-
Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!
The great political divide.
- Thread starter BlkHawk
- Start date
Chopper3000
Stick with Freeones
Long time lurker, newish poster. I've noticed a lot vitriol in the politics section, so in the spirit of unity let me just say: Obama sucks, Bush sucks, Clinton sucks, Reagan sucks.
Let the left and right unite to tear me a new one.
Wasted on me sorry.
Jack Davenport
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
It does seem that they should be held to a higher standard doesn't it?
Unfortunately, the electorate which has the power to set those standards could care less and so the beat goes on.
BlkHawk
Closed Account
Ultimately we the people are responsible for electing the politicians we have. It is not just voting either, how many people here have stood for any office? My uncle got sick of people he didn't support running for a local seat, and threw his own hat into the ring. Granted he didn't get far, but I admired him for trying.
Spreeuw
One condom isn't enough
I think it is very funny how almost every politician ever (in electoral democracies) always disappoints many people.
The only good politicians in the public mind are those who died before they could disappoint, it would seem.
Many times I have wondered why this is the case, and I think a part of the problem lies in voting itself.
Aside from the many people who let their private interest triumph the public interest (media, lobby, politics, business etc.) and screw up the voting procedure, there might be something wrong with the procedure or the way we see it as well. How it is traditionally seen is that somehow the outcome of the voting procedure is a social choice. A choice of law or a person which has a mandate of the entire community. This is the ideal view. However, when looked at realistically it is more of a game. It is a game which tries to replace violent conflict between social groups in a coordinated rivalry. The minority doesn't feel represented by the "social choice". Rather, they grin and bear it because that is what citizenship (sportsmanship in the game) demands of them. Thus, aside from the lots of cheating that happens in this game I think the disappointment partly stems from unrealistic expectations.
What should be a solution then? I think society would benefit from a widened idea of democracy. We automatically equate democracy to voting, but we forget that the Ancient Greeks (which we call our inspiration) picked their rulers by a random lottery. I think the core of democracy lies not in having elections or not (which is a dichotomous category). Rather, I think democracy is the degree to which consultation between citizens, the government and also other political actors (like the Federal Bank) are characterized by broad, equal, protected and mutually binding consultation. This definition is inspired by the historian Charles Tilly, and I think it opens up other possibilities than a simple vote. For example, when it comes to decisions of a smaller scale deliberation might be used as an instrument. This involves selecting several citizens (selected with a stratified sample), informing them on the issue over the course of several days and let them discuss it. After a few days they should reach a decision. Some experimentation with this is already happening. For example, in Porto Allegra in Brazil, some neighborhoods are given a certain budget and the inhabitant can deliberate and decide themselves how this is spended. The results of this experiment are very positive so far, and the social divides actually lessened (even that one of education).
What is the great political divide? Numerous exist, class, religion, education and they all depend on context. However, there are many ways in which these can be bridged and we are allowed to play in the game we call politics.
The only good politicians in the public mind are those who died before they could disappoint, it would seem.
Many times I have wondered why this is the case, and I think a part of the problem lies in voting itself.
Aside from the many people who let their private interest triumph the public interest (media, lobby, politics, business etc.) and screw up the voting procedure, there might be something wrong with the procedure or the way we see it as well. How it is traditionally seen is that somehow the outcome of the voting procedure is a social choice. A choice of law or a person which has a mandate of the entire community. This is the ideal view. However, when looked at realistically it is more of a game. It is a game which tries to replace violent conflict between social groups in a coordinated rivalry. The minority doesn't feel represented by the "social choice". Rather, they grin and bear it because that is what citizenship (sportsmanship in the game) demands of them. Thus, aside from the lots of cheating that happens in this game I think the disappointment partly stems from unrealistic expectations.
What should be a solution then? I think society would benefit from a widened idea of democracy. We automatically equate democracy to voting, but we forget that the Ancient Greeks (which we call our inspiration) picked their rulers by a random lottery. I think the core of democracy lies not in having elections or not (which is a dichotomous category). Rather, I think democracy is the degree to which consultation between citizens, the government and also other political actors (like the Federal Bank) are characterized by broad, equal, protected and mutually binding consultation. This definition is inspired by the historian Charles Tilly, and I think it opens up other possibilities than a simple vote. For example, when it comes to decisions of a smaller scale deliberation might be used as an instrument. This involves selecting several citizens (selected with a stratified sample), informing them on the issue over the course of several days and let them discuss it. After a few days they should reach a decision. Some experimentation with this is already happening. For example, in Porto Allegra in Brazil, some neighborhoods are given a certain budget and the inhabitant can deliberate and decide themselves how this is spended. The results of this experiment are very positive so far, and the social divides actually lessened (even that one of education).
What is the great political divide? Numerous exist, class, religion, education and they all depend on context. However, there are many ways in which these can be bridged and we are allowed to play in the game we call politics.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
You're right. When I first moved back to this area, I was approached by both Democrats and Republicans to see if I'd be interested in running for an open Board of Supervisors seat. They knew my dad (and that's really how my name got picked out of the hat), but they hadn't even seen me since I was playing high school sports many years before - so they didn't really know much about me (other than I came back home with some money and a fancy car) and they knew nothing about my political views. So I took it that they both just wanted a figurehead or a puppet and I didn't go for it. This was pre-TEA party (for the Repubs), so the crazy extremism and radicalization that we see now wasn't there back then. In reflection, maybe I should have gone for it. I had been a big Perot/United We Stand supporter around that time, so maybe I could have run under that banner or just as an Independent... or even a Libertarian. Maybe I would have won. Maybe I would have lost. But since I didn't even try, I sometimes think that the fact that our county government is fairly fucked up now is something that I contributed to in a certain way. I took about 6 months off from doing anything but raising livestock, shooting guns, fixing up my house and playing with my Border Collie. I figured that recharging my batteries (aka, sitting on my ass) and deciding on what I wanted to do next was more important than contributing to the greater good. I kind of regret that now.
Similar threads
