All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Sean Hayden]

What he doesn't really engage with is the idea -- Monbiot's basic view -- that the 'The People' have unwittingly ceded the operation of democracy to a class of political operators who have a vested personal, political, and/or economic interest in the outcomes of the systems they control, one which stands apart from the general interests of 'The People': that the representative models we're currently operating seem to be failing to encourage and reward administrative competence and political honesty, and instead have led us to a point where incompetence, cronyism and corruption are not just tolerated, but appear to be accepted as a kind of norm.

I think it is more a challenge to the belief that the system is run by people who don't have "the people" and their interests in mind. A quick look at "the people" is enough to cast doubt on that idea. More than 70 million Americans are happy with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, which is the result of the work their representatives did. When the same representatives cut funding for social services, they are again doing what their base wants.

"The People" includes the potential for outcomes we don't like. Monbiot has claimed exactly the opposite. Unless I've misunderstood him, he's saying the unfavorable outcomes are the result of ignoring the will of "the people". He thinks more favorable outcomes --outcomes we agree with-- are more likely by including more people in the decision making.

But, in fact, many times it's exactly the opposite. The US people have been brought kicking and screaming against their will to the acceptance of equal rights under the law, and if the will of the people were to be honored, then in many places it still wouldn't be the law today.

[Seabass]

If we had the will of the people in the US, we'd have had Gore instead of Shrub, we'd have Hillary instead of Trump, the Senate would be controlled by Democrats, and the Scotus would be 7-2 liberal-conservative. The trouble with the US isn't too much democracy; the problem is that there is barely any democracy to speak of.

[Tero]

Back to comedy
Jenna Ellis is Trump lawyer

Sarah spoofing Jenna
https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/1332501880044445705

[Sean Hayden]

If we had the will of the people in the US, we'd have had Gore instead of Shrub, we'd have Hillary instead of Trump, the Senate would be controlled by Democrats, and the Scotus would be 7-2 liberal-conservative. The trouble with the US isn't too much democracy; the problem is that there is barely any democracy to speak of.

By the will of the people the US has engaged in numerous senseless foreign wars, desegregation took longer than it should have, welfare has been seen as harmful, abortion remains a contentious issue, and gay marriage was unthinkable until recently...

I think you may be dizzy from the success of having the wind at your back today.

[Brian Peacock]

What he doesn't really engage with is the idea -- Monbiot's basic view -- that the 'The People' have unwittingly ceded the operation of democracy to a class of political operators who have a vested personal, political, and/or economic interest in the outcomes of the systems they control, one which stands apart from the general interests of 'The People': that the representative models we're currently operating seem to be failing to encourage and reward administrative competence and political honesty, and instead have led us to a point where incompetence, cronyism and corruption are not just tolerated, but appear to be accepted as a kind of norm.

I think it is more a challenge to the belief that the system is run by people who don't have "the people" and their interests in mind. A quick look at "the people" is enough to cast doubt on that idea. More than 70 million Americans are happy with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, which is the result of the work their representatives did. When the same representatives cut funding for social services, they are again doing what their base wants.

"The People" includes the potential for outcomes we don't like. Monbiot has claimed exactly the opposite. Unless I've misunderstood him, he's saying the unfavorable outcomes are the result of ignoring the will of "the people". He thinks more favorable outcomes --outcomes we agree with-- are more likely by including more people in the decision making.

But, in fact, many times it's exactly the opposite. The US people have been brought kicking and screaming against their will to the acceptance of equal rights under the law, and if the will of the people were to be honored, then in many places it still wouldn't be the law today.

I think Monbiot is just saying that the interests of 'the people' need to be better represented than they have been of late. I think we also need to acknowledge the role those who already have power, influence and control over the operation of democracy play in generating the social-political agenda and in manufacturing consent in ways which are counter-productive to the broader interests of the citizen at large - both domestically and abroad.

[JimC]

If we had the will of the people in the US, we'd have had Gore instead of Shrub, we'd have Hillary instead of Trump, the Senate would be controlled by Democrats, and the Scotus would be 7-2 liberal-conservative. The trouble with the US isn't too much democracy; the problem is that there is barely any democracy to speak of.

By the will of the people the US has engaged in numerous senseless foreign wars, desegregation took longer than it should have, welfare has been seen as harmful, abortion remains a contentious issue, and gay marriage was unthinkable until recently...

I think you may be dizzy from the success of having the wind at your back today.

I think that Seabass was making the point that, due to inherent bias in your system which currently favours getting Republicans elected (particularly to the Senate), even without a popular vote majority, it is not really "the will of the people", at least in terms of an absolute majority.
But it seems also to be true that close to half of your population favours extremely reactionary views...

[Sean Hayden]

I know what he meant. I just wanted to point out other examples of the will of the people.

[Tero]

Well, the belief is that politicians don't work for the people, they work for the lobbyists that fund their campaigns. They only need so many votes, and with ads, that's easy. Voters do not know what politicians do. Maybe one in 10 could tell you a recent law or other achievement.

