Do you believe in the idea of Democracy?

[Cantousent]

...But they can vote, cewekeds. If my idea is idealistic, and I'm sure it is, then your idea is too jaded. First of all, we might have a small number of eligible voters turn out for any election, but we have a much broader pool when compared to the foundation of our country. We've become more progressive in the last two hundred years, not less. Can anyone really argue that the steps we've taken as a nation have not been towards more opportunity for folks to express their will? The real problem is that a large chunk of society does not express its will.

 

I'm not worried about folks not voting. I find it contemptible, but not frightening. First of all, not voting for most folks just means that they don't feel strongly enough to vote in the first place. Sure, we say it's because they don't think their vote counts, but the fact is that most folks don't care in the first place. They don't see how their life will be significantly changed either way. The death knell for a politician is to appear radical, because, liberal or conservative, what most folks apparently want is more or less the status quo.

 

Folks say that democracies are only run for the interests of the rich. Well, having been both poor (from the old definition, not the new one) and now enjoying life in the middle class, I can say that my interests are well served by our democracy. Someone is going to be rich, and I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot just to try to strip away wealth from some other person. On the other hand, I look around and see that some of the people most vocal in their complaints about the unfairness of the system have actually benefited quite well from it. Oh, I'm not talking about a rich guy saying the system treated him better than it should. I'm talking about middle class folks who have beautiful houses, cars, and children in college who complain that there are people with more wealth. Here's the truth: there will always be some people richer than others. It is a fact of human existence. We can argue about different forms of government, but the only place where everyone will have true economic equality is in a fantasy universe.

 

The students, on the other hand, scare the average voter. I'm not saying that the students are always wrong. I'm saying that they don't argue effectively for their cause.

 

On top of that, as you rightly pointed out to me, students also don't vote.

[metadigital]

All men are created equal... but some are more equal than others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Four legs good,

Two legs bad.

[cewekeds]

Lets say your in race who are you going to talk to? For me I talk to the people most likly to vote. I would try fixed as much as I can for the people most likly to vote the way they wanted. Students also lack the funds which is a big factor.

 

I admit some students arguements are flawed because they never stepped into the real world. However arguements that can get or loss voter and/or money is what focus on.

[Cantousent]

Lets say your in race who are you going to talk to? For me I talk to the people most likly to vote. I would try fixed as much as I can for the people most likly to vote the way they wanted.  Students also lack the funds which is a big factor.

 

I admit some students arguements are flawed because they never stepped into the real world. However arguements that can get or loss voter and/or money is what focus on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This assessment is undoubtedly true, but it goes further than that.

 

The students could make arguments that the avergae voter understand and, as a result, actually influence votes. The students could actually vote, which would be a direct expression of will.

 

Sure the guy seeking office is going to try to address the folks who actually vote. That only makes sense.

[cewekeds]

How many people have a prejudice againest the young that would prevent them from hearing the message. Eldar how much better must the argument be coming from student be to be heard. You think people don't listen to students? How many states are making pot legal or make more envirometal laws. Even Bush wants to open more free heath centers in poor area. Remember the students more likly will become the people who are running the goverment.

 

The students could make arguments that the avergae voter understand and, as a result, actually influence votes. The

 

How can this be done with complex issues? If you make your message simple then its easier to dismiss. If you talk above what people can understand they tend resent the speaker. Students also lack experiences with public speaking is no match with train and season person.

Most students rarely write or call or know their representatives (alot of people also). "

 

beside half the people at protest just go to get laid.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

How many people have a prejudice againest the young that would prevent them from hearing the message. Eldar how much better must the argument be coming from student be to be heard. You think people don't listen to students? How many states are making pot legal or make more envirometal laws. Even Bush wants to open more free heath centers in poor area. Remember the students more likly will become the people who are running the goverment. 

 

beside half the people at protest just go to get laid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Students have an ideolistic outlook which is not tempered by life experiencce. Of course their opinions are not going to carry much weight with people who have both the education and the life experience. Often as not peoples idealistic views do not survive the realities outside the classroom.

 

Of course :D

 

Speaking for myself my idealist liberal days ended when I actually had to face up and handle some responsibilities in the real world, rather than goof around in the class room.

 

The more responsibility acrued, business, family and now children, the more conservative my outlook becomes in general.

[Azarkon]

That's exactly the reason why the universities exist and why the opinions of students and professors must exist to balance the general populace.

 

The older you become, the more conservative you tend to be - this is not a rule, but it's true enough to be significant. Conservatives are necessary: they maintain order in a society that would otherwise change arbitrarily whenever a new ideology comes along. However, a society can become stagnant and, eventually, decadent through the lack of change.

 

That's where the educated youth comei in: as a force of change. Many societal changes in the past years have been made by either students or intellectuals - the average American did not just stand up and demand change unless it affected them personally (ie, the economy). They were coaxed into it when such-and-such movement became too powerful to ignore.

