3 ms·

Interesting. I'd question the "totalizing dynamics" part. In my view Wolin couples two arguments unnecessarily tightly: * Today's govt. marketing makes it seem

by jpttsn 13y ago

Interesting. I'd question the "totalizing dynamics" part. In my view Wolin couples two arguments unnecessarily tightly: * Today's govt. marketing makes it seem more legitimate than it is. Democracy is vulnerable to a panem-et-circenses strategy. * If citizens' needs are not satisfied by a welfare state, they are rendered helpless enough to be managed by a veiled totalitarian regime. The former is an interesting problem, expressed well. The latter is more concerning. Are opinions (votes) really worthless just because voters are exposed to economic realities? I don't think democracy rests on voters being "secure" (in the welfare state sense) when they make their decision. Classically the line is drawn at secret/anonymous voting. OP suggests voters also need to have their economy guaranteed, if their votes are to give the government any legitimacy. That's very different.

canadaduane 13y ago
> I don't think democracy rests on voters being "secure" (in the welfare state sense) when they make their decision. This is a really interesting question/assertion. I lean toward security being necessary for good decision making. For example, people whose time is spent primarily on "getting by" will have far less time and psychological wherewithal to propose new ideas that meet their needs and the group; creative problem solving is less likely[1]. They may be able to voice their opinion on a multiple-choice proposal, however, which could pass as democracy I suppose. A smaller number of people may have a creative ability that is inversely related to stress--necessity is the mother of invention and all that. But I don't think that is a majority, and perhaps unfortunately, democracy depends on the psychological traits of the majority. [1] http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/strsbeta.htm http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/strsbeta.htm
- jpttsn 13y ago
  Oh, surely. But as democratic thinkers, we don't trust the public by reason of their good decision making.
4bpp 13y ago
The second point does mesh quite well with my observations regarding the system. If you question a fairly randomly sampled member of the populace as to why they would choose to vote for one of the established political parties rather than a new or minor party that may represent their position on most issues much more closely, the answer you will get will invariably be some sort of invocation of a fear of economical downturn or collapse, as only "experienced" or, in a somewhat Kafkaesque turn, outright industry-coddling politicians are trusted to know what is good for the economy. The net effect is that anything that the established parties have a consensus on is effectively impossible to challenge in the political system (and no member of either established party has much of an incentive to break the consensus); it is hard to imagine that this would be the case to the same extent if the majority of voters did not consider their economical situation to be in some sense precarious or unsatisfactory.
- XorNot 13y ago
  This is a uniquely American view on the situation. In America, unless your favored major party holds overwhelming dominance, then voting for any third party is actively voting against your own interests. Its easier to lobby within a party to change things then try and form a new one, given the way the first past the post voting system in the US works. In countries without one, new parties can form and gain some influence all the time.
- jpttsn 13y ago
  Perhaps; it seems obvious. I'm not debating that point. The premise of democracy is that the will of the governed gives legitimacy to power. This (I argue) doesn't presuppose that the governed have security of income, a positive view of the future of the nation, perfect information, or anything like that. What matters is they choose, not their reasons for choosing.
coldtea 13y ago
>I don't think democracy rests on voters being "secure" (in the welfare state sense) when they make their decision. No, an insecure population can also act democratically, but it's much more easier to pressure it.
- jpttsn 13y ago
  Right. Pressure, though, doesn't invalidate their decision. Cfr. how a purchase is valid even if you saw an ad for the product.
  - lotharbot 13y ago
    Likewise, deciding to buy lunch is not somehow invalidated by being really hungry. In a sense, we consider the pressure of our appetite to validate the purchase of lunch. Decisions in response to circumstances and prevailing conditions are completely valid.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Right. Pressure, though, doesn't invalidate their decision. Cfr. how a purchase is valid even if you saw an ad for the product. It might not invalidate it legally or procedurally, but it invalidates it in the spirit of democracy (each deciding what he deems best, not what he was pressured to vote in order to get something unrelated to the issue under voting).
    - jpttsn 13y ago
      The idea is that secret voting rules out anyone being individually held liable for how they choose to vote. The sort of pressure OP is talking about is more vague: the pressure of having some skin in the game. I can't imagine what elections would be without that pressure. The democratic spirit of "what he/she deems best" doesn't rule out the influence of reality over voters' decisions.
rayiner 13y ago
The second argument is also nonsensical. The welfare state is larger today than it ever has been. The key difference is that old people have taken over as the primary beneficiaries. And they're more politically active then any other group. Ironically, they also support many of the "external" policies Wolin rejects.

