Gone to Mexico for a month. Blogging correspondence to resume sometime in March.
Hasta luego!
My Blog List
-
-
On reading your text11 years ago
-
Mystical Groceries11 years ago
-
St. Paul Principles and Occupy Denver13 years ago
-
birth of a new blog15 years ago
-
The Line of Dance Is a Circle15 years ago
-
Overland Track - 2e edition16 years ago
-
-
-
8 comments:
enjoy the warmth, shane...
gives me plenty of time to catch up with the dialogue in "burning"
Shane, I've tried several times to respond to your comments concerning my post of 1/8/06 but all have been wiped after the first few days. Apparently my response offends someone with the ability to wipe articles they do not like or that violates some rule I am not aware of. I will try to respond here hoping you will eventually read it.
Reply to Shane
The Electoral College protects us from becoming a dictatorship by preventing our country from becoming a political democracy, Shane. As a political institution, democracy simply does not work. Like communism, by its very nature it opens the way to tyranny. There is an assumption in the political theory of democracy and also in communism that human nature is basically nurturing and that we as humans just naturally care about other humans. That is obviously not always true. As an evolutionist, I believe it is seldom, if ever, true. I know that sounds cynical, but I do not mean for it to be.
We care for one another as a community (for heathens, as a herd; for pagans, as a pack). When the community grows too big for continuous close contact between individuals, the individual either hides (blindly does as he is told and blindly believes what he is told to believe) or asserts himself by organizing or joining a small community (a gang so to speak). If he does not become part of a gang, he becomes either a recluse (an apathetic citizen who hides by no longer caring justifying this heathen response by insisting that even if he did take action it would be futile) or a rogue without honor (though his lack of honor may appear to be exaggerated honor) or an outlaw outside the law (though he may adhere to the letter of the law).
The problem with a community extended beyond personal contact is its difficulty in recognizing and acting against the rogue who operates within the established code of honor in a tribal society or within the law in a dehumanized society, especially the rogue/outlaw who portrays himself as a caring, but pragmatic citizen acting in the best interests of his fellow citizens at the expense of a few, usually the forsaken, forgotten and/or the defenseless. As a rogue he does not hesitate to step outside the code of honor if it is necessary and no one is watching or as an outlaw to break the law under these same circumstances and he will go to great pains to conceal or justify his dishonorable and/or extralegal actions. In the United States we have both a code of honor inherited from our tribal southern states and a code of law inherited from our dehumanized northern states. They often conflict causing considerable confusion, especially in determining just who our rogues (in the view of southern states) and our outlaws (in the view of our northern states) really are.
In a democracy a demagogue (a rogue or outlaw who panders to the majority of the citizenry or who hypnotizes them with his rhetoric or demeanor) has access to instant power sufficient to maintain his influence over the majority of the citizenry while he rewards the more powerful guaranteeing their support thus ultimately making democracy only a pretext to guarantee his continued position of authority. Communism is much the same. The most ruthless person least interested in the welfare of the citizens of the state ultimately seizes control of the state making a mockery of those who foresaw only the best for their fellow citizens.
Democracy is not really a political system in the United States; it is a determination to protect the rights of our minorities. It is inherent in our Bill of Rights, which by the way many of the founders including George Washington felt would be too much of a burden for the federal government to bear and would have much preferred that it be adopted and enforced by the individual states rather than by the nation. A promise was made to include the Bill of Rights as the first amendments to the constitution in order to encourage the number of states necessary to adopt the constitution to do so; a promise those who insisted that these amendments be added to the constitution immediately forgot once the constitution was adopted. They were adopted only because James Madison who opposed them insisted they be adopted because a promise had been made. In my opinion, though I agree with Madison that they have been a hindrance to the effective governing of the nation, this was a great moment in our history not only because it was an honorable gesture but because it incorporated a heart and soul into the country’s governing principles and so into its citizens.
We do not live in a democracy. The idea that we do is a myth; it is not true, but it has truth in it. By protecting the rights of our minorities, by insisting that they have a say in the governance of our nation, by treating those less fortunate than ourselves with respect and occasionally with caring, if simply by caring what each of our citizens says, and above all protecting their right to free speech no matter how much we disagree makes this myth a reality. Democracy is an attitude; not just a willingness to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves, but a determination to do so.
Having said all this, I do agree that corporate interests have, especially in the past few years, pretty much run this country. I would however point out to you that they do so with our permission. Over the past twenty or more years citizens of the United States have increasingly demanded a more authoritarian government. Other than that they have shown little interest in how the country is governed. They do have issues (abortion, creation, prayer in school, etc.), most of which are deeply emotional and have little to do with the actual welfare of the nation Think how much more harmful and pervasive such futile pursuits would become without the buffer of an electoral college.
