5 ms·

Rather than engage in outright histrionics, the author makes sensible points backed up by historical facts. However I think the author ignores that idea that se

by roneesh 12y ago

Rather than engage in outright histrionics, the author makes sensible points backed up by historical facts. However I think the author ignores that idea that sensible design alternatives exist to a lot of the perceived gridlock. We're a country of designers who find elegant solutions to problems. The perceived entrenched powers that doom us can be unravelled with sensible fixes. Our prison system can be reformed by sensible legalization/de-regulation coupled with how we prosecute crimes and fund prisons, no need for a revolution there. Regulation of rogue energy and financial institutions can be strengthened, we can make sure our regulators don't become enablers and we reform what we regulate to not strangle innovation, no need for a revolution there. Every day viable alternatives pop up to our toxic media, and Jon Stewart proved you can de-legitimize an entire network, not with violence, but with a sustained nightly attack of satire, no need for a revolution there. In truth, this article engages in a sort of fallacy, we're only doomed if we think doom is the only outcome that's possible. There's another version of this article that could happen called "American democracy can be fixed with sensible design".

ChazDazzle 12y ago
Framed in this way the question becomes: can American Democracy get by with a few bug patches, or does it need to be re-written from the ground up?
- jbob2000 12y ago
  It's more like, can American Democracy get by with a few secret admins blocking all the attempts at bug fixes?
- roneesh 12y ago
  If American Democracy is software, then it's in a pretty good state I'd say. It does numerous functions, but they all seem loosely coupled. Refactoring policy in one branch wouldn't catastrophically collapse another branch. No one aspect of American democracy seems able to crash the system. Some modules can be completely re-written for better results, for instance our tax system could be replaced by some type of flat-tax. Other ones can get by with significant refactoring over a long period, maybe financial regulation could have better consumer protection and ultimately allow for a more equitable distribution of wealth (I'm' not economist, maybe those goals don't even involve each other) And other ones just need bug patches, for instance interstate commerce, which I'd guess is smooth as a cucumber right now, but we could have more states align on issues of policy that create confusion in the marketplace (a Delaware C copr is a great example of people finding those simple solutions). It is hard to think of a really good, functioning part of government, but generally those are the ones we don't even notice. The government is great at handing out money to people, and that is often touted as the only social program we really need. We can reform the broken way it hands out contracts to companies. Here's the thing. Starting over is a fanciful idea, but completely stupid. When you re-build a system, you have to re-build the parts that worked too. And for what it's worth, democracy works and change happens. Yes it sucks that it's slow, but it's sure.
- pdkl95 12y ago
  This probably depends on how quickly those "bug patches" can be applied. If quick action is taken and the current trend of rewriting laws to be pro-special-interest (often business) to the detriment of the citizens, there I suspect we might be able to save American Democracy. The cutoff line is, very roughly, "does the middle class still exist". If serious, significant fixes are not applied by then, it will be too late. Not only will we have already lost a lot of what the patches should be intended to protect, it is probably impossible to do anything besides a "rewrite" afterwords. It is hard to get people to support "let's save the OLD system" once everything starts going all Robespierre.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  What if it's not a bug? What if it's a feature? The article likes parliamentary-style democracies, but what happens there is that the party in power can pass pretty much anything it wants, limited only by the members' willingness to go along. American-style checks and balances mean that, even if you have a majority, you can't pass your brilliant idea without selling it to at least some of the minority. I assert that that's a good thing - your idea has to make sense outside your party for you to be able to turn it into law.
  - gdwatson 12y ago
    Agreed that checks and balances are good, but the US constitution was written without large, permanent political parties in mind. Take the power of impeachment, the ultimate Congressional trump card against executive overreach. Why has no one seriously advocated its use during the last two administrations? Because history has shown that in practice it isn't a weapon for use by Congress against an overweening president, but rather by one political party against the other.
shillster 12y ago
How do we know we aren't simply replacing one illusion with another?

by roneesh 12y ago

ChazDazzle 12y ago

Framed in this way the question becomes: can American Democracy get by with a few bug patches, or does it need to be re-written from the ground up?

jbob2000 12y ago
It's more like, can American Democracy get by with a few secret admins blocking all the attempts at bug fixes?
roneesh 12y ago
If American Democracy is software, then it's in a pretty good state I'd say. It does numerous functions, but they all seem loosely coupled. Refactoring policy in one branch wouldn't catastrophically collapse another branch. No one aspect of American democracy seems able to crash the system. Some modules can be completely re-written for better results, for instance our tax system could be replaced by some type of flat-tax. Other ones can get by with significant refactoring over a long period, maybe financial regulation could have better consumer protection and ultimately allow for a more equitable distribution of wealth (I'm' not economist, maybe those goals don't even involve each other) And other ones just need bug patches, for instance interstate commerce, which I'd guess is smooth as a cucumber right now, but we could have more states align on issues of policy that create confusion in the marketplace (a Delaware C copr is a great example of people finding those simple solutions). It is hard to think of a really good, functioning part of government, but generally those are the ones we don't even notice. The government is great at handing out money to people, and that is often touted as the only social program we really need. We can reform the broken way it hands out contracts to companies. Here's the thing. Starting over is a fanciful idea, but completely stupid. When you re-build a system, you have to re-build the parts that worked too. And for what it's worth, democracy works and change happens. Yes it sucks that it's slow, but it's sure.
pdkl95 12y ago
This probably depends on how quickly those "bug patches" can be applied. If quick action is taken and the current trend of rewriting laws to be pro-special-interest (often business) to the detriment of the citizens, there I suspect we might be able to save American Democracy. The cutoff line is, very roughly, "does the middle class still exist". If serious, significant fixes are not applied by then, it will be too late. Not only will we have already lost a lot of what the patches should be intended to protect, it is probably impossible to do anything besides a "rewrite" afterwords. It is hard to get people to support "let's save the OLD system" once everything starts going all Robespierre.
AnimalMuppet 12y ago
What if it's not a bug? What if it's a feature? The article likes parliamentary-style democracies, but what happens there is that the party in power can pass pretty much anything it wants, limited only by the members' willingness to go along. American-style checks and balances mean that, even if you have a majority, you can't pass your brilliant idea without selling it to at least some of the minority. I assert that that's a good thing - your idea has to make sense outside your party for you to be able to turn it into law.
- gdwatson 12y ago
  Agreed that checks and balances are good, but the US constitution was written without large, permanent political parties in mind. Take the power of impeachment, the ultimate Congressional trump card against executive overreach. Why has no one seriously advocated its use during the last two administrations? Because history has shown that in practice it isn't a weapon for use by Congress against an overweening president, but rather by one political party against the other.

shillster 12y ago

How do we know we aren't simply replacing one illusion with another?