palin

[Xpycoctomos]

I believe that the time spent worrying about these large scale things and voting on them is better spent doing something concrete for those around you, because voting IS a waste of time. It focuses our worries on this world and on the future (as Lewis said about the future being what the devil wants to focus us on most of all, the past being another, as long as we are not focused on this present moment and eternity) over issues that we have no real control or (for the most part) even interest in.

Considering the quote above, it seems this would be in conflict with any form of democratic process in the political national sphere. It seems that, while your beef my be with the american system being anti-democratic, your overarching beef would even be with a real democracy.

If not, then, what is a "real democracy" for you. What does it look like and how is it NOT at odds with your above statement?

I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. Democracy is what makes sense to me, but I do not claim it to be somehow more God-pleasing than other forms of governemtn. All workable forms of government I am aware of have their own unique ways of encouraging the human... to forget his humanity. I will never forget the obituary I had read inthe Economist about a russian priest during the Communist era named Dimitry Dudko. He was extremely outspoken against the godless communists and was a true hero to the orthodox people. Then he was imprisoned and sometime later announced (I believe on TV, or the letter was read on TV??) that his attacks on th Soviet Regime were wrong (or somethign to that effect). Now, there is a lot in the letter that I am sure was very coerced and I am sure that it pained him to write a lot of that letter. But truth still came through when he warned his people (in the letter) about godless capitalism. He warned them against desiring to be like the West where they would drown in their materialism. He made an interesting point. He asked who we were to assume that we, as individuals, knew what was best for our well-being. He warned that too much freedom can give way to the peril of our souls. We learn no discipline and we follow our evey whim.

Now, I am paraphrasing greatly here, but that the point of what he had written. And it's true. Democracy opens the way for us to be complete heathens and never think twice about it. Communism has it's own demons. But both are intrisically focussed AWAY from God and what is necessary for our soul, although in their own way.

But, we live in this world, so we are called to constantly inform anything we do with our faith. For some that has meant not voting, for others that has meant voting. My guess is that God cares more about the intentions that are used justify the action rather than the actual action itself.

 

[rusmeister]

No, my beef isn't with "real democracy". I'm just saying there isn't any such thing in the modern world (with regard to national/state governments).

It ought to be obvious that efforts put into improving this world should be secondary to saving our souls. The more abstract those efforts become (the difference between casting a vote that will hypothetically improve conditions in a distant corner of the world) and, say, organizing help to build a handicapped neighbor a ramp entrance to the house) the less real they become, until finally, we are pouring all of our heart and soul into politics and doing no one any concrete good at all. Obviously, people can find time to do both. The questions are 'how much time?' and 'how effective is the time put into the abstract activity?'. My answer is that voting above the village level (basically, if your vote is worth less than 1/1,000th* of the franchise, it's worthless) is largely ineffective.

Of course, if you find yourself on Gilligan's Island with a dozen or so castaways, I believe that organizing a democracy would be realistic. Whether it would be desirable would be another question, but if you did it, I would find it highly likely to actually be democratic.

I would agree that God cares about our intentions.

You go ahead and vote, and we can talk in another 4 years (if we're still around) .

*the fine point could be argued, but whatever number you put in there, it's going to be of that magnitude.

 

[Till]

No, my beef isn't with "real democracy". I'm just saying there isn't any such thing in the modern world (with regard to national/state governments).

It ought to be obvious that efforts put into improving this world should be secondary to saving our souls. The more abstract those efforts become (the difference between casting a vote that will hypothetically improve conditions in a distant corner of the world) and, say, organizing help to build a handicapped neighbor a ramp entrance to the house) the less real they become, until finally, we are pouring all of our heart and soul into politics and doing no one any concrete good at all. Obviously, people can find time to do both. The questions are 'how much time?' and 'how effective is the time put into the abstract activity?'. My answer is that voting above the village level (basically, if your vote is worth less than 1/1,000th* of the franchise, it's worthless) is largely ineffective.

Of course, if you find yourself on Gilligan's Island with a dozen or so castaways, I believe that organizing a democracy would be realistic. Whether it would be desirable would be another question, but if you did it, I would find it highly likely to actually be democratic.

I would agree that God cares about our intentions.

You go ahead and vote, and we can talk in another 4 years (if we're still around) .

*the fine point could be argued, but whatever number you put in there, it's going to be of that magnitude.

Have you ever studied the Swiss system of direct democracy and strong federalism?

 

[rusmeister]

Have you ever studied the Swiss system of direct democracy and strong federalism?

Hey Till - Can't say as I have - I would only be too happy to concede that somewhere there is a real democracy. I remain skeptical, though, and even the existence of one wouldn't invalidate my point for the residents of most faux-democratic countries. Strong federalism seems to be a direct contrast to genuine democracy. But I'll stick to discussing the systems in the major western countries - which Switzerland is not.
The California referendum system adds a democratic note to things, but it only has an effect where the big money interests largely don't care.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

No, my beef isn't with "real democracy". I'm just saying there isn't any such thing in the modern world (with regard to national/state governments).

