Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Canada => The World => Topic started by: Super Colin Blow on January 30, 2019, 02:58:49 pm
-
This thread isn't about foreign policy, but I decided it probably fit best in "the World" category.
I read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. I do not agree with everything he writes, but he does have some decent salient points about democracy. He thinks it is doomed to failure because of its flaws.
One flaw I have noticed is that there is, in every democracy with which I know anything about, still a "democratic elite" that controls the votes of the less influential elements of society.
I'm not saying that democracy isn't superior to communism, fascism, or other such perverse forms of government. I would much rather live in a democracy than in a communist dictatorship. The elite in those forms of government get away with a lot of **** that democratic leaders wouldn't.
One of you started a thread about the Trudeau "brand". Politicians are often chosen by their brand images, and not via careful thought. one would think, why would you want to trade democracy for a Heinleinian "meritocracy" (or whatever his form of government should be called)? Especially considering that you're essentially shrinking the number of watchdogs of freedom to do so? But of course, the democratic watchdogs are usually asleep on the job. It took them nothing to earn their positions, all they had to do was file the papers, run for election, and deceive the electorate into voting for them.
Will democracy eventually fail, as Heinlein predicted? Or is it really the best form of government we'll ever come up with?
I hope Heinlein is dead wrong. But as the days pass I am more convinced that there is at least something to his arguments.
-
In Heinlen’s Starship Troopers, it was a one-world government led by the military elite. This was necessary due to people being too soft and moral decay. The one-world gov’t was in reaction to China trying to take over the world.
I guess if you feel that people are too soft and moral decay will be the end of society, you may have a point to make.
But I think the case for a democracy failing for those reasons is rather hard to make these days. The Communist regimes are all but gone and democracy has spread around the world considerably. So Heilen’s case is rather weak, IMO.
-
Not a military elite, an EX military elite. People who had a military career, and were therefore still "active duty", were not Heinlein's "citizens". Had to be a veteran, not active duty, to be one of the Federation's citizens.
And of course we cannot see the future. I see weaknesses in democracies that may be our undoing, perhaps one day. Communism had fatal flaws, and they weren't necessarily apparent until the secretariat of Mikhail Gorbachev, or his few most immediate predecessors.
Maybe we will go to war with China. I thought, however, that the war between the UK/US/Russia vs. the Chinese "hegemony" he called it was triggered by the failing democracies wanting to go to war to squash internal unrest?
Then again, that could have happened in the States during and after Vietnam. And of course it didn't.
And, of course, Donald Trump wouldn't be president.
I'm not advocating this, but I am wondering if it'll eventually happen. Maybe at that time, the only choices left will be anarchy, dictatorship, or the aforementioned ex-military meritocracy imagined by Heinlein.
-
I'm not advocating this, but I am wondering if it'll eventually happen.
So far, the evidence is the opposite. There are more democracies and more freedom in the world, not less. And the trend is a good one, so far.
-
So far, the evidence is the opposite. There are more democracies and more freedom in the world, not less. And the trend is a good one, so far.
True. But then again, Communism was once on the increase. Reds under the beds and all that.
-
True. But then again, Communism was once on the increase. Reds under the beds and all that.
I can see the USA democracy failing... but that might be because it was never a real democracy, but is on the verge of being ruled by elite capitalists with all the power.
But other democracies seem to have it figured out better.
-
Hmm, famous last words? :P
But I didn't start this as a thread to compare the U.S. to Canada or other "real democracies".
-
One flaw I have noticed is that there is, in every democracy with which I know anything about, still a "democratic elite" that controls the votes of the less influential elements of society.
The election of Trump and Brexit demonstrate that is not true and the voters have the power to force through change that the "elites" oppose should they choose to exercise it.
I also think that democracy is consequence and not an end in itself. Successful societies need to be able to change which requires to a peaceful means to decide on what changes are needed. This, in turn, requires robust freedom of speech rights and a mechanism to replace the the people running the government without a civil war. Democracy is the only framework that is compatible with those requirements which means that, for all its flaws, it is the best system.
-
The elites can shape the vote, leaders often shape consensus, not just wait for it to fall in place. When you get right down to it, a single voter in the US or Canada has maybe a bit more power as one in pre-Glasnost Russia--but not by much.
There are people who have more influence than others in democracies, not just in despotic regimes. There was an interesting book about the process of political survival (complex so I wont' get into it) where he spoke of the average voter as an "interchangeable", vs. a minority of voters who were more influential, or part of a leader's "winning coalition".
It's the best system, yes. So far. But if you went back to the court of Henry VIII, or George III, would you be able to convince any of them that the idea of our democracy (in the 21st century) would be way better than their powerful monarchy? Probably not. A few centuries ago, the democracy we have now just didn't exist. Jefferson poo-pooed the idea of democracy as tantamount to mob rule.
I believe it's the best system we can possibly come up for the moment. I just do not glorify it as the best we will ever come up with. Who can say what the future holds? Maybe Heinlein's idea, maybe something completely different.
-
The election of Trump and Brexit demonstrate that is not true and the voters have the power to force through change that the "elites" oppose should they choose to exercise it.
I also think that democracy is consequence and not an end in itself. Successful societies need to be able to change which requires to a peaceful means to decide on what changes are needed. This, in turn, requires robust freedom of speech rights and a mechanism to replace the the people running the government without a civil war. Democracy is the only framework that is compatible with those requirements which means that, for all its flaws, it is the best system.
With all due respect, the election of Donald Trump shows exactly how the "interchangeables" can be manipulated by rhetoric and "feel good" bull****.
Democracy has less question marks than despotism. But it still has plenty of question marks that makes me wonder is this really the best we can do? And don't be so quick to assume it's just the U.S. that's like that. From what some of you have told me, and debated over on this website it sounds like other democracies besides America possess the capacity for grave dysfunction.
-
I can see the USA democracy failing... but that might be because it was never a real democracy, but is on the verge of being ruled by elite capitalists with all the power.
But other democracies seem to have it figured out better.
Other democracies don't give so much power to whom they elect as leader as does the US. And oops, they now have to deal with an idiot like Trump closing the doors of government for the most stupid reasons.
-
With all due respect, the election of Donald Trump shows exactly how the "interchangeables" can be manipulated by rhetoric and "feel good" bull****.
Make up your mind. One minute you complain that an "elite" controls things and the next minute you complain because an outsider can come in and appeal to voters and get elected. You can't have it both ways. Is the flaw in democracy elite control or voters that ignore elite advice?
But it still has plenty of question marks that makes me wonder is this really the best we can do?
As I said, the important values are the ability to effect change by replacing the people in charge without bloodshed and the ability to discuss and debate ideas without fear. You will not find a system other than democracy that supports those values. Democracy is the consequence - not the end in itself.
-
It still matters what the voters do, they have the authority. This makes it all the more desirable, and necessary, for an elite to "manage" or sway those votes. Exactly how much power do you think you have as a voter? Not much, individually. Which is why the people who have the power to combine those votes, and shape consensus, are that kind of powered elite. Do you understand? Coming from Canada, a constitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy, I'm quite sure you are familiar with the fact that power and authority are not always commensurate.
It's almost like wealth: one person with a dollar in his/her pocket cannot achieve much. But when you combine your dollar with everyone else's dollar, you can actually do important **** with it. (Build a bridge, run public schools, buy an F-35 joint strike fighter....etc.)
For example, In California the people can literally pass laws themselves. The present constitution originates from a time when people were sick of the railroad barons (business interests/special interests) making the governor and California Legislature into their private stooges. So they brought about a method by which the legislature and governor could be bypassed and, with them, the corrupt special interests; namely, passing plebiscites. All you need to get a question on the next election ballot is 250,000 signatures on a correctly-worded petition. Let freedom ring!
Unfortunately, it hasn't turned out that way. What do you need to get such a prolific petition drive? You need organization. Who has organization, and the money and influence to not only do the petition drive but to shape its outcome? Special interests. The unions. Big Business, etc., basically the people who have the power to shape policy through the ballot box. The voters have the authority, but elite interests have the power to bring those votes together in large blocks as a class, and swing the result one way or the other.
This isn't "having it both ways" as you put it. It's how it actually happens. If you really think that in any democratic country the voters can make a difference alone, and that a "real democracy" has little or no "elite", then please pass whatever you're smoking to me. It looks terribly pleasant.
Other democracies don't give so much power to whom they elect as leader as does the US. And oops, they now have to deal with an idiot like Trump closing the doors of government for the most stupid reasons.
Rubbish (about the power of the president). Your prime minister has more power in his pinky finger than a Pres. of the United States has in his whole hand. Our dear leader LOOKS more powerful to people in other countries because he has a world reach that most other national leaders do not. But that only means the whole federal government of the United States has a world reach, not the president by himself.
(not to get off topic but you cannot check and balance what isn't constitutionally described at all. But again, I do not want this to degenerate into a Canada v. America thread.)
This thread was intended to be a more theoretical discussion. I believe in democracy as the best we can do at the moment, I just happen to admit that, as with any form of government, the drawbacks must and always do accompany the advantages. It's a double-edged sword. You cannot have a particular government and enjoy its advantages without living with its drawbacks.
