Last night’s Obama-McCain Presidential debate was devoid of surprises. Even Russia had a place. Given “Russia’s resurgence” as they like to say in the news, it becoming a brief focus of the debate isn’t even novel. Before getting to that here of some of my general impressions about last night’s performance.
I’ve struggled to come up with one word to describe this performance and the only one I could come up with was: Boring. I watched the CNN telecast, and the network must have known that boredom would be a factor. They tried to spice things up by plopping on screen their analysts scorecards and a meter at the bottom to register Democrat, Republican, and Independent “real-time” reactions (I’m struck how Independent has attained a discursive function similar the Soviet class category “Прочий” or “Other”).
In fact, it seems that “real time” was marketing tactic since the CNN pregame repeatedly reminded viewers that they could participate by giving their reactions in “real time” on the network’s website. That’s democracy in action, internet style. I suggest that a giant gong be hung for the next debate, where selected audience members can gong it when a candidate becomes boring or stupid. The person with the least amount of gongs wins. Where is Chuck Barris when you need him?
I tuned out after an hour. Jim Lehrer did his best to spice things up by urging the candidates to go tête-à-tête. From the bit I saw, Obama just couldn’t look McCain straight in the face. Perhaps this was out of civility or fear. McCain didn’t look at Obama at all. He seemed unable to turn his head. Maybe this was out of pure disrespect or something to do with his injuries. The old guy is pretty stiff.
One thing I noticed, or really my wife did, was how each candidate was dressed. Both McCain and Obama were colored in the American flag. Obama was in a dark blue suit, white shirt and red tie. McCain donned a blue suit, light blue (almost white) shirt, and a red and white striped tie. Red, White, and Blue. Ol’Glory. I can’t help wonder what the psycho-ideological affect this has. Everything is so managed in American democracy that, to invert Freud, sometimes a suit just isn’t a suit.
The democratic realism of it all, the careful effort by each candidate to stay within the bounds of acceptable political speech, while trying to portray his opponent as outside of it, stifled the range of each candidates’ opinions. Most of what each candidate said was predictable, making the debate merely performative. I think this is why Lehrer’s attempts to get them to engage each other fell flat. Each candidate didn’t want to talk to the other because the other was not the object of their words. Their interlocutor was the camera that mediated them and the “American people” or as McCain repeatedly said, “my friends.”
At some point, I think I figured that if I wanted to read restricted political speech, I’ll read a stenograph of a Stalinist Central Committee plenum. Like Stalin and the boys, McCain and Obama’s words were all surface. Whatever deeper meaning they had existed on a mystified genealogy of codes, slogans, gestures, and references. This was best exemplified by the fact that every time Obama said the meme “Bush” the Democrats in the audience pressed their little buttons in approval. Every time McCain said “cut spending” the Republicans responded in unison. The content that followed each of these memes was irrelevant.
Perhaps the whole scriptedness and smooth narratives of each candidate’s words is best revealed in what I did after I switched the plastic people off. I put on Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas which has been sitting on my DVR for a few weeks. Now that I think of it, maybe my mind needed some kind of drug laden, non-narrative psychedelia to pull me out of the “real world.” Perhaps the stark “unreality” of the incoherent rambling of Raoul Duke and Dr. Gonzo (played excellently by Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro) was precisely what I needed to pull me out of the “reality” of the Presidential Debate. The irony of it all is quite striking . . .
Nevertheless, I seems that I tuned out to quickly. Russia did get special attention towards the debate’s end. Lehrer asked:
New lead question. Russia, goes to you, two minutes, Senator Obama. How do you see the relationship with Russia? Do you see them as a competitor? Do you see them as an enemy? Do you see them as a potential partner?
Obama was predictable as the sunrise. His words were peppered with the typical adjectives that tend to swirl around the word “Russia.” Words and phrases like “resurgent and very aggressive,” “unacceptable,” unwarranted,” “you cannot be a 21st-century superpower, or power, and act like a 20th-century dictatorship,” “fledgling democracies,” “[Georgia and Ukraine are] free to join NATO,” and “can’t return to a Cold War posture.”
My favorite was the constant reference to Russia and “the way they’ve been behaving.” Can there be a more explicit statement to how Americans see themselves as the Father and all other nations as children that need correction when they misbehave?
