Do people suck at Democracy?

[Barnabas]

Think fast: In your opinion, what group of people is the most dishonest and ignorant?


And you can't just say "politicians."

Just from the demographics of our readership, a whole bunch of you said, "Tea Party members" or "Southern conservatives." And that's fine; they say the same about you. Polls consistently show that we think those who disagree with us politically are simply bad people, on a personal level.


And if you just read Atlas Shrugged, you now think that about everyone but you.

Now take a look at this study, which compared a person's average political knowledge with their primary source of news. The results were surprising: The most knowledgeable groups were viewers of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Hot on their heels? Fans of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

Never mind the fact that it's a pretty bad sign when the most politically educated people in the country are relying on either comedy shows or political pundits for their news. The key is that these outlets are primarily about ruthlessly mocking and dismissing the other side. Yet they attract more knowledgeable voters, not less.


"We're scientists, and we don't trust any pundit who doesn't scream 80 percent of his dialogue."

So there appears to be a horrible process that works like this:

A. In order to want to learn more about political issues, you must be enthusiastic about politics;

B. Enthusiasm about politics means you are more likely to be emotionally invested in the issues;

C. Emotional investment in the issues means a more negative attitude toward anyone who disagrees;

D. A negative attitude toward someone means being more dismissive of his point of view and being less open to changing your mind based on anything he says.

In the world of psychology, they call this attitude polarization; the more times the average person spends thinking about a subject, the more extreme his position becomes -- even if he doesn't run across any new information. Simply repeating your beliefs to yourself makes those beliefs stronger.




And it gets even worse when we wind up in a group -- say, on an Internet message board full of people who agree with us, where we can all congratulate each other on being right. Researchers call that group polarization (in public -- in private, they call it a "circle jerk").

Of course, once you get to the point where you're rooting so hard for one side of an issue that you're just short of painting your chest in team colors, then all that time spent reading up on the issues stops being about becoming an informed citizen and becomes more about accumulating ammunition for the next argument.


"If I just Google hard enough, I can make the facts go away!"

I enjoy cracked a few reasons, mainly entertainment.

but what do you guys thing about this?

 

[Faye]

If you look at how most countries practice 'democracy', yes people do suck at it. They really do.

 

[bickelz]

Technically we're a republic and a true democracy would never work with more than a thousand people. It would just be a giant poll that got laws passed. A disaster.

 

[muir]

I think that the agenda of the people at the top of the power structure has always been divide and conquer

They want the populace hating each other and their media is designed to entrench prejudices

In reality, it's all just theatre

As chomsky says, the purpose of the media is to 'manufacture consent' from the public

The monied interests are the real power behind the scenes and the democrats and the republicans both work for them

Until people wake up to this and stop arguing amongst themselves they will continue to be exploited by the monied interests

That requires people to overcome their cultural programming

 

[Barnabas]

I think that the agenda of the people at the top of the power structure has always been divide and conquer

They want the populace hating each other and their media is designed to entrench prejudices

In reality, it's all just theatre

As chomsky says, the purpose of the media is to 'manufacture consent' from the public

The monied interests are the real power behind the scenes and the democrats and the republicans both work for them

Until people wake up to this and stop arguing amongst themselves they will continue to be exploited by the monied interests

That requires people to overcome their cultural programming

thats nice, now what so you think about the article?

 

[muir]

thats nice, now what so you think about the article?

I meant it about your article

Look i've just given you what i see as a very honest appraisal of what is happening.

I mentioned Chomsky because then people who are interested in what is being discussed can then go and look into that person and what they have to say. He has written many books on the subject for example one called 'manufacturing consent'

He is an American political activist and a leading professor in the field of linguistics.

This is significant because he studies langauge and how it impacts us as human beings.

Language is the tool of politics. So he breaks it down for people how politicians are using language to achieve their agendas. I think its valuable for anyone who is looking for answers (i always try to mention someone or something which can be an avenue for further exploration for people who, like me, are looking for answers)

The article is saying that people get so intent on taking a side that they forget to search for the truth

I am saying that yes, i think people do take sides. i think this happens because people are culturally programmed. This cultural programming is shaped by the people who hold power. The people who hold power are the poeple who hold all the money.

To carry on holding all of the money they have to distract people by setting them against each other....that way they will be so busy fighting each other that they won't notice the fact that a few people are holding all the money and calling all the shots

Does that make sense?