-
Other democracies don't give so much power to whom they elect as leader as does the US. And oops, they now have to deal with an idiot like Trump closing the doors of government for the most stupid reasons.
The POTUS has at his disposal the "football" which is carried around behind him by the secret service, and which contains the codes to launch wwIII which could destroy the planet. That's a lot of power. I suggest/hope that the current situation is the same as it was when Nixon was losing his marbles, the real "football" is nowheree near Donny boy.
-
So do the heads of state/government of:
India
Pakistan
the UK
France
Russia
China
Israel
North Korea.
They've got their own footballs. How is the U.S. president so exceptional in that?
-
So do the heads of state/government of:
India
Pakistan
the UK
France
Russia
China
Israel
North Korea.
They've got their own footballs. How is the U.S. president so exceptional in that?
I don't see Canada on your list.
-
What of it? Sorry I thought we were talking about Heinlein and democracy?
And thanks for dodging the question lol.
-
What of it? Sorry I thought we were talking about Heinlein and democracy?
And thanks for dodging the question lol.
But I thought you said Canada had more power in it's little finger.
-
The POTUS has at his disposal the "football" which is carried around behind him by the secret service, and which contains the codes to launch wwIII which could destroy the planet. That's a lot of power. I suggest/hope that the current situation is the same as it was when Nixon was losing his marbles, the real "football" is nowheree near Donny boy.
Sounds like the Q Bomb from The Mouse that Roared.
-
Sounds like the Q Bomb from The Mouse that Roared.
Or the "Wrath of Grapes."
-
Sounds like the Q Bomb from The Mouse that Roared.
LOVE that movie! Peter Sellers is awesome!
I said that the Canadian Prime Minister has a lot of power compared to the US president. I was speaking of our respective heads of government.
-
This isn't "having it both ways" as you put it. It's how it actually happens. If you really think that in any democratic country the voters can make a difference alone, and that a "real democracy" has little or no "elite", then please pass whatever you're smoking to me. It looks terribly pleasant.
That is a rather pessimistic view of things. I agree that special interests [spelt money] hold a lot of influence, but there is still a wide discrepancy between how things are implemented in various jurisdictions. Instead of California, maybe you should look to Switzerland. They also have plebiscites, but are implemented in a significantly different manner. I also believe that a more representative government, instead of a two party system makes it much harder for special interests to become so entrenched. You are right that true democracy is very hard to achieve, but I think there is much would could do to get closer to that ideal.
-
California is, I admit, a more extreme case of direct democracy getting out of hand. Not all states are like that. Ours for example: there was a law passed by the General Assembly (state legislature) to legalize same-sex marriage. After the governor signed the law, there was a petition drive to repeal it, mostly by conservative republicans, who are vastly outnumbered and outvoted in this state (we've been "blue" since Andrew Jackson was president). Fortunately (in my view), the law was upheld by the voters. So I can see the benefits of referenda/plebiscites in a democratic society. But it can get out of hand. The legislature passed that law, and they're paid to do it for 90 days every year (pass laws, that is.)
Switzerland could be a special case. Quite often, leaders refer issues to the public via plebiscites like that. But only if they think it's going to pass in their favor. Very few leaders, however democratic, feel like "let's roll the dice and see which way the people want it." They want to know the outcome before it happens, otherwise they wouldn't bother to refer it to the people. Maybe in Switzerland there is more direct participation, and they're used to it. Switzerland is smaller, and perhaps its citizens feel closer and more involved? I'll have to look that up on Wikipedia, or some external source.
If that seems a little pessimistic, I accept that.
But Washington doesn't play the same part in our lives that national governments do in other countries. Despite any call for "states rights", and the growth of federal power over the last two centuries, there is still a certain "distance" between the people and the U.S. government in Washington. (Take into account that with the present national population, there are 750,000 residents to one congressman. That's pretty distant.) We feel "closer" to the state and local governments as how it affects our daily lives. perhaps that's why we have less direct "engagement" than Switzerland in the U.S.?
BTW, I apologize for the "what are you smoking" sentence. That was rude of me.
-
I was thinking about US election pending, after a video I saw on the weekend:
Democrats spent $6.9B to win in 2020
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/cost-of-2020-election-14billion-update/
Liberals spent $26.1M to win in 2019
That is 265X by my math.
Now the UK:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-election-2019-spending-campaign-conservatives-b859020.html
That's about $28M CDN dollars to win 66 million people - cheaper than Canada.
-
It's a dirty game at the top. People will do literally anything they can get away with to win.
There's a lot of wealthy corporations with vested interests in the US. In Canada it's mostly banks, developers, and oil.
-
It's a dirty game at the top. People will do literally anything they can get away with to win.
There's a lot of wealthy corporations with vested interests in the US. In Canada it's mostly banks, developers, and oil.
How much can a wealthy corporation donate to a political campaign in Canada?
-
How much can a wealthy corporation donate to a political campaign in Canada?
This assumes laws stop these things, and official donations are the only means of corruption. There's always things like the Trudeau Foundation, vacations with the Aga Khan, and i'm sure a great many things none of us have any awareness of.
-
Explain?
-
This assumes laws stop these things, and official donations are the only means of corruption. There's always things like the Trudeau Foundation, vacations with the Aga Khan, and i'm sure a great many things none of us have any awareness of.
So the Aga Khan is getting what out of the PM? Please be precise. Put away the tinfoil hat and the conspiracies.
-
So the Aga Khan is getting what out of the PM? Please be precise. Put away the tinfoil hat and the conspiracies.
https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charity-details/1-aga-khan-foundation-canada
"Founded in 1980, Aga Khan Foundation Canada (AKFC) is part of the Aga Khan Development Network, a group of international development charities operating globally. Aga Khan Foundation Canada was founded by His Highness the Aga Khan...
Of Canada's largest charities, the Major 100, Aga Khan Foundation Canada is one of seven that are not financially transparent. The charity received $50.7m in donations in F2020. Aga Khan Foundation Canada also received $22.7m in government funding and $9.1m in other revenue (donations from other agencies and AKF)."
The Aga Khan Foundation Canada headquarters is located in Ottawa across the street from Global Affairs Canada and a 3-minute drive from 24 Sussex and Parliament Hill. That's what lobbyists do. Also, charities like the Trudeau Foundation, Trump Foundation, and Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 while Billy Boy was still in office lol) can be used for all sorts of "donations" by anyone or any 3rd party. I have no idea what agreements are made behind closed doors, that's the whole point.
Case in point...
"Money began to rain on Trudeau Foundation once Justin took over Liberals, analysis shows. The National Post's analysis confirms one in six donors (if academic institutions are excluded) have affiliations with organizations currently lobbying the government"
That also includes a ton of foreign donations.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/money-began-to-rain-on-trudeau-foundation-once-justin-took-over-liberals-analysis-shows
-
LOL.
(https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/tf.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1128&type=webp)
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/money-began-to-rain-on-trudeau-foundation-once-justin-took-over-liberals-analysis-shows
-
https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charity-details/1-aga-khan-foundation-canada
The Aga Khan Foundation Canada headquarters is located in Ottawa across the street from Global Affairs Canada and a 3-minute drive from 24 Sussex and Parliament Hill. That's what lobbyists do. Also, charities like the Trudeau Foundation, Trump Foundation, and Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 while Billy Boy was still in office lol) can be used for all sorts of "donations" by anyone or any 3rd party. I have no idea what agreements are made behind closed doors, that's the whole point.
Guilt by proximity.
That also includes a ton of foreign donations.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/money-began-to-rain-on-trudeau-foundation-once-justin-took-over-liberals-analysis-shows
Ok. No smoking gun.
-
Ok - just saw the graph.
Maybe - but are you saying Trudeau will personally benefit ? Or is this just a way to ingratiate people to him ?
Does O'Toole have a foundation ?
And as Jack Benny famously said to Steve Allen:
"You wouldn't make that accusation if Waldo [my writers] was here !"
-
What's in it for us when lobbyists and politicians meet and discuss affairs and issues that belong in the public's domain and how do we protect our interest?
-
Everyone is allowed to ask for stuff.
Theoretically, some large organization that is working your interests also gets access. Theoretically.
-
And as Jack Benny famously said to Steve Allen:
"You wouldn't make that accusation if Waldo [my writers] was here !"
Actually it was Fred Allen. I was the only Jack Benny aficionado in my Grade 5 class.
-
Everyone is allowed to ask for stuff.
Theoretically, some large organization that is working your interests also gets access. Theoretically.
I find this extremely naive. Individuals get access to politicians simply for being rich business tycoons, or they are paid lobbyists. Individuals, like you and me, don’t get access whatsoever.
-
Actually it was Fred Allen. I was the only Jack Benny aficionado in my Grade 5 class.
I knew I liked you for some reason.
-
I find this extremely naive. Individuals get access to politicians simply for being rich business tycoons, or they are paid lobbyists. Individuals, like you and me, don’t get access whatsoever.
I'm not saying I buy into this design concept, I am only relating it.
-
I find this extremely naive. Individuals get access to politicians simply for being rich business tycoons, or they are paid lobbyists. Individuals, like you and me, don’t get access whatsoever.
