7 ms·

"Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has

by jobu 12y ago

"Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill

dllthomas 12y ago
I don't think the parent's point was that democracy is failing to do good, but that America is failing to do democracy.
- refurb 12y ago
  Tell me what country isn't by your standards? Show me a list of democratic countries and I have no doubt I could dig up some really evil stuff on every single one of them. Don't take my comment as an excuse or an argument that's it's OK. Governments are run by humans which regularly mess up despite their high hopes.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    I don't understand why this was directed at me.
    - refurb 12y ago
      You said America is failing to do democracy By your standards, every country is failing to do democracy.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        It was an attempted paraphrase of one party's position for two people who seemed to be talking past each other. It was not stated as my position.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    >Show me a list of democratic countries and I have no doubt I could dig up some really evil stuff on every single one of them. If I were to pick some (e.g. Switzerland/New Zealand), what you'd dig up on the US would still be far, far, far, far worse. There's really no morally relativistic comparison between Switzerland's aiding and abetting money laundering and the US starting two wars in the last 15 years or Obama's drone murder program. None whatsoever. This reminds me of the invective that got thrown at Ecuador's Raffael Correa after he offered asylum to Snowden. Lots of people tried to act as if his government arresting protesters who were blocking a road (mentioned in an Amnesty report) made the country hypocritical when it lectured the US on human rights. Not so much, actually.
    - refurb 12y ago
      If I were to pick some (e.g. Switzerland/New Zealand) Let me give it a go! Switzerland basically bankrolled the Nazi war machine. Without Switzerland, Germany would have been unable to stash away all of the treasures it stole and likely wouldn't have been able to carry out the Holocaust with the efficiency it did.[1] Pretty bad huh? New Zealand has a dismal record on aboriginal rights. The Maori make up 4% of the population, but 50% of the prison population. Check out Amnesty International if you want to read up on other stuff. Some have labelled it genocide. what you'd dig up on the US would still be far, far, far, far worse That's purely subjective and I'm sure you'd find many who would disagree. I'm not arguing that the US shouldn't be criticized. What I'm arguing about is the utter shock that people display when they find out the US hasn't been perfect. It almost seems like the US is held to a much higher standard than other Western nations. [1]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings/sinister.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings...
      - m_mueller 12y ago
        About [1]: IMO [2] is a much better source for what went wrong in WW2 in Switzerland. Lots of work has gone into this, and it isn't biased for the Swiss side at all, even though the Swiss government has sponsored it. IMO the gold trade was defendable, given the geopolitical situation for Switzerland during the height of the the Third Reich - it was completely surrounded. What's most despicable about that time is how Jewish refugees have been turned back (even though I have to add that this was not the case for everyone, Switzerland harboured ~115k Jewish refugees at the end of WW2 [3], while 15-25k were refused). IMO it's commendable though that the Swiss government was not defensive at all when the gold issue came up again in 1996. Legally they could have defended themselves using the treaty signed with Washington post WW2 (~250M CHF) - instead it caused a majority of Swiss parliament to spawn quite a large program [4], which resulted in extensive documentation, a 295M CHF victim fund as early 1997 and a $1.25 billion settlement later on. I don't know how much better you could expect any government to handle this situation after the fact. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergier_commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergier_commission [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_the_World_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_the_World_Wa... [4] http://www.swissbankclaims.com/chronology.aspx http://www.swissbankclaims.com/chronology.aspx
  - m_mueller 12y ago
    So, because others are doing some evil things as well, one is not allowed to compare and hold their government to higher standards than they have now?
    - refurb 12y ago
      Not at all. Just don't act like the US stands alone as a country that has done shitty things.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        I don't think anyone has ever made that claim.
vezzy-fnord 12y ago
That's a very cute quote, but "democracy" in of itself is vague. Direct democracy is certainly not better than other forms of government that have been tried. Indeed, direct democracies are nearly non-existent. Most countries are constitutional republics, or more euphemistically "representative democracies". That said, the United States' implementation of a constitutional republic is still worse than other forms that have been tried. It has a majoritarian voting system, an electoral college and is heavily vulnerable to gerrymandering and divide/conquer. Furthermore, the United States usually gets more stern criticism precisely because of the idiotic lie of American exceptionalism. The United States is the only country I know of that obsesses over how supposedly "free" it is with an almost religious fervor. All of this propaganda only makes the inevitable examples of U.S. government corruption even more bitter than they would have been if only Americans had a far more realistic outlook about themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...
soperj 12y ago
USA should try democracy then instead of being a republic.
- vectorpush 12y ago
  What a hackneyed line. The USA is a democratic republic aka a form of democracy where the people elect their representatives; I'm pretty sure Winston Churchil understood the difference.
Mikeb85 12y ago
Part of the myth is that the US is actually democratic. A democracy is supposed to be 'rule of the people', as opposed to aristocracy, 'rule of the elite'. What you have in the US is a system where politicians are all either elites in society, or vetted by elites. Where they manage to convince or coerce a 'big enough' group of people to vote for them (ie. half or just over half of voters that actually turn out, which is a subset of the population). Once they're in power, they don't rule on behalf of the people, they rule on behalf of the elites that funded their campaigns. They toe the party line, and within each party is a group of elite 'thinkers' - none of whom are elected, but nevertheless direct the party. Democracies are also supposed to represent minorities and the 'common folk'. 'Rule of the people' implies a need to either involve the people directly, or rule on their behalf, yet in the US there is a decided animosity towards the people. In your most recent elections, 36.6% of voters turned out. Once you tally the possible margins of victory, this means that it's possible that you are now ruled by politicians that less than 20% of eligible voters actually voted for. And I wonder what percentage of the population takes part in party primaries? How representative is the US' democracy?
- encoderer 12y ago
  > How representative is the US' democracy? As representative as the people as a whole choose it to be. Which is criteria enough for a democracy.
  - NeverEnough 12y ago
    Is it really that easy to draw a distinction between the various ways of compelling people to vote a certain way?
pessimizer 12y ago
It's a common quote, but there's no argument contained within it other than an argument by Churchill's authority. "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill

by jobu 12y ago

dllthomas 12y ago

I don't think the parent's point was that democracy is failing to do good, but that America is failing to do democracy.

refurb 12y ago
Tell me what country isn't by your standards? Show me a list of democratic countries and I have no doubt I could dig up some really evil stuff on every single one of them. Don't take my comment as an excuse or an argument that's it's OK. Governments are run by humans which regularly mess up despite their high hopes.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  I don't understand why this was directed at me.
  - refurb 12y ago
    You said America is failing to do democracy By your standards, every country is failing to do democracy.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      It was an attempted paraphrase of one party's position for two people who seemed to be talking past each other. It was not stated as my position.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >Show me a list of democratic countries and I have no doubt I could dig up some really evil stuff on every single one of them. If I were to pick some (e.g. Switzerland/New Zealand), what you'd dig up on the US would still be far, far, far, far worse. There's really no morally relativistic comparison between Switzerland's aiding and abetting money laundering and the US starting two wars in the last 15 years or Obama's drone murder program. None whatsoever. This reminds me of the invective that got thrown at Ecuador's Raffael Correa after he offered asylum to Snowden. Lots of people tried to act as if his government arresting protesters who were blocking a road (mentioned in an Amnesty report) made the country hypocritical when it lectured the US on human rights. Not so much, actually.
  - refurb 12y ago
    If I were to pick some (e.g. Switzerland/New Zealand) Let me give it a go! Switzerland basically bankrolled the Nazi war machine. Without Switzerland, Germany would have been unable to stash away all of the treasures it stole and likely wouldn't have been able to carry out the Holocaust with the efficiency it did.[1] Pretty bad huh? New Zealand has a dismal record on aboriginal rights. The Maori make up 4% of the population, but 50% of the prison population. Check out Amnesty International if you want to read up on other stuff. Some have labelled it genocide. what you'd dig up on the US would still be far, far, far, far worse That's purely subjective and I'm sure you'd find many who would disagree. I'm not arguing that the US shouldn't be criticized. What I'm arguing about is the utter shock that people display when they find out the US hasn't been perfect. It almost seems like the US is held to a much higher standard than other Western nations. [1]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings/sinister.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings...
    - m_mueller 12y ago
      About [1]: IMO [2] is a much better source for what went wrong in WW2 in Switzerland. Lots of work has gone into this, and it isn't biased for the Swiss side at all, even though the Swiss government has sponsored it. IMO the gold trade was defendable, given the geopolitical situation for Switzerland during the height of the the Third Reich - it was completely surrounded. What's most despicable about that time is how Jewish refugees have been turned back (even though I have to add that this was not the case for everyone, Switzerland harboured ~115k Jewish refugees at the end of WW2 [3], while 15-25k were refused). IMO it's commendable though that the Swiss government was not defensive at all when the gold issue came up again in 1996. Legally they could have defended themselves using the treaty signed with Washington post WW2 (~250M CHF) - instead it caused a majority of Swiss parliament to spawn quite a large program [4], which resulted in extensive documentation, a 295M CHF victim fund as early 1997 and a $1.25 billion settlement later on. I don't know how much better you could expect any government to handle this situation after the fact. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergier_commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergier_commission [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_the_World_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_the_World_Wa... [4] http://www.swissbankclaims.com/chronology.aspx http://www.swissbankclaims.com/chronology.aspx
- m_mueller 12y ago
  So, because others are doing some evil things as well, one is not allowed to compare and hold their government to higher standards than they have now?
  - refurb 12y ago
    Not at all. Just don't act like the US stands alone as a country that has done shitty things.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      I don't think anyone has ever made that claim.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

