Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Occams Barber]

Mmm. Someone who dictates how we should live and is benevolent. Let me think on that...

It's hard to imagine and quite probably "benevolent dictator" is an oxymoron like 'military intelligence" but there's also a cultural dimension to security/insecurity. For some cultures the 'strong man' leader is preferred. China comes to mind,

OB

 

[FireDragon76]

It's hard to imagine and quite probably "benevolent dictator" is an oxymoron like 'military intelligence" but there's also a cultural dimension to security/insecurity. For some cultures the 'strong man' leader is preferred. China comes to mind,

OB

Not so much "strong man" as a paternalistic form of government. It's rooted in Confucian notions of the role of the state. And it's not that uncommon around the world to have similar attitudes towards government.

That's another reason I think a certain amount of cultural relativism is the only way to navigate the modern world peacefully. Countries like China are never going to be liberal democracies like Sweden or Australia. Not in my lifetime, anyways. It's a model that doesn't work. As one official in China put it, when asked about liberal democracy years ago, "we tried that, and the country was dominated by warlords". She wasn't lying or making stuff up.

Even a country like Japan, which operates legally as a liberal democracy with a constitutional monarchy, still has civil institutions and customs that strongly discourage the kinds of internal unrests that affect liberal western democracies. People that express the wrong opinions are subject to extreme "cancelling" in Japan. There is a saying, after all, "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down".

 

[Bradskii]

Hehheh... I saw what you did there.

How has Australia managed to avoid the worst effects of "Rupert", and the US and Britain hasn't?

Good question. And no easy answer. But my two cents...

There are two concepts here which I guess are common to other countries in some way, but we seem to have claimed them as being quinissentially Australian, so in a way they become self fulfilling. The first is what we term the Tall Poppy syndrome. In that we don't like people to get above themselves. To put themselves forward as being better than the rest of us (even if, by any measure, they are). Who give themselves airs and graces. The tall poppy who wants tomstand above the rest...and then guts cut down to size. A classic example of a politician who definitely didn't do that and was revered for if was Bob Hawke. One of our most popular Prime Ministers.

The guy had a brilliant mind, was a Rhodes Scholar, but to say he was a man of the people is an understatement. He treated wharfies and Presidents equally. So we like people who are in charge to be like us. To talk and drink like the rest of us and follow sport and love a laugh and a joke and have an honest connection with the rest of us. Rupert ain't like that. And not many of your presidents either. Obama a possible exception out of the last dozen or so.

The second concept is mateship. A feeling that one should always help a mate. That we should all help someone who is down. That we should all chip in for those who are struggling. Again, common throughout most societies, but we do go on about it a fair amount and try to live up to it. Because not to do so would be 'un-Australian'. I think that makes us more egalitarian than you guys over there. Who have a tendency to exhibit a fair amount of individualism. That was apparent during the covid crisis and a few years back when we had a firearms amnesty. And rather than people shouting 'you can have my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands' people were queing up to hand them in. Because what was good for the country was more important than any perceived individual rights.

 

[9Rock9]

I think one potential solution is the use of sortition to select leaders and representatives. A name is drawn from a pool of qualified candidates and that person fills that role.

One problem with the American system is that we rely on majority rule to make legislation and decisions. There is "consensus style" democracy, in which the various factions and parties work to come up with legislation or solutions that satisfies the greatest number of people on both sides.

 

[FireDragon76]

Good question. And no easy answer. But my two cents...

There are two concepts here which I guess are common to other countries in some way, but we seem to have claimed them as being quinissentially Australian, so in a way they become self fulfilling. The first is what we term the Tall Poppy syndrome. In that we don't like people to get above themselves. To put themselves forward as being better than the rest of us (even if, by any measure, they are). Who give themselves airs and graces. The tall poppy who wants tomstand above the rest...and then guts cut down to size. A classic example of a politician who definitely didn't do that and was revered for if was Bob Hawke. One of our most popular Prime Ministers.

There's something like this is Scandinavian countries. It is called Jantelagen, Jante laws. "Don't think you are so special" being one of the central ideas.

You really only find that kind of attitude among midwesterners in the US, and even then it is dying out. I think it's a legacy of Lutheran pietism.