Part of the problem--part mind you, and in my opinion--is that the growing population means there's more people per MP/congressman/whatever. How can they know 100,000 of their fellow citizens well enough to really understand their problems?
-
Part of the problem--part mind you, and in my opinion--is that the growing population means there's more people per MP/congressman/whatever. How can they know 100,000 of their fellow citizens well enough to really understand their problems?
Well, they don't. They use TV advertising to get them to vote against their interests - although that model is dying somewhat.
-
It's a dirty game at the top. People will do literally anything they can get away with to win.
There's a lot of wealthy corporations with vested interests in the US. In Canada it's mostly banks, developers, and oil.
SNC Lavalin is none of those, but seem to have enormous influence with the government, as does Bombardier and Power Corp, not to mention the Irvings.
-
Since we are talking about democracy, I think this might be relevant...
From: https://www.businessinsider.com/civil-war-experts-indicators-us-on-brink-of-conflict-historian-2022-1
Though the idea of another civil war in the near future might seem far-fetched to many Americans, people who study such conflicts may disagree, according to Timothy Snyder, a history professor at Yale University.... he feared the US might not survive if former President Donald Trump were to run again in 2024.... He cited the high degree of polarization, beliefs in alternative realities, and celebration of violence. As an example of the latter, he pointed to some who reflexively praised the actions of Kyle Rittenhouse...
From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/next-us-civil-war-already-here-we-refuse-to-see-it
The legal system grows less legitimate by the day. Trust in government...is in freefall, or, like Congress, with approval ratings hovering around 20%, cannot fall any lower. Right now, elected sheriffs openly promote resistance to federal authority...militias train and arm themselves in preparation for the fall of the Republic.... doctrines of a radical, unachievable, messianic freedom spread across the internet, on talk radio, on cable television, in the malls....The Capitol police have seen threats against members of Congress increase by 107%.
...
Most of the American right have abandoned faith in government...Their politics is, increasingly, the politics of the gun. The American left is slower on the uptake, but they are starting to figure out that the system which they give the name of democracy is less deserving of the name every year. An incipient illegitimacy crisis is under way, whoever is elected in 2022, or in 2024.
...
The right is preparing for a breakdown of law and order, but they are also overtaking the forces of law and order. Hard right organization have now infiltrated so many police forces – the connections number in the hundreds – that they have become unreliable allies in the struggle against domestic terrorism.
So is it possible for the U.S. to have a second civil war? I've seen news clips of pro-Trump supporters talking about "getting guns" to fight the democrats. And we've seen the pictures of 2 Trump supporters wearing "Rather russian than democrat" t-shirts (while at the same time claiming they are "patriots").
If civil war does break out, it won't be like the 1800s (where a bunch of states seceded). Instead it will be messier/more chaotic. If Republicans win later elections using shady tactics (like they tend to do), its possible that you will see wide-scale protests that get out of hand. The police will use abusive tactics, protesters will decide "If cops are going to 'bust heads' I'm going to drop any pretense of peaceful protest and start going armed." If Democrats win, right wingers will replay the January 6 terrorist attack (fueled on more delusions and lies), with many/most cops dropping any pretense of stopping the terrorists.
-
As you say, armed conflict between the states won't happen... But a much worse disintegration and Balkanization.
I think that a new kind of union with the US could result... Like an EU.
-
As you say, armed conflict between the states won't happen... But a much worse disintegration and Balkanization.
I think that a new kind of union with the US could result... Like an EU.
How do you mean exactly?
-
How do you mean exactly?
Like OR, CA and North East states band together somehow to give preferred status to each other... something like a union of states within the states. It could even extend to defence.
-
Like OR, CA and North East states band together somehow to give preferred status to each other... something like a union of states within the states. It could even extend to defence.
I can see something like this developing alright. Lets just hope none extend it to going on the offensive. That old Jesus-land map always made me feel like we had a decent buffer between us and the very worst of the lot. I have family in Seattle and they're within a large circle of friends who seem to similarly feel better knowing Canada is just right over here so to speak. The world has become a smaller place in the face of globalization while simultaneously becoming more distant due to the way localized regions react differently to it.
Between the Blue States to the south and the Pacific Ocean to the west I feel safe enough from the effects of increasing dysfunction and collapse of old norms but I think the importance of sheer livability due to changing environmental conditions will be a bigger concern in the future along with more refugees/migrants attempting to flee increasingly inhospitable places.
I think its safe to say defense will definitely become more regionally focussed.
-
I can see something like this developing alright. Lets just hope none extend it to going on the offensive. That old Jesus-land map always made me feel like we had a decent buffer between us and the very worst of the lot. I have family in Seattle and they're within a large circle of friends who seem to similarly feel better knowing Canada is just right over here so to speak. The world has become a smaller place in the face of globalization while simultaneously becoming more distant due to the way localized regions react differently to it.
Between the Blue States to the south and the Pacific Ocean to the west I feel safe enough from the effects of increasing dysfunction and collapse of old norms but I think the importance of sheer livability due to changing environmental conditions will be a bigger concern in the future along with more refugees/migrants attempting to flee increasingly inhospitable places.
I think its safe to say defense will definitely become more regionally focussed.
Or like a lot of major conflicts... it could just pass into history quietly and inexplicably
-
Or like a lot of major conflicts... it could just pass into history quietly and inexplicably
Maybe everyone will just retreat noisily into the metaverse.
-
Maybe everyone will just retreat noisily into the metaverse.
There are examples:
The Free Silver Controversy
Gay Marriage
The Ossian Controversy
Kanye West upstages Taylor Swift at an awards show
-
There are examples:
The Free Silver Controversy
Gay Marriage
The Ossian Controversy
Kanye West upstages Taylor Swift at an awards show
Another example might have been the shooting war that never broke out between people who fish for wild Pacific salmon and people who raise Atlantic salmon in farms. We said the least they could do is build hatcheries and free range species native to the Pacific but that was too much like playing God DFO told us at the meeting. A year later God flew the first load of Atlantic salmon smolts to an open pen in the Pacific Ocean and the war's been on ever since.
Farmers had huge advantages starting with a very friendly management regime that was just as unfriendly to wild fishermen. I'm quite certain if BC had been a developing country with a dodgy democracy or worse the war would have been violent with local people against big corporations in a classic David Vs Goliath struggle except it was Goliath with a Big Brother. On the ground, it certainly felt like democracy was withering.
Now the tide is finally turning. Farms are against the wall, we're chasing them off and even the great unwashed has finally taken note of wild salmon. Perhaps you might have noticed when DiCaprio's character in Don't Look Up compared a pale washed out piece of farmed crap to a nice red looking wild salmon fillet.
The first winter fishery for chinook salmon in decades opens Monday morning. Dock price will be $15 per lb, the lucky ones who land on fish will make $10000 by the time the sun sets. If it wasn't for this fricken' alien in my chest...
-
Like OR, CA and North East states band together somehow to give preferred status to each other... something like a union of states within the states. It could even extend to defence.
That's unconstitutional.
-
That's unconstitutional.
I didn't realize. How is it unconstitutional?
-
Or like a lot of major conflicts... it could just pass into history quietly and inexplicably
Possibly. But I guess the question is, is there anything that has the potential to stop the progression?
The republicans who have fallen for the false "election was stolen" narrative are sticking by their fuehrer. Fox news (one of the key spreaders of misinformation) maintains a significant edge on the other cable news networks, and shows no sign of becoming a responsible broadcaster. Republican attempts to disenfranchise voters in the 2022 and 2024 elections might be successful and they might just retake congress and/or the whitehouse. The quality of American democracy is in decline, and there doesn't seen to be anything that might happen to reverse that trend.
-
I didn't realize. How is it unconstitutional?
A trade & defense pact between California, Oregon and Washington (state) would be unconstitutional on three counts:
First, no state may enter any compact, treaty, whatever with any other state without the consent of Congress.
Second, no state can have the ability to make war, unless actually invaded, so that nixes banding together for the purpose of mutual defense.
Third, there's something about trade pacts that a state cannot prefer one state's ports over another or levy duties on tonnage and what not between states (like they couldn't levy a duty on goods from outside the CA/WA/OR superstate, which is what would happen in this hypothetical compact for trade purposes).
There's probably more to it than that, but I think I've covered the most important ones. I'm not a constitutional lawyer (or a lawyer at all) but I know such an interstate compact for the purposes of trade or defense would be a no-no. That's about what I can think of off the top of my head.
Can Canadian provinces do something similar? I heard of alcohol duties going from one province to another (or I misunderstood someone's explanation thereof, perhaps)
-
These constitutional restrictions seem to cut off a potential route away from civil war. Too bad.
-
These constitutional restrictions seem to cut off a potential route away from civil war. Too bad.
Or could cause it.
-
These constitutional restrictions seem to cut off a potential route away from civil war. Too bad.
Uh, how? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If several states could make their own agreements without the permission of Congress, it would cause civil war, not avoid it. I don't think you're thinking that through.
This is actually the US's second constitution, not its first. The first did allow the states to be in business for themselves. And what a rip roaring success that was!
-
Uh, how? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If several states could make their own agreements without the permission of Congress, it would cause civil war, not avoid it. I don't think you're thinking that through.