McCain didn’t say anything out of the ordinary either. He made references to how “Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia,” was “a nation fueled by petro-dollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik-run government,” “I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes, and I saw three letters, a “K,” a “G,” and a “B,” “their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior,” “I don’t believe we’re going to go back to the Cold War,” “Russian threats to regain their status of the old Russian to regain their status of the old Russian empire, and “the norms of international behavior.”
Is there any difference between these two in regard to Russia? Nope. Nothing. Zilch. Even Obama doesn’t think so. He said, “No, actually, I think Senator McCain and I agree for the most part on these issues.” Wonderful.
However trite their statements about Russia were, there were still some comments worth noting.
Obama:
“[The Russians] have to remove themselves from South Ossetia and Abkhazia.”
Good luck on that one my good Senator. Someone might want to let him know that there is no possibility of that.
Then there was this one:
They have not only 15,000 nuclear warheads, but they’ve got enough to make another 40,000, and some of those loose nukes could fall into the hands of al Qaeda.
Huh?
I was also struck by McCain’s move to political economy when talking about Russia. He said,
And that wasn’t just about a problem between Georgia and Russia. It had everything to do with energy.There’s a pipeline that runs from the Caspian through Georgia through Turkey. And, of course, we know that the Russians control other sources of energy into Europe, which they have used from time to time.
McCain the Marxist. If only a smidgen of this analysis would be applied to America’s own foreign policy, those in Washington would include, as noble prize winning economist Joseph Stigliz does, that Iraq is part of America’s economic insolvency.
In all, my impression of the debate, and the cadidates in general, is best expressed in the sacrosanct words of Dr. Gonzo, “I hate to say this, but this place is getting to me. I think I’m getting the fear”
poemless wrote:
“Personally, I wonder what my leaders are afraid of, not having an annual public Q & A…”
I don’t think Medvedev will cut as good a figure as Putin in this. Putin was nothing short of brilliant, in a class of his own far and above any politician in a more democratic system.
Truth be told, I don’t think Putin would have made it to president in a more democratic political system.
I have a question for Tim Out-on-the-Platform-for-Palin too. I had hoped that he would respond to that pbs.com NOW clip where Sarah explains how she wrestled the oil companies to the floor and made them pay a new 2 1/2 percent tax to the state of Alaska. I paraphrase her explanation: “my predecessors that negotiated previous lease contracts were corrupt loonies.”(shades of Yeltsin), “Oil profits look like a big fat underbelly right now. I have every right to bite into their profits and distribute to Alaskans. And I’ll do it again if I feel like it, whenever I feel like they are making too much money.” “Alaskans own the oil. Oil companies have some leases and their job is to help us get it out. We share in the profits–but I, Sarah, determine the share. ” (shades of Putin). Result: Big fat checks in the mail to Alaskans. Alaskans love Sarah.
Also re: Tim’s list of candidate comparables:
I’d sort the list like this: village mentality vs. cosmopolitan mentality. Stalin, Saddam, Sarah and Saak were born and raised in villages and their main allies and enemies can be traced to their tribal, often blood-related divisions. Some village-born leaders rise above their tribal fights, but some just fight the same battle on a larger stage when they are elected to higher office. Sarah battles with her brother-in-law on the state level –that’s tribal. Jimmy Carter tells people to put on a sweater — that was global.
I’m curious because I get the impression you want to say something more insulting but you are being civil about it.
An odd impression, I have to say. Anyway, I’ll elaborate, based on how interpret this post:
About how you analyse a given scenario,
You’ve analysed the US presidential debates and come to the correct conclusion they are full of neutral, empty rhetoric. You have put this down to the candidates being restrained in what they say by “political correctness”, which is highly unlikely given what they say about each other outside the debates is not restricted in such a way. The simple answer is that neither candidate wants to fight on this particular piece of turf, as a mistake would be fatal and they are both far stronger on different terrain than the live debate. If you put two people who are not great debaters (neither is) and put them into a live debate on national television with high stakes, you’re going to get prepared speeches with very little actual debate. It has little to do with restraints on what is politically acceptable to say.
