11 ms·
I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrog
by liber8 14y ago
I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key:
As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.
NDT falls into the same trap as nearly everyone since the framers of the constitution. You're never going to elect the right leaders. They don't exist. The reason our government was set up the way it was, and not the way it exists now, was precisely because the greatest group of political scientists to ever congregate in one place and time realized that people are inherently flawed, weak, and susceptible to the intoxicating effects of power. Because you'll never have the "right leaders", you must structure the system to prevent abuse by the inevitable "wrong leaders" that will be elected.
NDT, like so many others, misses this point completely, even though nearly the entire letter pays lip service to the idea that the leaders are not the problem to focus on. While he's right, the solution won't appear even if he "enlightened the electorate" to Tysonian heights.
- MaysonL 14y agoThe trouble is, the Constitution, and the systems it put in place, while a great advance over the systems it replaced, is old, and the factions and interests much of its machinery was intended to foil, have subverted it, and wage-slavery and mass media have nearly finished the job.
- Jach 14y agoI dunno man, Frederick the Great was pretty great, as was Augustus Caesar. So clearly there are "right leaders". It seems the problem is more about when one gets a good leader, how to keep getting good leaders afterwards when the good one dies or retires. Corporations have solved this pretty well--IBM has lasted longer than many governments, and there are plenty of other examples.
- tlb 14y agoFtG was effective -- at starting wars and killing people to further his own dynastic ambitions. People who wanted to live in peace and prosperity would not agree he was the "right leader"
- Jach 14y agoWell sure, George Washington was a very violent fellow as well but I usually don't see that levied against him. Same with Winston Churchill. You might want to learn more about Frederick, here's a primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_The_Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_The_Great
- bdunbar 14y agoFunny how both the guys you mentioned are remembered for being leaders of men during war.
- Jach 14y agoIs that the only thing? Regarding Augustus in particular, the Pax Romana is very strongly associated with him. Funny how with strong leaders who wield power and hold responsibility, even given some initial violence things can turn out pretty swell. Dr. Francia is an interesting smaller-scale example. http://books.google.com/books?id=-yeaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA547#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=-yeaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA547#v... By the way, is it funny how many fairly popular (considering none have been extremely popular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_president...) US presidents there are whose prior claim to fame is more or less being a victorious fighter?
- ImprovedSilence 14y agoSo was Lincoln, So was Washington, So was Roosevelt. War seem to be the gauge of leaders who get remembered....
- 14y ago
- marshallp 14y agoThe greatest group of political scientists? You're referring the founding fathers. Why didn't they institute proportional representation? Why did they have an electoral college? Why didn't they abolish slavery and institute women's vote right away? This FF worship has got to stop. It gives Republicans some slack to spew their lies about gun control and other constitution-backed tomfoolery.
- gizmo686 14y agoIt also gives us some slack to spew on about civil liberties and other constitutional tomfoolery.
- marshallp 14y agoLike no other country has civil liberties. What does Canada or Western Europe have.
- gyardley 14y agoA 'notwithstanding' clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that lets the government override it, as long as it's 'reasonable and justified'? The somewhat amusingly named Canadian Human Rights Commission, which can regulate what can and cannot be said publicly? Canada's a pretty free place, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't have the well-thought-out constitution that America has, which means every once in a while you get things like the October Crisis - where habeas corpus was suspended, thousands of warrantless searches were conducted, and almost five hundred people were arrested in nighttime raids and held without charges, in some cases for weeks. Americans really don't appreciate what they've got. Historically, civil liberties are the exception, not the rule, and there's certainly no guarantee they'll stick around in the future.
- justthistimeic 14y agoThe American constitution is great but please don't believe the US is the paragon of freedom and rights; there's people held indefinitely held without trial, warrantless searches/eavesdropping, "free speech" zones during Irak war demonstrations, Guantanamo, death penalty etc etc so don't talk bad about Canada & Western Europe as they have a much better record of Human Rights.
- cynicalkane 14y agoI think you're reading a false dichotomy in NDT's comment that wasn't actually intended.
- bennyg 14y agoExactly. He's saying a smarter public trends towards a better government system in place - by the majority of people using logic, reason and rationality to vote in someone worth their salt for each position.