The guy had a brilliant mind, was a Rhodes Scholar, but to say he was a man of the people is an understatement. He treated wharfies and Presidents equally. So we like people who are in charge to be like us. To talk and drink like the rest of us and follow sport and love a laugh and a joke and have an honest connection with the rest of us. Rupert ain't like that. And not many of your presidents either. Obama a possible exception out of the last dozen or so.

That's an odd observation, mostly because even some Democrats thought Obama projected a sense of being "aloof" and idealistic. It's interesting to hear an outsider perspective, though.

The second concept is mateship. A feeling that one should always help a mate. That we should all help someone who is down. That we should all chip in for those who are struggling. Again, common throughout most societies, but we do go on about it a fair amount and try to live up to it. Because not to do so would be 'un-Australian'. I think that makes us more egalitarian than you guys over there. Who have a tendency to exhibit a fair amount of individualism. That was apparent during the covid crisis and a few years back when we had a firearms amnesty. And rather than people shouting 'you can have my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands' people were queing up to hand them in. Because what was good for the country was more important than any perceived individual rights.

Australians do seem to have a strong sense of equity in their society, that people shouldn't be unduely privileged above others. That's very different from the United States, where the notion is highly controversial. What's ironic is that we don't have a system of titles of nobility, but Australia does.

 

[Bradskii]

Part of liberal democracy is pluralism, including a plurality of potentially uninformed opinions.

And that's my problem. I try to keep up with the policies of whomever I am likely to vote for. If I didn't, then what worth is my vote? It would be less than useful.

 

[FireDragon76]

One problem with the American system is that we rely on majority rule to make legislation and decisions. There is "consensus style" democracy, in which the various factions and parties work to come up with legislation or solutions that satisfies the greatest number of people on both sides.

Obama tried that style of politics, but it didn't work. Obama lamented that Americans seemed to have intractable ideological differences, so compromise on divisive issues became impossible.

The United States is too ideological at the moment for a consensus to form, which is ironic as we started out as a very practical-minded country. I believe this may be unintentional blowback from Cold War political posturing, perhaps.

Rank choice voting might be useful, but it's probably more of a band-aid solution. At least it would allow people to express their true preferences and yet at the same time, not be afraid of giving away the vote to a spoiler. It gives a people a little more reason to trust the system. In the absence of consensus, trust in government is important.

 

[Occams Barber]

I think one potential solution is the use of sortition to select leaders and representatives. A name is drawn from a pool of qualified candidates and that person fills that role.

A major difficulty would be agreeing on the definition of 'qualified candidates'. Another would be the sense of exclusion from the political process by those who aren't qualified and the likelihood of rule by an elite group.

One problem with the American system is that we rely on majority rule to make legislation and decisions. There is "consensus style" democracy, in which the various factions and parties work to come up with legislation or solutions that satisfies the greatest number of people on both sides.

The US seems to lack any significant representation outside of the two major parties. Getting a mix of independent and minor party representation tends to force a little compromise and concensus.

In the Australian political system, the tendency to include minor parties/independents has something to do with compulsory voting along with preferential (ranked choice) voting.


OB

 

[Occams Barber]

There's something like this is Scandinavian countries. It is called Jantelagen, Jante laws. "Don't think you are so special" being one of the central ideas.

You really only find that kind of attitude among midwesterners in the US, and even then it is dying out. I think it's a legacy of Lutheran pietism.



That's an odd observation, mostly because even some Democrats thought Obama projected a sense of being "aloof" and idealistic. It's interesting to hear an outsider perspective, though.



Australians do seem to have a strong sense of equity in their society, that people shouldn't be unduely privileged above others. That's very different from the United States, where the notion is highly controversial. What's ironic is that we don't have a system of titles of nobility, but Australia does.

Australia doesn't have a system of 'titles of nobility'. Lords and Ladies, Sirs and Dames, Barons and Earls are strictly a British thing and we ain't British.

 

[Bradskii]

That's an odd observation, mostly because even some Democrats thought Obama projected a sense of being "aloof" and idealistic. It's interesting to hear an outsider perspective, though.

I kinda go with the 'pub test.' Would I be happy having a beer with whoever it was. And I could with all the presidents since JFK (Trump being the definite exception). I won't say I'd really connect with them all, but with Obama I think I could suggest 'Hey, wanna go to the game and have a couple of beers?' and we'd both enjoy it.