I guess I meant in this case - I think it may already be too late to avoid civil war. If they really can't go their own way peacefully then I'm a little confused at how that squares with America's ideas on liberty, freedom and especially independence. Can anyone down there honestly say they're thinking things through?
This is actually the US's second constitution, not its first. The first did allow the states to be in business for themselves. And what a rip roaring success that was!
Oh well, I suppose try try again is probably just as appropriate a course of action following the 2nd attempt as the first. You would think hindsight should prevent a bloodbath but I'm afraid there might be too much unrequited vindication they need to get out of their system.
-
Hmmm. Care to explain how and what would trigger a civil war in the United States?
-
Hmmm. Care to explain how and what would trigger a civil war in the United States?
Current events.
-
Current events.
Not much of an answer, is it? I'm actually rather disappointed. You can do better than a two-word response.
Can you please be more specific? Especially in relation to our apparently crappy constitution.
-
I think he's talking about the culture war.
-
I think he's talking about the culture war.
Well, I will await his explanation with interest.
-
Not much of an answer, is it? I'm actually rather disappointed. You can do better than a two-word response.
Can you please be more specific? Especially in relation to our apparently crappy constitution.
Yes I can, I was on the run yesterday.
I don't know enough about the US constitution to comment much except to say the reviews seem a little mixed. I understand there are individual sentences in it that are hundreds of words long it which make it seem like an omnibus bill with important items tucked away deep within it. Something to be taken with a grain of salt at least. I get it that a constitution should be able stand a test of time but I'm also mindful of obdurateness and the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. A little more flexibility that allows it to keep up with the pace of time and change would be helpful.
I don't think the US constitution will do much to deter America's descent into its political madness and think that'll be even less likely if it forces people who hate each other so much to remain locked into a damaging relationship that one or the other or both may wish to leave. At least in Canada our constitution allows for the sort of separation that might relieve the pressure that could lead to violence. I don't think we're in anywhere near the sort of mess they're in down south of us but I suppose it remains to be seen just how destabilizing the effect of living next to a collapsing super-power is. I think it's safe to say if it happens it will be a lot more dynamic a collapse than the Soviet Union's was and that might actually have a more unifying effect on us, especially if our more hard-boiled conservatives move south to join their ideological compatriots.
Can the US back away from the existential abyss its approaching or is the concern about that just overblown? There seems to be plenty of people with the sort of chops it takes to form an educated opinion who think it could get worse to the point of a civil war of some sort. I think Balkanization would be the most likely outcome as opposed to two organized armies forming like they did during America's 1st Civil War.
-
Yeah I think that it's a tough call to say that the Constitution won't allow states to do divisive things.
There's a game of political chicken there, such as in Canada when Quebec used the notwithstanding clause to pass an unconstitutional language bill.
-
Long response so bear with me please.
[clears throat:] Seriously? You just undermined your whole argument that our constitution is inadequate to stop the American Civil War 2.0 by admitting you know little or nothing about it, and that you're somehow depending on "mixed reviews" from other people. SMH.
The US constitution of 1787 is a lot more flexible than you imagine. Modern jurists and experts in constitutional law employ the "Living Document Theory" which acts as a sort of safety valve. If our 1787 constitution were as long as the Constitution of India--in excess of 145,000 words in 470 distinct articles--it would not be very flexible. Maybe the world's largest national constitution works for India, but in most other countries such inflexibility would be a disaster. It would require amendments at every new session of Congress, and maybe even frequent replacements via some sort of "sunset clause" that says you have to write a new one every, say, 50 years. Most of the amendments were to plug up a few holes here and there that they didn't think of at the Philadelphia Convention.
It has also survived a complete change in the number of people authorized to make political decisions (in other words, the franchise has expanded greatly over time). In 1789, senators were not directly elected and the definition of suffrage was left up to the state constitutions. Article I of the main text of the constitution includes a bit of 18th century legalese gobbledygook which means that, if you're eligible to vote in a state legislature election you are equally able to vote for your member of the House of Representatives. And, since no state in the late 18th century had anything close to universal suffrage, it was not only restricted to white adult males, but adult males who passed a sort of property or income threshold. This means that in 1789, only a small percentage of those aforementioned white adult males were allowed to vote. Today we have universal suffrage at 18. The same constitution has been adequate enough to survive a complete change in the country's political culture, new territory, westward expansion, internal unrest, the abolition of slavery, and a whole host of other earth-shattering events and processes.
Oh, and if it is so inadequate to stop the hypothetical American Civil War 2.0, how come Civil War 1.0 failed to destroy it? In fact, the Confederate (rebel) constitution was a near-verbatim copy of its federal counterpart (with a few important changes but still substantially close to the 1787 constitution. If your thesis, such as it is, was correct, there would have been a 2nd federal constitution in, say, 1865 which superseded it. And that didn't happen: we're still on the same one 233 years later.
Your also mentioned Balkanization of the states, or regions of several states, if I understand you correctly. You didn't explain how that would happen, either. How and why is it going to Balkanize the states, or fail to prevent the process of Balkanizing them? What would happen that would cause your theory above, the Republic of the Left Coast seceding or creating a mini-union, to happen?
I myself am not a constitutional scholar/lawyer but I did take a few courses on the bill of rights and the Supreme Court. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them. You're obviously concerned about the world's hyperpower going South (figuratively speaking), but let me reassure you that, despite its flaws, it's as good as they could have possibly achieved at Philadelphia. It's a product of compromise, yes. It was written by republican (lowercase r) elites, yes. Some of the aforementioned elite owned slaves, yes. But they managed to create a republic from a group of rowdy state governments and prevent them from spinning off centrifugally in a political void.
I'm not a lawyer or poli sci professor but if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. I did take a few related classes in college, pretty interesting stuff.
-
Long response so bear with me please.
[clears throat:] Seriously? You just undermined your whole argument that our constitution is inadequate to stop the American Civil War 2.0 by admitting you know little or nothing about it, and that you're somehow depending on "mixed reviews" from other people. SMH.
I simply took my queue from you that your constitution doesn't allow states to form unions or perhaps even associations with one another outside the official Union that exists now.
The US constitution of 1787 is a lot more flexible than you imagine. Modern jurists and experts in constitutional law employ the "Living Document Theory" which acts as a sort of safety valve.
I guess so long as people are willing to listen to experts you can keep making it work but experts are pond scum to great swaths of people these days. What about the so-called originalists who seem to view your constitution the way fundamentalists view the bible, what sort of sway do they have in the scheme of things?
If our 1787 constitution were as long as the Constitution of India--in excess of 145,000 words in 470 distinct articles--it would not be very flexible. Maybe the world's largest national constitution works for India, but in most other countries such inflexibility would be a disaster. It would require amendments at every new session of Congress, and maybe even frequent replacements via some sort of "sunset clause" that says you have to write a new one every, say, 50 years. Most of the amendments were to plug up a few holes here and there that they didn't think of at the Philadelphia Convention.
It has also survived a complete change in the number of people authorized to make political decisions (in other words, the franchise has expanded greatly over time). In 1789, senators were not directly elected and the definition of suffrage was left up to the state constitutions. Article I of the main text of the constitution includes a bit of 18th century legalese gobbledygook which means that, if you're eligible to vote in a state legislature election you are equally able to vote for your member of the House of Representatives. And, since no state in the late 18th century had anything close to universal suffrage, it was not only restricted to white adult males, but adult males who passed a sort of property or income threshold. This means that in 1789, only a small percentage of those aforementioned white adult males were allowed to vote. Today we have universal suffrage at 18. The same constitution has been adequate enough to survive a complete change in the country's political culture, new territory, westward expansion, internal unrest, the abolition of slavery, and a whole host of other earth-shattering events and processes.
Have you ever heard of or read the book Jihad vs McWorld? This is a good summary of it that could perhaps shed light on how the present in the US is unfolding in ways that are so vastly different than the way it might have if the whole world hadn't changed so much due to market forces and globalization.
The two axial principles of our age—tribalism and globalism—clash at every point except one: they may both be threatening to democracy
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1992/03/jihad-vs-mcworld/303882/
Oh, and if it is so inadequate to stop the hypothetical American Civil War 2.0, how come Civil War 1.0 failed to destroy it? In fact, the Confederate (rebel) constitution was a near-verbatim copy of its federal counterpart (with a few important changes but still substantially close to the 1787 constitution. If your thesis, such as it is, was correct, there would have been a 2nd federal constitution in, say, 1865 which superseded it. And that didn't happen: we're still on the same one 233 years later.
I just don't know. Perhaps the difference this time is that so many of your countrymen truly believe your government has been infiltrated by foreign governments and ideologies that are inimical to the US to the extent that even he constitution is beyond the control of 'ordinary' Americans. I don't know how many Americans buy into the idea that a deepstate actually exists but those who do seem to imply it has more real control over America than the real government. Am I to believe the fear of communist infiltration during the 50's that triggered McCarthyism was on par with today's hysteria? Was it attended by the same hostile partisanship that exists today?
Your also mentioned Balkanization of the states, or regions of several states, if I understand you correctly. You didn't explain how that would happen, either. How and why is it going to Balkanize the states, or fail to prevent the process of Balkanizing them? What would happen that would cause your theory above, the Republic of the Left Coast seceding or creating a mini-union, to happen?
