"The demand of democracy is participation. It is about keeping alive the circumstances that allow the inevitably unresolvable problems of the world to be discussed and fought about in the most peaceful way possible..." Such a great point to make. Thanks @TimDunlop!
Tim, I agree with your view, BUT, if I was in the bottom 20-30% of American society my attitude might be somewhat harsher. If 70-80% of my countrymen can say stuff you, I could easily see why I would vote Trump in retaliation, not in the expectation of Trump giving me a helping hand, but as a FU; come down and join me.
The FU factor is definitely a thing and needs to be addressed, without pandering to it. As I say, one election doesn't fix it, and it isn't completely eradicable--it isn't just an economic matter--but we can do better than we are doing.
'The demand of democracy is participation' - I really need to take a step back & read up on what is 'democracy'? I'm guessing the term encompasses a broad spectrum of definitions and examples. I just don't think what is called 'democracy' in Australia is actually 'democracy' as might be seen through well informed, impartial eyes. Constant brainwashing saying that we have a democracy just convinces us we have one. Is the 2party system really democracy? Just scrape below the surface & suddenly the parties are riven by factions & controlled by corporations.
Absolutely, which is why Australians need to find good community independents and support them. Maybe if Tweedledum and Tweedledee have to negotiate with a cross bench rather than simply give their donors what they've paid for, democracy can happen.
We definitely have a democracy, but it is subject to forces that distort it constantly and give rise the problems you mention, and more (look at the media). The answers are structural, institutional, and I write about this stuff pretty regularly: books and articles arguing for ongoing improvements. They only come about through wide participation in the processes we have. We have to build the parachute as we freefall: it isn't easy.
But surely if Kamala Harris defeats the genocide enabler Joe Biden she will bring peace to the Middle East and make abortions legal again!
Sorry, that's just me being grumpy about the people using the Supreme Court striking down Roe v Wade as a reason to vote for Harris, when that happened with a Democrat in the White House and Biden didn't even begin to look at, say, increasing the number of justices on the bench.
If Trump is an existential threat to democracy, as the Democrats keep saying, why are they still playing by the old rules and just waiting for the Republican Party to come to its senses?
And, I'm sorry, but if Trump wins because the Democrats are arming Israel against the laws of the United States itself, then the Party (not individual Americans) deserves everything that is coming to it.
"Sorry, that's just me being grumpy about the people using the Supreme Court striking down Roe v Wade as a reason to vote for Harris, when that happened with a Democrat in the White House and Biden didn't even begin to look at, say, increasing the number of justices on the bench”
Whaaaat? I understand how you feel, but imagine how that would have been perceived by the R! Biden would have faced accusations of stacking the SC, I know that is what Trump has down, but where does it end if you follow suit?
“Biden would have faced accusations of stacking the SC, I know that is what Trump has down, but where does it end if you follow suit?”
Are you saying the number of Supreme Court Justices can never change? Better let history know, because they’ve changed in the past. But obviously the Democrats agree with you, that there’s no point even trying to do anything, because Pelosi refused to bring a bill to get the number increased in 2021 to Congress. Yet the Democrats are now using the deaths of women because of abortion bans to campaign for Harris. I guess all the dead women can be glad they died in order for the Democrats to maintain the moral high ground.
I’m not saying they’ve never changed in the past and I know there is constitutional ability to increase the SC right now (or so I believe), but I’d have thought to do that in the present circumstances would be seen as politically opportunistic and give the far R more ammo in their arguments.
I would also say it’s a gross distortion to imply of me, of what you accuse the Democrats. I seriously doubt they are holding back and allowing women to die for political opportunity.
Just to make it clear, I am no fan of the Democrats.
You were right, I was wrong! The Democrats should have expanded the SC, Trump will get to stack it and potentially expand it, leaving the composition as it is for decades.
I am filled with sorrow and rage because I believe the Democrats could have done things to prevent this happening, and they decided instead to go with “We’re not Trump”. And I suspect the ALP in our next federal election are going to go with “We’re not Dutton” and be equally flabbergasted when that doesn’t work.
