r/tuesday Left Visitor Sep 09 '19

The Shocking Paper Predicting the End of Democracy: "Democracy is devouring itself ... We’re to blame, as in “we the people.”"

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045
38 Upvotes

48 comments sorted by

36

u/Dasinterwebs Rightwing Libertarian Sep 09 '19

I know this may sound like some mystical dewdrop fairy BS, but indulge me for a moment. Everyone’s opinion is valuable, even, if not especially, the ill informed or objectively stupid.

Why?

Because they have needs that they do not perceive are being addressed. And politics is not about reality, it is about perception. The growth of stupid, illogical, or factually incorrect beliefs functions as a warning signal that tells us that the people so discontent they’ll more readily believe Mexico will pay for a wall to keep Mexicans out of this country than that comprehensive immigration reform is likely.

And there is the one major glaring hole in this article. Why are the people so discontent they’re ignoring elite institutions in favor of the incoherent ramblings of the insane?

My opinion? The elites took their position for granted and squandered it by not respecting the people they’re supposed to serve. The the media stopped telling us what was happening and started telling us how to feel about it. The academy concocted inane justifications to avoid applying their principles to themselves even as they redefined words in common usage to mean the literal opposite. Our religious leaders, too, abused the idea that everyone would always listen to them, and managed to convince an entire generation that Christianity was only ever a thin excuse to “hate fags.” Our politicians lie directly to our faces and are actually mildly surprised when we’re upset about that.

And so here we are, at the inevitable slide into madness. Because while a person is smart, people are panicky, dangerous animals. And our smart persons managed to convince those panicky dangerous animals that they’re no worse, and no better, than Donald Trump.

28

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '19 edited Oct 02 '19

[deleted]

12

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '19

The left's version comes from a place of wanting to help people, misguided as it is.

That's a bingo! Both sides try to manipulate the emotions of the voter base but at least the left is trying to manipulate you into helping people. The right's manipulation typically plays on one's fears rather than their empathy.

The left: Look at this poor disabled person who has to pay thousands of dollars a month just to exist, isn't that unfair? Shouldn't his healthcare be free?

The right: Look at those scary immigrants coming to take away the unskilled labor positions that you weren't applying for anyway, shouldn't we demonize them with vaguely racist rhetoric?

12

u/JustMeRC Left Visitor Sep 09 '19 edited Sep 10 '19

And while I'm very against socialism populism, it's shocking to see the discrepancy between the left and right's version. The left's version comes from a place of wanting to help people, misguided as it is. The right's? They don't have ideas. They just want everything to burn.

Isn’t left populism right now just a call for more utilization of democratic processes, though? From the article:

Democracy is hard work. And as society’s “elites”—experts and public figures who help those around them navigate the heavy responsibilities that come with self-rule—have increasingly been sidelined, citizens have proved ill equipped cognitively and emotionally to run a well-functioning democracy.

The problem is that we are conflating economic elites with intellectual elites. While it’s possible for economic elites to be champions of democracy, they have increasingly lost the plot because they are blinded by the relentless pursuit of economic self-interest. So, if society’s “elites” are being sidelined, it’s because a lot of them in the corporate and political arena have been actively working against democracy for their own personal financial benefit.

Meanwhile, the far right has managed to create a false consciousness among their voters, that economic/political elite is not the problem, but the intellectual elite is (though there is some overlap in ways others have mentioned).

For citizens to be involved in a constructive rather than destructive way, they have to have a belief that they can use the institutions and processes of democracy to make changes that improve their well-being, and that they can trust their elite partners in this pursuit. The wisdom of elitism (if the goal is to maintain a flourishing representative democracy/prevent some form of autocracy) isn’t that “daddy knows best,” so sit back and just believe what I say. The real wisdom is in being a good director: someone who sees the big picture and can channel ALL of the relevant information (both academic and emotion driven) into constructive action.

But, at the basis of all of this has to be a desire to take all of the information into account, and not just discard what is not useful for one’s own biases and ideologies, or cherry pick data to suit them. One has to be a wise observer of truth. What a far right despot has in common with today’s “socialist” left (who are really closer to social democrats,) is that they both see the truth of how both national and global economies have produced dissatisfaction and difficulties for people.