It ought to be obvious that efforts put into improving this world should be secondary to saving our souls. The more abstract those efforts become (the difference between casting a vote that will hypothetically improve conditions in a distant corner of the world) and, say, organizing help to build a handicapped neighbor a ramp entrance to the house) the less real they become, until finally, we are pouring all of our heart and soul into politics and doing no one any concrete good at all. Obviously, people can find time to do both. The questions are 'how much time?' and 'how effective is the time put into the abstract activity?'. My answer is that voting above the village level (basically, if your vote is worth less than 1/1,000th* of the franchise, it's worthless) is largely ineffective.

Of course, if you find yourself on Gilligan's Island with a dozen or so castaways, I believe that organizing a democracy would be realistic. Whether it would be desirable would be another question, but if you did it, I would find it highly likely to actually be democratic.

I would agree that God cares about our intentions.

You go ahead and vote, and we can talk in another 4 years (if we're still around) .

*the fine point could be argued, but whatever number you put in there, it's going to be of that magnitude.

Well, I can't say that I understand everything you are saying. 1/1000th through me off because... that would mean that any democracy (even lichtenstein which is well above 1000) is impossible. I'm not sure what number I have to reach before I am no longer quibbling the fine point. I would think 100.000 would do it? ANd that's fine, but then I wonder what we're even talking about?

Well, anyway, I think at this point we have hit a kind of impasse. Not that either one of us were trying to convince to other to vote/not vote. I didn't get the feeling at any time here that we were arguing but rather simply discussing, and it seems from your tone that you didn't get that feeling either. When I say impasse, I simply mean that I think I am at the point where, for now, I understand you as well as I am going to and I have explained myself as well as I can.

I have sincerely appreciated this discussion for its content and tone and although it hasn't changed how I PERSONALLY see things and how that affects my actions, it has allowed me to gain understanding and be not only tolerant but even somewhat sympathetic to the non-voter like yourself (that is, those few of you who do so on principals).

Thanks again, Rus.

Xpy

 

[rusmeister]

You're welcome!
One more thought - democracy means "rule of the people" (plural). Which people? If you are in a minority and the issues voted on go against what you want, then it could be hardly said that you actually rule, could it? In theory, perhaps. In practice, you are ruled. In order to rule, you would have to consistently be part of the majority (and that if voting does represent the power). As soon as you become part of the minority, you cease to rule, which is a powerful argument against multiculturalism, tolerance and diversity when it comes to self-government. Tolerance means tolerating the divestment of your majority; the diversifying of yourself from power. This would also apply to extensions of the franchise... This is a good reason why democracy can only work on a small scale. When it grows beyond that scale, it will inevitably go oligarchic. (Human nature will get around the best defenses of any founding fathers. We are fallen.)

I think it's mostly the purchase of the political bodies and control of them by private business interests that really makes the vote worthless, though.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

principles* (referring to my use of "principals" in my last post)

 

[katherine2001]

I agree with EC on the VPs

I watched the debate and actually ended up quite impressed by how well Palin did. Night and day compared to her debacle with Katie Couric.

However, I was still more impressed with Biden. First of all, he seemed more comfortable. Not that Palin seemed nervous, but she really stuck to her canned answers (however well they were delivered) and when she vered off of them, she would be very quick about it answering with little more than a yes or a no.

But more importantly, I was more impressed with the content of his debate. Quite simply, there was more to it. He revealed more, he called Palin out on lame accuations (like voting against funding the troops and the criteria for what a vote for "raising taxes" meant). he surely had his own lame accusations, but he at least made more of an attempt to back them up and Palin never called him out on them except to simply deny them... but she had nothing to back them up with. This strongly suggested to me that she was not comfortable speaking outside of what she had rehersed.

I know to Rus this is all trivial and no matter who is in office, the destiny of the US, without a revolution, is the same. Maybe one day I will see the light, but for right now, I just can't see it that way. It's not that I don't want to (not voting is easier than voting), but I can't, I don't. At this point in time, it doesn't make sense to me.

With that said, the idea of Palin running our government, even for a year, is scary. I don't mean that with disrespect. I would say that about a LOT of people I respect and whose knowledge I respect. But she does not show the ability to see the world through presidential glasses... and we need that. Perhaps if I lived in Alaska I would have enthusiastically voted for her as governor, but not for president.