My thinking on this is probably shaped by the old Jesusland map. I think if things deteriorate enough people may feel inclined to move to areas dominated by people who think the way they do.
I myself am not a constitutional scholar/lawyer but I did take a few courses on the bill of rights and the Supreme Court. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them. You're obviously concerned about the world's hyperpower going South (figuratively speaking), but let me reassure you that, despite its flaws, it's as good as they could have possibly achieved at Philadelphia. It's a product of compromise, yes. It was written by republican (lowercase r) elites, yes. Some of the aforementioned elite owned slaves, yes. But they managed to create a republic from a group of rowdy state governments and prevent them from spinning off centrifugally in a political void.
I'm not a lawyer or poli sci professor but if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. I did take a few related classes in college, pretty interesting stuff.
Well I'm just an interested political junkie I guess and I can't help but notice how many people smarter than me about this stuff are quite concerned with how unstable the US appears to be at the moment. I certainly hope today's 'current events' can be likened to a simple fever that will break sooner rather than later and everything will go back to some state of normal but all I can say is good luck because I honestly think you need it.
One other thing I can't leave unsaid is the idea I've voiced that the US might benefit from having someone from outside run your elections until such time as confidence in the election process can be restored. Would your constitution allow for that or would it just weaponize it the way your election process appears to becoming? If the constitution of a democracy is the vehicle that transports a nation through the ages part of the engine and drivetrain that moves it is the election process. Your constitution may be in good shape but your election process could certainly use a tune up. I think mine could too FWIW.
-
OK, now you're talkin'. I don't' agree with everything you say but that was very reasonable and well thought out post. (Not that I am not occasionally electronically tongue-tied myself!)
The one thing I will say, and I think this was the point of my original post, was that if the politicians decide to walk away from the constitution and say "screw it", there are few protections in any constitution which will either prevent that or deal with it as it happens. Was the Weimar Constitution really that bad, or was it the several chancellors before Hitler who set the stage for the rise of the NSDAP, who didn't really believe democracy could work in 1920s Berlin? Who can say. But no constitution is a really effective weapon against times like that. IMHO, the Germans, in November 1918, should have put the crown prince on the throne instead of creating what they called "an imperial order in republican dress". Germany just wasn't ready for democracy. The US constitution, on the other hand, survived the process of democratization over the years, as the electorate expanded vastly
I've heard the term "Miracle at Philadelphia" before and it makes me roll my eyes when I hear it. It was not a miracle: it was a pragmatic compromise on many levels. It's a good constitution, it just needs a little tweaking. Then again, MOST constitutions need a little tweaking. If they didn't need adjustments, why include in it the mechanisms for passing amendments?
I think you're at least partially right about your observations now that you've explained them in detail. I am told Machiavelli said in his Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius, which I have read selections from (it's not bad but very different from the other book for which he is most famous) that a good republic isn't one where there is no social strife but one that can survive the social strife that will happen anyway. And it has survived a lot of political shitstorms between 1789 and now, including, as I stated, civil wars and even one particular war that wasn't very popular (Vietnam). Usually such military or political disasters will cause enough upheaval to overthrow governments, even the political system as a whole.
What worries me is not an inadequate constitution but a desire of certain politicians to get around it. As I said, no constitution no matter how "good" it is, will survive if the politicians no longer believe in it, or their constituents. But I don't see it happening---at least not to the same degree as the Weimar Republic, or the Fourth French Republic, or Italy in the 1960s, and so on. I have never read any of France's constitutions, but I did take European History (1914 to present, the course was called) and it seems that their constitution was unable to deal with a prolonged, unpopular, costly war in Algeria. De Gaulle came out of retirement and not only wrote a new constitution (a semi-presidential one instead of parliamentary) but ended the war in Algeria, their version of Vietnam (and they were in Vietnam too, as we know). To sum that up, the Fourth Republic did not survive military defeat in a prolonged conflict, but the US constitution did survive our version of Algeria.
As far as the direction of your reasoning, I agree that the present unrest is not a positive thing for the constitution or the People. But there's more to a government than its written constitution.
My disagreement was your assertion that the constitution is somehow too flawed to protect us. It's a decent constitution, it's just being applied wrong (or not at all!) by some of our elected leaders. So yes, you're right about it can't protect us from extreme upheaval. But only because no constitution can. We can write a better one, amend it heavily and so forth, but at the end of the day it's a piece of paper, as are all democratic constitutions. That is where it seems we disagree with each other. The only protection is the vigilance of the voters, and since democracies give out suffrage at age 18, regardless of a voter's political knowledge or political talent, the watchdogs are often asleep in the doghouse.
I don't' see us as screwed. And it's not because I am an optimist. The polarization of American politics doesworry me. But the constitution does not. It gives us as much protection as any constitution possibly can. The first chief justice, John Marshall, said that the people made the constitution and they can unmake it. How true. (I hope that explains my views well enough, if not concisely. Like I said, as me anything, and I'll either know the answer or I won't.) PS: I didn't mean to get haughty and know-it-all-y in my previous posts on this thread...sorry for that. PPS: as a moderate, I am very frustrated with the polarization of American politics. (I just don't see that as being indicative of constitutional inadequacy.) Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, as a poet once wrote.
-
Wow... Bookmarking for later.
🤔
-
Hmmm. Care to explain how and what would trigger a civil war in the United States?
I've already given a few mechanisms that might trigger a civil war....
- Repeated victories by Republicans (despite not obtaining a majority/plurality of voter support). Authoritarian policies, supported by police who 'crack down' on even mild dissent. Opposition starts to decide "if police are going to 'bust heads' even at peaceful protests, maybe we should prepare for battle". We have seen much of that happening already... Republicans won the white house in 2000 and 2016 despite losing the popular vote. They have appointed a majority of the supreme court justices. And we have seen a large number of cops act very 'friendly' to right-wing nationalists.
- Victories by Democrats, combined with false narrative from the right wing about "stolen elections". The rise of right-wing nationalist groups willing to take arms against the somehow "oppressive" democratic party, and a compliant Republican infrastructure who refuses to speak out against such groups. We've seen much of that happen as well.
Again, the civil war won't be a repeat of the 1800s (with a clear union/confederacy divide), since the divisions are more rural vs. urban. Instead, it will likely take the form of large-scale protests with escalating levels of violence, until the economy comes crashing down (since people scared they might get blown up by some neo-nazi Trump supporter may not necessarily want to risk going to work.)
-
- Repeated victories by Republicans (despite not obtaining a majority/plurality of voter support).
You mean like Trudeau?
Authoritarian policies, supported by police who 'crack down' on even mild dissent.
You mean like forced vaccination? Closing down businesses?
Republicans won the white house in 2000 and 2016 despite losing the popular vote. They have appointed a majority of the supreme court justices.
All completely constitutional. When judges retire and/or pass away plays a big part of it.
- Victories by Democrats, combined with false narrative from the right wing about "stolen elections".
You mean like the Democrat's false claims of stolen elections in 2000, 2004 and 2016?
-
Peaceful protests.....they weren't terribly peaceful in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray. Unless of course you call burning down homes and businesses and smashing property a peaceful protest and not a riot.
The electoral college has elected presidents with less popular votes than the "loser" before. It's happened in 1888. But here we are 140 years later, and the country seems to have survived that election. Bit late to worry about it now.
BTW, your own election of 2019 produced a winner with more seats in the Commons, while getting less popular votes than the opposition, no? How is this any different? Guess Mr Trudeau was politically savvy enough to stop the electoral reform before it lost him an election.
You almost sound hopeful that a civil war would happen in the US. I certainly hope I am wrong about that. But I do not think you fully understand our constitution, or have really given it much thought. I understand your argument, but I think you're wrong about most of it.
-
You mean like the Democrat's false claims of stolen elections in 2000, 2004 and 2016?
Notwithstanding the fact Democrats did cede power following these elections in the civilized legal manner expected of them the fact remains, underscored by the Jan 6th event, that bipartisan mistrust in their election system has long since passed a point of no return. Will America have to resort to violence like other struggling democracies do before admitting they need help and invite in a team of unbiased international electioneers?
Does electioneers sound too much like engineers? Dun Dun Duuuun!
-
Peaceful protests.....they weren't terribly peaceful in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray. Unless of course you call burning down homes and businesses and smashing property a peaceful protest and not a riot.
The electoral college has elected presidents with less popular votes than the "loser" before. It's happened in 1888. But here we are 140 years later, and the country seems to have survived that election. Bit late to worry about it now.
BTW, your own election of 2019 produced a winner with more seats in the Commons, while getting less popular votes than the opposition, no? How is this any different? Guess Mr Trudeau was politically savvy enough to stop the electoral reform before it lost him an election.
You almost sound hopeful that a civil war would happen in the US. I certainly hope I am wrong about that. But I do not think you fully understand our constitution, or have really given it much thought. I understand your argument, but I think you're wrong about most of it.
It's not really but what difference there is may simply be in the levels of political hatred that exists in both countries. We're a lot farther away from the fevered pitch America is at but make no mistake Trudeau's machinations and reversals/lies/broken promises whatever do rankle and erode faith and trust in governance and like rust this never sleeps.
