:: The Boys Weekend Journal ::

Article: Why Smart Societies Do Stupid Things

Another article courtesy of /., this is an essay by UCLA professor and Pulitzer Prize winning author Jared Diamond, entitled Why Do Some Societies Make Disastrous Decisions?. It might make an interesting topic for our upcoming Boys' Weekend..

:: Joe 1:42 PM [+] ::
...

Reading Material: Wealth and Democracy

Spotted a book today that I definitely plan on reading and may be worth consideration for Boys' discussions: Kevin Phillips' Wealth and Democracy. The web site there is pretty informative.. Update: to go along with the other Bill Moyers inteview, heres an interview he did with Phillips.

:: Joe 4:03 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold

I had a brief discussion with Barry a couple weeks ago regarding the thresholds of social change, and was brought back to that reading the Foreign Policy Mag article on North Korea. In the article the authors reference the position of pre-revolution French philosopher Montesquieu that "revolutions don't occur when the people's conditions are at rock bottom but when reform creates a spiral of expectations that spurs people to action against the old stultifying system."

It's an interesting statement. There are some echoes of it in Orwell's "1984", which delves into the subject of revolution and how to create a society wherein revolution is impossible. His position is that popular revolutions only occur when driven by the efforts of the upper-middle class to bring social reform. The poor and downtrodden present no threat, on their own, to the social order, and are regarded as such by Big Brother.

Discarding revolutions largely driven by outside influence (Iran, Afghanistan, and such), it is difficult to find a counter-example to this theory. China, perhaps, but it would be highly debatable. In the US, the colonists were by no means downtrodden and in fact were in many ways well off compared to their European counterparts. And it was the new and more equitable social structure of the New World that put their expectations at such a level that the revolution occurred. In France and Russia, revolution was preceded by an effort by aristocrats to limit the power of the king. They rallied popular support for these efforts, creating expectations in the people that these limited reforms could not meet, setting the stage for rebellion. In the Soviet Union, Gorbachev's sweeping reform policies of Glasnost and Perestroika were clearly instrumental in the fall of the Iron Curtain.

The flip-side of this proposition is demonstrated by the failure of the embargoes of Cuba and Iraq. Constant outside pressure created an atmosphere of paranoia where the aristocrats had no breathing room to consider reform. The people of these nations were left so destitute and hopeless that little effort was ever made to topple their governments.

And in the end, this ties back, once again, to the inescapable discussion of the role of the intellectuals (typically aristocrats) in guiding the plebes and its impact on the structure of government. Can the plebes truly be made politically enlightened? And if not, where does that leave democracy and the Enlightenment vision of equality?

:: Joe 12:47 AM [+] ::
...

Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold

Joe, I think this has some interesting implications for the external revolutions (most recently Afghanistan and Iraq). What happens when oppressed individuals are suddenly "released" from the regime that had oppressed them? If Montesquieu is right, then these people might just begin to carry out their own internal revolution after experiencing the change associated with the external revolution. A clear demonstration of this in Iraq occurred with the Shiite demonstrations. I'm not sure I have seen any evidence of internal revolution or change in Afghanistan, where the culture is generally less educated than in Iraq. It seems to me that an interaction takes place between rising expectations and education (and likely other factors). If a sufficient level of education exists (whatever that is) along with rising expectations for change, this class is likely to lead further change. Perhaps the poor/uneducated are relatively unable to organize in an effective manner? Or is it that they just don't comprehend the improvements that could be made in their lives?

:: Ryan 1:39 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold

Please excuse any chaos in my thoughts, as I have not fully ripened them. But I still wanted to add whatever I could to this conversation.

I'm not sure that Montesquieu and Orwell are all that similar. Without reading Montesquieu's The Spirit of Laws, which is where I presume Montesquieu expresses the opinion set out in the Foreign Policy article, I understand this quote as an observation that people's expectations are what matters more than actual position. If the majority observes a disparity in wealth or condition, they are more likely to revolt because the inequality is salient. I apologize to Montesquieu if that is not his position, but it makes sense to me.

While Montesquieu seems to focus on the ideal conditions for revolution, Joe's statement of Orwell seems to focus on the locus of revolutionary change. Joe's contention is well formed and supported by the examples he gives. But without a more developed understanding of history, I cannot add to or challenge this contention. Assuming it is true, then, let me offer one possible explanation why revolution occurs in the middle- (or upper-middle) class. Ryan, I beseech you to clarify or correct any part of the following as necessary. There is a humanistic branch of motivational psychology (is this the same/related to behavioral psychology?) most well-recognized by Abraham Maslow's theory of the "Hierarchy of Needs," well summarized here. In short, Maslow theorized that lower-level needs (psychological and safety needs) must be satisfied before we are to pursue higher aims, like esteem needs and self-actualization.

