Re: Re:democracy
Thomas: This is a good little essay and touch's on some very important observations. Victor wrote: As I recall, this thread got started with a comment about many of the voters seeming to be neither intelligent nor well-informed.I'm sure from many of his postings that Ed Weick did not mean this in an elitist sense. I don't think lack of intelligence is really the problem. I also do not think that intelligence in any easily definable sense is really relevant. The core of the issue is really personal values. Thomas: If we are going to continue to exist in a political system in which we have voters, then what is the important criteria we should hold voters to - intelligence? - well informed? - personal values? - political viewpoints? - age? - mental competency? - the list can be endless. What is the purpose of a political system? It is to provide governance to all citizens. What our current structure has done is remove the main goal of a government - to provide governace to all citizens - and we have turned it into a gladiatorial contest in which the audience is given the right a certain moments to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down. How stupid. Victor wrote: I work in a factory and my best friend there is a spot-welder named Harold. I don't think Harold could have pursued all the academic education I obtained before my foot slipped off the career ladder. However, Harold's heart is in the right place and he has a great deal of common sense (in the original meaning of that phrase, not in the debased meaning popularized by the right-wing government of Ontario). When you promote the notion of governance based on intelligence, you have no guiding values to select those people. Although I have successfully completed 10 years of post-secondary education (English and later theology), I doubt that I or anyone else could prove that I am more intelligent than, say, a University of Chicago neoconservative economist. It just happens that I am right about most things and he is dead wrong!!! I would much rather see my friend Harold in charge of vital policy decisions than a neoconservative economist. That is why I would never support a meritocracy scheme like Jay Hanson's. Thomas: And what does Harold want? He is a citizen and he expects those who govern to be accessible and to act in the best interests of all citizens. Is this the current situation? I would say "no!". I do not think there is a government in the world that acts in the best interests of it's citizens and my diagnosis is that the structure of democracy is distorted by the concept of voting. Victor wrote: I think that most people have their values right, say about 70 per cent of them. (I base this figure on poll results in Canada about specific issues such as health care or welfare.) However, the voters often elect parties that are all too likely to bring about results contrary to what they really want. They get taken in by phoney promises, "We have to cut the deficit, we have to give tax breaks to big business, so that we can afford to give you better health care ... sometime in the sweet bye-and-bye." The problem is one of misinformation for at 70 per cent of the voters. I do not see any easy way to change the situation. Media outlets are very expensive to own and operate, so by definition they will continue to be owned by the wealthy and to promote the interests of the wealthy. Most people are not going to search the Internet looking for fresh information and alternative viewpoints; they don't have the time and the specific interest. Stephen Best, Director of Environment Voters, believes that activists can influence the direction of the government only by working at the grassroots level, doing personal canvassing during elections. http://environmentvoters.org Thomas: These are arguments that are common to most who think of these matters, but the solution is not within the box, you have to get outside of the box before you can truly see an alternative other than "technical changes" within the box. Victor wrote: I intimated that for perhaps 30 per cent of the voters, the problem is more than lack of information; they don't have their hearts in the right place. I've been doing some informal analysis of why some people enthusiastically support the regressive Mike Harris regime in Ontario although a well-informed person would see clearly that it is against their own economic self-interest. My observations convince me that for many people there is an emotional component to their allegiance that is quite impervious to logic and information. Some evince a masochistic guilt: "We were living too high off the hog; someone had to make those cuts." A larger number like to blame problems on the weak and helpless: "It's those lazy welfare bums that like to sit at home and drink beer while I'm out working my ass off to pay for them." Or it's the immigrants, people of colour, aboriginal, etc. I do not think there is much hope of changing people
Re: Re:democracy
At 04:45 PM 1/30/99 -0500, you wrote: Victor Milne: As I recall, this thread got started with a comment about many of the voters seeming to be neither intelligent nor well-informed. I'm sure from many of his postings that Ed Weick did not mean this in an elitist sense. No, I didn't mean it in an elitist sense. I meant it very much in the sense of your posting. What often adds complexity to voter decision-making is the choice between the candidate and the party. I've been faced with this on more than one occasion. I wanted to vote for a party but I simply couldn't stomach the candidate it was running. On one occasion I did not feel any of the candidates were worthy of my vote so I spoiled my ballet. Yes, I will agree the issue of voter decision making is a difficult one. New Zealand had its first MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) election at the end of 1996. They attempted to get over the problem of people voting for a Party when the candidate selected for that people was absolutely useless (in many voters opinions), by giving voters two votes. One vote goes to an electorate candidate while the other goes to The Party of the voters choice. It is The Party Vote which determines the composition of the new parliament. Sounds all very nice and tidy but the system is not perfect, mainly for two reasons:- 1) Tactical voting - eg. when you vote for a minor party because of promises made before the election which specify a certain course of action after the election. This happened in New Zealand when the minor party did the exact opposite of what they said they were going to do. So tactical voting does not always work. 2) The other major problem concerns Party allegiances. The parliament New Zealand has now is nothing like the one that was voted for at the end of 1996. In the last two years nine parliamentarians have either 'jumped ship' to other parties or declared themselves 'independent' (not really independent since are pledged to support the minority government on confidence issues). An attempt was made to address that problem by introducing a members Bill compelling members who 'jumped ship' to resign from parliament but was defeated. I would be interested to hear if you have any further thoughts on how the issue of Voter Choice might be improved. Cheers Ross