-
Notwithstanding the fact Democrats did cede power following these elections in the civilized legal manner expected of them the fact remains, underscored by the Jan 6th event, that bipartisan mistrust in their election system has long since passed a point of no return. Will America have to resort to violence like other struggling democracies do before admitting they need help and invite in a team of unbiased international electioneers?
Does electioneers sound too much like engineers? Dun Dun Duuuun!
Though I am a Democrat myself and have no great love for the GOP, they have ceded power on plenty of occasions. Trump tried not to, but he didn't succeed. His lawsuits were defeated in every state where he filed one after the election. Even the Secretary of State of Georgia told him to bugger off, one Republican to another. I'll grant you, a lot of Repubilcans listened to Trump and insist that the election was somehow stolen, without a shred of proof to back it up, but he left office anyway.
You started to make a sound argument, but it's degenerated into another "the US is a third world country" BS. Your own country had a "reversed" election in 2019, not terribly dissimilar from the US election of 2016, and you use the same electoral system (First Past the Post) that the US uses. Trudeau canned the electoral reform once it became clear it would lose him the next election (which it would have).
Tell me, does the Canadian press portray the US as a third world tinpot dictatorship? You really need to read up on our constitution, then your views might be more supportable. You point out flaws in our government without having any real knowledge of the constitution. You flat out admitted that above. How can you tell me my country's constitution is inadequate when you don't understand it?
-
It's not really but what difference there is may simply be in the levels of political hatred that exists in both countries. We're a lot farther away from the fevered pitch America is at but make no mistake Trudeau's machinations and reversals/lies/broken promises whatever do rankle and erode faith and trust in governance and like rust this never sleeps.
Like the Trucker protest?
Yes, the typical "we're terrible but at least we're not as bad as the United States" refrain of some Canadians and Western Europeans. It always gives me a good laugh.
Just out of curiosity, are we doing anything right?
Sorry for making two replies in a row....I was still typing one as you sent your own. I'll try to avoid that.
-
Peaceful protests.....they weren't terribly peaceful in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray. Unless of course you call burning down homes and businesses and smashing property a peaceful protest and not a riot.
Yes there was violence after the death of Freddie Gray. (Also violence after the death of Floyd.)
But Gray was killed by police officers, in what was seen as a case of police brutality (and many subsequent charges against the officers were dropped or they were found not guilty). I pointed out that authoritarian actions by police might be part of the trigger that leads to a civil war... this was an example.
The electoral college has elected presidents with less popular votes than the "loser" before. It's happened in 1888. But here we are 140 years later, and the country seems to have survived that election. Bit late to worry about it now.
Yes, one time, over a century ago. But its happened multiple times since the 2000 election, and given the current dynamics of the American political system, the problem is likely to get worse. People might be willing to ignore a problem if it happens once in their life. If it happens time and time again? That's when people might start to get a bit annoyed.
Oh, and as I pointed out... its not just the presidency that is the issue. The republicans regularly held power in congress despite the fact that they represented a smaller overall portion of voters than the democrats.
BTW, your own election of 2019 produced a winner with more seats in the Commons, while getting less popular votes than the opposition, no? How is this any different?
A couple of differences here...
- The 3/4 way voter splitting means that governments regularly form with far less than 50% of the popular vote (a fact that has benefitted both Conservatives and Liberals). This makes it different than a case where you have a (largely) 2 party system, and only one side (the republicans) benefits from the way their votes are handled.
- Our politics is not (as yet) polarized as the U.S. system, and we don't have the same sort of influential social conservative faction. Despite the worries the political left, Harper didn't outlaw abortion, gay marriage was left in place, and universal health care was left intact. Compare that to the U.S., where the republicans have gone all-in on the religious right.
You almost sound hopeful that a civil war would happen in the US.
Not necessarily hopeful (since a civil war would have negative effects on the world as a whole). But there is a difference between "There is a risk... the U.S. needs to address it" and "I hope they start killing each other".
I certainly hope I am wrong about that. But I do not think you fully understand our constitution
Seems rather arrogant of you. I understand the American constitution. But I'm not sure why you think that's relevant.
The constitution is not some sort of fantasy document full of magical spells that will fix the U.S. Its a flawed document that is often misused or ignored at best, and/or counterproductive at worse.
or have really given it much thought.
Actually I've give it quite a bit of thought.
And I'm not the only one. Michael Steele (the former chair of the republicans, so its not like he is some no-name left-winger) wrote the following article:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/why-america-may-not-see-its-300th-birthday/ar-AASAqE9
Why America may not see its 300th birthday
...
The attack on the U.S. Capitol was not a fluke act carried out by a small band of misfits. It was the violent manifestation of broader, seething discontent inside our political system... Studies show a spike in the number of voters who support political violence, including a recent poll that finds that roughly 23 million American adults believe force would be justified to restore Donald Trump to the White House. At the same time, millions express support for militias and domestic extremist groups that espouse similar views....U.S. leaders and ordinary Americans must consider serious state-by-state reforms to make our system more competitive...While these reforms will not happen overnight, such a generational undertaking is necessary if we want America to reach its 300th birthday.
-
Though I am a Democrat myself and have no great love for the GOP, they have ceded power on plenty of occasions. Trump tried not to, but he didn't succeed.
True, Bush Sr. ceded power. So did Ford. (And plenty of non-incumbents conceded the election when it was obvious they lost.)
Trump may be an outlier in this, but he is an outlier that continues to enjoy a significant amount of support within the republican party, both from the ranks and file who continue to idolize him, and politicians who seek his endorsement.
His lawsuits were defeated in every state where he filed one after the election. Even the Secretary of State of Georgia told him to bugger off, one Republican to another. I'll grant you, a lot of Repubilcans listened to Trump and insist that the election was somehow stolen, without a shred of proof to back it up, but he left office anyway.
Yet the vast majority of republicans in congress were against impeaching him, and many are still lining up to kiss his ring.
Makes me think that the republicans are thinking less of "Its wrong to have a dictator" and more along the lines of "We can't have a dictatorship YET, but in the ear future".
You started to make a sound argument, but it's degenerated into another "the US is a third world country" BS.
The U.S. isn't YET a 3rd world, but it is certainly headed that way.
It is regularly dropping in the Democracy index (as calculated by a unit of the Economist), and is now listed as a 'flawed democracy'.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
I remember seeing an interview with a political professor who analyzes political systems on behalf of the CIA. She said that if it were any other country exhibiting the type of things happening in the U.S., they would red-flag it as a cause for concern.
Your own country had a "reversed" election in 2019, not terribly dissimilar from the US election of 2016, and you use the same electoral system (First Past the Post) that the US uses.
Not quite the same.
First of all, our riding boundaries and elections are controlled by an independent organization (as opposed to state-level politicians in many areas). This means gerrymandering and voter suppression is not an issue. Secondly, our ridings are of roughly equal size (population-wise), unlike senators (who may represent populations of either 10s of millions or a few hundred thousand). That sort of imbalance leads to problems in both congress and the electoral college.
Tell me, does the Canadian press portray the US as a third world tinpot dictatorship?
It should. Much of the stuff going on there certainly resembles it... the grift of the Trump administration, the granting of pardons to his Klan, the acceptance of foreign assistance in getting elected.
A few decades ago, Nixon got turfed over his possible association with Watergate (and republicans in congress turned against him). Now, fast forward to today, and Trump has broken far more laws than Nixon ever has. Yet the republicans remain faithful to him.
You really need to read up on our constitution, then your views might be more supportable. You point out flaws in our government without having any real knowledge of the constitution. You flat out admitted that above. How can you tell me my country's constitution is inadequate when you don't understand it?
I think people are more than capable of seeing the flaws in the U.S. system.
The U.S. constitution was written centuries ago, when slavery was acceptable, when a horse and buggy represented the ultimate in transportation, and when the U.S. was largely an agricultural society.
-
Hmmm. Care to explain how and what would trigger a civil war in the United States?
393 million guns in civilian hands?
-
Well, whatever...I've said all I can say to try to convince you that we're not "headed for civil war". A reverse result in our election hasn't happened "multiple times" since 2000. It's happened only once since 2000---in 2016. Historians usually cite five instances out 59 where such a reversal (winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college) occurred. However, 1824 and 1876 aren't really good examples (for reasons I won't get into) so it's been 1888, 2000 and 2016. Three times out of 59.
And gerrymandering notwithstanding, there are similarities between your 2019 federal election and ours in 2016. Such as the fact that you have a prime minister in office whose party won less popular votes but more seats, which is why I have heard some Canadians clamoring for proportional representation, so you don't end up with a winner with less popular support. As you did in 2019, and as the US did in 2016. I did not say the situations were exactly the same, just that there are similarities.
The electoral college: it's done state by state, and only 2 states (with 9 votes between them) elect one elector from each congressional district and a bonus of 2 for the state overall. Everyone else is winner-take-all, and congressional districts are not factored in, in the remaining 48 states and DC. So gerrymandering has little or nothing to do with presidential elections, only elections for the House of Representatives. As far as the Senate the boundaries of the states have been relatively fixed so you cannot "gerrymander" the Senate. (There are different reasons why senators stay in a long damn time, but I won't get into that unless you really want me to.)