Ridiculously I woke up this morning at 3 am, 4 am, 5 am, worrying about the bloody election. In which I cannot vote, in a country I have never visited and have no intention of doing so. I guess this is just what it's like living under an Empire. Anyway, got myself back to sleep each time by praying for safe voting and counting, which seemed to calm me for about 45 minutes.
What's the old saying, when America sneezes we catch cold...? Seems perfectly rational to me to wake up worrying about this election because it will affect us. It is already. And I have deep concerns about how our political class will react. It is a time for solidarity.
Hi Tim, my preference is for Harris as well (obviously) and I get what you’re at, but if I was in that lower 20-30% and you’ve been waiting for how many decades for a gov to do something to help you up (and I don’t mean pandering) I don’t know if I’d have the patience or TRUST in the same lot saying, “this time we have you!”, because history shows that they haven’t and to be honest, I don’t think the Democrats are likely to do much. Bernie Sanders, imo, was the one most likely to change things, but he's history.
It’s the same here, L have been doing little for the lower end for more than 20 yrs imo, and I have little trust in them changing much. Politics these days is a case of which company do I join to have a good career in.
In the 2024 June issue of The Atlantic Anne Applebaum argued that democracy is losing the propaganda war. Her choice of words is not accidental. The democratic ideal no longer has any substantive force - it is touted as a force for good but with very little substance to support it. So we are relying on creating the illusion that democratic government is necessarily good. Conveniently ignoring that for the last 200 years or the democratic project has been substantively about ensuring that the owners of capital remain in charge. We have been seduced by the rhetoric with which the Americans surrounded their democracy. The rhetoric that papered over the deficiencies and shortcomings is now being torn away. The inherent weaknesses have been exposed will be emulated by tyrants and dictators. The USA has become a
shamocracy.
Ironically John Rawls, arguably America’s greatest political philosopher, advocated a form of capitalism that is designed ‘to disperse the ownership of wealth and capital, and thus prevent a small part of society from controlling the economy, and indirectly political life as well.
This has become the feature of contemporary democracy - it has become a prize for the top 1%-10%. It is a plutocracy where we are allowed to choose which lot of plutocrats will run the show.
To argue that democracy is about participation no longer tells the whole story. Regardless which lot is in power we have very little opportunity to shape the political agenda.
Paradoxically this makes it all the more important to participate in politics - not just as a voter but as a member of a political party. Grass roots political action can make a difference.
(NB Anne Applebaum is not just a Pulitzer price winning writer for the Atlantic her husband is Radosław Sikorski, Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs. )
Thanks, Jon. Nicely put. My view is that we shouldn't confuse democracy with liberalism or see liberalism as the best way to manifest democratic governance. Indeed, liberalism can be one of the forces that undermines democracy. Rawls is a more egalitarian liberal than most theories of it allow but we should remember his version is not exactly in favour. Esp in his home country, even amongst Democrats. But even his version is not necessarily a great model. I also think that we blame on democracy things that should be blamed on other forces, such as the two-party system, institutional developments that have, as you suggest, undermined democracy in favour of elites. Much of what I write about here is to address that sort of elite usurping of democracy. I reckon you would really enjoy John Keane's book The Shortest History of Democracy. If that piqued your interest, his much longer book, The Life and Death of Democracy is also worth a read.
Wow! Trump back in power and women back in our boxes .Unbelievable and yet,totally believable that US prefer a convicted criminal who rapes women Fraud…….liar……just the quality needed to run a land of cowboys and Indians and oligarchs .🫣😢🤷🏾♀️
"The demand of democracy is participation. It is about keeping alive the circumstances that allow the inevitably unresolvable problems of the world to be discussed and fought about in the most peaceful way possible..." Such a great point to make. Thanks @TimDunlop!
A great article in MNSBC stating that Democrats must deal with billionaires ! No change without regime change eh ?
It's a huge problem. That sort of inequality completely undermines democracy.
