutions. Insofar as judges interpret laws to check deportation efforts—for example, expansively interpreting the criteria for asylum, which they have done—you should understand that what’s happening is a conflict between voters on one hand, and elites who are far more sympathetic to immigration. In a functional democracy, these anti-democratic checks should be maintained within their proper scope. For example, judges should avoid allowing the pro-immigrant sympathies of their class to color their legal opinions.

whatnow37373 1y ago
Something I just realized that might be germane to this little discussion: I am European, not American. We often use the word "democracy" as the vast eco-system underlying and upholding modern liberal societies in general, not just the elected parts. Whether that's correct use of the word - I suspect you think it's not - I leave open for discussion. If you want I can use the narrow definition in which case we are mostly in agreement. Judges should exercise due caution and be mindful of their obvious biases. However, this works both ways. Officials cater to their often not so well-informed electorate and this group, The People, is as susceptible to biases - if not more - as the so called elites are. Both should exercise restraint and be mindful of their biases, not just the judiciary. It takes a populist to claim The People are always right. As you can tell I am also very much an amateur. I suggest you don't approach me as someone who has studied political science because I'll have a hard time keeping up.
- rayiner 1y ago
  I didn’t know this was something europeans did, because it’s alien to how americans historically have used the term. During the founding, there were explicit debates about democracies versus republics. The Democratic party originated as what europeans might call a “populist” party. And over time we changed the original constitutional structure to make it more democratic and less of a republic (such as direct election of senators). > People, is as susceptible to biases - if not more - as the so called elites are. Both should exercise restraint and be mindful of their biases, not just the judiciary. It takes a populist to claim The People are always right. But the biases of people are legitimate, while the biases of the elites are illegitimate. If the people vote for mass deportations, for example, the only job of the elite should be to figure out how to do it efficiently while protecting legally recognized rights (but not trying to undermine the policy by invoking protecting rights as a pretext). As usual, the scandinavians have figured this out.