I cannot stand the Republican Party and that's why I left it some years ago. It's not in my interests anymore. But I am not a patriot to my party. Nor do I see it as the great savior from the right-wing devils.
If America is really heading for civil war, it won't be as one-sided as you seem to think. And despite the fact that I despise the man, Trump won't be solely responsible. There was a crap-ton more unrest in the sixties and seventies (you mentioned the Nixon Presidency). And by the way, some of the more recent unrest was not under Trump but under Obama. Not blaming it on either of them, mind you.
I very much doubt the brutality of the police in those instances is going to turn into something that will create a civil war. The purpose of my OP was that many democracies are showing some anti-democratic tendencies. Surveillance cameras, dependence on the State for everything, are just a couple examples. And the Patriot Act is still on the books. Obama and Biden figured it was too useful to throw away however dictatorial it may be. Yet, Europeans have had anti-terrorist measures long before the passage of the Patriot Act in the US.
Yes, the constitution of 1787 was written...in 1787, when slavery was legal. But it's also been amended to prohibit slavery since then. And the voting rights of women, minorities, and young adults. That's what I meant about its adaptability and flexibility. If you were correct in your assumptions--assumptions, mind you--about our constitution, we would have replaced it several times over since the beginning. (Did you read the thing yet?)
The problem with calling any country a "flawed democracy" is that they are all flawed in some way. I'm sure you have heard the expression that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. Whoever said that wasn't kidding. The US is a flawed democracy. I'll be the first to admit that. But headed for civil war? Not anytime soon and not exactly as you think.
Also take into account the US president has nowhere near the internal power of your PM. Even Trump couldn't get away with everything he wanted to do. As hypothetical PM of the US, Trump would have gotten his way every time. A Trump or a Nixon would have salivated over such power.
I hope I hit all the points you made, if I missed anything, let me know.
-
When it comes to being a flawed democracy the US is different in it's electoral process and a large proportion of the public's lack of confidence in its electoral system. That is different from most other "western" democracies where the people don't dispute the validity of the process regardless of how much they may dislike the result.
-
Well, whatever...I've said all I can say to try to convince you that we're not "headed for civil war". A reverse result in our election hasn't happened "multiple times" since 2000. It's happened only once since 2000---in 2016.
That's a bit nitpicky.... I am counting 2000 as one of the times it happened "since 2000", since there is no defined time of "when 2000 occured". (Jan1 2000? Dec 31?)
Historians usually cite five instances out 59 where such a reversal (winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college) occurred. However, 1824 and 1876 aren't really good examples (for reasons I won't get into) so it's been 1888, 2000 and 2016. Three times out of 59.
Yes, and 2 of those times were within the last decade. That was my point. What was a rare event that might have occurred once in a person's life time has now happened twice in under 2 decades.
And gerrymandering notwithstanding, there are similarities between your 2019 federal election and ours in 2016. Such as the fact that you have a prime minister in office whose party won less popular votes but more seats, which is why I have heard some Canadians clamoring for proportional representation, so you don't end up with a winner with less popular support. As you did in 2019, and as the US did in 2016. I did not say the situations were exactly the same, just that there are similarities.
The similarities are so minor (and dwarfed by the differences) that the comparisons don't really mean much.
The electoral college: it's done state by state, and only 2 states (with 9 votes between them) elect one elector from each congressional district and a bonus of 2 for the state overall. Everyone else is winner-take-all, and congressional districts are not factored in, in the remaining 48 states and DC. So gerrymandering has little or nothing to do with presidential elections, only elections for the House of Representatives.
Never claimed it did affect presidential elections. But controlling the house is a pretty big thing. (Perhaps not as big as controlling the senate, but Biden is still not going to get any legislation passed if the republicans retake the house in 2022.)
As far as the Senate the boundaries of the states have been relatively fixed so you cannot "gerrymander" the Senate.
Again, never said you could.
As I said before, the problem with the senate is that small/less populated states (like Wyoming) have just as much power in the senate than larger states like California. Given the fact that you're supposed to have "equality", the fact that your average Wyoming voter has more influence than a California voter seems a bit... questionable.
(Now, its common when this is brought up, for people to bring up this poetic "The U.S. is a union of states", or whatever, but from a pragmatic point of view, its problematic.
I cannot stand the Republican Party and that's why I left it some years ago. It's not in my interests anymore. But I am not a patriot to my party. Nor do I see it as the great savior from the right-wing devils.
Moscow Mitch and the republicans, despite their senators representing fewer voters than Democratic voters, were able to block Obama's judicial nominees. Their advantage in the electoral college gave them the presidencies of both the Shrub and Stubby McBonespurs. They now have a 6-3 control of the supreme court (based on the above factors). Control of the courts means that voter suppression laws and gerrymandering in red states are allowed to stand, giving them further advantages in both congress and the white house.
If control were based more on popular vote none of that would have happened. Bush and Trump would never have got into power. (Not unless the republicans altered their policies to have widespread appeal.) They would never have been able to block the Garland nomination. You would be looking at a supreme court where the majority were nominated by Democrats.
So instead of having 1 presidental term since 2000 (including the 2000 election), they have had 3. Instead of a minority on the supreme court they have a solid majority, and probably will for a generation.
So yeah, those flaws in the system are saving the republicans.
If America is really heading for civil war, it won't be as one-sided as you seem to think.
It may not be "1 sided", but I think 1 side will be largely responsible for instigating it.
And despite the fact that I despise the man, Trump won't be solely responsible.
Actually, I agree... The decline of the republican party has been going on for decades. (It may have even begun with the republican adoption of the southern strategy and their embracing of the evangelicals.) Trump just seems to be accelerating the process. (And the current republicans in congress are culpable. They could have stopped him, but chose not to.)
There was a crap-ton more unrest in the sixties and seventies (you mentioned the Nixon Presidency). And by the way, some of the more recent unrest was not under Trump but under Obama. Not blaming it on either of them, mind you.
The difference between the 60s and now is that back then you didn't have the same sort of right-wing echo chambers that you do now. (Things like facebook/twitter allow disinformation and radicalization to spread. Back in the 60s, when information sources were more limited (and they had more of an incentive to "get things right") people might have protested about government actions, but you didn't get that dangerous feedback.
ETA: Also, consider this: Yes, Nixon tried to engage in certain... questionable... tactics back in the 70s, but republicans stood up to him and the system 'worked'. Trump engages in activities that were far more problematic than Nixon (blackmailing a foreign government to interfere in an election, fomenting a violent uprising, not to mention working with Russia to get elected, violating the emoluments clause, multiple security breaches, etc.) Yet republicans said "That's fine".
The system worked in the 70s with Nixon. The system no longer works now. That's why the U.S. is at a greater risk of civil war.
I very much doubt the brutality of the police in those instances is going to turn into something that will create a civil war.
It might not just be police brutality alone that triggers the civil war. Its police brutality (favoring the political far-right), combined with declines in democratic institutions, spurred on by misinformation.
The purpose of my OP was that many democracies are showing some anti-democratic tendencies.
You are right.. many other countries ARE showing anti-democratic tendencies. (Even Canada has dropped a little in the democracy index.)
We are more concerned about the U.S. because
1) Their decline has been pretty steady (many other democracies might be declining, but their rankings on the democracy index fluctuate)
2) Its "gun culture" might accelerate violent conflicts
Yes, the constitution of 1787 was written...in 1787, when slavery was legal. But it's also been amended to prohibit slavery since then. And the voting rights of women, minorities, and young adults. That's what I meant about its adaptability and flexibility.
Again, its not only the changes in who can vote that is the issue. Demographic shifts are a significant problem (and the constitution has not changed to reflect those).
Plus, as I pointed out before, the constitution is not like some book of magic spells that can cure all the problems of the country if you just recite the correct passage. People ignore the constitution. The supreme court interprets it to be favorable to certain segments of the population.
The problem with calling any country a "flawed democracy" is that they are all flawed in some way. I'm sure you have heard the expression that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. Whoever said that wasn't kidding. The US is a flawed democracy. I'll be the first to admit that. But headed for civil war? Not anytime soon and not exactly as you think.
Please point out all the other countries where, as a result of a legitimate election, the loser of the election attempted to overthrow the results by fomenting a violent insurrection.
Also take into account the US president has nowhere near the internal power of your PM. Even Trump couldn't get away with everything he wanted to do.
You are right... in theory the Canadian PM has more power within the government than the U.S.
The fact that we haven't really had the same sort of populist uprising in Canada is likely due to the nature of our media.... without the equivalent of a "Fox News", far-right misinformation does not get spread easily.
ETA: Just to add, another reason why Canada hasn't gone the U.S. populist route is probably because the evangelical movement does not have the same influence here as it does in the U.S.
But that doesn't mean the U.S. isn't in trouble. It just means that an authoritarian leader has to make sure he has the proper lackeys in congress (which Trump is working to achieve.)
Plus, what exactly do you think Trump wanted to do but couldn't? He destroyed both financial and environmental regulations, turned the U.S. into an international laughing stock, gave tax cuts to millionaires. What else do you think he wanted to do? (About the only major thing he was defeated on was health care, but despite their inability to repeal obamacare, they still managed to attack significant portions of it... enrolments declined, the mandate was dropped, etc.)