I suggest that revolution only becomes a pursuit of some threshold segment of society when other, lower-level needs are met. Because the middle-class as a group is more likely to feel safe and needs to devote considerably less effort toward the basics, they may turn their attention to higher ideals like freedom, equality, and justice. One might wonder, then, why it is the middle-class alone and not all of the upper segment of society that joins in this revolutionary spirit, but I think there is a ready and self-evident reply. The highest of society becomes blind to these ideals by greed and self-interest, just as the lower realms of society are made ignorant by their desire to satisfy basic desires.

Apparently, I am not the first to stumble on this argument. Professor Ronald Inglehart wrote a book entitled, The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among western publics. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1977), discussing how an increase in wealth might lead to less focus on materialism, which in turn could mean greater political participation. An interesting critique of Professor Inglehart may be found here.

The only challenge I have to this line of thought is that, if authors like Robert H. Frank (Luxury Fever) are correct, wealth is always relative, so materialism is more like a treadmill than part of the hierarchy. Again, it may be perception that matters most--if people perceive that their material needs are satisfied, they may indeed turn to higher ideals (freedom, justice, and equality), but there seems to be no end to material desire.




:: Barry 3:27 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold

Barry, I dare say you and Joe know as much (if not more) about psychological theories than I, so I won't make any attempt to correct you. I will only say that Maslow wasn't the only one to recognize the priority of personal security for the individual. Indeed, Sullivan, a psychiatrist contemporary to Maslow's time, believed that the maintainance of personal security is what drives our behavior and becomes maladaptive in psychiatric illness. But I digress...

I think there is a point we need to be clear on. We seem to agree that Montesquieu's position is that conditions for revolution are ripe when there is an expectation of change. Barry then goes on to comment on observation and perception of disparity, but I think this already begins to stray from Montesquieu's point (at least as I interpreted it). The majority can perceive or observe all the disparity it wants, but unless it expects that disparity to change (e.g. perestroika, solidarity), it will do nothing to attempt to alter current conditions. This, I think, is the biggest difference between the plebes vs. the middle/upper class. By definition, the middle/upper class will have had more success socially, economically, or both. Success emboldens individuals, and they learn that change is possible. They learn that they are empowered. I doubt that their sense of security or knowledge of conditions differs markedly from the plebes. Rather, the middle/upper class is more conscious of the situation because it thinks it can change it.

Back to Joe's original question: Can the plebes truly be made politically enlightened? I struggle with this question. I think they can be, but it is a great challenge that requires specific conditions. First, a large disparity (or perceived disparity) has to exist for the majority. Second, someone has to empower them by demonstrating that change is possible, even if there is resistance at the top.

:: Ryan 9:00 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold

A few points...

Barry, I think we are focusing on different elements of the statement I quoted from the article (which I can only assume is an accurate assessment of Montequieu's position). You noted that it is expectation that drives revolution. I noted that "the people" need to be prodded along by reforms originating, presumably, from somewhere other than "the people". The latter statement is very much in keeping with Orwell's themes.

On the points you both posted regarding hierarchy of needs and individual empowerment, I would tend to favor Ryan's position. Unless I'm mistaken, most of the peasantry was dirt poor in both the Russian and French revolutions. The role of reform, I think, in inspiring revolution was not so much that it lifted the peasants to a more secure lifestyle, but that it gave them courage question and oppose their governments.

Regarding wealth and materialism, I would definitely favor Frank's position. In countries of great wealth (think Japan and the US), materialism is enshrined rather than reduced. In fact, this is something I wish that Putnam might have studied as a factor in community involvement. I can think of a lot of annecdotal evidence that wealth is tied to a greater focus on personal attainment, where poverty creates more focus on community support. I don't, however, have any great evidence to back that up. It also tends to run contrary to my general feeling that Orwell's assessments are correct.

Also, and this could almost be separate (but related) topic, I was doing some reading in the "Market For Civil War" article in the same FP Magazine which looks at the financial causes of civil war. I was not impressed. First, they bounce back and forth between issues of absolute wealth and relative wealth without distinguishing between the two at all. Also much of their evidence was rather specious.

They pointed out that once a nation reaches a high per capita, the "risk of revolution is negligible". Of course, all the countries they seem to be referring to in that category are liberal democracies. Might that have a something to do with it? The Soviet Union faced economic hardship, but it was still relatively well off when it suffered a massive (albeit bloodless) revolution.

Similarly they supposed that wealth distribution was not a major factor, presenting as evidence that while Columbia suffered for that cause, Brazil "got away" with it. I'd say if 50% of countries with a high inequality of wealth suffer civil wars, that would make it a pretty major factor. Further that, as I mentioned recently to Barry, the other South American countries, including Brazil, that haven't seen recent revolutions are not out of the woods yet. They are facing severe problems with their democratic governments as progressive leadership is elected by the masses and has to go head to head with a small, but incredibly powerful upper class that has heretofore dominated the political system. Argentina has been hovering on the brink of total collapse for some time now, Venzuela just recently stepped back from the edge of civil war, and Brazil is now facing their first such challenge by a progressive government to the entrenched power of the wealthy. The verdict is certainly not in as to whether these democracies will survive their disparities of wealth.

