# Trusting the Public in Democracy



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I was watching the UK's foremost political panel show, _Question Time_, last night, and the subject of having a referendum on our involvement in the European Union was brought up.

Obviously, in a democracy, we are supposed to be governed by the will of the people - a referendum should be a good thing! - and yet I committed the sin of thinking: "actually, the people are either too stupid or too misinformed."

Not just on the question of the EU, but on _all_ political questions, the vast majority of voters use their votes in accordance with their upbringing (hence the concept of "safe seats" and political tribalism, which demonstrates an allegiance beyond an honest appraisal of policy), or are heavily swayed by media scare stories and publicity.

I don't want to be ruled by the people because they are too emotional. Too temperamental. Too prejudiced. And yet what other system is there? Even if another system could yield better results, wouldn't it have to be a tyranny of some nature?

Democracy sucks.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The situation isn't any better on this side of the pond. People are misinformed, and it's not all their fault. They're tired from working like dogs and they don't have time to research things. They're deceived by pundits and other purveyors of misinformation. And there's always a fair amount of blockheads in every society who just don't do any thinking beyond beer and football.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> The situation isn't any better on this side of the pond. People are misinformed, and it's not all their fault. They're tired from working like dogs and they don't have time to research things. They're deceived by pundits and other purveyors of misinformation. And there's always a fair amount of blockheads in every society who just don't do any thinking beyond beer and football.


I saw an absolutely ridiculous Rick Perry promotional video (/anti Obama propaganda) this week, with its emotive Coplandesque background music, and was just filled with horrible generalisations and scaremongering. At least we don't have that over here, I suppose. :/


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I was watching the UK's foremost political panel show, _Question Time_, last night, and the subject of having a referendum on our involvement in the European Union was brought up.
> 
> Obviously, in a democracy, we are supposed to be governed by the will of the people - a referendum should be a good thing! - and yet I committed the sin of thinking: "actually, the people are either too stupid or too misinformed."
> 
> ...


You're not the first person to think this, and you won't be the last. This very question was at the heart of the convention where the US Constitution was written. Whether or not the Constitutional Convention answered the question correctly remains to be seen...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Rick Perry is about as shallow as they come. He's dangerous. He's a stone cold opportunist who would sell his own grandmother.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2011)

Hmm, as I recall, Obama actually did sell his own grandmother - throwing her under the bus to score some kind of racial points for experiencing racism as a kid.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Hmm, as I recall, Obama actually did sell his own grandmother - throwing her under the bus to score some kind of racial points for experiencing racism as a kid.


I suspect what you recall is reading a spindoctored story. There are a lot of them out there.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, they've been having civics education in schools here for about 10 years or so, maybe even longer. Education is probably the long term answer.

But here the issue is apathy. A lot of people don't care about politics as long as it doesn't affect their wallet. It's the bottom line that counts. As a former USA politician said ages back, it may have been George Bush senior (?), politicians have to have this "vision thing" to be of real relevance to the broader public, not just a clique. I think this vision is kind of lacking now compared to before, which was way before my time.

This is going back to the jurassic era, but one USA president I do admire was Eisenhower, most things I've come across from him speak to commonsense. Like his parting shot, the speech he gave on his retirement, about "the military-industrial complex." He kind of spoke his mind and was a man of experience, having taking part on a high level the liberation of Europe in the second world war. 

That's kind of a difference between politicians of the past and now. They all are like guys with legal background, or some paper-based background with a university degree. They of course have life experience, but not the level of say Eisenhower, who was on the ground during the war. Or here in Australia, a number of our early Prime Ministers from the Australian Labor Party had actually worked in the mines. They rose from the mine through the trade unions and into the Labor Party, which was (& is, but to lesser degree) connected with the unions. What I'm saying is that politics is less grassroots now, esp. as you get to Federal level. They are less in touch with "the common man" (whoever he is?) than the pollies of the past were.

I can say more but I'm out of time and that will suffice, it may garner some more debate. Interesting topic which I often think about here, actually...