 

What I dislike about your argument, Eldar, is that you originally implied that the public's dismissal of student arguments is a result of said arguments being blatantly incorrect in addition to failures of rhetoric. As you explained later, it's a far cry difference between the public's ability to be convinced by an argument and its actual truth value. But there are more factors in the equation than mere skill of rhetoric:

 

Finally, as to your edit, rhetoric doesn't mean using ten syllable words to convey a thought. Bush, and the Bush campaign, had to convince the voters by means of rhetoric. The proof that they succeeded is simple, he is currently in his second term. Since virtually every American adult has the right to vote, and since he did not gain and keep office due to military power, he won by means of rhetoric. Undoubtedly, he argued through a variety of surrogates who provided arguments tailored to different segments of society.

 

You use the word rhetoric to stand for, seemingly, EVERYTHING that factors into the ability of a man to convince the public that he is the right person for the presidency except for, it seems, military force. From my point of view, that's a misuse of the word. Rhetoric means: "The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively." It does not mean being the son of an ex-President. It does not mean having a background of military service. It does not mean being chosen (for whatever reason) the candidate of the rising Republican party. It does not mean being a symbol for conservative and religious values, or running at a time of crisis and confusion for the Democratic party.

 

If you say to me that Bush won because he had better rhetoric skills than Kerry, my interpretation is that you're claiming that Bush was a better speaker, or at least a more effective manipulator of the medium of language. He is neither. At best, you can argue that Bush's rhetoric consisted of his ability to speak like the average joe and that this won him the presidency. That's a debatable point. But beyond that, there are many reasons why Bush won, and many more why he stayed in office (I hardly think that 9/11 and the state of war were irrelevant factors to the people's desire to throw their support behind the president in a time of crisis, do you?), none of which has to do with his ability to use language or sway a crowd.

[Cantousent]

Winning a presidential election twice is "using language effectively and persuasively." I intentionally used the broadest meaning of the word. Originally, the Greek root rhE means simply speaking at any rate.

 

...But, for the purposes of discussion, I'll rephrase in order to simply the argument. Democracy is over reliant on the ability to convince the bulk of the voters. The most convincing person is not always the best suited for the job.

 

As for the other things in your post, they're worthy of comment, but I'm on my way out of the door. I'll revisit when I get back.

[metadigital]

I think it was a Ray Bradbury short story, but anyway it dealt with the issue of unswerving loyalty, bravery and a dedication to idealistic interpretations of the law for the good of society. Only those who possessed these requirements were permitted to be in the armed forces, let alone be officers and command the military.

 

And there was a mandatory retirement age of 19, so that these people were not in these roles by they became jaded ...

[Laozi]

Social Anarchy and Polygamy are the only way

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I'll never understand why having two wives is so frowned upon. If you can take that then you probaly should be nominated for Sainthood.

[Cantousent]

There are other factors involved in the debate, that's true. It's not just getting across your ideas to the bulk of the population. cew was right in pointing out that the system is weighted against certain segments of society because not all eligible citizens vote. It's also true that other factors, such as military service, family backgrounds, political ties, play a part in the process. Nevertheless, it still remains that the process relies on getting across a message to the average voter and convincing him that the message is true. In that regard, Bush excels as a speaker. You mentioned talking points earlier, Azarkon. Key words. These are excellent tools in a society that doesn't sit still and doesn't pay attention to the issues long enough to hear a more detailed argument.

 

Our society is extremely reliant on the spoken and written word. For our purposes, I guess we can call it communication. Ultimately, the ability to convince the voters (at least those who actually vote) of the truth in your platform is the only way to win an election. If you can use other factors to your advantage, then so much the better.

[metadigital]

Social Anarchy and Polygamy are the only way

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll never understand why having two wives is so frowned upon. If you can take that then you probaly should be nominated for Sainthood.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the bit I've never fathomed; why would you want that sort of political nightmare?

[Aponez]

Only one question Kaftan, believe in the democracy means belive in the justice of all the democratic countries?

[Darth Blivion]

Democracy is all good, in theory but like all human systems of it degenerates e.g communism etc

[~Di]

I believe that democracy is necessary to give people a tool to protect themselves from being oppressed and taken advantage of by their government, no matter what kind of government they have. That said, pure democracy is indeed the tyranny of the majority, where the rights of any non-majority group can be trampled with impugnity by a simple vote. I would not want ten of my neighbors voting to take away my home and my bank account to split the proceeds among themselves simply because "majority rules!" Therefore, I much prefer a constitutional republic, where the rights of all citizens are at least given the illusion of being protected. :D

[SteveThaiBinh]

Democracy is fairly easy to get off the ground - all you need is reasonably free and fair elections. Liberal democracy takes longer, because you need to get the courts and civil society all working well. There are a great many illiberal democracies in the world today, but the question is, are they moving (albeit slowly) toward becoming full liberal democracies, or are they stuck in the transition, or are they heading towards becoming something else? Time will tell.

 

The US system has a million checks and balances to protect minority rights, with the result that the elected leaders can't accomplish what they promised, and the electorate is disillusioned. The UK system has hardly any checks and balances, with the result that the elected leaders become arrogant and do whatever they like, and the electorate is disillusioned. Is there any country that handles this problem better?