For this very reason, however, I do support the authors' contention that democracy holds no promise of political stability for developing nations. I have serious doubts as to how well democracy can survive in this nation as the disparity of wealth grows. In most developing nations the situation is much worse. I continue to believe that having a large and healthy middle class is a crucial element to a strong democracy. Additionally, it has long been my contention that there needs to be a high level of social and cultural buy-in for democracy to succeed. Democracy is a fragile form of government which offers opportunities for corruption and subversion at every turn. Most developing nations are just not there yet. And this is a major difference of opinion between myself and these authors who completely dismiss the role of culture and historical background in civil war.

But I also have some agreement with the conclusions of the article. One of the elements they stress is the role of international peacekeepers. This I could not agree with more. I think that more than anything we need to buy time for these nations and provide them with the stability they need to grow the cultural, economic and educational infrastructure they need to create a stable government. And to otherwise get out of their way and let them do it. Some lessons can only be learned by experience...

I keep coming back to Iran. I just wish we could have seen what would have happened to them had the whole axis of evil thing never occurred. They had just the incremental reforms and high expectations we've been talking about. They've completely rejected foreign influence for 20 years and at the same time toppled the old aristocracy, and have come around to democracy on their own terms. They have a strong sense of national identity, unity, and pride. And even the newly entrenched powers were recognizing the need to change and liberalise. These are precisely the conditions that I would view ideal for the creation of a healthy and stable democracy. I couldn't write a better script. Unfortunately, by continuously rattling our sabre at Iran and praising the reformers we are tainting them with the perception of being American agents. This in a country that topped out Foreign Policy's chart (same issue) of popular nationalism and that is rabidly anti-colonialist.

And what a powerful example they could have been to the developing world. To demonstrate that nationalism and indepence from the colonial powers, the liberal democracies, is not, in fact, incompatible with the development of one's own liberal democracy. The neo-cons have been hoping that in Iraq they could create a shining example democracy for the middle east. That could have been, should have been, Iran. How much more powerful a demonstration would it have been to show them that they could get where they need to go without having to capitulate to the hated imperialists...

:: Joe 11:10 PM [+] ::
...

Article: Proposed European Constitution

The Convention on the Future of Europe has just released its proposed Constitutional Treaty for the 25 current members of the EU. The official (proposed) text may be found here (part 1) and here (parts 2, 3, and 4) (it's rather long). A "reader-friendly" version can be found here . Here is a good article summarizing the text and the European Convention.

:: Barry 10:35 AM [+] ::
...

Article: Speak For Yourself

CSM has another great editorial today. Jonathan Rowe discusses the inability or unwillingness of politicians to write their own speeches. This is an important point for me. It has become increasingly difficult to get a decent read on politicians as it has become easier to avoid ever speaking without a script, and moreover, a script they did not personally write. The Bush administration in particular has demonstrated how effectively this can be done. When you're never able to actually hear a person speak their own words or read a person's writing it is very difficult to really know what you're voting for. This was raised in an offhand way during the campaign with the accusations that W was not very intellectual. The way this manifests itself is that since everything he says comes from someone else's writing he is very vulnerable to being redirected, as he has been by the neo-con clique. This bothered me about Gore as well. I know Gore has, or at least used to have, things to say; he had some thoughtful and intelligent positions prior to serving as VP. But during the campaign it seemed he turned over the keys to the campaign bus to his political consultants. In my opinion the primary objective of debates and interviews should be to get the candidates speaking on issues of substance for which they don't have a prepared script. If I want to know their official positions I can read their websites, what I want is a chance to get a read on the raw, unfiltered person who is asking for my vote.

In rather more significant news, Britney Spears says she would not kiss any woman but Madonna. Also mentions she does not have orgies during her spare time and that she believes "we should just trust our President in every decision he makes and we should just support that." God Bless America.

:: Joe 2:03 PM [+] ::
...

::Defining Democracy::

Asia Times is running a book review of The Future of Freedom, by Fareed Zakaria. It's a study on the implementation of democracy and how it impacts on freedom and civil liberties. Based on the review it looks fascinating. I think our most bedevilling topic of conversation to date has been how to refine the democratic process. I'm not sure that this book will engage the behavioral aspects that we tend to get into, but it at least hits many peripheral and equally important points, and can help refine the discussion of what exactly it takes to make democracy work. This book will sit high on my unmanageably long "stuff to read" list..

:: Joe 1:37 PM [+] ::
...

