Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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,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
Good question. And no easy answer. But my two cents...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.
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.Part of liberal democracy is pluralism, including a plurality of potentially uninformed opinions.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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...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.
I'm with @Bradskii on this.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
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.
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.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.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).
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.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.
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.‘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.
That's a great idea. I just hope I can pass that civics testViveck 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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?