I am not convinced that we cannot counter the tendency of our fellow citizens to vote for candidates who spend the most money on their campaign and to vote for whoever panders to their emotions, their bigotry, and their credulity. It would take a while, but I think it must start with encouraging neighbors to sit down and talk about neighborhood problems, select a block captain, become more active as a neighborhood in community affairs, start thinking in terms of self interest rather than emotional manipulation, make sacrifices for the immediate neighborhood and sacrifice as a neighborhood for more distant needs rather than through some virtual community (one that seems to exist, but really does not). It would be productive if neighborhoods started voting as neighborhoods for common goals rather than as individuals for party affiliation.
I agree that both parties are too much dependent on what Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, but that is not a problem that can be solved at this moment. I do not agree that there is no difference between the parties. We are rapidly approaching a Royalist encroachment in government structure. This seems to be what the majority of our citizens want. If we were actually a democracy, if there were no Electoral College, there would at this moment be little hope for those who would limit the power of the federal government. We have the opportunity to remove Senators and Representatives who have supported increasing the powers of the president (they will of course be against increasing those powers during the campaign so the past is important).
I would point out also that there are other parties. The two parties that at present pretty much exclude these other parties continue to do so only because we continue to vote where the money tells us to vote. I believe, however, that should any of these other parties become a dominant party, they would rapidly become just as subservient to corporate interests as the present parties. I would further contend that if you or I were elected to Congress we also would willingly and enthusiastically perpetuate the practice of giving access to those who have the money. The solution can come only from an informed populace, not a populace with junk information but one with easily verifiable information and a dependable trust network.
PaulEdward
Hi Paul. Sorry for the long delay. As my last entry indicated, I’ve been out of the country for awhile and haven’t done any blogging. I’ll post this at yours, too.
I don’t know that I have a whole lot more to say about your response. There are too many major issues here to be adequately developed, and I think our terminology is a little too far apart to arrive at any firm conclusions. For one thing, I’m not at all clear about what you mean by Democracy. You’re clearly not using the word in its literal, denotative sense, and I’m not sure I follow your pattern of usage. On one hand, you admit that corporate interests are dominating the country, but then you claim that only an informed populace and better voting (the bedrock of democratic government) can solve that problem.
I’m also not at all clear about what you mean by Dictatorship. Again, saying that a Democracy is a Dictatorship indicates that you’re extending both words beyond their literal meanings. I know dictatorship is often used as a synonym for any oppressive form of government, and if that’s what you mean, then you’re point seems moot. Aren’t you just advocating one oppressive form of government over another—a dictatorship (Democracy) for a dictatorship (The Republic)? If you really think this nation has only recently become a corporate monopoly I suggest you read Zinn’s “The People’s History of the U.S.” Morevoer, if you think corporate interests have started to dominate at the behest of the people, I suggest you do some research into corporate law. There’s a lot of stuff online. (Do a search on Trusts and Law).
As to your claims about the Electoral College curbing abuses of power (and democracy), I don’t have a clue where you’re coming from. It certainly didn’t do that in 2000. In fact, if all the votes had been counted, Gore would’ve won both the electoral and the popular vote. So that wasn’t even an issue. I grant that the Electoral College serves a purpose in preventing states with large populations from being over-represented, but that wasn’t at all the issue in 2000. The issue was that our president was determined by the Supreme Court (a court that ignored its own commitment to state’s rights and went against every precedent they’ve tried to establish during Rehnquist’s tenure) and not by a democratic vote. Moreover, the original justification for the Electoral College—to provide a means for the Nobles to override popular opinion (and Democracy)—is no longer a factor. For that matter, it never has been.
Finally, giving rights to minorities on paper (the Bill of Rights, etc.) doesn’t mean much to me. There are few countries in history that have treated their minorities worse than we do. I shouldn’t have to labor much to make that point. The facts are clear. To me, that makes us a dictatorship (in the broader sense, of course, of being an oppressive State that only serves the interests of the elites).
I do, however, agree with what you said about our communities growing too big for personal contact and the adverse effects that produces. I also agree that the people in power will always serve the interests of the powerful. But I disagree that our problems can be solved as easily as you say (through better-informed voters). To me, America’s problems are systemic and won’t be solved until the whole thing comes crashing down (a subject I’ve dealt with in other blog entries).
Shane
Come back!!
Shane,
Your response to my attempt to make sense of democracy in America has given me much to think about. I'll try to reevaluate my thinking based on your input and try to clarify and reevaluate my thinking concerning Democracy and post the result as one of my monthly posts.
Thanks again for your input. It helps me gain perspective.
Sounds good, Paul. I'll look for your post then. One thing of note: I tried pasting the response you left here onto your blog, but it never appeared. Something strange going on there.
PS Paul: I can't seem to access your site anymore. Something going on with the Progressive Alliance, I think. Maybe it's just temporary, but if I don't respond to your post, that's why.
Shane,
PBA seems to have shut down. I'm in the process of moving my posts and the responses to them to pauledwardsnyder.blogspot.com.
I'll keep accessing your web page. Let me know if the new address works.
Thanks.
Post a Comment