I get the impression from a lot of your writings that you look for vague, abstract forces controlling events whilst overlooking the blindingly obvious.
how you select a suitable comparator
In assuming that the candidates in the US presidential debates restrict themselves thusly, you’ve chosen to compare them with people who also restricted what they say in a discussion. But other than the fact that both are restricting themselves, there is nothing in common between the two whatsoever. Stalin’s men restricted themselves because to do so would have had no effect on the outcome and would have caused them unnecessary retribution. The US presidential candidates restricted themselves because even though winning the debate would help them immensely, the risk of fucking up instead was deemed to great. It’s the difference between two teams playing very defensively in a world cup final, and two teams not risking injury and exhaustion to win because the result is already a forgone conclusion.
To compare the US presidential debates with Stalin’s CC plena is to look very broadly at the end results and completely ignore any of the underlying reasons for them, what they mean, and what the future effects will be. It is a valid comparison in the strictest sense, but very shallow. Kind of like comparing a death through natural causes with a murder on the grounds that they are both bodies. It removes vital context.
how you contrast two given scenarios
That you found the two scenarios worth comparing suggested to me that you didn’t appreciate the contrasts between the two, the magnitude of which would have made any such comparison seem absurd.
how you extrapolate from a given scenario to a hypothetical one
I got the impression that your dismissal of the US presidential debates is also applied to the US elections as a whole, i.e. meaningless, and taking place under strict controls imposed by vague, abstract forces such as political correctness which ensure they say the right things. God forbid that when McCain said:
“And, of course, we know that the Russians control other sources of energy into Europe, which they have used from time to time.”
he was saying what was blindingly obvious to anybody who has been paying attention for the past four years, rather than saying what he thought would win votes in Ohio.
and how you view the US elections.
I get the impression – and I’m willing to admit that this is only an impression, but given I don’t speak to you personally I’m only going on what’s written here – you view the US elections as some unimportant sideshow which is way beneath you, upon which you look down rather snootily. I share a lot of your contempt for politicians and the political process, but I don’t for one minute underestimate or downplay the enormous importance of such an election in a country the size and importance of the USA.
I contrast your coverage of the US presidential elections with what you wrote during the Russian elections last year when you heaped scorn on the federal elections as being dominated by empty rhetoric, but at the same time described the campaign by United Russia as “genius”. This is consistent with what I see as a continued theme of yours, in that you don’t seem to be able to discern much of a difference between democracy in the US and democracy in Russia, heaping scorn on both as you refuse to differentiate between the two. Whereas this view is hardly uncommon, the inability or unwillingness to differentiate between two very different political systems comes across as either rather ignorant of the facts, or an attempt to keep some element of a teenage anti-establishment rebel alive into adulthood. I am sure you can comment extensively on the US and Russian political systems in a manner which would outshine most of the broadsheet journalists in the UK. What I am always disappointed about is that for the large part you choose not to.
Tim, I will consider what you’ve said and not respond. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. You’ve honestly given me something worth reflecting on. I really appreciate it especially as I develop my thinking about authoritarianism and liberal democratic systems.
But it is the way in which she has conducted herself in the past few weeks that makes people worry about her readiness. There has been no illustration that she has some keen je ne sais quoi to compensate for her lack of experience and education, that she has a sharp intelligence, or the intellectual curiosity required to learn new things and flexibility to adapt to changing situations. And it is not just Democrats or lefty types pointing this out. A lot of Republicans have expressed concern about her qualifications.
To be honest, I haven’t been following her progress in the presidential race that closely, largely because to do so requires wading through a whirlpool of garbage for a few hours before you get to anything sensible. And I’m certainly not going to judge somebody from a Youtube clip, which I can’t see here anyway.
I am just sceptical that somebody can be determined in advance to any great degree as to how they will perform when in a position such as US president. I have recently finished a book on the rise and fall of the British Empire, and am amazed about how many of its most competent and visionary characters came from obscurity with no relevant experience and whom nobody took seriously to begin with (the most extraordinary being Sir Clive of India).
I’m not saying that Palin will be anything more than nothing, but looking for conventional qualifications for such a position doesn’t necessarily present you with the best candidate. Look at Bush, Kerry, and Gore for proof of that.
I enjoy reading about your life on the platform (would make a great setting for a Martin Cruz Smith novel!) but maybe you’ve been out ther, isolated from normal society, too long?
Yay! Glad you like the blog. Yeah, it would make a good setting.
But I’ve always been isolated from normal society, perhaps that’s the problem. 
Stalin’s men restricted themselves because to do so would have had no effect on the outcome and would have caused them unnecessary retribution.
Sorry, that should say: “to do otherwise”.