::The Great Litmus Test::

The Washington Post is calling several Democratic presidential candidates to task for siding with Bush on policies they now eschew (see this article). I am less critical than the Washington Post and my fellow bloggers because Congressional representatives must be keenly aware of public tides and they pay dearly for fighting the tide. As I see it, the blame rests more on the public's visceral reaction to contemporary events than on Congress's responsibility to heed its constituents' viewpoints.

I agree with Dean's statement (although made in reference to the Patriot Act and not the war) that members of Congress should not be attacked for what happened during an "atmosphere of enormous emotion." At the same time, I admire those who vote their conscience in spite of potential backlash (e.g., Feingold on the Patriot Act).

I do not mean to suggest that a Congressperson should not account for their votes. Rather, I simply disagree that the Democrats displayed a "derliction of duty." If we are to hold anyone's feet to the fire for poor decisionmaking, it should be the American people, not its representatives.


:: Barry 1:52 PM [+] ::
...

::Defining Democracy::

As an alternative book suggestion, I propose Amartya Sen's seminal book, Development as Freedom. The Atlantic Monthly has a good review here and an interview with Sen here.

In short, Sen (1998 Nobel Prize winner in Economics) discusses how successful development is more than a matter of economics--democracy, culture, human rights, and education are just a few other factors that play a necessary role in lifting a country from the Third World (Sen is best known for his observation that no democracy has ever experienced a famine). Sen adds philosophy and spirituality to the often cold and sterile discussion of economics and development.

This book seems to cover a range of topics and may well serve to seed a variety of great Boys' weekend discussions. Just thought I would offer this book as a possible addition to the Boys' weekend booklist.

:: Barry 2:40 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: The Great Litmus Test::

Barry, I must heartily disagree with your analysis of the responsibilities of our elected representatives. If it was their job to react directly to the opinions of the public, we would hardly have need of them at all. The very reason for their existence is an effort to buffer public policy from the random tides of public opinion. James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 10: "Hence it is such that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." It was in an effort to curb the flighty tendencies of the public that a representative government was chosen.

In the view of the founders, as in my view, it would be irresponsible, given the historical record of previous democracies, to expect the public to be steady, just, and consistently well-informed. As I have said on other occasions, it is foolish to attempt to solve systemic problems with calls for personal responsibility. Telling the people that it is their fault for not seeing through government propaganda created to stir their emotions is no more responsible than trying to solve crime by telling criminals they need to stop breaking the law or solve poverty by telling the impoverished they should get of their ass and get a real job. The system needs to recognize that the emotions of the people are inconstant and easily swayed and that their judgment can thus be impaired. And the system needs to be constructed in such a manner as to be able weather these storms of turbulent sentiment. And so it has. Thus have we a congress. A congress, quoting Madison again, "whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."

It is precisely the duty of our representatives to look at a larger picture than next week's opinion polls. And as I see it that duty is in relation to the importance of the issue. If the issue is whether or not a resolution is passed to commend the Red Cross for their efforts in Afghanistan, I would not see it as a dereliction of duty, per se if a representative casts their vote for trivial political reasons. But if they do the same on the question of going to war, that would clearly be a dereliction of duty. I do not know what other duty there is for a representative than to exercise their wisdom and love of justice, held above "temporary or partial considerations", with regards to the momentous issues of the day.

:: Joe 10:33 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: The Great Litmus Test::

My earlier post was not meant to quarrel with the value of a republic, but rather to assign chief responsibility for our predicament to the people. Ours is, after all, a government by the people and for the people. But as we have now gone down this road, we might as well see where it leads. And I recruit Thomas Jefferson as my traveling companion.

I wholeheartedly agree that our "system needs to be constructed in such a manner as to be able weather these storms of turbulent sentiment." It is precisely the structural integrity of our Constitution that is its value, not its representatives. Of course, I do not mean to say there is no worth to great leaders, only that it is the system and not these leaders that makes our nation great.

Joe, you claim that "the very reason for [elected representatives'] existence is an effort to buffer public policy from the random tides of public opinion." Who are these representatives but humans as destined to err as the next? (Indeed, the self-selection of politicians may lead them to even greater fallibility). Jefferson put it best: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." (First inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1801)). History has cried out the answer, but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears. But deafness isn't what plagues us most; rather, people have lost the will or capacity to speak. And "all tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." (Jefferson, reference unknown).

Delegation of authority should not distance the government from the people but should afford the people greater access. For "governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it." (Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval (July 12, 1816)). Representatives can invest greater effort exploring the complexity of government and navigate through the tumult of the masses, but they must not never transcend their delegation. "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." (Jefferson, Letter to William Charles Jarvis (Sept. 28, 1820)).