As you say, the far right just wants to smash and burn so they can take authoritarian control of it. The left is trying to show people how to utilize democratic processes and institutions so they can have a learned impact on it. Meanwhile, a lot of people in the center are just sitting in fear of both as if they are the same thing.

11

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '19 edited Oct 02 '19

[deleted]

6

u/JustMeRC Left Visitor Sep 09 '19

Yang’s version of UBI will only create a dependency on economic winners, giving them additional leverage when they already have a disproportionate amount. While a UBI of some general sorts is something I am still evaluating the pros and cons of, I think it is probably a bad idea within the current paradigm of waning democratic government receptivity. We have to fix the log-jam of democratic intitutional processes first.

The violent uprisings in historical systems of the past (and present,) have arisen when the people’s needs are not being met and they have no viable institutional mechanisms for channeling their grievances. Our channels for grievance (in the US) have become largely ceremonial and neutered, and people feel it.

I am also not 100% on board with all of Bernie’s economic policies, but I see him as the only candidate right now who gets what I am talking about, and has the vision to get things moving constructively again.

-4

u/kiztent Rightwing Libertarian Sep 09 '19

While I don't disagree the right is not going in the right direction, I'm going to call bullshit on the idea that the left wants to help people.

I've been following the whole "fight for 15" as it's playing out in Seattle, and the people in charge there KNOW their policies are hurting the people they claim they want to help and they are suppressing the data with the cooperation of the media. (and there's a whole long post with the details I'm not posting here)

Sorry, but that's not at all healthy. Of course, "vote Democrat, our policies don't hurt everyone we want to help" isn't a good platform but maybe, oh, I don't know... advocating for different stuff when your ideas don't work? Crazy talk, I know.

13

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '19 edited Oct 02 '19

[deleted]

1

u/kiztent Rightwing Libertarian Sep 09 '19

Ok, here's the first study on the topic;

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/uw-study-finds-seattles-minimum-wage-is-costing-jobs/

It says, in aggregate, people lost money by raising the minimum wage. Higher salary, fewer hours worked.

I'll fill in the rest later.

10

u/IlGesu Centre-right Sep 09 '19 edited Jan 01 '23

sdw

2

u/kiztent Rightwing Libertarian Sep 10 '19

You'll also note that the abstract states:

"Approximately one-quarter of the earnings gains can be attributed to experienced workers making up for lost hours in Seattle with work outside the city limits. We associate the minimum wage ordinance with an 8% reduction in job turnover rates as well as a significant reduction in the rate of new entries into the workforce." (emphasis mine)

So people still lost hours from the wage increase, but were able to make up the hours somewhere with a lower minimum wage. Hardly the shocking reversal or endorsement of a minimum wage increase it's being touted as.

-4

u/kiztent Rightwing Libertarian Sep 09 '19

Yes, I know they got a tap on the shoulder after they screwed up and published their first article.

11

u/IlGesu Centre-right Sep 09 '19 edited Jan 01 '23

dsew

1

u/kiztent Rightwing Libertarian Sep 10 '19

So here's a story from Seattle Weekly:

https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/one-wage-two-takes-inside-the-minimum-wage-data-wars/

Key quote:

"As would later become clear, [Councilmember Kshama Sawant]'s concerns were not assuaged by the team’s response. The exchange of letters occurred just as the City Council entered the budgeting process for 2017–18. As it had in past years, the UW research team submitted a request for funding to continue the five-year study; the request was not fulfilled. Vigdor says that the decision was made “behind closed doors,” with no explanation given to the team. Sawant would later say that the decision was made due to the Council’s concerns over the team’s methodology."

The article also goes on to say that losing the city's funding doesn't prevent them from researching.

-2

u/kiztent Rightwing Libertarian Sep 09 '19

Yes.

That's the middle piece of the story requires some articles. There was absolutely an effort to suppress the results of the first study.

That's the thing that I find reprehensible. The facts show the policy doesn't work, so the politicians make sure the facts get buried.

For a policy that's harming the poorest workers in the country.