I share a lot of your contempt for politicians and the political process, but I don’t for one minute underestimate or downplay the enormous importance of such an election in a country the size and importance of the USA.
I should clarify this: I don’t think the result is of enormous importance, but the process itself – and that a process is happening at all – massively important.
“I am just sceptical that somebody can be determined in advance to any great degree as to how they will perform when in a position such as US president.”
Maybe we should just pick them at random, like in ancient Athens!
Maybe we should just pick them at random, like in ancient Athens!
Wasn’t there some Greek city-state where politicians were automatically put to death once their term expired?
Now that would throw the true intentions of would-be politicians into sharp relief.
Tim wrote:
“You’ve analysed the US presidential debates and come to the correct conclusion they are full of neutral, empty rhetoric. You have put this down to the candidates being restrained in what they say by “political correctness”, which is highly unlikely given what they say about each other outside the debates is not restricted in such a way. The simple answer is that neither candidate wants to fight on this particular piece of turf, as a mistake would be fatal and they are both far stronger on different terrain than the live debate. If you put two people who are not great debaters (neither is) and put them into a live debate on national television with high stakes, you’re going to get prepared speeches with very little actual debate. It has little to do with restraints on what is politically acceptable to say.”
Well said. I agree.
Tim, instead of wading through the predictably anti-conservative blogs and publications, you should read what some conservative are now saying about Palin.
Let me repeat once again that it’s not only Democrats that are unhappy with McCain’s pick. Several Republicans are also unhappy, even though some of them were initially thrilled with Palin. For example, Rich Lowry, National Review editor, had this to say about her recent interview with Couric:
“I’ve been swamped with other stuff, but just for the record: I thought Palin was dreadful. She obviously didn’t have the reaction to the Charlie Gibson interview that I had hoped. She had better be better prepared for next week or she risks damaging her political brand forevermore.”
Several months ago, before most US citizens heard of Palin, conservative Ross Douhat was hoping that McCain will pick her as a running mate. After being ecstatic for a few days, Douhat now is singing a very different tune:
http:// rossdouthat.theatlantic.c…the_unready.php
http:// rossdouthat.theatlantic.c…_unready_ii.php
We also have Rod Dreher, a conservative Christian who was initially happy about Palin and now is not happy at all:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/09/palin- debacle-on-cbs-evening-n.html#more
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker also became unhappy about Palin:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ K…e_palin_problem
David Frum, former George W. Bush speechwriter, was never happy about her:
http://frum.nationalreview.com/ p…DljMDc2NjliZDk=
I’m sure all the people above will end up voting for McCain, but this shows that not only the knee-jerk left is unhappy with the possibility of Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency.
My apologies for the incomplete links. I hope this works:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/sarah_the_unready.php
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/sarah_the_unready_ii.php
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/09/palin-debacle-on-cbs-evening-n.html#more
http://townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2008/09/26/the_palin_problem
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2VhOWE0N2VkOWI3MDdlODRlZWE4ODljMDc2NjliZDk=
“Wasn’t there some Greek city-state where politicians were automatically put to death once their term expired?”
There were such traditions in many societies, including in Greece I think. Someone is designated the king, given broad power and all the luxury he wants for a year (or so), and then sacrificed. Frasier wrote about it in The Golden Bough. I think the Aztecs did something like this — it sounds like the kind of thing they would have done.
All those people trashing Mrs. Palin and praising Putin should honestly answer, what were Putin’s qualifications prior to his PM appointment in 1999? Because Putin was the ultimate political non-entity about the same age as Mrs. Palin is now. Yet he managed to become a popular President.
Compared to Putin in 1999, Mrs. Palin is a seasoned politician with real campaigning and executive experiences. She has a record of independent accomplishments, while Putin was always someone’s shady protege.
Mrs. Palin is also more refined, articulate and better looking than Putin, of course.
Soooorry for my language but this is double bullshit. Why double?
1. This system is 200+ years old.
2. It’s so easy to drag anyone to anything. Just look at history. No need to look 200+ years back. Recall Iraq/Saddams WMD “threat” and “bring dermocracy to Middle East” ideas.
PS. Still think US economy is solid as never before?
Ivanov, are you an uninformed a 13-year-old?
Candide, I dislike Putin, but within the context of Russia he had much more relevant experience than Palin has within a US context. Remember, he was the head of the FSB before becoming Prime Minister.