I fear that people conflate the delegation of authority with delegation of responsibility. If Congress has failed in any respect, it has abdicated its duty to educate the public and attended to its own concerns as though somehow separate from the people. But it is the people in the end who must be blamed for their ignorance or at least their inattentiveness. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (Jefferson, Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (Jan. 6, 1816)).

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." (Jefferson, Letter to Du Pont de Nemours (Apr. 24, 1816)).

:: Barry 9:58 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: The Great Litmus Test::

I'm not sure I can add much to this eloquent discussion, except to say that you are both right in the ideal world of a republic. The very nature of a republic places responsibility in the hands of both the people and also the representatives of the people. It is therefore incumbent upon the representatives AND the people to engage in deliberation, particularly on such important issues as authorizing use of force against other nations or enhancing executive powers at the possible expense of civil liberties.

I see two major complicating factors to this idealistic description of responsibility in our republic. First, the representatives, and not the people, have far greater access to relevant information in the current political system. This includes not only public information available on the issue at hand, but more importantly sensitive or classified information that would not be available to the general public for some time. It is unreasonable to expect that the American people can make an informed decision on sensitive issues (such as those described above) because they are not likely to have the necessary information. For example, we (the public) had to take the Bush administration's word when they claimed initially that Iraq posed a serious threat to our security. However, our representatives did not have to take the administration's word. They (at least some of them) most certainly had access to intelligence reports and to experts that would be able to help them assess the credibility of the reports. Because of the privileged nature of such information, the greater responsibility now lies with the representatives to make a careful, considered decision.

Second, and already implied, our representatives possess the authority to make policy decisions on the daily level, while the American people do not. The people can at some point hold their representatives accountable, but this is rarely an expedient process. It is therefore up to the representatives in particular to educate themselves and be aware of current issues, as their daily decisions will have profound impacts on the United States and the world.

In the cases of authorization of use of force against Iraq and passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, I believe that our Congress largely failed to live up to their responsibilities as representatives of the people. They had far greater access to information regarding the threat posed by Iraq, and the immediate authority they held required a greater responsibility to educate themselves on these issues, which they apparently did not do.

:: Ryan 7:56 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: The Great Litmus Test::

Barry, I fear we're doing a pretty dance around the points we're trying to hit. Your criticism that our representatives are human and fallible I will accept. But that this necessarily delivers responsibility from them onto the voters I won't. Voters certainly have a responsibility, but elected representatives have one as well. I believe that our office-holders do have a duty and responsibility to behave in certain ways. I believe that this is a critical element to having a functional republic. When I say, as I have regularly during our discussions, that there needs to be a degree of social and cultural buy-in for a democracy (republic) to work, this is a part of what I'm referring to. Elected office-holders ought to hold some degree of respect for the institutions they serve, and ought to behave in such a manner as to reflect that. If this cultural buy-in doesn't exist, I don't believe that there is a constitution in existence (or in theory for that matter) which will hold such a government together. A constitution is simply a piece of paper. It is no better than the people who carry out its designs.

In a technical, scriptural sense, of course, our Congress-people have no official duty to do anything, as far as I know. If they want to stay at home, drink a beer and watch Jerry Springer while Congress is in session, they have every legal right to do that. However, I think there is some implied contract that when you vote for a politician they will act in the manner that they represent themselves in their campaign, that they will uphold the values they promote in their campaign, and that they will make a good-faith effort to implement the plans they present in their campaign. Because, as a voter, that's all you have. Once you cast that vote you don't have any more power over what that person does.

Additionally I hold full-time elected officials to a higher standard of decision-making than common street folk. This is not because we have "found angels in the forms of kings" to govern us. It is due to the fact that they have the opportunity, as Ryan mentioned, and (based on the above) the duty to inform themselves of the issues in greater depth than most. And because of this they should also be less vulnerable to the behavioral tricks that propaganda plays on those who are less informed. It is not that these people are necessarily superior, but that their position gives them both opportunity and motivation to make sounder, better-informed decisions, and in this manner to stand a level above the tides of sentiment.

With regards to Iraq, the Democratic Congress-people (and I'm mostly referring to the party leadership, as many of the rank-and-file, particularly in the House, voted against the resolution) acted, not in a manner consistent with core values or campaign promises, but based on their observations of polls like this. They saw that liberals were split on the issue while moderates and conservatives supported war. They saw that the public did not trust them nearly as much as they trusted the Republicans on the issues of Iraq and Terrorism.

The core party values are those of multilateralism, benevolence, and cooperation with international rules and bodies. The war went against these things and introduced Bush's concept pre-emptive aggression and the Neo-con Pax-Americana security strategy. The liberal public has never supported these ideas and rejected this war before and after it occurred, and were evenly split on the issue only during periods of intense pro-war propaganda (primarily Oct '02 and Mar-Apr '03).