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

Sadly the current democracy is becoming worse and worse. starthrower is right most people are misinformed or uninformed because they are too busy to investigate or just don't care. The media only makes it worse. Anyone who knows a thing or two about politics knows that the media always puts a spin on things and corrupts the truth but sadly most people don't know about politics and are misinformed. The other problem is that politicians are too busy destroying each other to compromise or do what is right for their country.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Sid James said:


> This is going back to the jurassic era, but one USA president I do admire was Eisenhower, most things I've come across from him speak to commonsense. Like his parting shot, the speech he gave on his retirement, about "the military-industrial complex." He kind of spoke his mind and was a man of experience, having taking part on a high level the liberation of Europe in the second world war.
> 
> That's kind of a difference between politicians of the past and now. They all are like guys with legal background, or some paper-based background with a university degree. They of course have life experience, but not the level of say Eisenhower, who was on the ground during the war. Or here in Australia, a number of our early Prime Ministers from the Australian Labor Party had actually worked in the mines. They rose from the mine through the trade unions and into the Labor Party, which was (& is, but to lesser degree) connected with the unions. What I'm saying is that politics is less grassroots now, esp. as you get to Federal level. They are less in touch with "the common man" (whoever he is?) than the pollies of the past were.


Eisenhower had integrity. He had a genuine concern for the common good. Most politicians today prioritize personal gain over the common good.

We no longer have a democratic society in the United States. The income disparity between the rich and everyone else is just staggering. The media does very little hard news, and rarely seriously questions the intentions of the state. The Iraq war has never seriously been questioned. The Wall St credit bubble fiasco went largely unchallenged.

The supreme court recognizes corporations as individuals with equal rights. It confuses money with speech. It's a joke, really.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

"Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."

G.B. Shaw


----------



## Billy (Sep 24, 2011)

Where I live, people are pretty intelligent and good for the most part. I can see much progress in their choices, and I have much hope and trust in them as adults to act fair with respect to a consensus. I go out almost every day to be around strangers who act on friendly terms with one another, and who know that trust is a good thing and natural. Maybe in 50 years we will have a 100 dollar minimum wage based on such good trust. The trust in our ability to replace dull out-of-fashion ideas with more interesting and more imaginative ones and the action which does this is an indicator of our growth as a species.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think it is rational for most people not to spend too much time concerned about politics - elections are usually not consequential enough to reward a person's time spent carefully learning and critically thinking about the candidates and their positions.

That's fine too. The representative's #1 goal must be not to harm the voters badly enough to make it worthwhile for them to care about him. They can pass rewards back and forth through the revolving door or whatever, as long as it doesn't get so bad that the average voter feels the effect. They've got to make sure the average voter feels not too unhappy about the government's policies.

It's not utopia, but in that condition the lives of the common people won't suck too badly. And that alone means that democracy works much better than all the other forms of government, in which the fat cats reward each other without as much concern for the average person's well-being.

Recently, they've failed at this in the US, and activism has gone way up. If their goal is to maintain democratic power (I'm not sure it is - rather, in some cases, I'm sure it is _not_) then their goal ought to be to get the unemployment rate down and to minimize people's sense of disempowerment and injustice.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Polednice said:


> I saw an absolutely ridiculous Rick Perry promotional video (/anti Obama propaganda) this week, with its emotive Coplandesque background music, and was just filled with horrible generalisations and scaremongering. At least we don't have that over here, I suppose. :/


Polednice, I know which video you are referring to. Let me just comfort you in saying that even most Republicans are repulsed by it. What saddens me is that the Republican primaries has turned into a battle of conservatism, not of representing the Republican party as a whole - all because it is taking place and being decided in the corn fields and small towns of Iowa.

I'm curious to see, if such a nominee is chosen, whether or not they will visibly change their views completely simply to cater to a larger population (which I deem is necessary in order to defeat Obama for the presidency). It's almost compulsory these days to comply to such a system, but candidates who do this generally lose my respect. Can't blame them entirely though - it's practically the law of politics.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The republicans are not about conservatism. They are far right wackos that hardly anyone takes seriously.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

starthrower said:


> The republicans are not about conservatism. They are far right wackos that hardly anyone takes seriously.


I wouldn't go there, unless you can claim to personally know the majority of the republicans living in the U.S. today.

And sorry, I'm not going to debate this with you right now. It's simply not productive, and there are better places.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

This is a touch tangential, but the connection is: if we don't trust the public, do we trust the oligarchs? A very fascinating interview, I promise.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2011)

starthrower said:


> The republicans are not about conservatism. They are far right wackos that hardly anyone takes seriously.