And McCain hasn't been instilling much confidence in me lately either. I still cannot get over his comments on Spain. And his people defended them afterward. No matter what conclusion I come to, (he didn't know Spain was an ally, he thinks it is worth risking relations wtih them even though he DOES know they are a NATO ally, etc.) none of them are comforting and either show him to be naive, giving into early senility (that's not evena half-joke) or so extremely stubborn that war with Iran or whoever is completely immenent. And he says one thing one day, and changes the next. For example, there was NO DOUBT in my mind that regardless of what happened in Washington last week, he was going to be in the debate. But he says out loud what he THINKS people want to hear but without ever really thinking if he could back that up. Not go to the debate? How ridiculous is that? That doesn't make any sense. And low and behold the congress was a mess, nothing was decided and... no surpirse, he came. He had to! So why did he make such a ridiculous suggestiong in the first place? He says powerful statements in hopes that people will think "wow, he is a strong leader and takes strong stances" and that's fine, but you don't promise the ridiculous; something you can't go through with. Yet, he did, and he had to back out of it. I honestly worry about his ability to negotiate international issues with his fly by the seat of pants/my way or the highway mentality that he has been demonstrating the last few months. I used to be drawn to him becuase I thought he would be great internationally.

Also, I am sick of having an administration call the president's shots. While Bush may sit in the chair, it's cheney et al. who make the big decisions, at least that's how I see it. While I don't believe this will happen under McCain or Obama (not anymore than it did under Bush 1 or Clinton), this would HAVE to happen under Palin should she take over. And then, we have not vote there. She will be so easily coerced by the Republican Party to fill that cabinet up with neo-cons who will really run the show. That didn't happen in Alaska, but... we ain't in Alaska anymore Toto.

So, with that, and then the scarier prospect of Palin possibly being president, No thank you.

And then here i am in a quandry. I cannot in good faith vote for McCain (unless osmething big changes my mind) but it's not jsut that I am indifferent to them, I really do feel that the lesser of two evils in Obama/Biden. McCain/palin scare me that mucht. So... I could vote 3rd party, but I am doing so with the hope that Obama wins (or rather that McCain loses) and there I woul dhave no real hope for the third party candidate. So, is it any more wrong for me to vote for Obama than it would be to vote for a 3rd party that I know can't win in hopes that McCain will lose and therfore Obama would win? Is it really honest for me to vote 3rd party in this case.

i am not asking any of you to think about that for yourselves and I am not judging your vote (for McCain, third party, Obama or empty ballot). This is my quandry, not yours.

Any thoughts?

Oh, and then I realize that McCain has suspended his campaign here, is pulling all of his ads and a bunch of his people because, basicallly, he doesn't have a chance here. So... practically speaking, it doesn;t matter at all because of our genius electoral system that makes it soe that the votes in only a few states have any real importance. That's frustrating.

Kind of makes ALLLL of this pointless... and on that note, this is about as close to Rus' position as I will come in the near future

Xpy

Xpy, I am in the same boat. I cannot vote for McCain and Palin. Frank Schaeffer is voting for Obama and wrote a piece saying why he is voting for Obama. I am truly disgusted and scared of the hatred and racism that I am seeing coming out from some very vocal McCain/Palin supporters. I am 52 (or will be on the 27th) and have never seen such an ugly and negative campaign. Unfortunately, McCain and Palin are so desperate that they have pandered to these people and now they have opened Pandora's box. I am just hoping Obama doesn't get assassinated if he does win.

There was a thread in the Politics (the American Politics) section of this forum (the thread is called "Why a Pro Lifer is Voting for Obama" and is on page 3) that has a link to Frank's piece, if you are interested in reading it.

 

[Dorothea]

Obama isn't just pro-choice, he is pro-infanticide. Read up on this article. I don't see how anyone who is pro-life and a Christian could vote for him. Obama wants to usher in marxist views and agendas for our country, and our economy is already on the rocks. If his agenda is implemented, many more will lose their jobs, and not to mention, freedoms. Our freedom of speech has already been threatened. Read these articles:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/the-coming-thugocracy/print/

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

 

[katherine2001]

Dorothea, you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. Let's just agree to disagree. I have read articles on both sides. Neither of the papers you are providing links for is an unbiased source. I am pro-life across the board--it isn't just the lives of the unborn that are precious and sacred--every human life is precious. Just remember which party has been in charge of both the White House and the Legislative branch (except for the last couple of years, and the Democrats did not have a large enough majority to overcome Presidential vetoes), and our economy. Which party was it that basically ignored the regulations we had in place to protect us from the stock market and banks from taking ridiculous risks with our money and so few companies having so much control of the market? Which party put those safeguards and regulations into place in order to protect the American people?

We are to care about all people, not just the unborn. Killing criminals and killing our enemies (including the pregnant mothers and their unborn children) and killing our soldiers in a totally unnecessary war is just as wrong. What do we do to take care of children once they are born? You might want to remember that the CHIPS program was defeated last year. How many children are doing without important health care? Also, the Patriot Act has done more to deprive us of our freedom of speech than anything else. Now, the Government can use that to spy on people they don't like, like their political enemies or someone they just don't like. They can look into every part of that person's life. In the hands of unscrupulous people, that can be a very dangerous power to have, and is a very real threat to our freedom.

