Is it fair to say that when change comes, that means the mental and spiritual conditions of the individual changed enough to make the systems in place work? Even if the systems in place are still present, maybe we will have better minds to work with them.
From my POV it seems that new forms of government, or changes in the form of government are caused by two things: (1) The population facing extreme difficulties and; (2) Some charismatic individual, or very organized group is forming and directing the mass. It's very surprising. Any time the population is activated in a big way it's trended socialism or fascism. The Greeks do have accounts of their democracies spontaneously emerging as a result of their virtue but every civilization tells myths about itself--I sure hope the Greek case is true tho
The machination is so colossal, spanning eons it seems, rooted in concepts that only echo an ideal- akin to the game "whisper down the lane"....so much intellectualism surrounding humanity, so much research that peers into the habits, behaviors, patterns of what certainly is not working....
-----------
It is a daunting task, seemingly another psy-op within this "Great Flood of Information" that we are living through- to set another point of attention that is outside of any person's reach no matter how much they are aware of it...all the while overlooking the simple action of coming together to collaborate for the sake of creation- not for the sake of war, or revenge, or destruction.
----------
But this takes emotional intelligence, and I would argue that emotional intelligence is the missing piece within the general political theater- and not the "cerebralization of emotional intelligence," talking about emotional intelligence all the while being unhinged on one end or paralyzed on the other- but rather the actualization of emotional intelligence.
Voting is good for taking the temperature of the room and not much more. When it identifies a major majority...action can then follow without wasting anymore time
Thanks DJ - I appreciate your work. More people need to become acquainted with basic civics to at least understand there are some principles worth voting for and voting against. I take your point as to public opinion's impact on policy making to a point, because remember, the public still has the right to elect its representatives and that, at least in some measure gives voice to public opinion, doesn't it?
To the extent representatives constitute a sort of oligarchy - if I had to choose, I would prefer 535 elected oligarchs who might actually vote as their vote voters intended them to vote to a few billionaires behind the scenes pulling all the strings. I think our elected representatives still pull a few of them, at least the good ones who usually don't stay too long. Ironically, the fact that it takes big money to get into high office also has the possibility side benefit of independence- a representative wealthy enough to not be beholden to donors. Sort of like Trump if I dare say.
It's been way too long since I've cracked Plato's Republic, etc. and you know a lot more than I do so I really appreciate the good reading. I agree that we mostly agree.
One thing to keep in mind though - if you ever have a choice between a greater and a lesser evil, choose the lesser one! Multiple oligarchs trumps one dictator or king I reckon.
It is a great article, but in my opinion, not because we need to be "wary of trumps." From the point of view that the good - even the marginally better - is not the enemy of the perfect, I submit that our particular constitutionally limited representative democratic republic is the best form of big government.
I disagree with the contention that
"The very instant that there are Representatives, the government is no longer Democratic."
A direct democracy was not enshrine in our constitution because our founders knew their history. They were worried about what some characterize as "mob rule" - where a 50.01% majority can cram down their will on a 49.99% minority. We are a Republic with certain Democratic features - and yes, I concede certain oligarchic features - so I cringe when I hear people refer to us as a democracy. Thankfully, we are not.
Vertical and horizontal divisions of power and other checks and balances of the US constitution very intentionally impede ability to usurp total control by a slim majority. There are many examples of protections against direct democracy in the Constitution and the high court's interpretation of same. A recent example in play is why absent a 60 vote majority on budgetary matters, budget reconciliation maneuvering is necessary. A future example will be the debate over the birthright clause of the 14th amendment. When you go beyond Trump's verbal shorthand and inaccuracies and TV "news" level "analysis", the issue will be the true meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Also, the meaning of the word "democracy" matters. Take a look at who was elected when Rumsfeld's freedom and democracy in Iraq materialized.
Today, voting is certainly an element of any democratic system, but that does not mean people will NOT vote for authoritarian rule.
It was amusing to watch Biden warn of the coming oligarchy when I think that guy was a figurehead at best, and was governed by creatures of the radical left.
So to the extent oligarchic forces existed / exist under any president, our brilliant Constitution acts as a counter-measure - a buffer against totalitarianism - to slow the pace of change in any direction, including the wrong ones.
If this were not true, the Trump billionaires could not have defeated the Biden billionaires with a little assistance from us "plebes." I of course am being facetious because I respect the right of the people, and just because there are bad forces in the world that include existing or would be oligarchs, does not mean that the People are without power.