True - hardly anyone takes them seriously . . . except for that majority that gave them a landslide victory in the last midterm elections, winning the largest pickup of House seats in over half a century. Other than that, nobody takes them seriously - certainly not those rabidly conservative Massachusetts residents who elected a Republican to Teddy Kennedy's seat, or those right wing loons in New Jersey that gave the govenorship to Chris Christie, or those fringe kooks that turned Virginia back from a purple state to a red state. But other than that, absolutely NOBODY pays any attention to Republicans. Certainly not those people being polled who would pick Mitt Romney, or even Newt Gingrich, over Obama.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I would say that the government doesn't generally trust the general public otherwise there probably would have been more referendums on matters relating to the country as a whole than there actually has - in the UK there has been just one on a nationwide issue since 1975.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

elgars ghost said:


> I would say that the government doesn't generally trust the general public otherwise there probably would have been more referendums on matters relating to the country as a whole than there actually has - in the UK there has been just one on a nationwide issue since 1975.


Indeed, and the public got the answer wrong.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Polednice - which one?!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

elgars ghost said:


> Polednice - which one?!


On AV. 

characterscharacterscharacterscharacters


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

elgars ghost said:


> I would say that the government doesn't generally trust the general public otherwise there probably would have been more referendums on matters relating to the country as a whole than there actually has - in the UK there has been just one on a nationwide issue since 1975.


Referendums are an awful idea. Legislatures, if they are functional, can compromise, bargain, and arrive at something which is self-consistent even if it doesn't please everyone. Direct democracy produces inconsistent laws and can be shockingly driven by special interest advertising. The proposition system in California has led to enormous dysfunction in the state.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> I would say that the government doesn't generally trust the general public otherwise there probably would have been more referendums on matters relating to the country as a whole than there actually has - in the UK there has been just one on a nationwide issue since 1975.


Indeed, the founding fathers of the U.S. did not trust pure democracy - what they referred to as mob rule. The Democratic party started out as the Democratic-Republicans, and the term was given to them by the Federalists who saw it as an insult. The system they set up here was a constitutional republic, where people would select representatives who would govern based on specified powers enshrined in the Constitution. While the House of Representatives was more directly answerable to the people, with more frequent elections and direct election by the citizens, the Senate was meant to be removed, with longer terms, and originally chosen by state legislatures, until that was changed by Constitutional amendment. The people had a healthy mistrust of how many of their rights would be usurped by the federal government, so they insisted that a Bill of Rights be attached, specifying the rights of citizens that the government could not encroach upon. The closest thing we have in this country to some kind of national referendum is the amendment process, which in the grand scheme has been used fairly frequently in our relatively short history, but still is not used too frequently.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I believe that the issue that is to be decided by 'referendum' must be carefully stated. A referendum can closely approach mob rule, the 'rule of law' not withstanding.

[The more I contemplate the work (and the skill) of the spin doctors, and the vulnerability of the public to their messages, the less hope I have for democratic government. The political 'spins' are apparently as effective as the Incurable Virus emails that are passed on to me. It seems like every 'warning' message containing 'facts' that I receive via email fails the snopes test.]


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I find it particularly worrying when people like David Cameron (forgettable UK Prime-Minister for those of you elsewhere in the world) promise referenda to the public on contentious issues in order to sweeten the deal when trying to get elected. Again on the EU issue, this is just because people would love the chance to vote to get as far away from Europe as possible. Few people actually have any understanding of the complex economics that tie us into Europe, they just want to use a referendum as a vehicle to say: "Those European ******** are stealing our jobs!"


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

DrMike said:


> True - hardly anyone takes them seriously . . . except for that majority that gave them a landslide victory in the last midterm elections, winning the largest pickup of House seats in over half a century. Other than that, nobody takes them seriously - certainly not those rabidly conservative Massachusetts residents who elected a Republican to Teddy Kennedy's seat, or those right wing loons in New Jersey that gave the govenorship to Chris Christie, or those fringe kooks that turned Virginia back from a purple state to a red state. But other than that, absolutely NOBODY pays any attention to Republicans. Certainly not those people being polled who would pick Mitt Romney, or even Newt Gingrich, over Obama.


So then why are all these people blaming Obama for the state of the nation and economy? Local politics is more important than this presidential horse race. Land and homeowners in New York state are now up against powerful energy companies who want the right to do hydo-fracking on private property and contaminate ground water, destroy local infrastructure, and turn these properties into toxic waste dumps.

Unfortunately many people vote against their own best interests. They get frustrated and just vote the other side back into office. Dr. Mike, I don't see this as a republicans vs. democrats issue. It's more serious than that. It's the 99% vs the 1% corrupt power elite.

