And elections should take place over two days and on weekends, to maximize participation. Still, if we could get through the five points above, the US would truly be a remarkable democracy, though still not “the best.” Instead, it is rotting away, and the stench is becoming unbearable.
_(cropped).jpg)
3 weeks ago in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
I'm not exactly down the "all forms of lobbying should be outlawed". Would you also prevent groups like the pro-LGBT Human Rights Commission from lobbying?
ReplyDeleteAnd "Two parties is democracy on life support" is something I used to believe, but it turns out to be completely wrong. A two-party system has the advantage of encouraging centrism. The bigger problem is that our "center" has veered wildly to the right over the past few decades.
I also am not sure that maximizing participation in elections really does all that much good. Most people I encounter on a daily basis are idiots; I don't want more of them voting! heh...
His other three points I mostly agree with. I have mixed feelings about a honest-to-goodness Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style filibuster, as a means for the minority to exert some back pressure against legislation they really really really disagree with. But the current 40-votes-and-you're-screwed filibuster is crap. We might even see it go away in the near future.
The non-proportional representation of the Senate, and the corporations-as-individuals? Both are total ass, but good luck changing them, ever. Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime, probably not in my son's lifetime.
Whoops, that was me above there (you could probably tell by my characteristic long-windedness and excessive parenthetical remarks!). Didn't realize I was logged in with my wife's Google account :)
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly down the "all forms of lobbying should be outlawed". Would you also prevent groups like the pro-LGBT Human Rights Commission from lobbying?
ReplyDeleteWell, while I do personally support the pro-LGBT agenda of equal rights irrespective of sexual orientation, we obviously can't allow some but not all to lobby. The practice of using a lot of money to persuade politicians is bad no matter what your agenda is, IMO.
And "Two parties is democracy on life support" is something I used to believe, but it turns out to be completely wrong. A two-party system has the advantage of encouraging centrism. The bigger problem is that our "center" has veered wildly to the right over the past few decades.
But many parties encourages centrism, too. Here I think the solution is to allow different parties to form alliances, like in many other democracies, instead of this winner-takes-all system.
Well clearly a multi-party system only works at all if they can form alliances... but it still potentially legitimizes radicalism, because radical parties can get representatives and then form alliances with more mainstream parties. Of course, that means their policies in practice are centralized, but their agenda can still potentially be radicalized.
ReplyDelete*shrug* There's definitely advantages to a parliamentary approach, I just don't think it's fair to say that a two-party system is "democracy on life support". Democracy can function quite well with a two-party system. As long as both parties have a valid platform. Which is not the case any longer in the US...
I would say the republican party is already radical.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, or at least disturbingly large elements of it are. And if the GOP survives in its current form for more than another 5 or 10 years, without jettisoning the teabaggers/birthers/deathers/etc., I feel that would disprove my assertion.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the Republican party can continue to function like this. Either it will fracture, a la the Dixiecrats; or it will become marginalized and the Democratic party will fracture instead (the latter being my dream scenario... The Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Democrats would, IMO, be a pretty balanced two-party system. Of course I'd be with the liberal ones all the way ;D ). Of course this is probably all wishful thinking... I really hope not, though, because if it is I might have to start heeding my wife's exhortations to look for a job in Denmark...
Interesting scenario. I am doubtful that something like this will happen so soon, though.
ReplyDeleteAs for Denmark, democracy, health care, and education are (largely) working very well, but there are other things that one could argue doesn't, though some of those might be things that the Danes don't aspire much to. Like fantastic nature (e.g. Denmark is flat - highest point is about 142 meters), cultural diversity, Fox News, a space program, basketball, blues, me, natural disasters, creationist politicians, superpower, Alaskan salmon, Hollywood, and the Natural History Magazine.
America does indeed have the awesome in a number of respects. Once you get over the ingrained-from-birth "We have to be #1 in everything!" mentality we have here, it is easy to be proud of this nation's accomplishments, without feeling the need to gloss over or sugarcoat its major failings and shameful abuses.
ReplyDeleteBut there's gotta be some kind of hope that the problems can be fixed, or at least that progress can be made. The fact that a discussion as complicated as how to get the US into universal healthcare got reduced to an argument over death panels does not give me much hope.
That America is very late to the healthcare game in comparison to other developed nations? That's I can live with. That we just can't make any progress at all? Not so much...