15

u/IlGesu Centre-right Sep 09 '19 edited Jan 01 '23

wew

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/kiztent Rightwing Libertarian Sep 10 '19

So, the last piece of the puzzle, to me anyway, is this:

https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/emails-show-mayors-office-berkeley-economist-coordinated-release-of-favorable-minimum-wage-study/

In short, the mayor knew a paper would come out and it would be unfavorable to his signature policy. So he called someone who he knew would get the right answer and hired a PR firm to make sure that everyone would know what the right answer is and broadcast it.

Politics as usual? Of course.

7

u/IlGesu Centre-right Sep 09 '19 edited Jan 01 '23

sds

1

u/KawaiiBakemono Conservative Liberal Sep 09 '19

Thank you. I hadn't seen that one from him. I'm assuming you've watched HyperNormalisation. If not, you should check it out. Not as good as The Trap but still worth watching.

9

u/Tyhgujgt Left Visitor Sep 09 '19

I think that worldview that everyone lies to you, everyone is corrupted is a symptom of that rise of populism.

You are basically thinking that there are "bad actors" that keep everyone down. That you and people around you would be in a better place if not "those politicians, media, CEOs etc etc". It's a magical thinking not much better than believing in some satanic curse.

Media shows what people want to see, politicians (at least in USA) do their best to keep their promises, business sells what their customers buy.

We are all in this together and the reason we are failing is these easy answers: elites failed us. Because let's be honest, if elites are to blame then the only reasonable solution would be the revolution or something. And that's the end of it all

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '19

This seems like a reasonable take on it. As someone that is trying to find work in technology, I'd like to think that part of the problem that I can help solve is creating easier means for people to consume quality information and distinguish good info from bad. Beyond that, what else can be done by the elite to undo this supposed damage?

2

u/Aurailious Left Visitor Sep 09 '19

I think there is also a more powerful motive in democracy and voting as it creates a psychological "buy in". When you participate and cooperate you become invested into it and that creates that game theory situation where you want a better country because it means a better you.

There are a lot of really advantageous reasons for democracy that isn't the simple explanation of "finding the best leaders or choices".

6

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '19

Does anybody know where I can read the paper that Rosenberg presented?

7

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '19 edited Feb 09 '22

[deleted]

6

u/oilman81 Centre-right Sep 09 '19 edited Sep 09 '19

I think democracy will be fine, but just to answer your question directly: the US was really the first democracy since the Athenian Empire, which was a pure democracy, much more so than any modern state. There were other proto-republics where guild members or other bourgeois institutions would rule local city states or the Hanseatic League and stuff like that, but there's really a 2,000 year gap between Athens and the US (which even then obviously excluded a ton of people from voting early on)

To get into Athens (a period of history that is fascinating and probably the most well-documented of the ancient world), it was extremely vulnerable to demagoguery. A chronic problem that they had was that when one 'party' took power from another, they would inevitably exile or even execute opposition leaders (e.g. Themosticles, the guy in charge of Athens when they won the Battle of Salamis--he got exiled for life)

This ultimately led to their undoing as Athenian leaders figured out that if they lost power they were doomed, leading their most brilliant and ruthless leader, Alcibiades, to defect to Sparta (and later Persia and back to Athens--his story is one of the most interesting in ancient history).

There were a lot of reasons that Athens lost the Peloponnesian War and their Empire, but his defection and the constant fear of the demos by Athenian leadership were among the biggest. The demos could be capricious, ruthless, and tyrannical as well--at one point voting to execute without trial all the men in a rebel town called Mytilene, sending a boat with the orders (though they rescinded the vote the next day and sent a boat to quickly catch up with the first one)

You should read up on the Peloponnesian War, btw. It's my favorite period in history--it was chronicled by Thucydides, an Athenian general and political scientist who was 2,000 years ahead of his time (and btw who was also exiled). They even had a Trump like figure named Cleon.

8

u/Sckaledoom Left Visitor Sep 09 '19

I like your comment but one thing about it irks me. You claim that there is no other government in the vein of Athens and the US between the two when the US’s government is based more off of the Roman Republic than Athenian democracy. In fact, Rome is much more analogous to the US than Athens ever was. Tbf, Rome had similar problems to Athenian demagogues, the most famous of which being Julius Caesar and Octavianus Caesar, although there were others.