BTW, the republicans I was referring to in my last post were some of the presidential candidates, not every republican. I'm all for honest conservatives who don't believe it's a good idea to sell off the entire nation to private interests, but it's already too late in many instances. An example right here in my hometown where Pyramid Mall magnate Bob Congel wants to seize half of the north end of our city and turn into a mega mall.

Who's going to benefit from this? Surely not the local residents who will be offered low paying retail jobs, traffic jams, mountains of mall generated garbage, and be left with a crumbling mega structure/eye sore 30 years from now.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2011)

I don't buy the whole 1% vs. 99%. There is no monolithic 99% bloc of anything. This same line has been played off by numerous populists before. Is their too much cronyism, etc., in this country? Absolutely. But politicians like to pander to just about every group - after all, who do you think benefits most from "tax hikes only on the rich?"

In my view, we don't necessarily want more democracy - we need better protection against government ceding more power to itself than is spelled out in our governing documents. While I am leery of mob rule, I am more fearful of a too powerful government. Rule by the "educated elite" is something that scares the crap out of me. Want some justification for that fear? Read this article from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/us/redress-weighed-for-forced-sterilizations-in-north-carolina.html?_r=4&hpw=&pagewanted=all


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't think that you can dispute the fact that there's been a huge concentration of wealth accumulated in the hands of the one percent. America needs economic democracy as well as a democratic political system. There's probably another 20% of the population that is doing OK, but the 80% is getting poorer and poorer.

Educated elite or insulated elite? The well connected citizens of DC are doing fabulously well in stark contrast with the working classes throughout the country. Something has changed fundamentally over the past 30 years or so in this nation. There doesn't seem to be much investment in the future.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I don't think that you can dispute the fact that there's been a huge concentration of wealth accumulated in the hands of the one percent. America needs economic democracy as well as a democratic political system. There's probably another 20% of the population that is doing OK, but the 80% is getting poorer and poorer.
> 
> Educated elite or insulated elite? The well connected citizens of DC are doing fabulously well in stark contrast with the working classes throughout the country. Something has changed fundamentally over the past 30 years or so in this nation. There doesn't seem to be much investment in the future.


So what is an appropriate distribution of wealth in this country? How evenly should it be distributed? Should merit be a factor? Education? Should wealth be capped at some level? And how do we achieve a greater level of appropriate wealth distribution? Does government collect the wealth and then redistribute it? Even given the vast amount of waste and corruption in government? How much of this money would be swallowed up in "overhead" - the cost of the government functioning?


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

starthrower said:


> There doesn't seem to be much investment in the future.


I believe this is the root cause of our economic troubles. The US government used to collect a larger fraction of GDP in taxes, and perhaps more importantly, used to spend a larger portion on economic investment. This included building roads, building communication infrastructure, supporting primary education, building the best system of public universities in the world, building the best system of national research labs, and funding technological research and development generously. These are not being supported as they used to be. Scientific research and development (as a fraction of GDP) has been cut 30% since the 90's. Now a greater fraction of tax revenues goes to retirement benefits, medicare, medicaid, invading countries, etc. Maybe these are worthy things to support (at least some of them) but they do not help the economy grow.


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

DrMike said:


> So what is an appropriate distribution of wealth in this country? How evenly should it be distributed? Should merit be a factor? Education? Should wealth be capped at some level? And how do we achieve a greater level of appropriate wealth distribution? Does government collect the wealth and then redistribute it? Even given the vast amount of waste and corruption in government? How much of this money would be swallowed up in "overhead" - the cost of the government functioning?


I do not think the government should be in the business of decided how wealthy people are allowed to be. But some methods of accumulating wealth which are currently legal should be illegal. The traditional regulation of banks allowed them to profit from activities which promoted growth of the economy as a whole (loaning money or investing in companies that build factories, etc). A lot of what the big banks do now (the whole derivatives/hedge fund/credit default swap/collateralized debt obligation culture) allows the big banks to make hugely leveraged bets. The results is that they either win big and suck money out of the real economy, or loose big and get bailed out by the taxpayers. Neither outcome fosters economic development.