It is not irrelevant that some oligarchs are better than others!
Finally, I believe there are modern day examples of governments people consider to be democracies becoming despotic. In the interest of not generating off topic debate, I will refrain from further elaboration of my opinion in these regards.
Outstanding points. I'll address some of these for anyone else that reads.
First, I assert that the only valid definition of democracy is the Greek one. That is, a government in which the people are directly sovereign and wield power. The instant that there are representatives, the form changes to aristocracy, oligarchy, or some other rule by a small elite. The addition of democratic elements does not turn it into a Democracy, because power is still wielded by said "Representatives."
And this is not just theoretical. A Princeton/Northwestern study found that public opinion has a near zero impact on policymaking, and that is not an exaggeration. Oligarchic opinion, meanwhile, drives policymaking almost exclusively. We have to apply Michels. The second there are Representatives, the rule by a special elite begins; subtle in the start, irresistible by the end.
I do not agree that the United States is a Republic. Again, because power and sovereignty are not transferable without relinquishing them. But the additional reason is that the original purpose of a Republic or Polity was to establish parity between elite and common interest. And it did this not by the vote, but by the rotation of offices (Greek) or through parallel institutions (Rome). Tangible power. Representation via the vote did NOT make a government Republican in the past. Even Machiavelli understood a Republic as needing regular ascension of the common folk to certain offices for it to function.
Here, I invoke Aristotle who sees a republic as a mixture of Democracy and Oligarchy. And he specifically says that the republic leans more toward Democracy. The United States, in my view, is definitely not a republic because the mixture is not even close to 50/50. It is overwhelmingly and decisively in the direction of Oligarchy, and arguably, it always has been. The reason this is a problem, "good" oligarchs or not, is that every rule by a small elite is doomed to either collapse, revolt or tyranny.
The main thing I want people to take away from this piece is that you cannot rely on the elites to balance each other; on good elites that you vote for to balance the bad elites that your neighbor did. Republics and Polities only work when the common people themselves balance against the elites through tangibly existing institutions, and the VOTE DOES NOT SUFFICE (I encourage people to study campaign finance law to find out why).
In any case, I think we mostly agree and your comments explained a lot, Thanks.
Is it fair to say that when change comes, that means the mental and spiritual conditions of the individual changed enough to make the systems in place work? Even if the systems in place are still present, maybe we will have better minds to work with them.
From my POV it seems that new forms of government, or changes in the form of government are caused by two things: (1) The population facing extreme difficulties and; (2) Some charismatic individual, or very organized group is forming and directing the mass. It's very surprising. Any time the population is activated in a big way it's trended socialism or fascism. The Greeks do have accounts of their democracies spontaneously emerging as a result of their virtue but every civilization tells myths about itself--I sure hope the Greek case is true tho
The machination is so colossal, spanning eons it seems, rooted in concepts that only echo an ideal- akin to the game "whisper down the lane"....so much intellectualism surrounding humanity, so much research that peers into the habits, behaviors, patterns of what certainly is not working....
-----------
It is a daunting task, seemingly another psy-op within this "Great Flood of Information" that we are living through- to set another point of attention that is outside of any person's reach no matter how much they are aware of it...all the while overlooking the simple action of coming together to collaborate for the sake of creation- not for the sake of war, or revenge, or destruction.
----------
But this takes emotional intelligence, and I would argue that emotional intelligence is the missing piece within the general political theater- and not the "cerebralization of emotional intelligence," talking about emotional intelligence all the while being unhinged on one end or paralyzed on the other- but rather the actualization of emotional intelligence.
Voting is good for taking the temperature of the room and not much more. When it identifies a major majority...action can then follow without wasting anymore time
Thanks DJ - I appreciate your work. More people need to become acquainted with basic civics to at least understand there are some principles worth voting for and voting against. I take your point as to public opinion's impact on policy making to a point, because remember, the public still has the right to elect its representatives and that, at least in some measure gives voice to public opinion, doesn't it?
To the extent representatives constitute a sort of oligarchy - if I had to choose, I would prefer 535 elected oligarchs who might actually vote as their vote voters intended them to vote to a few billionaires behind the scenes pulling all the strings. I think our elected representatives still pull a few of them, at least the good ones who usually don't stay too long. Ironically, the fact that it takes big money to get into high office also has the possibility side benefit of independence- a representative wealthy enough to not be beholden to donors. Sort of like Trump if I dare say.