The Democratic leadership who jumped on board with this resolution rejected their core values in an effort to play the polls for the fall elections. They figured that since liberals were split, they would take the same hit from them either way, so why not go the direction that will be more appealing to moderates and conservatives and that might make them more convincing on the issues of Iraq and terrorism. That was the calculation they made. Our core values versus a possible few percentage points in the mid-term election.

Did they actually believe in what they were doing? No. After voting for a resolution to give President Bush the unlimited authority to wage a pre-emptive war, Dick Gephardt said: "[this is] not an endorsement or acceptance of President Bush's new policy of pre-emption". Said Hillary Clinton after voting for a resolution that made possible a unilateral pre-emptive war of unparalleled arrogance: "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world." Other Democrats made similar statements, directly contradicting the action they had just taken. And that was at the time the resolution was passed. Now that war fever has declined amongst liberals, the Democrats who voted for this resolution are running away from it just as fast as they can run. They don't believe in it now, and they didn't then. They were just playing the polls.

In my view this act of betraying core values on a critical issue for temporary political gain is a betrayal of the implied contract between voter and candidate. That is why I state that my opposition on this issue is of a different quality than that of disagreeing over policy (as I do with Dean on various topics). If I cannot trust a candidate to abide by the things they claim to represent, then it matters not whether those claims are in line with my views. In fact, it is a more offensive position; I prefer the candidate that disagrees with me on policy to the one who seeks to deceive (or more accurately doesn't have the backbone to stand by what they believe).

Sen. Jim Jeffords (I), voted against the resolution, as did one Republican senator (I don't recall the name). If they had wanted to, the 50 Democrats in the Senate could have killed the bill without even resorting to a filibuster. They had the power in their hands to prevent a war that they didn't believe in and they did not do it. I find it hard to hold Democratic voters responsible for that.. They were stabbed in the back by their own representatives. I can only hope that they will do the right thing now and dump all these ass-clowns out on the street.

ps. long post... whew.. Notice the lack of banner ads at the top of our page now. Thank our friends at blogger.com. I was going to sign us up for the ad-free version ($15/yr) but their billing system is broken, and when I complained they said they were revamping their system, but would give us the ad-free version as a courtesy. :) Cool.

:: Joe 4:28 PM [+] ::
...

::Building A Better Democracy::

Back from my vacation (FYI, it's cold in Canada) I spotted a couple of articles on TomPaine.com addressing different aspects of American democracy that could use some improvement. The first covers the need forindependent leadership institutions for the purposes of promoting, researching, and publicizing information relevant to the selection of effective political leaders. The press seems to have lost interest in this (unprofitable) role, replacing investigative research with press-release journalism. Baker's solution to the problem seems overly simple and ignores some critical issues (such as, even if the information is out there, how do you get people to read/watch it?) and ignores the obvious difficulties in implementation, but the general theme is quite relevant and the problem is an important one. The public would be well served by trustworthy and neutral expert opinions which can counter the spin and funny numbers the candidates start throwing at each other with regards to their policies. The second article addresses the presidential debates, and the monopolistic control that the two major parties have over them. Apparently a group of activists is attempting to establish an alternative, open source-type, debate format. Again, I would mark their chances for success (at least in the 2004 timeframe) as exceedingly unlikely, but it is an important issue. The debate format needs to be one that is not restricted to the two major parties, and one that truly challenges the candidates to the limits of their abilities. I think public sentiment has been growing in this direction for some time, and given another 10 years of public lobbying it might very well happen, particularly if we see any more 3rd party candidates of any significance refused entry to the debates.

:: Joe 5:03 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: Building A Better Democracy::

I have been trying to gear myself up to the media concentration conference, and my mind keeps returning to the same point Joe raises in his previous post--even if "good" information is available, how can the public be convinced to pay any attention to it? I recognize Joe raises the point in the narrow context of promoting effective leaders, but I think the same concern exists with regard to all kinds of information.

We certainly do not lack of quality information or even appropriate filtering mechanisms for distributing the information. Why then focus on media concentration as the source of the problem? If I want decent news, I can find it and I reckon that others who are equally interested can find it too.

How can we build a better democracy when the people--the very foundation of democracy--are not interested?

:: Barry 10:27 PM [+] ::
...

::The Will of the People, Revisited::

In our earlier discussion entitled "The Great Litmus Test," Joe brought in some quotes from the Federalist No. 10 (Madison) (link here to the archives--the entry was on Sunday, September 14, 2003) to demonstrate support for his suggestion that the legislature should serve as a buffer to the public. I have just stumbled across another excerpt from the same text that perhaps goes a step further in advancing Joe's cause--Hamilton's the Federalist No. 71. This portion is particularly timely with regard to the $87 billion that Congress ran straight through Congress without too much challenge. I found this in Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy on America, Vol. I Part I Chapter 8:

There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best recommendation. But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted.

The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.