We would not accept the argument from muggers that making armed robbery illegal hurts the economy, and we shouldn't accept it from the big banks either.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Scarpia said:


> I believe this is the root cause of our economic troubles. The US government used to collect a larger fraction of GDP in taxes, and perhaps more importantly, used to spend a larger portion on economic investment. This included building roads, building communication infrastructure, supporting primary education, building the best system of public universities in the world, building the best system of national research labs, and funding technological research and development generously. These are not being supported as they used to be. Scientific research and development (as a fraction of GDP) has been cut 30% since the 90's. Now a greater fraction of tax revenues goes to retirement benefits, medicare, medicaid, invading countries, etc. Maybe these are worthy things to support (at least some of them) but they do not help the economy grow.


Referring back to the thread title - Trusting the Public in Democracy - neither the public _nor the government_ of the US is willing to do what needs to be done; so it won't be done.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

My feeling is that lower taxes on the wealthy has proved to be a complete economic failure for the nation at large. Higher taxes would encourage more investment, and somewhat curtail the pocketing of huge profits. 

We've had lower taxes on the wealthy for a decade now coupled with the false promise of job creation. So after 10 years, where are the jobs? Corruption and waste in government is obviously a huge problem. This isn't going to go away as long as political candidates need to raise millions in campaign funds. They're going to pay back those contributors no matter what the cost to the public at large.

Citizens as consumers also need to rethink where they are spending their money. Mega mall developer Bob Congel, after he's successfully bought off local officials to get permission to build his gargantuan shopping structure packed with national chain stores, goes home to his cozy little Finger Lakes suburb of Skaneateles, NY where he and his wealthy neighbors have zoned off their exclusive community from fast food chains and um... you guessed it. Shopping Malls!


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Liked the Shaw quote. Churchill had the measure of democracy as a political system:



> *"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"*





> *"It is said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried"*


:lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think I'd settle for equality before the law.

http://myoccupylaarrest.blogspot.com/?mid=5490

Even if some details of that turn out to be wrong, the general idea is true, and we all know it.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

DrMike said:


> The closest thing we have in this country to some kind of national referendum is the amendment process, which in the grand scheme has been used fairly frequently in our relatively short history, but still is not used too frequently


I'm glad you mentioned that, because I like to point to the USA as a democracy which does not have referenda (at least at the national level). I think the referendum process is vulnerable to manipulation by the media and by special interest groups.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to it in all cases. I think a referendum on Scottish independence is, in the end, the only thing that is going to finally clear the air on that subject. But a referendum on EU membership in the middle of rapidly changing circumstances in Europe, with the gutter press doing their best to whip up hysteria and xenophobia, is the last thing we need right now.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2011)

science said:


> I think I'd settle for equality before the law.
> 
> http://myoccupylaarrest.blogspot.com/?mid=5490
> 
> Even if some details of that turn out to be wrong, the general idea is true, and we all know it.


I'm amazed by your final statement. You, who have so often talked about the need for evidence, state that you would still think this was true, even if some of the details turned out to be wrong. How many of the details would have to be wrong for you to finally discard the general idea as true? This sounds more like finding "facts" to support a hypothesis. You already have the narrative, now you will grasp onto anything that supports it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> I'm glad you mentioned that, because I like to point to the USA as a democracy which does not have referenda (at least at the national level). I think the referendum process is vulnerable to manipulation by the media and by special interest groups.
> 
> This doesn't mean I'm opposed to it in all cases. I think a referendum on Scottish independence is, in the end, the only thing that is going to finally clear the air on that subject. But a referendum on EU membership in the middle of rapidly changing circumstances in Europe, with the gutter press doing their best to whip up hysteria and xenophobia, is the last thing we need right now.


Is it the last thing you need right now? Honestly, from what I have read, for the UK now to separate itself from the EU would be a disaster, better only than actually sticking with the EU while it implodes. It is going down at any rate - why remain tethered to it. It makes about as much sense as staying on a sinking ship because the life boats have some leaks. I'd rather take my chances on the leaky life boat.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> I would say that the government doesn't generally trust the general public otherwise there probably would have been more referendums on matters relating to the country as a whole than there actually has - in the UK there has been just one on a nationwide issue since 1975.


It is not that the government does not trust the general public but rather that they fear them because they feel that they, the government are more intelligent than the general public. It is a case of I would not want anyone making decisions who was stupid enough to vote for me. similar to the attitude; I would not want to have my fate decided by twelve people who were not smart enough to get out of Jury duty.

