[EM] language/framing quibble

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Fri, 13/2/09, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:

> re: "I meant that it is typically easier to build on
> what one has
>      than to tear down the existing system and replace it
> with
>      some new system that is meant to be ideal."
> 
> That is unquestionably true.  However, the attempt to
> 'build on' must examine and correct the failures
> that caused the breakdown of the existing system.  When, as
> in the United States, the system (democracy) broke down
> because institutions interposed themselves between the
> people and their government, we must recognize the problem
> ... and address it.

I think the US still is a democracy.
If people want to see the current
policy changed they can do that (within
the next 4 years at least). People
could in principle change also e.g.
the voting system, but such smaller
changes already easily get lost under
the major questions (e.g. economic
situation, war and peace).

> re: "Let's fix the system."
> 
> Yes, but how?  As mentioned above, I plan to outline one
> possibility. Perhaps that will seed the careful analysis and
> discussion necessary for the delineation of a more
> democratic electoral method."

Status quo is is often the safest
approach to citizens and politicians.
And they may be lazy too. Current
leading politicians have reached their
current positions using the current
system, so they often do not like
changes. So you need lots of work
and some luck.

I'm not saying that changes are not
possible. They are possible and they
happen all the time. We just need to be
patient and consistent and keep the
rudder straight.

> re: "It could even be cheaper to finance the campaigns
> with the
>      money of the tax payers rather than with the interest
> group
>      money."
> 
> Using taxpayer money to support political campaigns is one
> of the worst ideas I've ever heard.  It allows the
> parties to use the money they get from their sponsors for
> even greater corruption since they don't have to bear
> the cost of campaigning.
> 
> Is it not obvious that campaigning, itself, is the problem?

The problem is that with uncontrolled
funding of the campaigns you take steps
towards the one-dollar-one-vote ideal.
Traditionally the one-man-one-vote
principle is considered important for
democracies (one-dollar-one-vote is
typically used in economical systems).

> 
> Campaigning, telling the public why they should vote for
> some candidate, is, without doubt, the most inane (indeed,
> insane) method of selecting public officials possible.  It
> is, as should be painfully obvious to all of us, nothing but
> the propagation of lies, deceit and obfuscation.  Are we so
> dumb we can't see that spin meisters and political
> coaches (who insure that candidates present an attractive
> face to the public) are abominable proof of the utter
> stupidity of a political system built around the art of
> deceiving the public?
> 
> Eliminate campaigning and you eliminate the cost of
> campaigning.
> 
> Eliminate the cost of campaigning and you eliminate the
> most fundamental cause of corruption in the political
> system.
> 
> Now, that's a worthy goal!

You may need some sort of campaigning
in order to be able to to distribute
information about the candidates. If
there is no such distribution of
information those candidates that are in
good and visible positions already now
may benefit too much. A balanced campaign
may also reduce the problem of hidden
campaigning (e.g. via good connections and
other hidden deals with the media). Setting
limits to the cost of campaigns has similar
effect as arranging a public and publicly
funded campaign for all.

> internet

The potential power of Internet is in that
it is new and its potential is still
largely unexplored, and therefore it has
the potential to open new paths to
influencing in the society.

> re: "Tolerance. One could also sometimes turn the
> other cheek.
>      Less fear means usually less violence. Maybe one could
> say
>      that for the strongest there is often no need to
> fight."
> 
> These statements show no acceptance of human interaction. 
> They might be nice, but people don't act that way.  Our
> political system must function as we are, not as we could
> be.

But surely you don't recommend the opposite
either, no tolerance, slapping others on
the cheek if we feel pain etc.

In addition to maintaining some very basic
good manners the idea is that people like
to take steps forward only when they feel
comfortable with taking steps forward, not
when the opposing party tries to force them
to take steps forward. A good campaign
sells the positive impact of the proposed
change to the buyers. (Since human beings
are clever that luckily often (but not
always) correlates also with good quality
of the product in question.)

The point was anyway to avoid direct
confrontation and instead present the
proposed change as an obvious step
towards a better and brighter future. This
may include understanding the old state of
affairs as being non-optimal, but there is
no need to provoke the old school to
defend those outdated solutions ( - not
even if you are "right" and they are
"wrong" :-).


- - - - -

Earlier you referred to an article about
the political philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre
(http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm). Here
are some comments on one short extract from
chapter "12. A New Politics".

> Human beings, as the kind of creatures we are, need the internal goods/goods of excellence that can only be acquired through participation in politics if we are to flourish.

Humans surely have an interest to improve
things.

> Therefore, everyone must be allowed to have access to the political decision-making process.

In democracies they already have. This
relationship can and should be improved
though.

> The matters to be discussed and decided on will not be limited as they are now; they will extend to questions about what the good life is for the community and those who make it up.

In principle also the current political
processes should cover this, but the
process can and should be improved.

> Politics will be especially concerned with the virtues of justice and generosity, ensuring that citizens get what they deserve and what they need. And it is an important requirement of this new politics that, everyone must "have a voice in communal deliberation about what these norms of justice require" (Dependent Rational Animals 129-130).

I support the idea of putting more weight
on developing and agreeing what the long
term targets and plans are. I think this
is a spot where even the basic mechanics of
political systems could be improved. That
could mean e.g. new systematic ways to
handle and maintain resolutions.

> This kind of deliberation requires small communities;

Yes, humans work well under this kind of
assumptions. Being part of various smaller
and larger communities is a very positive
and constructive and safe and trust
building phenomenon, as long as those
groups are not targeted to work against
some other groups and as long as the
groups don't start controlling their own
members in some negative way.

> although not every kind of small community is healthy, a healthy politics can only take place in a small community. Although their size cannot be precisely specified, they will be intermediate in scale between the family and the modern state (Dependent Rational Animals 131).

Yes, often the step from e.g. the very safe
family to national level politics (maybe
assuming a hostile environment in-between)
is a long step to cover.

Juho