I think its a good thread you have started and the divisions in our society is an important issue

 

[Majesty]

Does real democracy even exist?

 

[muir]

Does real democracy even exist?

The current system is an illusion of democracy. The public vote for one of two parties which are both working for the monied interests.

Its like a football league. If you own the league you don't care who wins

The people are a sleeping giant. The few people who rule the people have to stop that giant from waking up and taking its gold back off them.

They have many means of doing that. One is by giving people a sense of empowerment by allowing them to vote every 5 years for a political party, which they control.

People don't get to decide on any issues and don't really have any say over how things are run.....so calling it democracy is really stretching the term quite a bit

 

[AUM]

I just don't see how this article has to do with people sucking at democracy.

My opinion about the article itself encompasses many groups not just politics. It is saying how people who belong to a group tend to strengthen this group mentality of "us vs them". It doesn't matter to which group you belong to(be it religious, sports, politics, ideologies), you're always going to believe that your group belongs to the most deserved and is above all the rest.

How can this be tied to your title question regarding people who suck at democracy? It can be that once you belong to any political party, you'll never be able to see the point of view of other parties, therefore no real democracy can exist as a result.

 

[CorLeonis]

Does real democracy even exist?

No.





And "yes," would be my response to 'do people suck at democracy'.

People love power too much to not be corrupted by it.

 

[Norton]

The current system is an illusion of democracy. The public vote for one of two parties which are both working for the monied interests...

Muir, you missed your decade: the 1960's. More people would have agreed with you then.

 

[gps]

People suck at would-be `democracy' and would-be `politics' for the same reason(s).
If `impolitic' means unwise, then much of what passes for politics per se is ACTUALLY impolitics as usual.
And that MISrepresentatives are called `representatives' is yet another instance of impolitical misrepresentation of `the truth' with impolitical bullshit.

 

[muir]

No.





And "yes," would be my response to 'do people suck at democracy'.

People love power too much to not be corrupted by it.

Do you think there could be a way of getting round the corrupting influence of power?

I think whenever there is concentrated power there is corruption and exploitation

Perhaps the solution then is to break up concentrations of power and push it down to the people?

 

[CorLeonis]

Do you think there could be a way of getting round the corrupting influence of power?

I think whenever there is concentrated power there is corruption and exploitation

Perhaps the solution then is to break up concentrations of power and push it down to the people?

I would agree with that.

There has to be a way to spread power, but also, in a representative system... a way to hold those people accountable for what they are, or aren't doing. Namely, representing the people they are supposed to be representing, not each other, and each others' business interests.

I think that another possible solution (or part of a solution?) is making sure that the people that do have "more" power (I also think it's impossible to be completely equal...) do not have any other cause to have other loyalties. They should not have business interests, they should have people's interests.

 

[muir]

Muir, you missed your decade: the 1960's. More people would have agreed with you then.

I think the conditions which brought about the soul searching of the 60's which lead to people questioning the status quo and whether there might be better ways of doing things are in place again

The US (and UK) are tied into questionable foreign wars, there is an awakening of consciousness this (time powered by the internet) and there are young people dissolusioned with the way the world is

The other factor at the moment is the state of the economy.

The boom times are over and people are realising that they were only made possible by running up massive debt

The dollar is really struggling and this is affecting everyday americans. Unemployment is up as are costs. Public services will be cut.

There will be rising dissatisfaction among people as they begin to question what is going wrong.

It might be a good opportunity for people to reassess what the best direction for their country is

 

[CorLeonis]

I think the conditions which brought about the soul searching of the 60's which lead to people questioning the status quo and whether there might be better ways of doing things are in place again

The US (and UK) are tied into questionable foreign wars, there is an awakening of consciousness this (time powered by the internet) and there are young people dissolusioned with the way the world is

The other factor at the moment is the state of the economy.

The boom times are over and people are realising that they were only made possible by running up massive debt

The dollar is really struggling and this is affecting everyday americans. Unemployment is up as are costs. Public services will be cut.

There will be rising dissatisfaction among people as they begin to question what is going wrong.

It might be a good opportunity for people to reassess what the best direction for their country is

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. And some more yes.

Although, I don't think there will ever be another 60's type social revolution. I hope that my skeptical side is wrong, but I think there are just way too many people into being constantly apathetic.

 

[muir]

I would agree with that.