And remember that a number of conservative Republicans, some of whom were initially excited about his pick, are now lamenting the fact that McCain chose Palin.
Compare and contrast.
I know I’m crazy far out there, but I’d prefer a leader who studied international law and went on to work in the Secret Service over one who was voted “Miss Congeniality” and went on to become a sports anchor.
YMMV.
About what? About democracy?
Kolya. Sorry but this time your are uninformed as regular informed western citizen
. Putin got his experience not as head of FSB (keeping in mind time and duration of his work there). Believe me – at that time head of fsb was very uniformed person in the country…
PS. Kolya – to manipulate “democratic” crowd is very easy. Hermann Göring explained it at nutshell to the court in 1945. I found it to be the best description of what could be done with “democracy”. And Hermann didn’t have to be “politcorrected”.
“She ran for Wasilla city council in 1992, at age 28, against John Hartrick, a local telephone company worker, on a promise to bring “my progressive, competitive attitude” to the government. She won 530 votes to John Hartrick’s 310.”
poemless, I don’t understand your craziness. I really don’t. Look at her score. Very impressive. 530 people!!! Against seasoned politician from telephone company (authoritarian monopolists for sure!)
This is hilarious
“She kept a jar with the names of Wasilla residents on her desk, and once a week she pulled a name from it and picked up the phone; she would ask: “How’s the city doing?”
Tim. What would you answer if komrad Stalin called you in the middle of the night and asked “How’s plarform doing, komrad Tim? Vi taki pishite na forume ili rabotaete, grazhdanin Newman?”
So there we have it: secret police agent who became shady operator for St. Petersburg mayor, was appointed to run state internal police bureau, was appointed PM and installed as a President, who never run for public office fair and square, never submitted to public scrutiny and never allowed his opponents an equal shake is preferrable to a decent woman who had to work hard to achieve some modest political success, never cut any corners and who is about to be crucified for daring to set her goals too high.
People who think that way are not ‘liberals’ but proto-fascists.
I think Sarah Palin has many shortcomings and may very well be destined for a big failure, but her failure will be honest and noble, while all the Putin successes are ignoble and despicable.
Candid.
I would prefer to be proto- or whatever-fascist than PLAIN stupid.
http://punditkitchen.com/2008/09/24/political-pictures-george-bush-mourn-passing/
So, Ivanov, would you rather be Hitler or Dawn syndrome baby?
I would prefer to be proto- or whatever-fascist than PLAIN stupid.
You can just as well be both.
I prefer proto-fascist title, Cyrill.
But you have ask candid what this is (when he is free from admiring Palin’s achievements).
Been stupid is also OK. But please, don’t call me liberal
Fair? Hitler of course.
What about you, candid?
PS.iVANOV – with small “i” as this is not a name.
Been stupid is also OK. But please, don’t call me liberal
Why would I since you are obviously not?
Ivanov, the fact that you are uninformed about the US has been clear for a while, the fact that you have a dislike for democracy has also been clear. On the other hand, since I’m not bright and I’m easily fooled, it only recently dawned on me that your are actually a 13-year-old trying to pass as an adult.
Candide, my point was that considering the reality of Russia, Putin was more qualified to lead Russia than Palin is qualified to lead the US. This has nothing to do with nobility or morality, though. I have little doubt that Putin is a cold hearted son of bitch.
About Palin, though, I really don’t think that accepting to be McCain’s running mate was an act of nobility on her part. It would have been much more noble and patriotic to refuse McCain’s offer.
Kolya,
You come through as a decent sort, but I think you are too invested in Obama victory.
There is no disgrace in taking on big challenges: therefore there is no disgrace in failing. Palin gave McCain campaign a great boost just when it desperately needed it. Without her effort McCain would be behind by double digits by now. For that she was hit very hard and may not recover, politically and otherwise.
Well, fair is fair. She knew what she was up against and she made her choice willingly. As they say, politics is no beanbag.
Btw, I don’t think there is a special ‘Russian reality’. I think there is only one universal reality, in which Sarah Palin compares very favorably with Putin and many other assorted human slugs.
“You come through as a decent sort, but I think you are too invested in Obama victory.”
God’s Wounds, you’re a patronizing asshole.
“How’s plarform doing, komrad Tim? Vi taki pishite na forume ili rabotaete, grazhdanin Newman?”