Re:democracy
As I recall, this thread got started with a comment about many of the voters seeming to be neither intelligent nor well-informed. I'm sure from many of his postings that Ed Weick did not mean this in an elitist sense. I don't think lack of intelligence is really the problem. I also do not think that intelligence in any easily definable sense is really relevant. The core of the issue is really personal values. I work in a factory and my best friend there is a spot-welder named Harold. I don't think Harold could have pursued all the academic education I obtained before my foot slipped off the career ladder. However, Harold's heart is in the right place and he has a great deal of common sense (in the original meaning of that phrase, not in the debased meaning popularized by the right-wing government of Ontario). When you promote the notion of governance based on intelligence, you have no guiding values to select those people. Although I have successfully completed 10 years of post-secondary education (English and later theology), I doubt that I or anyone else could prove that I am more intelligent than, say, a University of Chicago neoconservative economist. It just happens that I am right about most things and he is dead wrong!!! I would much rather see my friend Harold in charge of vital policy decisions than a neoconservative economist. That is why I would never support a meritocracy scheme like Jay Hanson's. I think that most people have their values right, say about 70 per cent of them. (I base this figure on poll results in Canada about specific issues such as health care or welfare.) However, the voters often elect parties that are all too likely to bring about results contrary to what they really want. They get taken in by phoney promises, "We have to cut the deficit, we have to give tax breaks to big business, so that we can afford to give you better health care ... sometime in the sweet bye-and-bye." The problem is one of misinformation for at 70 per cent of the voters. I do not see any easy way to change the situation. Media outlets are very expensive to own and operate, so by definition they will continue to be owned by the wealthy and to promote the interests of the wealthy. Most people are not going to search the Internet looking for fresh information and alternative viewpoints; they don't have the time and the specific interest. Stephen Best, Director of Environment Voters, believes that activisits can influence the direction of the government only by working at the grassroots level, doing personal canvassing during elections. http://environmentvoters.org I intimated that for perhaps 30 per cent of the voters, the problem is more than lack of information; they don't have their hearts in the right place. I've been doing some informal analysis of why some people enthusiastically support the regressive Mike Harris regime in Ontario although a well-informed person would see clearly that it is against their own economic self-interest. My observations convince me that for many people there is an emotional component to their allegiance that is quite impervious to logic and information. Some evince a masochistic guilt: "We were living too high off the hog; someone had to make those cuts." A larger number like to blame problems on the weak and helpless: "It's those lazy welfare bums that like to sit at home and drink beer while I'm out working my ass off to pay for them." Or it's the immigrants, people of colour, aboriginals, etc. I do not think there is much hope of changing people like that. As the French say, tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner. These people probably had a lousy childhood with parents knocking them around for nothing, and they've grown up to believe in knocking around the weak and helpless. The only hope I see is to work one at a time on the 70 per cent who are reasonably well-balanced to elect governments that promote the real long-term interests of citizens, and as we gradually get a better society, it will produce fewer people who are emotionally screwed up. Live long and prosper Victor Milne Pat Gottlieb FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/
Re: Re:democracy
Victor Milne: As I recall, this thread got started with a comment about many of the voters seeming to be neither intelligent nor well-informed. I'm sure from many of his postings that Ed Weick did not mean this in an elitist sense. No, I didn't mean it in an elitist sense. I meant it very much in the sense of your posting. What often adds complexity to voter decision-making is the choice between the candidate and the party. I've been faced with this on more than one occasion. I wanted to vote for a party but I simply couldn't stomach the candidate it was running. On one occasion I did not feel any of the candidates were worthy of my vote so I spoiled my ballet. What we have to realize in discussing this whole issue of governance is that our system has evolved over several hundred years and is still evolving. It is a very imperfect system, but it is the only one we have. For the most part, we cherish it, flawed as it is. To take it away from us and give it to some elite group, as Jay argues, would result either in rebellion and chaos or the repression of a police state. Yes, voters can be stupid and politicians can be stupid, but the right to cast a free vote is not stupid. Ed Weick
Re: re:democracy
I pointed out (often), that there are fundamental conditions for a proper working democracy, and these conditions did not exist in our history so far. Then the reasonable observer would conclude they never will. What about universal literacy? What about the technology to make information universally available and open for everyone? What about the capacity to produce all basic necessities in abundance? What about basic experience in democratic de- cisionmaking? To my knowledge, some of these conditions only existed for less than 100 years and on the others we are still working on. So, who is this reasonable observer? Eva Jay
re:democracy