It's been way too long since I've cracked Plato's Republic, etc. and you know a lot more than I do so I really appreciate the good reading. I agree that we mostly agree.
One thing to keep in mind though - if you ever have a choice between a greater and a lesser evil, choose the lesser one! Multiple oligarchs trumps one dictator or king I reckon.
It is a great article, but in my opinion, not because we need to be "wary of trumps." From the point of view that the good - even the marginally better - is not the enemy of the perfect, I submit that our particular constitutionally limited representative democratic republic is the best form of big government.
I disagree with the contention that
"The very instant that there are Representatives, the government is no longer Democratic."
A direct democracy was not enshrine in our constitution because our founders knew their history. They were worried about what some characterize as "mob rule" - where a 50.01% majority can cram down their will on a 49.99% minority. We are a Republic with certain Democratic features - and yes, I concede certain oligarchic features - so I cringe when I hear people refer to us as a democracy. Thankfully, we are not.
Vertical and horizontal divisions of power and other checks and balances of the US constitution very intentionally impede ability to usurp total control by a slim majority. There are many examples of protections against direct democracy in the Constitution and the high court's interpretation of same. A recent example in play is why absent a 60 vote majority on budgetary matters, budget reconciliation maneuvering is necessary. A future example will be the debate over the birthright clause of the 14th amendment. When you go beyond Trump's verbal shorthand and inaccuracies and TV "news" level "analysis", the issue will be the true meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Also, the meaning of the word "democracy" matters. Take a look at who was elected when Rumsfeld's freedom and democracy in Iraq materialized.
Today, voting is certainly an element of any democratic system, but that does not mean people will NOT vote for authoritarian rule.
It was amusing to watch Biden warn of the coming oligarchy when I think that guy was a figurehead at best, and was governed by creatures of the radical left.
So to the extent oligarchic forces existed / exist under any president, our brilliant Constitution acts as a counter-measure - a buffer against totalitarianism - to slow the pace of change in any direction, including the wrong ones.
If this were not true, the Trump billionaires could not have defeated the Biden billionaires with a little assistance from us "plebes." I of course am being facetious because I respect the right of the people, and just because there are bad forces in the world that include existing or would be oligarchs, does not mean that the People are without power.
It is not irrelevant that some oligarchs are better than others!
Finally, I believe there are modern day examples of governments people consider to be democracies becoming despotic. In the interest of not generating off topic debate, I will refrain from further elaboration of my opinion in these regards.
Cheers!
Outstanding points. I'll address some of these for anyone else that reads.
First, I assert that the only valid definition of democracy is the Greek one. That is, a government in which the people are directly sovereign and wield power. The instant that there are representatives, the form changes to aristocracy, oligarchy, or some other rule by a small elite. The addition of democratic elements does not turn it into a Democracy, because power is still wielded by said "Representatives."
And this is not just theoretical. A Princeton/Northwestern study found that public opinion has a near zero impact on policymaking, and that is not an exaggeration. Oligarchic opinion, meanwhile, drives policymaking almost exclusively. We have to apply Michels. The second there are Representatives, the rule by a special elite begins; subtle in the start, irresistible by the end.
I do not agree that the United States is a Republic. Again, because power and sovereignty are not transferable without relinquishing them. But the additional reason is that the original purpose of a Republic or Polity was to establish parity between elite and common interest. And it did this not by the vote, but by the rotation of offices (Greek) or through parallel institutions (Rome). Tangible power. Representation via the vote did NOT make a government Republican in the past. Even Machiavelli understood a Republic as needing regular ascension of the common folk to certain offices for it to function.
Here, I invoke Aristotle who sees a republic as a mixture of Democracy and Oligarchy. And he specifically says that the republic leans more toward Democracy. The United States, in my view, is definitely not a republic because the mixture is not even close to 50/50. It is overwhelmingly and decisively in the direction of Oligarchy, and arguably, it always has been. The reason this is a problem, "good" oligarchs or not, is that every rule by a small elite is doomed to either collapse, revolt or tyranny.
The main thing I want people to take away from this piece is that you cannot rely on the elites to balance each other; on good elites that you vote for to balance the bad elites that your neighbor did. Republics and Polities only work when the common people themselves balance against the elites through tangibly existing institutions, and the VOTE DOES NOT SUFFICE (I encourage people to study campaign finance law to find out why).
In any case, I think we mostly agree and your comments explained a lot, Thanks.
A great article. explains much history and how we need to be wary of trumps!