Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
The British system isn't particularly democratic on paper, and that's nothing to do with having a monarchy; after all it's a Constitutional Monarchy. It's more to do with certain executive powers that the Prime Minister holds.
On your: "weakness of democracy" point. Some people would say that choice is alone is enough to be democratic, but I would disagree. The whole point is a balance of power and quite clearly in this scenario there isn't a balance of power. That the media could sold such sway over politics, add to that the power of business, well, that wasn't envisaged during The Enlightenment and it follows the principle of rights is not particularly relevant today.
People, some people, seem to be content to say that we have choice but choice with limited information has limited appeal to me.
The most important point, though, is that time after time it has been demonstrated that people do not have the rights they seem to think they have and the United States has had its fair share of curtailing liberty in the interests of: "the war on this or that".
I think that perhaps because a lot of battles were fought and won by people who went before us, people in Western countries these days have a pretty comfortable existence and so people have become complacent. In some respects, we're less free today than we were in the days of autocratic monarchies in places such as Germany and Austria-Hungry. In those days, people could travel anywhere or send goods anywhere without need for accompanying papers and documents.
I thought the Prime Minister was selected by Parliament, which is directly elected by the people? Maybe I'm not clear on that, but if this is the case, then it would still be democratic, even if indirectly. The same could be said about the US system and the unelected Supreme Court. The people still have some indirect control, since the people elect the President who selects the Supreme Court nominees, as well as the Senators who confirm them.
But how do the people make their choices? What influences them? There was still media back in the 17th and 18th century, even if it was more primitive when compared to what we have today. But it was a lot more localized, I would think. You might have your town or village councils where people might have some say in how things are governed, as well as easy access to whichever official you might want to see. The national government may not have had as much relevance in people's day to day lives.
Also, the town church would also be a popular meeting spot and a good way to gauge and influence public opinion.
Even an autocratic monarch has to be somewhat mindful of public opinion and/or be persuasive enough to get his/her own way. The title itself will only go so far. Ultimately, politics is about the art of persuasion, whether it's done through the media, religion, or through backroom intrigue.
As long as there's the implied lack of force and the absence of any duress (which is not a given by any means), then people are theoretically "free" to make the choice not to be persuaded by whatever political rhetoric or propaganda might be out there. Even the subject of propaganda itself can become a bit of a sorepoint in our political system. Reliability and credibility of sources also become an issue. But people still have the choice to seek out multiple source of news and information, especially since the rise of the internet. There is no shortage of information out there, but there's so much of it that the average person may be overwhelmed and may find difficulty determining what's "truth" and what's not.
quote:
Unfortunately, as you say, history is not predictive of the future. There may be some patterns that can be spotted but can they be applied to the future, in a different age with different factors: social, cultural, technological etc?
If there's one pattern that can be spotted from the past 400 years it is that Western countries tend to start wars, and to be fair it has been European countries in the main.
And, one of those wars in particular came at a time when people didn't see it coming and they generally thought that it would be foolish to have a destructive war when there was so much to lose. Could quite conceivably happen again.
A lot of wars could have been avoided, or at least stopped before they got too destructive or out of control. Again, some of it also cultural, since we tend to glorify war on multiple levels. It's very much ingrained in our culture. We might try to structure in such a way as to persuade ourselves and others that war is a necessary evil to fight an even bigger evil that's out there. But once we get past that little moral dilemma, then we can go out and say "Bomb them back to the Stone Age" with a clear conscience. Or so we might think.
War is also why the national government is a matter of importance, yet a lot of people are still somewhat insulated and indifferent to the affairs of the national government. But if everyone in their village is signing up to go to war, there might be a peer pressure to go along even if nobody has the slightest clue as to what the war is about. But it doesn't really matter anyway, as the propaganda will have them all convinced that they're fighting satanic demons from hell.
Even today, I see shades of that in the hawkish rhetoric being bandied about. It may be a bit more sophisticated and uses all the popular jargon, but ultimately, it relies on subtle and not so subtle ways of demonizing the "enemy" and convincing people that war is necessary to stop these "satanic demons from hell." Otherwise, the hellspawn might spread (see "Domino Theory").
That's when the rubber hits the road when it comes to the idea of rights. Sure, we can say that all human beings have rights, but "satanic demons from hell" don't get any rights. It just depends on which individuals/groups have been painted that way. It varies from place to place, and might involve demonizing other religions, races, nationalities, sects, political parties, even families. This is complemented by notions of patriotism and nationalism, the idea that our country is the best and that we are (or should be) superior to our adversaries and competitors.
quote:
I think the French have a more positive outlook on Americans.
You have to remember that England and France have been competitors and enemies for many a century, far more history than between say France and Germany.
And, both countries have spent centuries disparaging one another and such old habits will die hard.
Although I think the comment by the French Tourist Board was more of an observation on their part, on this occasion.
The history of relations between France and England is somewhat fascinating but so vast and lengthy that I never really had the inkling to study it in depth. Overall, it seems to be like two neighbors constantly getting into each other's business.
quote:
Downfall would be stretching it, but I think it is fair to say that the age of the United States being the one global superpower has passed. There are centres of power around the world these days.
I think it's inevitable, though, that any world power will overstretch itself and the point will come where it can no longer service its growing commitments.
I think that point has been reached with the United States, just as it had with Britain prior to WW1.
But the difference with Britain and other colonial powers was that, when they reached the point where they could no longer exert their hegemony on a global basis, the US still had enough power to try to fill the vacuum that would have otherwise been filled by other powers, possibly the Soviet Union or China. If the US is no longer able to exert its power as the global superpower, then what will happen to the balance of power in the world? What other hegemonic power will fill the vacuum that's left?
With the advent of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of that technology, the whole world may turn into one giant Mexican Standoff.
quote:
Yes, that appeal to pride and fear is the oldest trick in the book, tried and tested around the world. Which ties in nicely with the idea of 'rights'. What good are 'rights' when an appeal to your pride and fear, otherwise known as manipulation, will do the job quite nicely.
Yes, it all comes down to the power of persuasion. Politics is dirty and uses any and all forms of persuasion. Even manipulation and verbal trickery seem relatively "softer" forms than some of the more brutal ways of persuading people. We talk about choice, but then if people are manipulated into making a choice and then realize later that they've been tricked, they may not be able to reverse that choice. But then, people can still get very angry about being tricked. On a national level, it can possibly lead to war. Hitler made a lot of hay over the idea that Germany got stabbed in the back, saying "They tricked us!" and stoked up a lot of national anger.
|
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread