2 comments on “Why I have not commented about the Eastwood debacle until now.

  1. I pretty much think you’re on the nose here, but I do have one quibble with your characterization of democracy. (I almost wrote “femocracy”, which is most definitely NOT what we have, but I thought the typo was so hilarious I wanted to keep it.)

    Anyway, I most vehemently disagree with the idea that our government does whatever fifty percent or more of the population wants to do! It gives us two choices, not so very different from each other (different enough to make a huge difference in a lot of people’s quality of life, yes, but still indistinguishable on a whole lot of points, like, say, embracing pre-emptive war and other imperialistic foreign policies that most Americans probably don’t want; being committed to a stupid “war on drugs” that everyone knows doesn’t work and just locks up people who pose no threat to public safety; being committed to a stupid, money-wasting system of allocating medical care that is literally designed to make money for its gatekeepers by denying sick people care; full-throated embrace of the dangerous fallacy that economic growth, population growth, and resource use can continue to grow indefinitely; and probably a lot more things that I can’t think of right now), and tells us those are our only options. We get to pick which one, but we don’t get to tell the government exactly what we want it to do. Instead, it gives us two possible courses of action that it is prepared to take, and we pick one.

    • The main reason why I used the fifty percent plus one model is because that is what I was taught in school, and I suspect that whole generations continue to be taught that oversimplified version. I think even a ten year old child knows that their government does not do what the larger block of ignorant dickheads wants, but when you tell a child something enough times, they start to believe it as a reflexive action. As Bob Hoskins says so well in one film, if you get them young enough, the possibilities are endless.

      You also in a sense touch upon what I think is the way forward for real democracy. Remove the existing parties. All of them. If a party wants to exist and run for government, it should only be allowed to do so by the majority consent of the voters it will claim to represent. And if a majority of the populace can put forward a valid objection to a party being allowed to run or even exist, out it goes. Everyone old enough to serve in the army, go to prison, or get taxed, has a say in whether this or that party even gets a look in.

      But this is a bit aside. In order to attack the political system we currently have, we must attack peoples’ definitions of it. Hence, we must draw a distinction between majority rule and actual democracy. Especially given that both Republicans and Democrats engage in meaningless exercises of claiming that the majority agrees with them. We desperately need to educate future generations to understand that just because an idea is held by a majority (in the numerical sense) does not mean it is automatically right. Once we have that, we may well start moving towards real democracies.

Chuck shit at me here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s