THAT is an exceptional analysis. I’m going to save it. It explains a lot. And in confession, back when I was parenting young children in the 80s, I didn’t have energy left over for the quest for truth. But, it wasn’t as hard then, before the explosion of social media and alternative “news” organizations.
THAT is an exceptional analysis. I’m going to save it. It explains a lot. And in confession, back when I was parenting young children in the 80s, I didn’t have energy left over for the quest for truth. But, it wasn’t as hard then, before the explosion of social media and alternative “news” organizations.
I’ve often thought about the possibility that a benevolent dictatorship is an interesting model for governing a large country, as opposed to our currently messy and often malevolent democracy, which is quite distressing.
I’m a huge fan of personal agency. But damn! It can be exhausting! Maybe the detail that’s exhausting is the contradiction between thinking we have agency when we really don’t?
Trust seems to be the fulcrum, as you say. I use that when I’m voting for obscure positions like judges, and I don’t know the individuals. In addition to reading about their qualifications in the voter pamphlet, I look to see who has endorsed them. Because, trust.
In the end, you simply HAVE to trust somebody or some organization. There is no way around it.
Agency is a difficult/troubling question. That is a rather sizeable onion to peel the layers off of.
People make many bad choices (ignoring the issue of agency for the moment)--and, seemingly, the more of them you get together, it seems often the worse the decision they make.
Bad decisions on the par to voters destroy democracies. Bad decisions on the part of dictators destroys dictatorships... there are simply a lot of bad decisions.
I am not sure that 1 system is REALLY any better than another, when they all tend to end up in the same place given time.
Democracy creates the (at a minimum) illusion of agency and participation, which makes people feel better and makes it more "moral."
Interesting, and irrefutable. I need to remember this regularly, to allow myself to let go. The illusion of control is tiring, even if it’s meant to be a balm of “agency”. We are all Sisyphus.
Unfortunately young people now are so stressed keeping their heads above water, they have no time. I recently resigned from a couple boards, because our membership was all elderly and tired - but our attempts at recruiting younger people were unsuccessful. One board was trail advocacy, a young person's game you'd think.
I do think liberal democracy at its best provides the most rights and liberties for the largest number. But that's based on a social contract, unwritten, unsung, unsaid, and when that is trampled (by greed and hubris and self-interest, ie disdain and dismissal of it, of norms etc), then democracy is dead. Of course, the presidential elections have NEVER been democratic because of the undemocratic electoral college. Made it easier to steal.
The writing of the Constitution and the Founding/Founders are wrapped in this deep mythology. This is something that is almost inescapable. It also really distorts our understanding of what this country is and why it is what it is.
Who were these people? Where and how did they fit into their society? Why were THEY the leadership and what did it mean?
Men of property (often substantial amounts)
Professionals (educators and lawyers)
Clergy
Some merchants
Primarily agrarian and rural
Men of local power and influence whose base was at the state (or lower) level
Many are products of a late-18th century liberal education and 18th century Anglo-Saxon culture as shaped through (most importantly) the English Civil War and the triumph of Enlish common law and parliamentary institutions.
The first attempt of these people to create something of a nation failed (Confederacy).
The second attempt of these people to create something of a nation failed in less than 100 years in a Civil War.
The re-imagining of that nation in the Civil War is in the process of failing (but it lasted longer than the second attempt and first attempt). People like to pretend that the pre and post Civil War US is the same thing, but it is not.
These failures are the direct result of structures, institutions and norms put into place by the Founders (and our failure to change/adapt over time--AND the desire of some to somehow "return" to the original thing and original intent (which would be an absolute disaster, BTW).
THAT is an exceptional analysis. I’m going to save it. It explains a lot. And in confession, back when I was parenting young children in the 80s, I didn’t have energy left over for the quest for truth. But, it wasn’t as hard then, before the explosion of social media and alternative “news” organizations.
I’ve often thought about the possibility that a benevolent dictatorship is an interesting model for governing a large country, as opposed to our currently messy and often malevolent democracy, which is quite distressing.
I’m a huge fan of personal agency. But damn! It can be exhausting! Maybe the detail that’s exhausting is the contradiction between thinking we have agency when we really don’t?
Trust seems to be the fulcrum, as you say. I use that when I’m voting for obscure positions like judges, and I don’t know the individuals. In addition to reading about their qualifications in the voter pamphlet, I look to see who has endorsed them. Because, trust.
In the end, you simply HAVE to trust somebody or some organization. There is no way around it.
Agency is a difficult/troubling question. That is a rather sizeable onion to peel the layers off of.
People make many bad choices (ignoring the issue of agency for the moment)--and, seemingly, the more of them you get together, it seems often the worse the decision they make.
Bad decisions on the par to voters destroy democracies. Bad decisions on the part of dictators destroys dictatorships... there are simply a lot of bad decisions.
I am not sure that 1 system is REALLY any better than another, when they all tend to end up in the same place given time.
Democracy creates the (at a minimum) illusion of agency and participation, which makes people feel better and makes it more "moral."
Interesting, and irrefutable. I need to remember this regularly, to allow myself to let go. The illusion of control is tiring, even if it’s meant to be a balm of “agency”. We are all Sisyphus.
Probably why activism tends to be a young person's game. One becomes disillusioned and exhausted after pushing the same rock multiple times.
Unfortunately young people now are so stressed keeping their heads above water, they have no time. I recently resigned from a couple boards, because our membership was all elderly and tired - but our attempts at recruiting younger people were unsuccessful. One board was trail advocacy, a young person's game you'd think.
I do think liberal democracy at its best provides the most rights and liberties for the largest number. But that's based on a social contract, unwritten, unsung, unsaid, and when that is trampled (by greed and hubris and self-interest, ie disdain and dismissal of it, of norms etc), then democracy is dead. Of course, the presidential elections have NEVER been democratic because of the undemocratic electoral college. Made it easier to steal.
The writing of the Constitution and the Founding/Founders are wrapped in this deep mythology. This is something that is almost inescapable. It also really distorts our understanding of what this country is and why it is what it is.
Who were these people? Where and how did they fit into their society? Why were THEY the leadership and what did it mean?
Men of property (often substantial amounts)
Professionals (educators and lawyers)
Clergy
Some merchants
Primarily agrarian and rural
Men of local power and influence whose base was at the state (or lower) level
Many are products of a late-18th century liberal education and 18th century Anglo-Saxon culture as shaped through (most importantly) the English Civil War and the triumph of Enlish common law and parliamentary institutions.
The first attempt of these people to create something of a nation failed (Confederacy).
The second attempt of these people to create something of a nation failed in less than 100 years in a Civil War.
The re-imagining of that nation in the Civil War is in the process of failing (but it lasted longer than the second attempt and first attempt). People like to pretend that the pre and post Civil War US is the same thing, but it is not.
These failures are the direct result of structures, institutions and norms put into place by the Founders (and our failure to change/adapt over time--AND the desire of some to somehow "return" to the original thing and original intent (which would be an absolute disaster, BTW).
Problem is dictatorships tend not to be benevolent to many subjects. Like the current GOP attack on womanhood itself!
Agree. Benevolent dictatorship seems like an oxymoron. Singapore is the only example I can think of.
We need a Lord Vetinari (of Discworld fame)