Tim, I agree with your view, BUT, if I was in the bottom 20-30% of American society my attitude might be somewhat harsher. If 70-80% of my countrymen can say stuff you, I could easily see why I would vote Trump in retaliation, not in the expectation of Trump giving me a helping hand, but as a FU; come down and join me.
The FU factor is definitely a thing and needs to be addressed, without pandering to it. As I say, one election doesn't fix it, and it isn't completely eradicable--it isn't just an economic matter--but we can do better than we are doing.
'The demand of democracy is participation' - I really need to take a step back & read up on what is 'democracy'? I'm guessing the term encompasses a broad spectrum of definitions and examples. I just don't think what is called 'democracy' in Australia is actually 'democracy' as might be seen through well informed, impartial eyes. Constant brainwashing saying that we have a democracy just convinces us we have one. Is the 2party system really democracy? Just scrape below the surface & suddenly the parties are riven by factions & controlled by corporations.
Absolutely, which is why Australians need to find good community independents and support them. Maybe if Tweedledum and Tweedledee have to negotiate with a cross bench rather than simply give their donors what they've paid for, democracy can happen.
We definitely have a democracy, but it is subject to forces that distort it constantly and give rise the problems you mention, and more (look at the media). The answers are structural, institutional, and I write about this stuff pretty regularly: books and articles arguing for ongoing improvements. They only come about through wide participation in the processes we have. We have to build the parachute as we freefall: it isn't easy.
You: 'it isn't easy.'
Me: 'you're not wrong Narelle'.
But surely if Kamala Harris defeats the genocide enabler Joe Biden she will bring peace to the Middle East and make abortions legal again!
Sorry, that's just me being grumpy about the people using the Supreme Court striking down Roe v Wade as a reason to vote for Harris, when that happened with a Democrat in the White House and Biden didn't even begin to look at, say, increasing the number of justices on the bench.
If Trump is an existential threat to democracy, as the Democrats keep saying, why are they still playing by the old rules and just waiting for the Republican Party to come to its senses?
And, I'm sorry, but if Trump wins because the Democrats are arming Israel against the laws of the United States itself, then the Party (not individual Americans) deserves everything that is coming to it.
Despite this, I'm still hoping for a Harris win.
"Sorry, that's just me being grumpy about the people using the Supreme Court striking down Roe v Wade as a reason to vote for Harris, when that happened with a Democrat in the White House and Biden didn't even begin to look at, say, increasing the number of justices on the bench”
Whaaaat? I understand how you feel, but imagine how that would have been perceived by the R! Biden would have faced accusations of stacking the SC, I know that is what Trump has down, but where does it end if you follow suit?
“Biden would have faced accusations of stacking the SC, I know that is what Trump has down, but where does it end if you follow suit?”
Are you saying the number of Supreme Court Justices can never change? Better let history know, because they’ve changed in the past. But obviously the Democrats agree with you, that there’s no point even trying to do anything, because Pelosi refused to bring a bill to get the number increased in 2021 to Congress. Yet the Democrats are now using the deaths of women because of abortion bans to campaign for Harris. I guess all the dead women can be glad they died in order for the Democrats to maintain the moral high ground.
I’m not saying they’ve never changed in the past and I know there is constitutional ability to increase the SC right now (or so I believe), but I’d have thought to do that in the present circumstances would be seen as politically opportunistic and give the far R more ammo in their arguments.
I would also say it’s a gross distortion to imply of me, of what you accuse the Democrats. I seriously doubt they are holding back and allowing women to die for political opportunity.
Just to make it clear, I am no fan of the Democrats.
Avril,
You were right, I was wrong! The Democrats should have expanded the SC, Trump will get to stack it and potentially expand it, leaving the composition as it is for decades.
A likely fatal mistake.
I am filled with sorrow and rage because I believe the Democrats could have done things to prevent this happening, and they decided instead to go with “We’re not Trump”. And I suspect the ALP in our next federal election are going to go with “We’re not Dutton” and be equally flabbergasted when that doesn’t work.
yep, rage & sorrow is an apt description for myself as well. Unbloodybelievable.