- nsxwolf 14y agoThere have been many intellectual tyrants. I disagree that we'll get better leaders simply by educating the people about science.
- bennyg 14y agoI still think it's a bit more abstract than that. Would you agree that overall knowledge is good? Or at least holds more objective, intrinsic good than not? I'm positing that a society that knows more is better than a society that knows less. A society that knows more is better able to wield that knowledge to make decisions than a society that doesn't have that knowledge. I fail to see how there is any negative to educating more of the general public. Sure, it's gonna' be damn near impossible to measure anything on a political leader vs. general knowledge scale, but intuitively I think education is good.
- nsxwolf 14y agoI agree that a society that knows more is better than a society that knows less. Knowledge is good in its own right. But knowledge doesn't change human nature. The rising tide of knowledge will lift all moral boats. Smarter good people, smarter bad people.
- vellum 14y agoThis. NDT's saying that leaders are a product of their base. If you want better leaders, do something to change the minds of the people who elect them.
- bloaf 14y agoCertainly there are no perfect leaders, but if our government's structure is so perfect, then why does it matter which people are involved at all? The point is that who we elect matters, because if it didn't, there would be no point in electing anyone. The real point I believe is closer to George Bernard Shaw's words "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." Having a good system is irrelevant if no one bothers to implement it, or if the electorate seeks to undermine it.
- pbhjpbhj 14y agoYour logic is flawed in practical terms - does it matter who cleans the toilet? By your argument if any one of a given group is suitable then choosing no-one is most suitable. I think the logic is unsound in either locus.
- bloaf 14y agoI see, I wasn't completely clear. I meant that if our system makes it so that everyone is suitable for government, why bother having elections? We could just draw names from a hat. There is no point in voting for a candidate if that candidate would perform exactly as well as every other candidate. Elections in that scenario are literally asking people to make judgements that are impossible to make.
- pbhjpbhj 14y agoThanks for clarifying - the alternative is real democratic representation. That is the selected few would be representative in a more statistically significant way. It seems strange to choose a few privileged people as "representatives". I'm getting quite drawn by the idea of a lottery instead of an election; like being called up to jury duty.
- bloaf 14y agoIndeed, true democratic representation would avoid that problem. I think that it would also make NDT's point even clearer. If the citizens were directly making the country's decisions then we certainly should be making serious efforts to ensure that every citizen is equipped to make the best decisions for the country.
- brabram 14y ago"The greatest group of political scientists to ever congregate in one place and time" were probably the Athenians that, out of the same conclusions on human nature, concluded that if you want political equality for all, your political system must only allow small, non-renewable and other controlled mandates taken by randomly chosen citizens (yes, they have considered elected but have rejected it). The key point being that those randomly chosen people don't have the power, it the assembly of all the citizens that have the power. And it's based on that that they have created the first (and only, for some people) democratic system ever. Ironically, the person that have created our current democratic system knew exactly this Athenian system but explicitly rejected it because it was ... democracy, and that is was a system were the people really has the power. It's only since Tocqueville has started to call it democracy that we think about it has democratic, Tocqueville who explicitly said that he wasn't afraid of election because people would vote what we told them to vote, something impossible in the Athenian system.
- walterkim 14y agoYou're somewhat mistaken, here. The system of checks and balances was very much designed to prevent the abuse of power. The Federalist No. 68, however, argues that the tiered electoral process is designed so that only the best, or the "right leaders", would attain the Presidency: ----- "The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue." http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm
- ciupicri 14y agoThe greatest group of political scientists?! So great that a lot of Americans don't understand how the president gets elected.
- ImprovedSilence 14y agoAh, indeed. As stated by Plato, "Those with the ability to get themselves elected, are the least fit to lead." Platos The Republic, (and especially his "five regimes") is interesting stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_%28Plato%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_%28Plato%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes
- 001sky 14y agoThe constitution was architected to understand the notion that "Cemetaries are full of once-indispensible people"[1]. ______________ [1] Young man, as you perambulate down the pathway of life toward an unavoidable bald head bordered with gray hairs it would be well to bear in mind that the cemeteries are full of men this world could not get along without, and note the fact that things move along after each funeral procession at about the same gait they went before. It makes no difference how important you may be, don’t get the idea under your hat that this world can’t get along without you —Abilene Reporter, 1909.