I disagree with you that Obama has a marxist agenda. We can agree to disagree with each other on that too. Be careful about tying Christ to a particular political party. Personally, I think there are things in both parties He would like and others He would hate. I wonder what He would think of those who imply that Obama must be a Muslim (after all, his middle name is Hussein), a terrorist, and a traitor. Some even want Obama dead. Is this Christian? Is the "ends justifies the means" attitude of some pro-lifers consistent with Christianity? Lie about a person, trash his character and his reputation, and throw out any smears you have to put out there to get a candidate beaten--is that consistent with Christianity? I've seen way too much of that--especially this election. This was done to McCain in 2000, and he turns around and hires these same people for his campaign. Obama refused to make any comments about Palin's daughter being pregnant out of wedlock saying that it was a personal and private family matter. Most of McCain/Palin supporters said the same. However, I wonder if this would have been the reaction if Obama's daughters were older and one of them got pregnant out of wedlock. Let's all take time to honestly think about that.

In the end, Christ will decide who is a Christian and who isn't. I will leave that decision up to Him. I love my country and I care about the people in it. This environment of fear and hate that I see right now breaks my heart and makes me incredibly sad. Our politicians used to be able to be able to respect each other and work with people of the opposite party for the good of our country. The partisanship is detrimental to our country and is destroying it.

That is all I am going to say on this subject.

 

[rusmeister]

You folks give an impression of not having read what Xpy and I had to say to each other - maybe a false impression... (Would like this thread to maintain the high level and tone that it has and not devolve into political shouting)

 

[Vasileios]

I'm popping my head in just to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Rus in his conversation with Xpy. It seems you get served two dishes of spoiled food and you are looking to see which one is less spoiled, however the real problem is that you only get spoiled food.

As for democracy, it only works when there is "omonoia", that is, the same mind, or the will to have the same mind. That is it works well in small numbers and in societies where everyone is very close ideologically or are very willing to sacrifice their will over society's. In practice, this means: An orthodox monastery or ancient Athens, where they banished the righteous Aristeides and killed Socrates.

There is no perfect political system, nor a most "fair" political system. History tells us so again and again and again. And it seems nobody reads up history anymore.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

UPDATE:

Rus, I did want to say that over the course of deciding whom to vote for, I came to understand your position better. It hit me when I considered the whole "socialist" accusation against Obama. It dawned on me that "conservatives" and "liberals" both purport that the government is the solution to our problems. The Republican party may deny that in speech, but it confirms it in action. And, likewise, most all polititians that have a shot at going anywhere in our government act on the same "socialist" principal becuase to say and act on the fact that the government needs to step out of our business and let us deal and learn from our mistakes is political suicide these days. It's not their faults as much as it is ours (I include myself in this too). It almost made me sympathetic to the liberal cause of the democratic side (not on social issues but fiscal and such) because, if we're going to have a mother state, let's do it right. Let your nos be nos and your yeses be yeses. I'm not saying that I turned democrat, all I am saying is that both sides are pushing the tree left... the democrats in some ways may be pushing harder, but the republicans are pushing left all the same. And the American people won't accept it any other way. That's what "we" want. And then it all seemed so futil... in the long run.

however, witht that said, I still think it is important to delay (edit) evil even if it doesn't answer to the big picture and even if it doesn't take care of our problems in the long run. The fact is that, as much as I respect Obama for many things and as much as I think he is capable of doing good with some of his ideas (in the short run), he is still a man with dangerously flawed ideas, ideas that will do a lot to open our nation up to new forms of abortion in the future.

But, I guess that's not really his fault. In my state the PEOPLE directly voted to end major restrictions on Stem Cell research and the only reason it didn't win by more is becuase the campaign AGAINST Stem Cell Research made the people believe that it would cost us more tax money. So I am sure that many voted against it becuase of their pocket book, not their soul. And in this same country, yet another State paved the way for people to legally kill themselves.

I think my path to realizing the futility of it all is vastly different from yours, however, the conclusion (that is is futile) is quite similar. I will still vote, as I said,to work to delay (edit) evil, but I have no real hope for the future. It will take a calamity, an act of God, to pull us back... and democracy will not be our savior from ourselves.

A big difference that seems to separate our perspectives, it would seem, is that you beleive there are bigger powers behind the scene that make a mockery of our "democracy". To me, it's not so much these powers that be that I blame, nor do I feel democracy is being made a mockery of (well, the electoral college does... but that wasn't really your point in the end). Rather, it seems to me that democracy is quite powerful and quite dangerous and it is stealing away our humanity. We are our worst enemy. We choose to support stem cell research. We choose to pass laws allowing us to kill ourselves. We choose to allow the government to define marriage for us (this made sense when governments had state religions... but ours doesn't... but yet we still believe the government should have a powerful hand in forming our understanding of marriage... just an example of a very specific issue... but I believe that our looking to our government for the answers to a truly spiritual question is a perfect example of how even "conservatives" in this country push left without realizing it).