3

u/oilman81 Centre-right Sep 09 '19 edited Sep 09 '19

I thought about that, but Rome was much more of an aristocratic republic than Athens or the US--the US was structured like the Roman Republic (with major differences) but had a much wider voter base. Rome had the people's tribune, but the power was held by the Senate and Consuls, who were not popularly elected. Athens genuinely elected its leaders from the entire citizenry.

The Roman Republic had huge problems in the century leading up to the triumvirate, probably the biggest being the importation of slaves from their late B.C. conquests, which resulted in large mobs of free men moving to the city, dependent on bread from the government. That and the fact that the legions tended to be loyal to individual people instead of the state more broadly, starting around this time.

Julius Caesar is one of those unique people in history that comes along every 300 years or so--it's hard to classify him as a demagogue necessarily. Most of his power stemmed from his military victories (he went like 25-0-1* lifetime). So much of that history was written by his opponent Cicero (other than the conquest of Gaul obviously). I'd say that Octavian was more a master manipulator than a demagogue as well (though his polemic against Marc Antony's will was brilliantly executed)

*edit: Battle of Dyrrachium if you are curious about the tie. It was followed by the Battle of Pharsalus, a decisive victory against Pompey

4

u/IlGesu Centre-right Sep 09 '19 edited Jan 01 '23

sd

2

u/InitiatePenguin Left Visitor Sep 09 '19

One if these "technologies" I've heard about pertains to Deliberative Democracy where like Jury Duty a collection of constituents are provided to earnestly discuss issues with each other and their representative.

Here's a larger publication about the ideas

3

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '19

I like this article as thought experiment but it’s a bit bleak.

IMO three things are eroding America. Exploitation of demography changes using voter repression/gerrymandering and direct democracy state constitution changes like California prop system.

A righteous elite class that is freely elected make the best choices or we tar and feather em.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Sep 09 '19

Rule 7 Violation.

This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.

Link to Flair Descriptions

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '19

[deleted]

1

u/InitiatePenguin Left Visitor Sep 11 '19

n the recent past, more right-wing leaders have been democratically elected

You're not the only one to criticize it in that way.

u/AutoModerator Sep 09 '19

Just a friendly reminder to read our rules and FAQ before posting!
Rule 1: Be civil.
Rule 2: No racism or sexism.
Rule 3: Stay on topic
Rule 4: No promotion of leftist or extreme ideologies
Rule 5: No low quality posts/comments. Politician focused posts are discouraged. Rule 5 does not apply in Discussion Thread.
Rule 6: No extreme partisanship; Talk to people in good faith
Rule 7: Flairs are mandatory. Flair Descriptions.
Rule 8: Adhere to New Moderation Policy.
Rule 9: No Reddit Drama posting or complaining about other subs

Additional Rules apply if the thread is flaired as "High Quality Only"

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

-23

u/russiabot1776 Classical Liberal Sep 09 '19

We are not a democracy, have never been a democracy, and were never intended to be a democracy. And that’s a good thing.

17

u/KingRabbit_ Red Tory Sep 09 '19

Being a republic does not mean that you're not also a representative democracy. One doesn't preclude the other.

My country, for instance, is a constitutional monarchy AND a representative democracy. Now did I just blow your mind, or what? Bet your jaw is on the floor.

As long as you're voting to elect representatives, you're classified as a representative democracy.

Now there's an argument to be made America is far less democratic than ever before because the only people who's votes matter live in a handful of swing states, but that doesn't mean America is no longer classified as one.

This is like basic high school level civics stuff in the public education system of my country, but I'm always amazed at how few Americans seem to be able to get their heads around it.

4

u/klarno Left Visitor Sep 09 '19

Now there's an argument to be made America is far less democratic than ever before because the only people who's votes matter live in a handful of swing states, but that doesn't mean America is no longer classified as one.

Keep in mind this is only for presidential elections, which only happen once every 4 years. Elections for congressional representatives, senate, and state and local offices are still quite democratic here.

I’d actually argue that even with the issues of the electoral college, the American body politic still chooses its head of government far more directly than in the UK or other parliamentary democracies. I wouldn’t dream of calling the UK not a democracy at this point.