[Sean Hayden]

What he doesn't really engage with is the idea -- Monbiot's basic view -- that the 'The People' have unwittingly ceded the operation of democracy to a class of political operators who have a vested personal, political, and/or economic interest in the outcomes of the systems they control, one which stands apart from the general interests of 'The People': that the representative models we're currently operating seem to be failing to encourage and reward administrative competence and political honesty, and instead have led us to a point where incompetence, cronyism and corruption are not just tolerated, but appear to be accepted as a kind of norm.

I think it is more a challenge to the belief that the system is run by people who don't have "the people" and their interests in mind. A quick look at "the people" is enough to cast doubt on that idea. More than 70 million Americans are happy with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, which is the result of the work their representatives did. When the same representatives cut funding for social services, they are again doing what their base wants.

"The People" includes the potential for outcomes we don't like. Monbiot has claimed exactly the opposite. Unless I've misunderstood him, he's saying the unfavorable outcomes are the result of ignoring the will of "the people". He thinks more favorable outcomes --outcomes we agree with-- are more likely by including more people in the decision making.

But, in fact, many times it's exactly the opposite. The US people have been brought kicking and screaming against their will to the acceptance of equal rights under the law, and if the will of the people were to be honored, then in many places it still wouldn't be the law today.

I think Monbiot is just saying that the interests of 'the people' need to be better represented than they have been of late. I think we also need to acknowledge the role those who already have power, influence and control over the operation of democracy play in generating the social-political agenda and in manufacturing consent in ways which are counter-productive to the broader interests of the citizen at large - both domestically and abroad.

I'm questioning more and more our tendency to make a clear distinction between our leaders and ourselves. If you want to discuss the way in which the powerful generate our agenda, I want to discuss the ways in which we influence them to do so.

Our leaders are not aliens. Ted Cruz is Texas, at least a lot of Texas is in Ted Cruz...ditto Bush...yadda, yadda

[Seabass]

If we had the will of the people in the US, we'd have had Gore instead of Shrub, we'd have Hillary instead of Trump, the Senate would be controlled by Democrats, and the Scotus would be 7-2 liberal-conservative. The trouble with the US isn't too much democracy; the problem is that there is barely any democracy to speak of.

By the will of the people the US has engaged in numerous senseless foreign wars, desegregation took longer than it should have, welfare has been seen as harmful, abortion remains a contentious issue, and gay marriage was unthinkable until recently...

I think you may be dizzy from the success of having the wind at your back today.

I never said that a more democratic form of government would be perfect. Clearly, however, all the nicest countries to live in tend to be more democratic.

[Sean Hayden]

That's true.

But the problem is linking favorable outcomes to participation. It's clear that majority rule doesn't ensure a favorable outcome. Arguing that increasing involvement will produce the policy we want to see then strikes me as little more than a recognition of the fact that today, the moral zeitgeist is in our favor ...the wind is at our back.

[JimC]

That's true.

But the problem is linking favorable outcomes to participation. It's clear that majority rule doesn't ensure a favorable outcome. Arguing that increasing involvement will produce the policy we want to see then strikes me as little more than a recognition of the fact that today, the moral zeitgeist is in our favor ...the wind is at our back.

Again, back to the point I mentioned earlier. For a lot of reasons built into your system, you don't have majority rule. What you have is a system whose democratic elements are twisted to ensure that political power can be wielded by representatives of a minority (albeit a large minority) of your voters. There would at least be a chance for a slightly more favourable outcome if this distortion did not exist.

[JimC]

And I agree that the zeitgeist is changing, but that makes the rabidly conservative side of politics even more dangerously desperate...

[Sean Hayden]

That's true.

But the problem is linking favorable outcomes to participation. It's clear that majority rule doesn't ensure a favorable outcome. Arguing that increasing involvement will produce the policy we want to see then strikes me as little more than a recognition of the fact that today, the moral zeitgeist is in our favor ...the wind is at our back.

Again, back to the point I mentioned earlier. For a lot of reasons built into your system, you don't have majority rule. What you have is a system whose democratic elements are twisted to ensure that political power can be wielded by representatives of a minority (albeit a large minority) of your voters. There would at least be a chance for a slightly more favourable outcome if this distortion did not exist.

There would at least be a chance for a slightly more favourable outcome today if this distortion did not exist.

For a lot of issues this is bound to be true, today. But for a lot of issues, and going forward, if the expectation is that democracy will lead to good outcomes, the people have to be capable of producing those outcomes, and it seems to me that this is not dependent solely on their ability to participate.

Australians produce better outcomes because Australian opinions are better....even if only just, slightly, barely, a little bit, perhaps...

[Seabass]

That's true.

But the problem is linking favorable outcomes to participation. It's clear that majority rule doesn't ensure a favorable outcome. Arguing that increasing involvement will produce the policy we want to see then strikes me as little more than a recognition of the fact that today, the moral zeitgeist is in our favor ...the wind is at our back.

It doesn't ensure favorable outcomes, but over time, favorable outcomes tend to outnumber unfavorable outcomes. What's that MLK quote? "The arc of history bends toward justice" or something to that effect. It bends slooooooooooowwwwwwwlllllllyyyyyy, unfortunately, but more often than not, it does bend, eventually. Having a system of government that favors the most backwards among us certainly doesn't help.