Day by day, I switch from being a libertarian to being a complete liberal progressive (not on abortion however... but that's another thread). Libertarian, in many ways, although not all, is my ideal but I figure, as I said earlier, that if we are headed left anyway... let's do it with a bang. let's do it for real. Not this lukewarm republican stuff.

So, the futility of it all is simply that our democracy is alive... like frakenstein was alive... and we can no longer control it. A democracy we can't control... makes perfect sense if we consider how far we have strayed from God... the further we are from God, the more we are like animals who simply follow our whim of the moment.

Sorry, total ramblings. And yes, they only represent one moment of my thinking, but an important and formative moment. For the third (or fourth???) time, I still do thinking delaying (edit) inevitable evil is important which is why I did not vote for Obama (not that I believe HE is evil, but some of his POVs are), but then again, I equally could not bring myself to vote for McCain. Anyway, welcome to the rollercoaster of my brain.

Xpy

 

[rusmeister]

When you say "hasten evil", I take it you mean "delay evil"?

Trouble with third parties is that they are de facto excluded from the processes - we really do have a two-party system, like it or not.

Referendums are really democratic to a great degree, so California's propositions are much more a representation of democracy than our electoral system. However, as I said, once a democracy reaches a certain size it essentially ceases to be really democratic. Things like advertising (propaganda), money, all ultimately work against the idea of democracy. So I agree with you more than you know. Simply eliminating our aristocracy would not make the problem go away - a new one would quickly rise.

You know how I would put it (and did, on a local Russian forum):

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

George Washington, in his farewell address http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Basically, what he warned against has largely come to pass.

I do consider the passage of Prop 8 to be the one bit of news worth hearing in all of the noise - only now the battle will shift to the Supreme Court, where it will likely be struck down.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

LOL... yes, I meant "delay" not the EXACT opposite. LOL thank you for that most poignant correction around which my entire premise for continuing to vote lies in the first place.

Also, I realize we have a two-party system. Most people don't deny that. It's kind of a canned answer like to the point that it's not at all controversial to say that we have a 2-party system... it's the norm. more average americans that follow national politics would be perplexed to hear anything else even though most loosely and shallowly wish we had a third-party or more (although they don't mean it becuase they will still vote for the lesser of two evils). I voted simply to join the other 4% of my state who said "I don't like either one of these guys" not because I thought Bob Barr would actually win. It's a statement, nothing more. In any case, in my state, because of our electoral process, I had no national say anyhow. All I could do is make a statement or not vote at all, which doesn't reflect a statement I wish to make.

Anyway, the props reflect our true desires... and when we look at most all props around the nation and how they turned out, it becomes very apparent that we the people of the United States are our worst enemy. We are bent on destroying ourselves.

 

[rusmeister]

Yeah - we say "hasten, Lord, the day", because we want the day to come more quickly, after all.
Anyway, no argument at all on your last point.
On third parties, I would say only that they, too, do not offer what we really want. We are still voting for a candidate chosen for us and accepting platforms that include things that we oppose - this underlines the impossibility of democracy on a large national scale.

Also, if my premise is true, then in standard election cases, voting doesn't delay anything. (Referendums are an exception where I would say power has really been given to the people.) I've read so much great stuff by GKC lately - if you are aware of the size of his bibliography, you'll know that's no mean feat, and I find him to be so right. He came to similar conclusions as me, much earlier, and both his thought and expression are much better than mine.
http://www.online-literature.com/chesterton/2576/