Avril, just for you!
https://i.kym-cdn.com/editorials/icons/mobile/000/010/713/s4saltfop.jpg
Yep, and I was trying to acknowledge all this while coming to the same conclusion about who I would prefer to win.
Ridiculously I woke up this morning at 3 am, 4 am, 5 am, worrying about the bloody election. In which I cannot vote, in a country I have never visited and have no intention of doing so. I guess this is just what it's like living under an Empire. Anyway, got myself back to sleep each time by praying for safe voting and counting, which seemed to calm me for about 45 minutes.
What's the old saying, when America sneezes we catch cold...? Seems perfectly rational to me to wake up worrying about this election because it will affect us. It is already. And I have deep concerns about how our political class will react. It is a time for solidarity.
Hi Tim, my preference is for Harris as well (obviously) and I get what you’re at, but if I was in that lower 20-30% and you’ve been waiting for how many decades for a gov to do something to help you up (and I don’t mean pandering) I don’t know if I’d have the patience or TRUST in the same lot saying, “this time we have you!”, because history shows that they haven’t and to be honest, I don’t think the Democrats are likely to do much. Bernie Sanders, imo, was the one most likely to change things, but he's history.
It’s the same here, L have been doing little for the lower end for more than 20 yrs imo, and I have little trust in them changing much. Politics these days is a case of which company do I join to have a good career in.
Exactly. Thanks, Tim, from the other shore.
Everything crossed, James!
Did we all eat from the same buffet last night?
In the 2024 June issue of The Atlantic Anne Applebaum argued that democracy is losing the propaganda war. Her choice of words is not accidental. The democratic ideal no longer has any substantive force - it is touted as a force for good but with very little substance to support it. So we are relying on creating the illusion that democratic government is necessarily good. Conveniently ignoring that for the last 200 years or the democratic project has been substantively about ensuring that the owners of capital remain in charge. We have been seduced by the rhetoric with which the Americans surrounded their democracy. The rhetoric that papered over the deficiencies and shortcomings is now being torn away. The inherent weaknesses have been exposed will be emulated by tyrants and dictators. The USA has become a
shamocracy.
Ironically John Rawls, arguably America’s greatest political philosopher, advocated a form of capitalism that is designed ‘to disperse the ownership of wealth and capital, and thus prevent a small part of society from controlling the economy, and indirectly political life as well.
This has become the feature of contemporary democracy - it has become a prize for the top 1%-10%. It is a plutocracy where we are allowed to choose which lot of plutocrats will run the show.
To argue that democracy is about participation no longer tells the whole story. Regardless which lot is in power we have very little opportunity to shape the political agenda.
Paradoxically this makes it all the more important to participate in politics - not just as a voter but as a member of a political party. Grass roots political action can make a difference.
(NB Anne Applebaum is not just a Pulitzer price winning writer for the Atlantic her husband is Radosław Sikorski, Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs. )
Thanks, Jon. Nicely put. My view is that we shouldn't confuse democracy with liberalism or see liberalism as the best way to manifest democratic governance. Indeed, liberalism can be one of the forces that undermines democracy. Rawls is a more egalitarian liberal than most theories of it allow but we should remember his version is not exactly in favour. Esp in his home country, even amongst Democrats. But even his version is not necessarily a great model. I also think that we blame on democracy things that should be blamed on other forces, such as the two-party system, institutional developments that have, as you suggest, undermined democracy in favour of elites. Much of what I write about here is to address that sort of elite usurping of democracy. I reckon you would really enjoy John Keane's book The Shortest History of Democracy. If that piqued your interest, his much longer book, The Life and Death of Democracy is also worth a read.
Wow! Trump back in power and women back in our boxes .Unbelievable and yet,totally believable that US prefer a convicted criminal who rapes women Fraud…….liar……just the quality needed to run a land of cowboys and Indians and oligarchs .🫣😢🤷🏾♀️