Technically speaking neither the US or the UK, or for that matter any nation in Europe is a true Democracy. They which claim to be a Democracy have a representative form of Government where proxies are elected to execute what they ( in theory) perceive to be the will of the People. The true meaning of a Democracy is decision by the direct vote of the people, as is still found in some small towns in the US.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

GoneBaroque said:


> [...]
> Technically speaking neither the US or the UK, or for that matter any nation in Europe is a true Democracy. They which claim to be a Democracy have a representative form of Government where proxies are elected to execute what they ( in theory) perceive to be the will of the People. The true meaning of a Democracy is decision by the direct vote of the people, as is still found in some small towns in the US.


From what you say here, it is not clear to me that you understand the 'why' of the concept 'rule by law'.

[note that I am a small town Vermonter, and am familiar with town meeting.]


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Some interesting discussion here, except when people get too specific, esp. re USA politics, Democrats vs. Republicans, which kind of makes my eyes glaze over.

But these two guys speak to the Australian sitation as well, I think -



Scarpia said:


> I believe this is the root cause of our economic troubles. The US government used to collect a larger fraction of GDP in taxes, and perhaps more importantly, used to spend a larger portion on economic investment. This included building roads, building communication infrastructure, supporting primary education, building the best system of public universities in the world, building the best system of national research labs, and funding technological research and development generously. These are not being supported as they used to be...





science said:


> ...If their goal is to maintain democratic power (I'm not sure it is - rather, in some cases, I'm sure it is _not_) then their goal ought to be to get the unemployment rate down and to minimize people's sense of disempowerment and injustice.


I think that, I would add to this, what I was saying about Eisenhower and earlier Australian prime ministers is that they were about nation building. Esp. post 1945, there was that economic boom, and there was a fair bit of optimism. It was not all perfect of course, but there was a vibe of Australia going somewhere. I think over the decades this has been kind of lost. In the post war decades, eg. up to about mid-1960's, an average Australian worker could pay off a mortgage on a home in like 3 years or less. Now it's something like 20 years. This is just one example out of many of how things have kind of gone wrong, imo.

Of course, a lot of it hasn't got to do with domestic politics but things like the global economy. It's all quite complex & out of my league, but these are the things that came to mind from what you guys said...


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

DrMike said:


> Is it the last thing you need right now? Honestly, from what I have read, for the UK now to separate itself from the EU would be a disaster, better only than actually sticking with the EU while it implodes. It is going down at any rate - why remain tethered to it. It makes about as much sense as staying on a sinking ship because the life boats have some leaks. I'd rather take my chances on the leaky life boat.


The UK is in the EU, but not in the Eurozone, so it isn't directly involved in stabilizing the euro. Still, so much of our trade it dependent on Europe that if the euro goes down, we go down--unless we either join NAFTA, or greatly expand our exports to China, both of which are possible, but neither of which is an immediate prospect. People talk of us becoming another Norway, but Norway's budget surplus is primarily based on one thing--natural gas exports. We no longer have enough North Sea gas even to fill our own needs.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Fsharpmajor said:


> The UK is in the EU, but not in the Eurozone, so it isn't directly involved in stabilizing the euro. Still, so much of our trade it dependent on Europe that if the euro goes down, we go down--unless we either join NAFTA, or greatly expand our exports to China, both of which are possible, but neither of which is an immediate prospect. People talk of us becoming another Norway, but Norway's budget surplus is primarily based on one thing--natural gas exports. We no longer have enough North Sea gas even to fill our own needs.


I seldom have the opportunity to so ignorantly mention a 'shoulda', thanks.

Ahem:

The UK, back when it had the chance, should have pushed for the solidification/economic expansion of the Commonwealth. The member states had vitality, established connections, and mutual social understandings.

Seriously, I feel sad for you. And the US may have had more influential 'cousins', who just maybe could have somehow ameliorated our stupidities. We'll never know now.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Funny thing is, while President De Gaulle of France was in power, he used his veto to block the UK from entering the EU (or as it was then known, the European Economic Community - EEC). He said the UK wasn't part of Europe. Anyway, after his passing, the UK was able to enter. But now after about 40 years they want to leave (apparently they weren't that happy to enter it in the first place, a significant amount of the people of the UK, but this is ancient history which I'm not exactly fully up on).