I would say:
“Izvinite, tovorish Stalin. Pagoda ploxaya, mi ne mozhem rabotat’.”
The bad weather is the fault of that traitor, Trotsky, and his fascist Japanese allies.
ivanov,
You just have no idea what you’re talking about. I think Kolya is correct about your mental age.
Anyway, I think the whole “who is more democratic” discussion is marred by a confusion based on differing ideas on what is meant by “democracy” that keep sliding around and bumping into each other, roughly:
1. Democracy is a system that is good (defined as working for the general population).
2. Democracy is a system that is stable.
3. Democracy is a system in which the people play a significant role in decision-making.
4. Democracy is a system in which officials are elected.
5. Democracy is a system in which officials are accountable.
6. Democracy is a system that admits of rapid change.
1-6 obviously are different. 2 & 6 actually to some extent contradict each other.
Looks like I’m hurting feelings of “liberals”, “democrats” and “republicans” all together (not saying about my countrymen). Not bad really
db, FYI I KNOW VERY WELL what I’m talking about (well sometimes it was fun but otherwise – deep shit). And I personally knew many people who didn’t pass that “exams” and got final “reward” – usually 7.62 mm or 9 mm in diameter.
Kolya, I’m really offended by your estimation of my age. So far 15 years was the “best” score
Why this “magic” 13? Do you know Chronwatch forum? Very conservative… Guess what they said about me (LOL)! “”Commi” was the best term 
)
BTW I was in favor of Bush in 2004 election and I’m in favor of McPalin now. I prefer straight boys/girls. Solid like mammothshit. Determined like pitbull.
As to democracy – I see no point to like or dislike something that doesn’t exists (or existed thousands of years ago). As to US – I had visited country first time almost 20 years ago. So it’s enough time to compare and good “control sample” to know – I mean CCCP/Russia/China. The last one had been primary military target for me for many years btw (and I saw it with naked eye – almost like Palin can see Russia
PS. candid – I made my choice. I don’t know if you asked this classical question for purpose or by accident – but I would appreciate you answer (unless you coward).
“Solid like mammothshit. Determined like pitbull.”
For the love of God, this is the best macho expression of all time!!!!! I am so stealing it.
Tovarisch Tim! Ya nadeyus’vi ispravite pogodu. Inache mi prishlem vam nashego meteorologa!
Perhaps I shouldn’t discuss the weather with Big Joe Stalin. He did brifely work as a weatherman in Georgia, he’ll be able to see straight through my excuses.
But the wind did cause the anchor on our accommodation barge to drag for 3 nights, meaning we couldn’t get onto the platform to work. Anyway, I’ll be back onshore tomorrow.
I totally bet that there are monsters either sneaking up on the oil rig, or already there.
Chris,
I know you know all this, but here it goes: when I write “democracy” I usually mean it as a shorthand for systems like the liberal democracies of today (e.g., Western Europe–don’t want to say EU quite yet–Canada, US, New Zealand, Australia and a few others). I assume that my usage is not unusual. There are, of course, many differences among these liberal democracies, and I certainly don’t assume that the US system is the most “democratic” among them (as in democratic = good). As I wrote before, though:
“The US constitutional system is fairly stable and conservative (checks and balances), so a radical president (either of the left or the right) would be unable to pass most of the changes they want.”
Although a resilient system, it is often too slow to implement beneficial change. Thankfully, it is also slow to implement harmful change. (Yes, I’m aware that our understanding of what is beneficial or harmful can vary among us.) In addition, stability is a relative term.
“I know you know all this, but here it goes: when I write “democracy” I usually mean it as a shorthand for systems like the liberal democracies of today (e.g., Western Europe–don’t want to say EU quite yet–Canada, US, New Zealand, Australia and a few others). I assume that my usage is not unusual.”
Sure, but isn’t this rather tautological? Any system that does not resemble a Western system is going to be nondemocratic if your definition of democratic is “something resembling a Western system.” It also makes it impossible to criticize Western systems on the grounds that they are allegedly non- or anti- or insufficiently democratic (which I think Sean would like to do).
It also makes it impossible to criticize Western systems on the grounds that they are allegedly non- or anti- or insufficiently democratic (which I think Sean would like to do).
