[EM] Partisan Politics, or Rising Above It

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Michael

Oh, my goodness ... your post is not responsive to what I wrote.  Well, 
let me comment as well as I can, under the circumstances ...


First, with regard to our technological ability, we now have the means 
to allow everyone to participate in the political process.  We can use 
the advances in transportation, communication and data processing 
developed over the 200-plus years since the founding of my homeland to 
build a more democratic political system.  Arrangements that were 
undreamed of in 1787 are now practical.


re: "At issue is a proposed structural transformation to society."

I agree that we are moving toward a structural transformation, but it's 
early days.  My post did not propose a 'structural transformation to 
society', it described flaws in the existing system.  Since those flaws 
are integrated into our system, our first concern must be to understand 
them so we can eliminate them and prevent their recurrence.  We can't 
transform our structures successfully unless we know why the present 
structures failed.


re: "But any such transformation (T) raises these critical
      questions ..." (Practical, Probable and Moral and the
      ensuing 'proof'), all leading to:

     "The crucial thing, however, is that, despite those evil
      aspects, the transformation TO [which you define as the
      status quo] is a fact.  The fact of its success proves that
      T0 [the status quo] was both practical and probable.  In
      other words, it had good answers to T0(p,q)."

That is fallacious reasoning.  To prove the status quo is the result of 
the forces that made it is simply stating the obvious. It requires no 
'proof'.

Furthermore, the 'proof' errs in its most basic assumption.  It 
(apparently) assumes that, because T0 (the status quo) was successfully 
attained, it is the most desirable state for society.  Such reasoning 
would undoubtedly have appealed to all the seemingly stable governments 
that mark the history of mankind, not least of all dictatorships and 
those based on the divine right of kings.

And, finally, the listed 'critical questions' do not include (at least, 
not in an identifiable form) the will and welfare of the people.  When 
discussing electoral methods, there is nothing (in my opinion) more 
fundamental than "That whenever any Form of Government becomes 
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to 
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on 
such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall 
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."  (cadged from 
the American Declaration of Independence)


re: "If your argument of T0(m=parties,evil) is valid, then it
      follows that the moral question T(m) is not essential to a
      successful transformation."

That's silly.  It does not follow a rational train of thought. The 
proper statement is:  If my argument is valid, since our society reached 
its current state, our political systems have integrated the evils I cite.


Any attempt to improve a system must start with an understanding of the 
flaws in the current version of the system.  I raised the issue of those 
flaws in my post.  I have outlined, as you say, "a tiny piece of ... the 
evil aspects of the existing party system." If you have superior 
arguments or can show those evil aspects are inconsequential, would you 
care to offer a rebuttal?

Since you did not address the flaws, should I take it that you agree 
with my delineation of them?  If, in fact, you agree with my comments on 
the destructive nature of party politics, perhaps we can move on to 
proposing a structural transformation that avoids their adverse effects.

Fred Gohlke