Jay: ... As it has turned out, modern evolutionary scientists have found that the Founding Fathers were right: true democracy won?t work. Natural selection and genetic development created a human tendency for dominance, submission, hierarchy, and obedience, as opposed to equality and democracy. As one political scientist recently put it: "[ Evolutionary scientists ] Somit and Peterson provide an informative account of the evolutionary basis for our historical (and current) opposition to democracy. For many, this will be an unwelcome message ? like being told that one?s fly is unzipped. But after a brief bout of anger, we tend to thank the messenger for sparing us further embarrassment." ... Natural selection and genetic development works in a much larger time scale than social depelopment that may change human hierarchical, obedient etc behaviour in less than a generation and such socially conditioned behaviour forms are not genetically inheritable. Anyone who uses the winners/losers biological evolution argument for the development of human society is ready to blame the failures of social structure on human characteristics, and ready to condemn sections of society, rather than to condenm inefficient social structures. A straight and sinister road to fascism. Eva
re:democracy
Ed W.: ... Somehow I'm not at all surprised that this is your point of view. But then how is merit to be determined? Testing and experience, you say, but who will assess this? Surely an intelligent and informed public should have something to do with it. But, I suppose you would then argue that much of the public is neither intelligent nor informed, a point which I would, alas, have to agree with. ... Not informed , yes. But not intelligent?? I wasn't aware of any decline in public intelligence. Any data? Voting and tv vieing habits are not valid - they belong to the "not informed" bit. I am seriously concerned now. How many of this list have this total contempt for most of humanity??? Eva
Re: re:democracy
- Original Message - From: Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Natural selection and genetic development works in a much larger time scale than social depelopment that may change human hierarchical, obedient etc behaviour in less than a generation and such socially conditioned behaviour forms are not genetically inheritable. You are correct. Here is a longer quite from Somit Peterson that discusses "indoctrinability": --- This book seeks to explain an incontrovertible though hardly welcome fact: Throughout human history, the overwhelming majority of political societies have been characterized by the rule of the few over the many, by dominance and submission, by command and obedience. No matter the century or era, we see the same pattern -- authoritarian regimes are notable by their presence and persistence, democracies by their infrequency and impermanence. This has unarguably been the case in the past; an objective assessment of today's some two hundred polities compels the conclusion that, even in what is hailed as an "Age of Democracy," it still remains essentially the case today. The consistency of this pattern raises two very troublesome questions. First and most obvious: Why are authoritarian governments so common and enduring--and democracies, in painful contrast, so rare and, all too often, so fragile? To this question, many answers have been offered; as their sheer number and variety testifies none has yet been particularly persuasive. In this book we address the same issue but advance a quite different explanation. Although other factors are undoubtedly also operative, the most important reason for the rarity of democracy is that evolution has endowed our species, as it has the other social primates, with a predisposition for hierarchically structured social and political systems. In the pages that follow, we will try both to explain why and how this has occurred and, equally important, to anticipate the objections that likely will (and certainly should) be raised to such an unattractive thesis. The proposed explanation promptly triggers the second question: How, then, can we account for the undeniable occasional emergence of democratic polities? Many of those who have wrestled with this problem find the answer in some unique concatenation of economic, social, historical, and political "facilitating" factors. These factors undoubtedly play a role. Nonetheless, paradoxically enough, we must again turn to evolutionary theory for the necessary, though not sufficient, condition that makes democracy sometimes possible. Although it shares the proclivity of its fellow social primates for hierarchical social organization, Homo sapiens is the only species capable of creating and, under some circumstances, acting in accordance with cultural beliefs that actually run counter to its innate behavioral tendencies. The generally accepted, if lamentably awkward, term for this truly unique capacity is "indoctrinability." Celibacy and the (presumably) less demanding ideal of faithful monogamy are obvious examples of indoctrinability at work. Democracy, an idea almost as alien to our social primate nature, is another. It is indoctrinability, then, that makes it possible, given some conjunction of the aforementioned facilitating social, economic, and other, conditions, for democracies occasionally to emerge and to have some chance to survive. Our original objective was to address the two questions identified above. As we proceeded, however, a third task emerged. A neo-Darwinian perspective on the prospects of democracy in a social primate species can all too easily be misperceived as deliberately or inadvertently (the net effect is the same) antidemocratic in thrust. That is assuredly neither our position nor our desire. Our intent, rather, is to show that the democratic cause will continue to be ill served if we fail to take adequate account of our species' innate hierarchical inclinations. That evolution has endowed Homo sapiens with a genetic bias toward hierarchy, dominance, and submission need not necessarily be a counsel of despair. Better to grasp this reality than to blissfully believe that our species is innately democratic in its political tendencies and that other forms of government are unfortunate, but essentially temporary, aberrations. Only after we recognize and accept that fact can we begin to think realistically about the type of domestic and foreign policies required for the survival of democratic government, a subject to which we finally decided to devote our concluding chapter. [pp. 3,4, DARWINISM, DOMINANCE, AND DEMOCRACY: The Biological Bases of Authoritarianism, by Albert Somit and Steven A. Peterson; http://info.greenwood.com/books/0275958/0275958175.html http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275958175 Jay