by jpttsn 13y ago

canadaduane 13y ago

> I don't think democracy rests on voters being "secure" (in the welfare state sense) when they make their decision. This is a really interesting question/assertion. I lean toward security being necessary for good decision making. For example, people whose time is spent primarily on "getting by" will have far less time and psychological wherewithal to propose new ideas that meet their needs and the group; creative problem solving is less likely[1]. They may be able to voice their opinion on a multiple-choice proposal, however, which could pass as democracy I suppose. A smaller number of people may have a creative ability that is inversely related to stress--necessity is the mother of invention and all that. But I don't think that is a majority, and perhaps unfortunately, democracy depends on the psychological traits of the majority. [1] http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/strsbeta.htm http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/strsbeta.htm

jpttsn 13y ago
Oh, surely. But as democratic thinkers, we don't trust the public by reason of their good decision making.

4bpp 13y ago

The second point does mesh quite well with my observations regarding the system. If you question a fairly randomly sampled member of the populace as to why they would choose to vote for one of the established political parties rather than a new or minor party that may represent their position on most issues much more closely, the answer you will get will invariably be some sort of invocation of a fear of economical downturn or collapse, as only "experienced" or, in a somewhat Kafkaesque turn, outright industry-coddling politicians are trusted to know what is good for the economy. The net effect is that anything that the established parties have a consensus on is effectively impossible to challenge in the political system (and no member of either established party has much of an incentive to break the consensus); it is hard to imagine that this would be the case to the same extent if the majority of voters did not consider their economical situation to be in some sense precarious or unsatisfactory.

XorNot 13y ago
This is a uniquely American view on the situation. In America, unless your favored major party holds overwhelming dominance, then voting for any third party is actively voting against your own interests. Its easier to lobby within a party to change things then try and form a new one, given the way the first past the post voting system in the US works. In countries without one, new parties can form and gain some influence all the time.
jpttsn 13y ago
Perhaps; it seems obvious. I'm not debating that point. The premise of democracy is that the will of the governed gives legitimacy to power. This (I argue) doesn't presuppose that the governed have security of income, a positive view of the future of the nation, perfect information, or anything like that. What matters is they choose, not their reasons for choosing.

coldtea 13y ago

>I don't think democracy rests on voters being "secure" (in the welfare state sense) when they make their decision. No, an insecure population can also act democratically, but it's much more easier to pressure it.

jpttsn 13y ago
Right. Pressure, though, doesn't invalidate their decision. Cfr. how a purchase is valid even if you saw an ad for the product.
- lotharbot 13y ago
  Likewise, deciding to buy lunch is not somehow invalidated by being really hungry. In a sense, we consider the pressure of our appetite to validate the purchase of lunch. Decisions in response to circumstances and prevailing conditions are completely valid.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Right. Pressure, though, doesn't invalidate their decision. Cfr. how a purchase is valid even if you saw an ad for the product. It might not invalidate it legally or procedurally, but it invalidates it in the spirit of democracy (each deciding what he deems best, not what he was pressured to vote in order to get something unrelated to the issue under voting).
  - jpttsn 13y ago
    The idea is that secret voting rules out anyone being individually held liable for how they choose to vote. The sort of pressure OP is talking about is more vague: the pressure of having some skin in the game. I can't imagine what elections would be without that pressure. The democratic spirit of "what he/she deems best" doesn't rule out the influence of reality over voters' decisions.

rayiner 13y ago

The second argument is also nonsensical. The welfare state is larger today than it ever has been. The key difference is that old people have taken over as the primary beneficiaries. And they're more politically active then any other group. Ironically, they also support many of the "external" policies Wolin rejects.