[Anor]

Blair's New Labour platform garnered 35% of the popular vote, which is just slightly less than Hitler's National Socialists did (36%) in 1934.

 

Just wanted to add something: The NSDAP got 44% in 1933 and afterwards in didn't matter anymore as parties got abolished step by step (first the communist KPD an so on). Moreover the Republic of Weimar (that's how the Republic was called before Hitler got chancellor) had a proportional representation, not a majority vote like in Great Britain. The NSDAP needed the coalition with another party to get the power. So you can't really compare this.

But I really think that majoity vote isn't exactely fair, it's not really what the people wanted. But you get a strong government, that's the greatest advantage of the majority vote.

And I really believe in Democracy, I mean, do we have any real choice? It can't lead to anything good if only few persons have all power. And ideas that seem to be good (from what they were meant) just don't work (like communism, it's just a plain fact that everyone is an egoist to some degree). Democracy is the logical consequence of the idea that everybody is equal. And I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be like this. I mean you can't really find any proof that some group should be superior to another.

[Cantousent]

I'm a firm believer in Democracy. I'm an "all my heart" democrat (or republican, whichever term you like best). I see that the system has shortcomings, but I'd rather live free in a lousy democracy than be a slave in a stable tyranny.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"I'm a firm believer in Democracy. I'm an "all my heart" democrat (or republican, whichever term you like best). I see that the system has shortcomings, but I'd rather live free in a lousy democracy than be a slave in a stable tyranny."

 

Well, I guess then it is only right and proper that once I've established my dominion over this world, I'll have to relieve you of your mortal shell and send you over to the next one. You sound like you'd appreciate it.

 

See? A considerate person like me would make a damn fine tyrant!

[taks]

He seems like just an average joe who you could bump into at the local pub. The less educated prefer someone who isn't their intellectual superior, that got him a huge chunk of votes. I figure Bush got his votes from 4 groups. The rich, the stupid, the religious right, and the people who just plain thought Kerry/Gore was worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

funny, now, that we find out kerry actually did worse than bush at yale. so funny.

 

oh, and i voted for bush. approximately 2/3 of the way through my phd in electical engineering. i'd say i'm not all that stupid based on that. an atheist, therefore the religious title doesn't apply. i'm an engineer, therefore i am not rich (nor were my parents). as for the fourth, well, kerry's a blueblood and it shows. to say that i thought he was just worse doesn't really fit.

 

you should drop the rhetoric oerwinde. it doesn't suit you and in the end, you'll fall into one of those four categories in everyone else's eyes... i'll leave it to you to figure out which.

 

taks

[taks]

I do not like the republican version of democracy - Small.

If we have a small goverment then it can have outside influences, like oil tycoons or really any top business with enough money to get away with whatever they want. if they have influence then the people lose that much power.

uh, hate to tell you but that's not a problem with a small government. that's a problem with government that tinkers with its capitalist economy. take away the benefits of laws that benefit certain companies and markets over others, and the concept of lobbying goes away, as does all the money. why bribe an elected official if he can provide you no benefit.

 

Look what roosevelt did with his growing  goverment, he built airports and highways.

everyone's favorite communist... it's amazing he didn't bankrupt us.

 

Ceweked, I will complain as much as i want to strive for a perfect society the best i can. You can call me a fool but, Do you really think keeping silent when your goverement fails you is being a patriot?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you should never keep silent. that doesn't mean our ideas are flawed, just our methods. unfortunately, the concept of a perfect society is not feasible. there are always those who would rather do it differently. there are always those who expect more from a system than they provide. there are always those who would rather cause problems for the sake of causing problems. everybody's concept of "perfect" is different, as well. this will exist as long as we maintain free will.

 

taks

[Cantousent]

"I'm a firm believer in Democracy. I'm an "all my heart" democrat (or republican, whichever term you like best). I see that the system has shortcomings, but I'd rather live free in a lousy democracy than be a slave in a stable tyranny."

 

Well, I guess then it is only right and proper that once I've established my dominion over this world, I'll have to relieve you of your mortal shell and send you over to the next one. You sound like you'd appreciate it.

 

See? A considerate person like me would make a damn fine tyrant!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...Or an even better maniac. Of course, I'm sure you're quite a good maniac already.

[Cantousent]

Like taks, I voted for Bush. I really didn't vote against Gore as, when I looked at the plans both proposed, I was certain that my wife and I would do just as well under either one. Afterwards, however, I became more of a Bush fan. I didn't vote against Kerry. I firmly believed, and believe still, that Kerry wants to do the best thing for the country. I just don't agree with Kerry about what the best thing would be.

[WITHTEETH]

Taks

Calling Roosevelt a communist? I thought McCarthyism was over with. Did you know they even called Martin Luither King a communist, even the declaration of independance, pathetic.

Its Amazing Bush hasn't bankrupted us. <_<

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"...Or an even better maniac. Of course, I'm sure you're quite a good maniac already."

 

I do not flush my medication down the toilet for nothing!