It is a just observation that the people commonly intend the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that they always reason right about the means of promoting it. They know from experience that they sometimes err; and the wonder is that they so seldom err as they do, beset as they continually are by the wiles of parasites and sycophants, by the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate, by the artifices of men who possess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it.

When occasions present themselves in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests to withstand the temporary delusion in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection. Instances might be cited in which a conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes, and has procured lasting monuments of their gratitude to the men who had the courage and magnanimity enough to serve them at the peril of their displeasure.

:: Barry 10:30 PM [+] ::
...

::The Will of the People::

I think that any duty the legislature has to serve as a buffer from the people's will must necessarily stem from the disparity in information available between the people and the representatives. If everyone has the same information, why should the representatives substitute their own interpretations, biases, and follies for those of their constituents? Unless one is to argue that the ability to get elected to Congress magically bestows upon the representatives an intelligence and foresight which their constituents lack, the representative should simply follow the will of the people in a world with perfect information. Therefore, I think a representative should vote the way his constituents would vote if they had perfect information.

:: David 2:15 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: The Will of the People::

If everyone has the same information, why should the representatives substitute their own interpretations, biases, and follies for those of their constituents? Unless one is to argue that the ability to get elected to Congress magically bestows upon the representatives an intelligence and foresight which their constituents lack, the representative should simply follow the will of the people in a world with perfect information.

It could also be supposed that the constituents selected their representative at least in part because of her intelligence, judgement, background, and experiences, with the expectation that the representative would employ all of these tools in furtherence of serving her constituents. Further, it might be interpretted that the consistently greater interest that the public shows in the character and background of candidates rather than their policies is an indication that the public expects these things to be relevant to the duties of public service at least as much as implementing policies consistent with the constituency is.

And in any case (rehashing the old discussion), no representative has perfect knowledge of what the constituency would choose if they had perfect information, and in making that determination all of the representative's interpretations, biases, and follies enter through the back door anyway. People have the right of it now, taking it as part and parcel of the candidate and dealing with it up front through the electoral process.

:: Joe 3:24 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: The Will of the People::

I am torn on this issue more than any other. To me this debate encapsulates a host of issues related to paternalism versus populism. I do not know how to appropriately address the balance between the will of the people and the--well, will of the people. I trust the ideals of populism but I also recognize its natural deficits.

At the end of the day, the Jeffersonian idea that the power should rest with the people sits most comfortably with me. At the same time, I openly recognize that people don't always make the best choices given the information they have. For some reason, though, it seems more palatable to me that the people should err than the government in its attempt to correct for the errs of its constituents. At least the error does not run twice as deep, and it can not be so plainly coopted for nefarious goals. I can forgive an err of the public, but I can not so easily forgive the same of the republic.

:: Barry 9:05 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: The Will of the People::

Since I don't feel that I was entirely convincing in the previous post I'd like to elaborate on my point regarding personal weaknesses entering through back door, and add one other consideration.

In advocating that the role of a representative is to advocate the hypothetical position of the perfectly informed average-man, it is supposed that the representative should know what that is. The representative, while in a position to be considerably more informed than the average person, is still limited by imperfect knowledge. The sum of their knowledge is everything they have learned, experienced, and concluded over the course of their lifetime. So if the representative were to make their best effort to imagine an "average person" with perfect knowledge they would be obligated to project onto that person all of the knowledge that they, the representative, have acquired. While I believe that each individual person bears some unique psychological traits, I also believe that the information they've gained through their education and experiences is critical to their positions and decisions. It is not that hard to imagine that a representative would calculate that given all of their personal knowledge and experiences an "average person" would think more or less as they themselves do. And so you end up right back where you started. In this sense pretending to advocate in terms of the "average person" rather than your own personal position seems a bit dishonest.

I suppose that it could be proposed that the representative restrict the knowledge that they project onto the "average person" to only those few details directly pertinent to the issue at hand. This seems equally dishonest. If the representative had done extensive research into economic systems, and through this research had determined that supply-side economics is a bunch of crap, should they not project this onto the "average person"? Is that not an element of perfect knowledge? How is this to be managed? I think different representatives would draw this line differently; they would choose different points along a continuum, and in every case personal values, biases, and follies would enter the picture. As far as I can tell, foisting this duty onto our representatives sets an impossible standard for them, and leaves them with no good options. It does not shield us from whatever flaws the representative carries, and simply adds an additional layer of bullshit between the representative and their constituents.

