Tom Friedman Plays Dress Up as a Political Scientist
Yeah, I got nothin.
Healthcare? um....
hmmm....
well, here's a bunch of bullshit from Tom Friedman.
He talks about some of the topics that I've discussed on this blog lately. I pretty much disagree with everything he says, except for the part about instant run-off elections, which would definitely be a good thing. They'd help address this single-member district/no third parties problem.
I mean, there's definitely truth to the idea that most Americans are more moderate than either party. But to conclude that the parties should therefore also be more moderate fails to address the fact that voters need choices, and voters need ideological labels to be able to make halfway rational choices.
He concludes that good governance is the hallmark of a healthy democracy. From whose ass does he pull that platitudinous bullshit? As a normative theory, democracy has always been about the fairness of the process, not the quality of the outcome. The only outcome it strives for is to ensure that policy at any given time is pleasing to 51% of the electorate.
Here's some breaking news for Tom Friedman: it is entirely possible for 51% of the public to like stupid, unhealthy, destructive, immoral shit at any given moment.
If you want good, smart policy, talk to Plato. That's what he wanted too. By all means, start stealing babies and raising philosopher-policy analyst kings and queens. But if you want democracy, don't be too shocked when the public disagrees with the experts from time to time.
So, if good governance is not a particular reliable measure of the health of a democracy, then what is? Here are a few possible measures:
1. The percentage of a population from a particular political party is proportional to the percentage of seats that party holds in the legislature.
2. The behavior of representatives in the legislator correlates with the policy preferences of his or her district.
3. The policy output of government correlates with the policy preferences of the population.
4. CHANGES in the policy preferences of constituencies corresponds to changes in the behavior of legislatures and the policy outputs of governments.
All of these conditions could hold and the government still could end up making shitty, unfair, inefficient policies.
I like democracy. But I also acknowledge that it's an extremely imprecise tool. If you expect precision from an imprecise tool, you're gonna be disappointed.
posted by Joe @ 9:45 AM
6 Comments:
Good governance is a sign of a healthy Economy. You need people with something to lose to be worth a damn in a Democracy.
Greece is a perfect example of governmental suicide by democracy. Ever since the Marshal Plan the majority of Greeks have become accustomed to receiving government services out of proportion with what they contribute productively to society. When the aid slowed down they lived on easy credit. When they ran the drachma into the ground Europe co-signed their loans by letting them into the Euro. As the world became richer so did their tastes and more and more government workers were needed to distribute the borrowed wealth. The Civil Servant's Confederation(ADEDY), the union these government workers created became one of the strongest political forces in the country and manged to secure their "monthly" pay 14 times a year, a workday that ends at 2pm and they can retire with full benefits at 58 (again in 14 "monthly" installments annually).
Nations succeed when personal interests can be aligned with the nation as a whole. When creative activity is rewarded more is available for everyone. When individuals are forced to compete via grievances for slices of an ever shrinking pie, a nation will meet an undignified end.
"an undignified end"? Come on. That's a bit hyperbolic, don' ya think? It's not as if greeks are throwing themselves like lemmings into the sea.
And another thing, there's no logical connection between your assertion that "people with something to lose" somehow improve the governmental process.
And I can think of many, many, many nations who 'succeeded' because personal interests were aligned with the nation as a whole, which I would never, in a million years, wish to live (nor have my worst enemy live, for that matter). Many of those nations forced personal interests to align with national interests, either through violence or other repression of some form, and indeed they were "succesful" for it (Stalinist Russia, for example). Yet, I would have no interest in living in Stalinist Russia, even if my "personal interests" would allow me to exist amongst the ruling elite in that nation.
I mean, come on . . .
I believe in the free-market too, but spare me the anarcho-capitalist dogma.
This is not Joe responding by the way, and the views of this poster in no way represent the views of Joe.
1.) Well actually from a fiscal/economic perspective your “lemmings marching into the sea” analogy is quite apt. Right now they are very close to defaulting on their debt which will result in either their loss of sovereignty or expulsion from the EU. That satisfies my definition of an “undignified end” for a government. What’s yours?
2.) I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding my point regarding the success of the nation requiring the alignment of the individual interests with society. Your example (Stalinist Russia) actually makes my point. People are always going to seek to better their individual situation regardless of the economic system they exist in. The Soviet Union an undignified end precisely because creative activity was so disconnected from societal reward. I mean 14 million people between 1929 and 1953 were forced to engage in brutal forced labor to benefit relatively few Russians. Compare this to Northern Italy during the Renaissance or China since the late '70's.
Oh yes I almost forgot. People with something to lose are vastly preferable to a society to those that don't for 2 reasons:
1.) Principles are hard to maintain on an empty stomach.
2.) People with something to lose are more capable of being generous.
I'm not arguing money alone makes a country good. It's just that a polity that can participate in a successful economy is much more likely to be more demanding of their leadership (beggars can't be choosers) and have participants with the socioeconomic latitude to consider greater humanitarian ideals(the environmental movement didn't start in the eastern block).
I'm looking forward to another cogitative rebuttal.
All of this assumes that individual financial success equates to a greater good. David Brooks today had an interesting article challenging the common governmental assumption that happiness can be measured in economic terms:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/opinion/30brooks.html?src=me&ref=homepage
Also, "undignified" is obviously a subjective term. For me, the Visigoths sacking the shit out of Rome was an undignified end to what was once a great nation. Greece has got a while to go to be in that league.
Um no. You are responding to arguments I think you wished I made.
I clearly stated above that money alone doesn't make a country good it simply affords that country, through it's citizens, more potential to do good. Only a simpleton would argue that virtue (or happiness) can be assessed on a balance sheet. But bravo to David for finding a way to work Sandra Bullock into a piece on pop-psychology and the obvious.
Again my argument is simple: A society with people who are able to meet their material needs independently through participation in a healthy economy will have better governance than a society of rent seeking dependents.
Since the end of WWII Greece has had a populace that has been largely dependent on government support funded first though aid and war reparations and later debt. Their credit has run out and they are facing economic collapse. Your bizarre hangup on the word "undignified" (barbarians? really?) is noted but I think a junkie nation casting about wildly for it's next hit of easy money meets the definition. But heck we're becoming almost as bad a debtor nation ourselves now. Who are we to judge?
Post a Comment
<< Home