By the way, here's an article that also describes some of the issues that takes a similar pessimistic view...
From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/next-us-civil-war-already-here-we-refuse-to-see-it
The United States today is, once again, headed for civil war, and, once again, it cannot bear to face it.... The legal system grows less legitimate by the day. Trust in government at all levels is in freefall, or, like Congress, with approval ratings hovering around 20%, cannot fall any lower. Right now, elected sheriffs openly promote resistance to federal authority. Right now, militias train and arm themselves in preparation for the fall of the Republic. Right now, doctrines of a radical, unachievable, messianic freedom spread across the internet, on talk radio, on cable television, in the malls....The Capitol police have seen threats against members of Congress increase by 107%.
...
The Vietnam war, civil rights protests...all were national catastrophes...But the United States has never faced an institutional crisis quite like the one it is facing now. Trust in the institutions was much higher during the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act had the broad support of both parties. JFK’s murder was mourned collectively as a national tragedy. The Watergate scandal, in hindsight, was evidence of the system working. The press reported presidential crimes; Americans took the press seriously. The political parties felt they needed to respond to the reported corruption. You could not make one of those statements today with any confidence.
...
Two things are happening... Most of the American right have abandoned faith in government as such. Their politics is, increasingly, the politics of the gun. The American left is slower on the uptake, but they are starting to figure out that the system which they give the name of democracy is less deserving...
...
...by 2040, 30% of the population will control 68% of the Senate. Eight states will contain half the population. The Senate malapportionment gives advantages overwhelmingly to white, non– college educated voters. In the near future, a Democratic candidate could win the popular vote by many millions of votes and still lose. Do the math: the federal system no longer represents the will of the American people....Hard right organization have now infiltrated so many police forces – the connections number in the hundreds – that they have become unreliable allies... in 2019, 36% of active duty soldiers claimed to have witnessed “white supremacist and racist ideologies in the military”, according to the Military Times.
-
OK...neither of us seems to have convinced the other of our point, so let's just end it here. I think you're wrong you think I'm wrong and we've both laid our cards on the table. Let's leave it at that before this drags on any longer than it needs to.
-
'Democracy' as it is, came out of the dissemination of ideas that arose from the enlightenment, which itself came from new ideas such as pluralism, tolerance of religion and really the printing press.
With so many perspectives and beliefs, the idea that there was one true God and king - opposable only by heretics and madmen - couldn't be supported. So a new and stronger method to accommodate more views without violence was adopted.
But the other thing that came out of that period was more systematic organization of language and countries. Countries as we think of them were looser before this period.
So the arrival of the new social media may mean that such ideas will change again. Countries may become less relevant, democracy less important.
-
But the other thing that came out of that period was more systematic organization of language and countries. Countries as we think of them were looser before this period.
Do you mean like Europe, and the HRE in particular, before the Peace of Westphalia? I understand that that treaty defined the modern European "nation state". I also understand it was pretty darn "loose" before that point (if I remember my western civ II class correctly.) You can't even make a map of the Empire without a microscope before that time. And these were typically absolute monarchies, all speaking the same language for that matter.
Thankfully, we are living after the Enlightenment, rather than before it. We have a lot of French philosophers--and the printing press, yes--to thank for that. Without the printing press, the ideas of that period never would have disseminated. I just hope you're wrong about social media making democracy irrelevant.
-
Do you mean like Europe, and the HRE in particular, before the Peace of Westphalia? I understand that that treaty defined the modern European "nation state". I also understand it was pretty darn "loose" before that point (if I remember my western civ II class correctly.) You can't even make a map of the Empire without a microscope before that time. And these were typically absolute monarchies, all speaking the same language for that matter.
I think so. My understanding is that consolidation of language helped to define what was 'France' and 'Germany' vs 'Alsace' or regions.
Thankfully, we are living after the Enlightenment, rather than before it. We have a lot of French philosophers--and the printing press, yes--to thank for that. Without the printing press, the ideas of that period never would have disseminated. I just hope you're wrong about social media making democracy irrelevant.
We're living in terrible times compared to what is coming though... I am convinced. Imagine a technology that alerts you when any single individual is hurting - and imagine it not being abused but used to ensure harmony.
-
I think so. My understanding is that consolidation of language helped to define what was 'France' and 'Germany' vs 'Alsace' or regions.
We're living in terrible times compared to what is coming though... I am convinced. Imagine a technology that alerts you when any single individual is hurting - and imagine it not being abused but used to ensure harmony.
Perhaps, but human beings do tend to abuse things, most unfortunately. There's always someone who takes something intended to help people and turns it into something terrible.
-
Right but if the system works overall, then abusers can be tolerated...
-
Alas, democracy seems to be in retreat worldwide. At the end of the cold war, it was remarked that there were half as many communist parties and twice as many stock exchanges as in the 80s. But now, it seems that we were looking at it too optimistically.
Out of the former SSR's, almost all (Baltic States and Ukraine excepted) are under dictatorial rule again. Hong Kong's autonomy has been squashed. Egypt had a revolution in which it could have gone democratic, but then we end up with the former chief of the Army as president since 2013. Need I go on?
-
You could look at it this way, but also autocratic governments are more aware than ever that the people have power.
-
You could look at it this way, but also autocratic governments are more aware than ever that the people have power.
That's true. All governments need the People on their side. This is why they intimidate by fear and brutality to keep them in line.
-
That's true. All governments need the People on their side. This is why they intimidate by fear and brutality to keep them in line.
The Arab Spring happened. It mostly failed but it happened. Some dictators were deposed too
-
The Arab Spring happened. It mostly failed but it happened. Some dictators were deposed too
Like Mohammed Morsi, former president, who had a heart attack right in the middle of his arraignment.
-
A couple of others too..
-
A couple of others too..
Yes, the President of Yemen was encouraged to resign by an agreement brokered with the Gulf States, and the Vice President became President. He in turn was overthrown in the war which still persists. The President of Tunisia went first, if I remember correctly he fled the country with his family. Mummar (sp?) Kaddafi was capped by his formerly loyal troops. Other heads of state in the Middle East & North Africa had to do some shakeups of their respective political systems after popular uprisings.
Saudi Arabia stayed relatively stable, no surprise there.
It all started with one dude in Tunis setting himself on fire in protest. Sometimes the greatest avalanches begin with the falling of a tiny pebble.
-
Kaddafi was capped by his formerly loyal troops.
I thought he was mobbed ?
That was actually a failure of the US (I have heard it put on H. Clinton specifically) to not honour an agreement to get him out once he capitulated. I am interested in your opinion on that.
-
I thought he was mobbed ?
That was actually a failure of the US (I have heard it put on H. Clinton specifically) to not honour an agreement to get him out once he capitulated. I am interested in your opinion on that.
I don't know anything about that "agreement".
-
whew! lots reading there, read and skimmed thru a lot of the boards. So, my thoughts on democracy - yes, Canadian democracy is very threatened - if pmjt can give corps 'constitutional rights and protections' equal to the People - then society is degrading from the top. We are watching Cdn premiers using the 'not withstanding' clause to shove laws or try to overthrow laws. For now, our SCC is holding strong but .... same can happen with our SCC Judges as in US. One party fills up vacancies quickly with Judges who will 'favor' their 'rule' of law. 2ndly, how easy is it for either govt (US or Canada) to just 'sign' over the nation to get 'communist' rule? if people are going to support govt officials (like trump) then the nation can easily dump 'democracy' for 'something' else. Idk about other Cdns here in the forum but have you looked at the various govt ACTS? many have clauses that basically say ' no liability' therefore 'no legal actions' can be done which takes spirit of the Magna Carta away from the people. Cdn govt has 'written' laws to 'legalize' their acts even if 'criminal so nothing can be done to right any wrongs done to the people. (i.e., unable to sue LT homes that allowed elders to die of Covid). It may sound alarmist but it's the reality ... so far.
-
Now the UK:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-election-2019-spending-campaign-conservatives-b859020.html
That's about $28M CDN dollars to win 66 million people - cheaper than Canada.
UK's Boris Johnson - yes, in the face of the latest parliamentary government's leader resigning being forced out, whither democracy?
the waldo thought to propose that through the dynamics of party politics, the process to replace a government's leader within a parliamentary system is, inherently, a stronger form of democracy... but then how does that stand up to Sky News playing the Benny Hill theme here? (https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1544993018737991680/pu/vid/1264x720/LeAQxMPuO5wwa-Cc.mp4?tag=12)
-
UK's Boris Johnson - yes, in the face of the latest parliamentary government's leader resigning being forced out, whither democracy?
the waldo thought to propose that through the dynamics of party politics, the process to replace a government's leader within a parliamentary system is, inherently, a stronger form of democracy... but then how does that stand up to Sky News playing the Benny Hill theme here? (https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1544993018737991680/pu/vid/1264x720/LeAQxMPuO5wwa-Cc.mp4?tag=12)
Democracy needs to be applied more generally than just the once-every-four-years act of writing the X
-
Democracy needs to be applied more generally than just the once-every-four-years act of writing the X
Quite right. Justice and democracy aren't easily kept and it requires constant vigilance, in election years as well as between them, to maintain them.