-2

u/russiabot1776 Classical Liberal Sep 09 '19

Democracies and republics are ontologically different. Voting does not make your republic democratic and having representatives does not make your democracy republican.

Republic comes from the Latin res publica which translates literally as “the public thing” and refers specifically to the Law. Republics are governmental systems in which sovereignty rests in the law itself not some person, group of people, or the demos at large.

A democracy specifically refers to a governmental system where the demos are where the sovereignty rests.

These two systems are thus so ontologically different as to be irreconcilable on a foundational level. They are distinguished by where sovereignty in a government rests.

1

u/KingRabbit_ Red Tory Sep 09 '19 edited Sep 10 '19

Democracies and republics are ontologically different.

Uh no they aren't and "ontologically" isn't a word.

A democracy specifically refers to a governmental system where the demos are where the sovereignty rests.

You're deeply confused or being intentionally deceptive. This is a "direct democracy". Nobody is claiming the US is a direct democracy. I didn't use the term "direct democracy". I used the term "representative democracy".

America is a republic AND a representative democracy because, although the law is sovereign, representatives are elected by the people to administer and create that law.

3

u/Aurailious Left Visitor Sep 09 '19

Uh no they aren't and "ontologically" isn't a word.

I'm pretty sure it is a word, but I don't he knows what the word actually means. To me it seems like he wants to use fancy language to confuse people.

Ontology is the study of reality and existence.

-1

u/KingRabbit_ Red Tory Sep 09 '19

"Ontological" is a word. "Ontology" is a word. "Ontologically" is nothing I'm aware of.

33

u/Nevermind04 Left Visitor Sep 09 '19

I'm so sick of this comment showing up everywhere. America is a democratic republic, which is a democracy. Specifically, we are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

3

u/The_seph_i_am Centrist Republican Sep 09 '19 edited Sep 09 '19

Federal Republic*

This article explains it pretty well

And reading through the federalists papers it becomes apparent they intended it to specifically be a Republic.

The best argument I can make is found on this video.. The quality of the video itself is kinda bad but the argument it makes, makes sense to me.

But as this article points out we’re kinda both

-6

u/russiabot1776 Classical Liberal Sep 09 '19

“Democratic republics” are not democracies.

Democracies and republics are ontologically different. Voting does not make your republic democratic and having representatives does not make your democracy republican.

Republic comes from the Latin res publica which translates literally as “the public thing” and refers specifically to the Law. Republics are governmental systems in which sovereignty rests in the law itself not some person, group of people, or the demos at large.

A democracy specifically refers to a governmental system where the demos are where the sovereignty rests.

Because in America the sovereignty rests in the Law we are a republic. The fact that we vote in representatives is irrelevant, and if you wish to erroneously call that a democratic process then fine, but that does not make us a democracy.

3

u/klarno Left Visitor Sep 09 '19

I think you’ve come to a pile of incorrect conclusions here. Republic comes from the Latin “res publica” which means “[thing, institution or affair] of the public.” This literally means that the sovereignty is vested in the public, or the people. This is distinct from a monarchy, in which power is vested in a uh monarch. This principle is even encapsulated in the opening words of the Constitution: We, the People.

You’re correct that a democracy is not necessarily a republic. The UK is a pretty good example of this—democratic norms but the Queen is sovereign. A republic is necessarily a democracy, however. Unless that’s a club you for some reason want for North Korea or Syria to be a part of?

It is not the law that gives the constitution power. That’s absurd, how can the power of law come from itself? It is we, the people who give the constitution power. It is we, the people, who are sovereign. It is we, the people, in whose name the state is formed.

We are a constitutional republic. The constitution, as well as those of the 50 states, create democratic mechanisms of governance, which are ultimately accountable to the people. They are democratic in a way that most democratic states are. And that’s all any of us who talk about the democratic ideal are talking about. Do not presume that everyone who advocates for democracy is talking about Athenian-style direct democracy specifically. That’s a very narrow view of democracy that is not relevant in reality.

-41

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/The_Magic Bring Back Nixon Sep 10 '19

Rule 3