My additional consideration goes toward the ideal of the Jeffersonian meritocracy. Jefferson felt that each person had different strengths and weaknesses and that through a free, equitable, and competitive system, each should rise to the level of their ability in the field of their strength. Does it not make sense that some people would be better equipped than others in leadership and public speaking? In determination of public policy? In grinding the gears of the political system to achieve effective results? In guarding the public from their transient impulses? Do you see no differences in these regards between George W Bush and John McCain? Between Russ Feingold and Michael Moore? Are we not better served by mining the populace to find those most qualified and naturally talented in the duties of a representative to serve in that role rather than the "average man"? If you are willing to trust the public to decide on policy matters, do you not trust the public to decide on these distinctions? The system as it stands surely has flaws in deciding these matters, but are we not better served attempting to correct those flaws than overthrowing it for one that still contains the same flaws and, in my view, adds deeper and more intractible flaws? I believe it should not be considered elitist or evil to think that elected public servants may be more capable than the average citizen, but rather that this should be recognized as one of the goals and strengths of a representative system.

:: Joe 11:01 PM [+] ::
...

::Experiment In Community Building::

Also covered on CSM today a story about an experiment on how to rebuild decaying communities. There are some very simple ideas here that appear to effectively promote active civic participation. I think sometimes the answers can be simpler than we imagine. A little leadership to open the lines of communication can go a long ways.

:: Joe 2:56 PM [+] ::
...

::Beyond the EU::

An article on CSM details the EU's struggle to pass a new constitution, and the possibility of France and Germany peeling off to form their own union. It's a very interesting idea, and I think more than a small possibility. I would look for increasingly close ties between France and Germany in any case.

:: Joe 12:43 PM [+] ::
...

::US Calls Afghan Convention - Democracy Breaks Out::

In June, 2002, the US called for a loya jirga in Afghanistan to rubber-stamp their decision to put Hamid Karzai in charge of the new government. They thought they would do the same to have their newly written constitution approved. Not so. The warlords that the US chose to leave governing the provinces have figured out how to play this democracy game and have their own ideas for the constitution. It seems nobody actually knows what is going to happen when this loya jirga assembles, but it does appear the warlords have a clear upper hand. If the mujahideen wrest control of the government and Karzai resigns it would be a disaster for American policy in Afghanistan. Lesson: driving a bunch of thugs out of a country by helping a different bunch of thugs defeat them.. not such a good idea, particularly when half of the first group of thugs just switches uniforms and joins the second group.

:: Joe 1:24 PM [+] ::
...

::Bowling Together: The Civil Corps::

I have been trying to think of viable solutions to the issue of American apathy and complacency regarding the welfare of our society and country. While I do think Henry's idea of transforming the classroom education is a good one, I think something more experiential might have a greater impact. Over New Year's, I talked with Barry about instituting a national Civil Corps for all Americans. This is essentially an extension of the current Americorps and Peace Corps programs, with the difference that this service would become a requirement of high school graduation (or perhaps for any citizen age 18). I propose requiring all American students to serve for one year following their final year of high school. Service would take place both in American communities as well as in relatively stable, safe countries across the globe. Furthermore, I propose that any students who do serve abroad do so in the context of an exchange program. That is, if we send a student to Bolivia, then we should in turn receive a Bolivian student in the United States to take part in the civilian program here.

I believe this program would have a number of important benefits:
1. A civil service requirement would instill a new sense of responsibility to society and to the world in all American citizens, not just those motivated enough to volunteer.
2. Participation in the program would promote involvement in social and political issues.
3. Students would gain valuable manual skills, knowledge, and experience with other cultures. The same can be said of foreign students serving in the U.S.
4. Interactions between other American citizens and those in the Civil Corps would be greately enhanced. Sunstein might view this as an engine for deliberative democracy. With interactions come exchange of ideas, values, and beliefs that are important for generating knowledgeable discussion.
5. American citizens, both in the program and out, would gain greater exposure to foreign cultures. This has the potential to generate empathy and understanding for foreign cultures.
6. Send a message to the world. The United States will not give up on the world. We will not go it alone. We are willing to send our young Americans to serve both our country and yours. These young Americans are not soldiers, they are civilians.

I do know that other countries have such programs. Germany, for instance, requires a year or two service in either the military or civil service before entering college or the equivalent. There are of course, a number of challenges to implementing such a plan. First and foremost, we have to convince Americans that this is worth a year of their children's or grandchildren's lives. We have to convince them that this is a noble and worthy cause that will not only benefit society but also the young adults serving as well. Making service a requirement will be especially difficult, but I believe the effect will be lost if the program is merely optional. Second, such a program would require significant funding, while at the same time diminishing our work force. However, the work of the Civil Corps would go towards improving community infrastructure and living conditions and thus have a very positive economic impact.

To my pleasant surprise, one presidential candidate, Wesley Clark, is proposing a program with some similarities to this. However, Clark's program seems to be more of a civilian reserve that could be called upon in times of need such as forest fires, disease outbreaks, etc. It is also voluntary (I can't blame him) and participants have to make 5-year commitments which are renewable. It is an interesting proposal and I'm not aware of anything similar from the other candidates.

:: Ryan 5:30 PM [+] ::
...