There has to be a way to spread power, but also, in a representative system... a way to hold those people accountable for what they are, or aren't doing. Namely, representing the people they are supposed to be representing, not each other, and each others' business interests.

I think that another possible solution (or part of a solution?) is making sure that the people that do have "more" power (I also think it's impossible to be completely equal...) do not have any other cause to have other loyalties. They should not have business interests, they should have people's interests.

I totally agree about politicians. That seems to be a big problem that we have to vote for pre-exisiting politicians who already are funded by (and therefore in the back pocket) of corporate interests

Perhaps a better system would involve electing delegates from among the people who carry the mandate of the people upto the next level. They could be instantly revocable if they did not carry out their mandate, unlike the current system where politicians promise us the stars before they are elected and then don't deliver.

Delegates could then do the same and elect someone from their number. That way power is exercised from the bottom up (anarchy) instead of from the top down (eg capitalism, communism or fascism)

Concentrated power whether it is communism, fascism or capitalism seems to be a really bad idea!

How many people find their work place oppressive or have a power tripping boss? Work places are often a microcosm of the larger macrocosm of the capitalist system

That's because capitalism is all about hierarchies and control from above instead of the workers deciding things for themselves.

It doesn't feel natural to me

 

[AUM]

That sounds wonderful and all, but there's just one problem with all of that: how do you propose overthrowing the government which most of the population keeps in power? I think it's too late for a democracy, the foot is too deep in the mud.

Like I said before, whining and complaining about it won't do a thing. While we all exert energy and emotion discussing all of this, most of the government officials are cashing their huge checks and living a great life as we speak.

Now, if you all have a great plan of action that would resolve this inequality of power right now, then heck, I would be all up for it.

 

[the]

I think the reason democracy sucks is because it isnt natural. What is natural is to be led by someone until that person pisses off almost all his subjects and they revolt. Someone new climbs to the top, and repeat.

 

[muir]

That sounds wonderful and all, but there's just one problem with all of that: how do you propose overthrowing the government which most of the population keeps in power? I think it's too late for a democracy, the foot is too deep in the mud.

Like I said before, whining and complaining about it won't do a thing. While we all exert energy and emotion discussing all of this, most of the government officials are cashing their huge checks and living a great life as we speak.

Now, if you all have a great plan of action that would resolve this inequality of power right now, then heck, I would be all up for it.

Overtime the circumstances of peoples lives have changed (eg technology), but human nature has been the same; so history could maybe lay some claim to being a study of human behaviour....does that make sense?

if we look at history we see massive changes happening all the time. The more i look at history, the more i realise that anything is possible.

Human kind has been struggling its way through various systems and hasn't yet settled on the best one (in my opinion)

Think about what a drastic effect 9/11 had on the global political landscape. Out of those events of just one day, there have been wars, changes to the US constitution, economic upheaval, attacks on civil liberties, changes in attitudes and many other seismic shifts

The dollar is in serious trouble. The Euro is not doing great either. Economies in the west are floundering under massive debt. People are rioting in the streets in Greece. Spain and Portugal are tipped as the countries to go next. Other countries like the UK, US and Ireland have seen massive bank bailouts (the handing over of public wealth to private hands), but are now heading towards what is being called a 'double-dip recession' (this is just a disguise for what is going to be something much more significant)....these are monumental events.

The effect of these will be that life is going to get tougher for people in the west. Our purchasing power is going down, while the purchasing power of people from the 'BRIC' (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries are going up. Have you noticed more tourists from these countries in your country? That's because their middle classes are expanding.

The effect of this is that the public are going to get disgruntled. They will club together in groups such as unions or new political parties in order to have influence in the political arena. There is going to be a stand off between the people and the monied interests (fronted by politicians) over how the wealth of the nation should be divided.

These conditions have been brought about by changes to regulations made by politicians over decades, but the results of these policies are beginning to be felt by the people.

In the east these policies have led to similar wealth imbalances and that is why there are revolutions all over the middle east and north africa as the people try to overthrow wealthy dictators who haven't shared the wealth.

There is an opportunity in all this for people, especially the younger generation, to question what sort of world they want to live in and how they want their country run. Students in the UK have clashed with the police on numerous occaisions recently. Tensions are growing, people are getting organised and from that new ideas can flourish

Exciting times.....time to take back some of the money and power off the capitalist class and make sure that the people have the health, work and education conditions they have earnt from all their work