So all dogs have their day so to speak. Maybe it's time to just get back to what was the situation when De Gaulle blocked the British. Then maybe in a few decades after not being part of the EU, they will want to join again. Being flippant here but these things are like a marriage. Or marriage and divorce and remarriage (like Richard Burton & LIz Taylor did a few times?)...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DrMike said:


> I'm amazed by your final statement. You, who have so often talked about the need for evidence, state that you would still think this was true, even if some of the details turned out to be wrong. How many of the details would have to be wrong for you to finally discard the general idea as true? This sounds more like finding "facts" to support a hypothesis. You already have the narrative, now you will grasp onto anything that supports it.


The real question must be, how much _more_ evidence do you need to persuade you that there is no longer equality before the law?


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2011)

science said:


> The real question must be, how much _more_ evidence do you need to persuade you that there is no longer equality before the law?


I expect to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. I need more than selectively edited video, and one-sided narratives from people whose profession is to write works of fiction.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Indeed, I'd be shocked if you were ever persuaded.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2011)

science said:


> Indeed, I'd be shocked if you were ever persuaded.


Coming from the man who has just stated that you would believe it even if the details proved wrong, and from the man who stated he wouldn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ even if you were a personal witness to it? I'll take your criticism with a grain of salt.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Figured you would.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2011)

science said:


> Figured you would.


Glad to see I haven't disappointed you.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Obviously, in a democracy, we are supposed to be governed by the will of the people - a referendum should be a good thing! - and yet I committed the sin of thinking: "actually, the people are either too stupid or too misinformed


Apologies, I have not read all the other posts here so I hope I am not rehashing what others have said more eloquently.

Surely, if we are to be governed by the will of the people, the system can only work if the people are adequately informed about what they are being asked to adjudicate on, and sufficiently understand the issues to be able to engage with the proponents and opponents of whatever motion is up for the vote.

It follows that, for there to be a right to vote in referendums which are legally and constitutionally binding, there is an equal and corresponding duty (or responsibility, if you like) for voters to ensure that they are adequately informed and sufficiently understand the issues. The problem, as I see it, is not that the people are currently "too stupid or too misinformed" but that there is no way in which, if true, that situation could be ameliorated.

Wikipedia tells us that "Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives... The term comes from the word Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people", which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (kratos) "power", in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens..." [sorry Rasa, more semantics]

However, in ancient Greece, the mechanism existed - the forum - whereby the people _could _educate themselves in the issues at hand and debate them with the legislature. (Of course, women, children (obviously) and slaves were excluded from the vote, so I detect some political hypocrisy, even here.)

We do not have any means in contemporary Western culture - or any culture, I guess - whereby the people can become informed about what they are expected to vote on. So, do we have a democracy?

Well, I think, in theory, we do. There is a more or less explicit compact in which the people trade a right to have a direct say in decision making for a relaxation of their duty to inform themselves about everything that needs deciding upon. That is, in the UK, Parliament. We vote for representatives (who broadly represent what the largest faction of the population of each constituency believes) to do the decision making for us, on the grounds that there are mechanisms - parliamentary debates, select committees and so on - whereby at least _these _people can make themselves fit to decide the issues. The fact that this doesn't happen does not mean the system is a bad one, it simply means that it is being badly operated.

I am against referendums all the time that not only is there not a way for the vast majority of the people to become educated on the matters in hand (and, I regret to say, there also appears to be an unwillingness to become educated), but also the channels which pass themselves off as the means whereby people _could _be educated are in fact crass, partisan and, themselves, ignorant. I refer, of course, to our noble media.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The 'becoming informed' problem is at least as bad in the US. The standard media channels are either poorly informed or biased. The obvious source of information - the internet - is loaded with 'information' that is either biased or spin-doctored. It is sometimes possible to work out what-the-**** is really going on by reading approximately everything and separating the grain from the chaff, but that is a lot of work, and one still doesn't know if the result approximates reality. There is more chaff than grain, and specific gravity is not available.


----------



## FutureDays (Dec 21, 2011)

Most people are apathetic and have no wish to become informed or vote because they rightly recognise that bourgeois "democracy" is an absolute joke. Don't forget that the media and education system are not designed to produce an informed and critical populace (quite the opposite), if they did so it would be dysfunctional for the state and capital.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

science said:


> The real question must be, how much _more_ evidence do you need to persuade you that there is no longer equality before the law?


In *any* *country*--including America--was there really ever any such thing in existence to begin with?
I believe that the rich have always held the whip hand, and only through great pressure and unrest exerted by the rest of the populace rather reluctantly and begrudingly loosened its grip now and then to avoid complete chaos and revolution. It is also my belief that they will continue to do so.


----------