The real evil of our Party System is commonly stated wrong. It was stated
wrong by Lord Rosebery, when he said that it prevented the best men from
devoting themselves to politics, and that it encouraged a fanatical
conflict. I doubt whether the best men ever would devote themselves to
politics. The best men devote themselves to pigs and babies and things
like that. And as for the fanatical conflict in party politics, I wish
there was more of it. The real danger of the two parties with their two
policies is that they unduly limit the outlook of the ordinary citizen.
They make him barren instead of creative, because he is never allowed to
do anything except prefer one existing policy to another. We have not got
real Democracy when the decision depends upon the people. We shall have
real Democracy when the problem depends upon the people. The ordinary man
will decide not only how he will vote, but what he is going to vote about.
It is this which involves some weakness in many current aspirations
towards the extension of the suffrage; I mean that, apart from all
questions of abstract justice, it is not the smallness or largeness of the
suffrage that is at present the difficulty of Democracy. It is not the
quantity of voters, but the quality of the thing they are voting about. A
certain alternative is put before them by the powerful houses and the
highest political class. Two roads are opened to them; but they must go
down one or the other. They cannot have what they choose, but only which
they choose. To follow the process in practice we may put it thus. The
Suffragettes--if one may judge by their frequent ringing of his bell--want
to do something to Mr. Asquith. I have no notion what it is. Let us say
(for the sake of argument) that they want to paint him green. We will
suppose that it is entirely for that simple purpose that they are always
seeking to have private interviews with him; it seems as profitable as any
other end that I can imagine to such an interview. Now, it is possible
that the Government of the day might go in for a positive policy of
painting Mr. Asquith green; might give that reform a prominent place in
their programme. Then the party in opposition would adopt another policy,
not a policy of leaving Mr. Asquith alone (which would be considered
dangerously revolutionary), but some alternative course of action, as, for
instance, painting him red. Then both sides would fling themselves on the
people, they would both cry that the appeal was now to the Caesar of
Democracy. A dark and dramatic air of conflict and real crisis would
arise on both sides; arrows of satire would fly and swords of eloquence
flame. The Greens would say that Socialists and free lovers might well
want to paint Mr. Asquith red; they wanted to paint the whole town red.
Socialists would indignantly reply that Socialism was the reverse of
disorder, and that they only wanted to paint Mr. Asquith red so that he
might resemble the red pillar-boxes which typified State control. The
Greens would passionately deny the charge so often brought against them by
the Reds; they would deny that they wished Mr. Asquith green in order that
he might be invisible on the green benches of the Commons, as certain
terrified animals take the colour of their environment.
There would be fights in the street perhaps, and abundance of ribbons,
flags, and badges, of the two colours. One crowd would sing, "Keep the
Red Flag Flying," and the other, "The Wearing of the Green." But when the
last effort had been made and the last moment come, when two crowds were
waiting in the dark outside the public building to hear the declaration of
the poll, then both sides alike would say that it was now for democracy to
do exactly what it chose. England herself, lifting her head in awful
loneliness and liberty, must speak and pronounce judgment. Yet this
might not be exactly true. England herself, lifting her head in awful
loneliness and liberty, might really wish Mr. Asquith to be pale blue.
The democracy of England in the abstract, if it had been allowed to make
up a policy for itself, might have desired him to be black with pink spots.
It might even have liked him as he is now. But a huge apparatus of
wealth, power, and printed matter has made it practically impossible for
them to bring home these other proposals, even if they would really prefer
them. No candidates will stand in the spotted interest; for candidates
commonly have to produce money either from their own pockets or the
pasty's; and in such circles spots are not worn. No man in the social
position of a Cabinet Minister, perhaps, will commit himself to the
pale-blue theory of Mr. Asquith; therefore it cannot be a Government
measure, therefore it cannot pass.
Nearly all the great newspapers, both pompous and frivolous, will declare
dogmatically day after day, until every one half believes it, that red and
green are the only two colours in the paint-box. THE OBSERVER will say:
"No one who knows the solid framework of politics or the emphatic first
principles of an Imperial people can suppose for a moment that there is
any possible compromise to be made in such a matter; we must either fulfill
our manifest racial destiny and crown the edifice of ages with the august
figure of a Green Premier, or we must abandon our heritage, break our
promise to the Empire, fling ourselves into final anarchy, and allow the
flaming and demoniac image of a Red Premier to hover over our dissolution
and our doom." The DAILY MAIL would say: "There is no halfway house in
this matter; it must be green or red. We wish to see every honest
Englishman one colour or the other." And then some funny man in the
popular Press would star the sentence with a pun, and say that the DAILY
MAIL liked its readers to be green and its paper to be read. But no one
would even dare to whisper that there is such a thing as yellow.
For the purposes of pure logic it is clearer to argue with silly examples
than with sensible ones: because silly examples are simple. But I could
give many grave and concrete cases of the kind of thing to which I refer.
In the later part of the Boer War both parties perpetually insisted in
every speech and pamphlet that annexation was inevitable and that it was
only a question whether Liberals or Tories should do it. It was not
inevitable in the least; it would have been perfectly easy to make peace
with the Boers as Christian nations commonly make peace with their
conquered enemies. Personally I think that it would have been better for
us in the most selfish sense, better for our pocket and prestige, if we
had never effected the annexation at all; but that is a matter of opinion.
What is plain is that it was not inevitable; it was not, as was said,
the only possible course; there were plenty of other courses; there were
plenty of other colours in the box. Again, in the discussion about
Socialism, it is repeatedly rubbed into the public mind that we must
choose between Socialism and some horrible thing that they call
Individualism. I don't know what it means, but it seems to mean that
anybody who happens to pull out a plum is to adopt the moral philosophy of
the young Horner--and say what a good boy he is for helping himself.
It is calmly assumed that the only two possible types of society are a
Collectivist type of society and the present society that exists at this
moment and is rather like an animated muck-heap. It is quite unnecessary
to say that I should prefer Socialism to the present state of things. I
should prefer anarchism to the present state of things. But it is simply
not the fact that Collectivism is the only other scheme for a more equal
order. A Collectivist has a perfect right to think it the only sound
scheme; but it is not the only plausible or possible scheme. We might
have peasant proprietorship; we might have the compromise of Henry George;
we might have a number of tiny communes; we might have co-operation; we
might have Anarchist Communism; we might have a hundred things. I am not
saying that any of these are right, though I cannot imagine that any of
them could be worse than the present social madhouse, with its top-heavy
rich and its tortured poor; but I say that it is an evidence of the stiff
and narrow alternative offered to the civic mind, that the civic mind is
not, generally speaking, conscious of these other possibilities. The
civic mind is not free or alert enough to feel how much it has the world
before it. There are at least ten solutions of the Education question,
and no one knows which Englishmen really want. For Englishmen are only
allowed to vote about the two which are at that moment offered by the
Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. There are ten solutions of the
drink question; and no one knows which the democracy wants; for the
democracy is only allowed to fight about one Licensing Bill at a time.
So that the situation comes to this: The democracy has a right to answer
questions, but it has no right to ask them. It is still the political
aristocracy that asks the questions. And we shall not be unreasonably
cynical if we suppose that the political aristocracy will always be rather
careful what questions it asks. And if the dangerous comfort and
self-flattery of modern England continues much longer there will be less
democratic value in an English election than in a Roman saturnalia of
slaves. For the powerful class will choose two courses of action, both of
them safe for itself, and then give the democracy the gratification of
taking one course or the other. The lord will take two things so much
alike that he would not mind choosing from them blindfold--and then for a
great jest he will allow the slaves to choose.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I understand what is being said above in the quote and it is quite apropos. I liked the "simple" examples followed up with real ones.

Here's the thing Rus. You yourself said that a true democracy is impossible if an individual is anymore than 1/1000th of the voting population. Allowing for great leaway of even up to 1/100.000th, it would seem to me that your form of democracy is impossible in this day and age given our technology, culture, and the societal expectation that we act as one World.

So, I am curious what practical preference (not ideal) you hold in the world you live in today.

I am not arguing with the above, I am only curious. I am not trying to understand where you come from.. I think understand where you are coming from, at least enough to have coherent conversations with you on this topic now. I am only curious.

It's funny, because you seem to express a kind of hope in democracy given ideal situations (small populations, etc), while, recently, I have begun to see the wisdomin the point that the imprisoned soviet monk made about how evil democracy can be, handing whole societies over to their every whim. I don't have an answer to what a better (and realistic) form of government would be. Honestly, I do not want a theocracy, nor would I wish real socialism (not the watered down version of McCain and Obama, but the Marzx kind... the "bridge" to communism) on any people. A benevolent king would be nice... but then that's kind of like hoping for a nice slave owner who, at a moment's notice could change and decide to treat you like his dog than a human being.

So, I figure, I don't know a better solution and this is what we've got. It's not going to change and I am not sure if there were a revolution, things would be better (either for our souls or our societal liberties which i believe are two different issues that can converge at times... but not necessarily and that can actually stand at oppposite ends of the spectrum or, better yet, not even be on the same plane, like trying to find out how a piece of paper and orange juice are similar or opposite... an absurd notion to begin with). So, this is what I live in and because it won't change, I will participate. The people of the US tried hard to speak out past the thick walls of the electoral college and in certain ways it can't be denied that they did vote for change... in the short-run. Abortion rights WILL be hastened (and yes, I mean hastened lol) and most likely the war in Iraq will take a different and diminishing course over the next years when compared to McCain.

A vote in a national election is not a powerful one by any means. But, it can't be denied that it took individuals to form a whole to yell out in a poignant and elegant way "Bush sucks." and they have resoundingly yelled that.

Also, as for the third party, Bob Barr may not be who I would truly want in the White House, but I didn't have to think about that becuase he didn't have a chance. He was not a candidate to me but simply a symbol saying, "please let's not look to the government to dictate our morality" (like the absurd notion of a pluristic society defining marriage... even as only between a man and a woman. have we become so spineless that it truly matters to us what our agnostic government thinks about a notion that they have no business discussing in the first place... and how many other areas are like that???).

I'm really not trying to be debative... just offering for more dialogue and, to be honest, Im using this thread as my sounding board.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I re-read my email and in certain parts it sounds as if I am trying to challenge you. I'm honestly just asking questions. Not trying to point out any percieved flaws. Quite franly I don't have any solution to the problem you and I both agree on so... lol

Xpy

 

[rusmeister]

Hi Xpy,

I guess the first thing I’d say to that is that the ideal has become of enormously greater importance than the real, especially after reading Chesterton. Pragmatism, something that we ought to have in measure, has become the driving goal, and ideals are to be abandoned and forgotten – the first step has been to treat them as completely abstract and essentially unattainable. That’s why they speak of “ideals” as something individual (this is where pluralism comes in). I’ve been thinking a lot about the idea of the intersection of the ideal and the real – it’s something we need, and it’s something we’ve forgotten. Disney’s recent film “Enchanted” has enormous potential for this idea, and then blows it in more mindless entertainment. But if you pay attention during parts like the divorce scene (with the black couple), it’ll stand out, shining and proud, if only for half a minute. I would love to take the general idea and remold it so that it deals with that theme - a fairy tale person comes to our world and reminds us of the ideal. How things ought to be. How we ought to be. Ought to be. And that’s what pragmatism rejects and “poo-poos”.
If we really try to go back to the ideal, and work towards that, rather than merely accepting the plate of mush handed to us, we might accomplish something.
So obviously, I am not going to speak about which of the lousy existing political parties I prefer, or which of the existing governments I prefer, because I prefer none of them.

Chesterton speaks again and again about working towards distributism as the ideal. I suppose I would say that I prefer that most of all – where I differ with Chesterton and Catholics in general is that I think they err a little too much on the side of “what we can change” in the formula “God grant me the strength to change what I can, the grace to accept what I cannot and the wisdom to know the difference.” Since I also don’t believe that revolution in this world is a thing we as Christians should be fomenting, and believe that large-scale forms of political activity (in most cases) can bear no fruit, the only response I see is to drop out of most politics.
Now referendums are one area where I still see a few questions of import where the format really is democratic enough that it may be worthwhile to participate (although your ‘voice’ is only one out of xx-million), Prop 8 in California, for example. But in that example, I’m already seeing how the undemocratic forces (most surprisingly, Schwarzenegger) are working to cancel the democratic decision, and if the court that already has voted in favor of the gay lobby can cancel the votes of millions in one swoop, then so much for that form of democracy. I keep coming back to letting go of politics and doing what I can in my own backyard.

Again, on “Bush sucks”… they ALL ‘suck’. They are all part of a modern aristocracy that began killing (an arguably truly) democratic America and consolidating power starting with the industrial revolution. A poor man CAN’T get on a platform and be elected president. We have very real classes – upper, middle and lower, and now the lower class is very, very large. The upper class has always been small. I think a Republican presidency would also be forced to move out. The heat has been on for a long time, and a recession would force any administration to take us out (gradually, of course). I disagree that there would be a major difference (particularly on anything affecting the ruling class), although will concede small ones.

Try reading this:
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/uusry11.txt

Nowadays, I find that converting files to pdf and printing them out to be convenient – esp. since I can’t obtain these books any other way. The print is very small, but legible ‘books’ can be printed out on standard printing paper.

 

[JeremiahsBulldog]

To me, whenever people say that we can't complain unless we vote, it sounds like this:

Imagine a stranger driving into a certain town. He sees there's only one store in the entire town, and needing to buy something, he enters it. Once inside, he sees, to his astonishment, that there are only two items in the entire store - and neither of them is what he wants!

He starts going towards the exit, while muttering something about "limited selection". The owner/salesman (who also happens to own half the town) overhears him. He stops the stranger at the door and yells at him, "Hey, you can't complain about my selection unless you buy something first!"

Now, What would you do if you were the stranger? In my case, it would involve cream-pies flying at high velocity!

$

I know your elections are over, but I've been away from this forum for awhile.

Coming back to it, I didn't know that my post had generated such controversy!

First of all,

Rusmeister,

thank you for your support.

Xpycoctomos,

I apologize for not making my post clearer. (now you know why I don't post too often). I did mean it to apply to any country, including mine. I only took the opportunity to post it here because it seemed relevant to the discussion.


Here, let me clarify what i meant. Just replace the previous post with the following:

Imagine one of the serfs who constitute the town's inhabitants-- and who think they are free only because the town school and news media, all of which are owned by the town boss, tell them they are-- entering the town's only store; which is also owned by the town boss, to buy something. Once inside, he sees, to his astonishment, that there are only two items in the entire store - and neither of them is what he wants!

He starts going towards the exit, while muttering something about "limited selection". The owner/salesman (who also happens to be the very same town boss) overhears him. He stops the serf at the door and yells at him, "Hey, you can't complain about my selection unless you buy something first!"

Now, What would you do if you were the serf? In my case, it would involve cream-pies flying at high velocity!

I hope this clarifies everything.


As I write this, it has become very relevant to Canada, because we are now undergoing a mini constitutional crisis because of the two-party system.

The minority Conservative government has been taking advantage of the opposition Liberals' lack of leadership to pass some unpopular laws.

Just last week, the Liberals joined with smaller parties to form a coalition and oust the Conservatives from power without an election.

Both sides presented letters to our head of state, the Governor-General. She stands in for Queen Elizabeth (yes, Canada is a constitutional monarchy; no, the gender of the GG needn't match that of the monarch).

Now, if the Conservatives win, and she dissolves parliament til January, the progressives will cry "dictatorship!".

If the progressive coalition wins, and she allows them to form a new government, conservatives will claim it's a legal, constitutionally sanctioned coup-d'etat (in fact, they're already comparing it to Banana-republic politics).

Meanwhile, the limitations of the two-party system have finally been shown up.