My current inquiry is how democratic states inherently contain anti-democratic tendencies which are necessary for them to remain democratic and stable. It’s a Hegelian unity of opposites thing. Which after thinking about it yesterday in relation Tim’s criticisms might be something I’m trying to think through but still unable to fully articulate. Perhaps this is why I pass so quickly over the obvious and individual in the debates and try to get what’s operating behind it.
My interest is inherently anti-liberal. I’m not personally interested in which democracy is better or worse but something I think is internal to its functioning. It’s all still quite vague in my mind.
It also makes it impossible to criticize Western systems on the grounds that they are allegedly non- or anti- or insufficiently democratic (which I think Sean would like to do).
My current inquiry is how democratic states inherently contain anti-democratic tendencies which are necessary for them to remain democratic and stable. It’s a Hegelian unity of opposites thing. Which after thinking about it yesterday in relation Tim’s criticisms might be something I’m trying to think through but still unable to fully articulate. Perhaps this is why I pass so quickly over the obvious and individual in the debates and try to get what’s operating behind it.
My interest is inherently anti-liberal. I’m not personally interested in which democracy is better or worse but something I think is internal to its functioning. It’s all still quite vague in my mind.
——————————————
Let’s try to argue with simpler terms. Democracy is the rule of a majority. While anti-democracy (what the word for it?) is the rule of a minority. In the latter case the minority is able to subjugate the majority by (for example) fear of being expelled from the main stream society.
Agree?
Does the USA has democracy?
Chris, I don’t think I quite understand your questions. Perhaps there is a tautology in what I wrote. My apologies for my sloppy thinking/writing. I simply wanted to clarify what I mean by “democracy”, which for me is simply a short way of saying “liberal democracy” instead of what the Greeks meant (or what I assume is the dictionary definition of the term).
I cannot think of a specific real world example at this moment, but let us say that there is a system that in the Greek sense is actually more democratic than your generic liberal democracy. I could very well find this more purely democratic system much more objectionable. In other words, by finding it more objectionable I’m no saying that it is less democratic.
Sean’s reply to your comment is interesting. My knowledge of political theory (and lingo) is too superficial to give Sean (and you) any justice. (I have a JD, but I forgot most of the stuff. In addition, I never took a philosophy or political science class.)
“My current inquiry is how democratic states inherently contain anti-democratic tendencies which are necessary for them to remain democratic and stable.”
For one thing, they tend to put a lot of limits on the power of the majority.
Chrisius,
You are nothing but a meddlesome twerp and a total waste of cyberspace. You never take a clear defined position on anything but snicker from all directions. You are like a cloud of tiny gnats: weak buzz and no substance. Your every post is nothing but a mental fart, producing stink and fading without a trace. There is more content in your pathetic monikers than in your useless posts. You are like a stinky smudge on the mirror that reflects the worthy posters, obscuring and distorting everything and contributing to nothing. You are spread wide but you have no body or structure. You are like a revolting smear on the smorgasbord of delectable opinions. You are nothing but a wet spot at the base of Putin’s toilet bowl.
Now go and pleasure yourself in the manner of your own choosing for the rest of your pointless and meaningless life.
“(I have a JD, but I forgot most of the stuff. In addition, I never took a philosophy or political science class.)”
A JD is better than what I have, which is a puny MA + ABD.
For one thing, they tend to put a lot of limits on the power of the majority.
Indeed. The whole problem in the Federalist Papers of the “tyranny of the majority” comes to mind.
Chrisius,
You are nothing but a meddlesome twerp and a total waste of cyberspace. You never take a clear defined position on anything but snicker from all directions. You are like a cloud of tiny gnats: weak buzz and no substance. Your every post is nothing but a mental fart, producing stink and fading without a trace. There is more content in your pathetic monikers than in your useless posts. You are like a stinky smudge on the mirror that reflects the worthy posters, obscuring and distorting everything and contributing to nothing. You are spread wide but you have no body or structure. You are like a revolting smear on the smorgasbord of delectable opinions. You are nothing but a wet spot at the base of Putin’s toilet bowl.
Now go and pleasure yourself in the manner of your own choosing for the rest of your pointless and meaningless life.
———————————————-
Insecurity begets aggressiveness.
The chain of scatological references in Candide’s denunciation of Chrisius are wonderful. It almost reminds me of what a dominatrix would say, “You are a lowly worm! Now lick my boot, worm!”
I especially love, “You are nothing but a wet spot at the base of Putin’s toilet bowl.” That’s awesome. Bravo!