Australians do seem to have a strong sense of equity in their society, that people shouldn't be unduely privileged above others. That's very different from the United States, where the notion is highly controversial. What's ironic is that we don't have a system of titles of nobility, but Australia does.

There are awards that are given, such as the Order of Australia. But we thankfully stopped knighting people in 2015 and we never had dukes or earls. So no nobility down here.

 

[Bradskii]

A major difficulty would be agreeing on the definition of 'qualified candidates'. Another would be the sense of exclusion from the political process by those who aren't qualified and the likelihood of rule by an elite group.

Which is the problem with a meritocracy, which sounds good on paper. But as you say, who decides who has merit? Maybe we have a selection presented to us and we all vote on it. Oh, wait...

 

[Occams Barber]

That's an odd observation, mostly because even some Democrats thought Obama projected a sense of being "aloof" and idealistic. It's interesting to hear an outsider perspective, though.

I'm with @Bradskii on this.

Of all your recent Presidents I see Obama as the one I could most easily relate to.

OB

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm with @Bradskii on this.

Of all your recent Presidents I see Obama as the one I could most easily relate to.

OB

How about Clinton? His persona for alot of Americans, at least initially, was as a sort of guy that was relatable. That helped him defeat George H. W. Bush, who was seen as an elitist (which is exactly what he was).

 

[FireDragon76]

Australia doesn't have a system of 'titles of nobility'. Lords and Ladies, Sirs and Dames, Barons and Earls are strictly a British thing and we ain't British.

A monarch without nobles?

I get the feeling that Australians are less attached to the monarchy than the Canadians, where it seems to have widespread political support.

 

[Occams Barber]

How about Clinton? His persona for alot of Americans, at least initially, was as a sort of guy that was relatable. That helped him defeat George H. W. Bush, who was seen as an elitist (which is exactly what he was).

Clinton was OK - at least he was a Democrat. I saw him as a bit of a smarmy used car salesman on occasions. Obama seemed more direct, open and honest. Clinton lost me at the end with his poor handling of the Monica Lewinsky affair.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

How about Clinton? His persona for alot of Americans, at least initially, was as a sort of guy that was relatable. That helped him defeat George H. W. Bush, who was seen as an elitist (which is exactly what he was).

A close second. Well, not that close.

 

[Occams Barber]

A monarch without nobles?

I get the feeling that Australians are less attached to the monarchy than the Canadians, where it seems to have widespread political support.

It's hard to say where we're at now Charlie's in the Big Chair. We attempted a vote on becoming a republic back in 1999. It fell on the problem of whether a Head of State for the republic should be appointed by Govt or elected by the people. Without this complication it may have gotten through.

The republican movement still exists but it's relatively quiet at the moment. I suspect most of us are fairly indifferent. I have no idea where Canada sits on this.

I'm a fence sitter. I can be summed up by:

​

If it ain't broke why fix it?​

and

The Devil you know....​

​

OB​

 

[Unqualified]

Heaven will have the best form of government. Something to look forward to, in that perfection will reign. A nice topic of conversation but you really are missing it. Earth will never be perfect and democracy is the best we have found though short lived. Discuss some australian president and inform us Americans of your country. How could democracy be made to live longer?

 

[eleos1954]

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

I've been thinking about this for quite some time (probably a lot more since the Brexit vote). There must surely be a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made. Surely it's impossible to argue that what we have now is actually the best we can expect. As Winston also said:

'The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter'.

Somebody please cheer me up and tell me we can expect something better.

There is no government that will work perfectly ... not even close .... corruption everywhere .... they all become oppressive at some point in time ... some worse than others. The bigger a government becomes the more oppressive it becomes. So smaller government would be a step in a better direction .... in the US the majority of governance should be returned to the States ... however the Federal government is so huge it's not likely that will happen. This idea of global government ... if implemented .... will be the most devastating and oppressive "governing" the world has ever seen ... it's in the works and I doubt mankind will wise up to it. So ... buckle up ;o) .... the wheels are in motion.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Viveck Ramaswamy is proposing that people have to pass a basic Civics test like those who apply for citizenship have to take as a requirement to qualify to vote

That's a great idea. I just hope I can pass that civics test . Another idea would be to have them explain their view on the issues of the day. Support for or support against an issue is correct but then have the person explain why they support/don't support an issue. If they say "because Donald Trump supports the issue" or "Nicki Minaj doesn't support the issue", kick them out.