That's a very cute quote, but "democracy" in of itself is vague. Direct democracy is certainly not better than other forms of government that have been tried. Indeed, direct democracies are nearly non-existent. Most countries are constitutional republics, or more euphemistically "representative democracies". That said, the United States' implementation of a constitutional republic is still worse than other forms that have been tried. It has a majoritarian voting system, an electoral college and is heavily vulnerable to gerrymandering and divide/conquer. Furthermore, the United States usually gets more stern criticism precisely because of the idiotic lie of American exceptionalism. The United States is the only country I know of that obsesses over how supposedly "free" it is with an almost religious fervor. All of this propaganda only makes the inevitable examples of U.S. government corruption even more bitter than they would have been if only Americans had a far more realistic outlook about themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...

soperj 12y ago

USA should try democracy then instead of being a republic.

vectorpush 12y ago
What a hackneyed line. The USA is a democratic republic aka a form of democracy where the people elect their representatives; I'm pretty sure Winston Churchil understood the difference.

Mikeb85 12y ago

Part of the myth is that the US is actually democratic. A democracy is supposed to be 'rule of the people', as opposed to aristocracy, 'rule of the elite'. What you have in the US is a system where politicians are all either elites in society, or vetted by elites. Where they manage to convince or coerce a 'big enough' group of people to vote for them (ie. half or just over half of voters that actually turn out, which is a subset of the population). Once they're in power, they don't rule on behalf of the people, they rule on behalf of the elites that funded their campaigns. They toe the party line, and within each party is a group of elite 'thinkers' - none of whom are elected, but nevertheless direct the party. Democracies are also supposed to represent minorities and the 'common folk'. 'Rule of the people' implies a need to either involve the people directly, or rule on their behalf, yet in the US there is a decided animosity towards the people. In your most recent elections, 36.6% of voters turned out. Once you tally the possible margins of victory, this means that it's possible that you are now ruled by politicians that less than 20% of eligible voters actually voted for. And I wonder what percentage of the population takes part in party primaries? How representative is the US' democracy?

encoderer 12y ago
> How representative is the US' democracy? As representative as the people as a whole choose it to be. Which is criteria enough for a democracy.
- NeverEnough 12y ago
  Is it really that easy to draw a distinction between the various ways of compelling people to vote a certain way?

pessimizer 12y ago

It's a common quote, but there's no argument contained within it other than an argument by Churchill's authority. "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill