The USA is rated as a Flawed Democracy AND I am frustrated with the MinnPost Moderators again. I have had comments not showing up again lately.
Here is some of the text from the piece.
"The U.S. scores, which used to be much higher, have been declining since 2006. The chief problem with U.S. democracy, as the EIU scores it, has been a decline in what it calls “social cohesion,” which has been diminishing for years, in part because of the increase in what is often called “polarization,” across partisan and political lines. As the EIU scores democracies, our poor cohesion led to low scores for “Functioning of government: 7.14” and “Political participation: 7.22.”
As I’ve often mentioned, the United States ranks horribly against other democracies for voter turnout, which in an important factor in our poor “participation” number. But the low score for “functioning of government,” which obviously did the most damage to our overall number, reflects the fact that even with one party controlling almost all the levers of government, America borders on unable to enact legislation.
The EIU’s writeup on our democracy said various kinds of polarization, social, political, economic and otherwise, undermine our exercise in self-governance, adding that, “If Mr. Trump is unable to reverse the trend towards increasing social polarization, U.S. democracy will be at greater risk of further deterioration.”
In essence the scoring system has decided that a "Full Democracy" is one in which the majority agrees and can get things done. And my unacceptable comment went something like this.
So apparently the BORG from Star Trek are an excellent example of what these folks value in a Democracy... Most people share common opinions and have the power to enforce them on everyone in their country... And if a large minority with different views have the power to stymie that action... That is consider a bad thing?
Here are some interesting links that use the BORG concept.
50 comments:
Here is an interesting and somewhat related VOX piece - How a Democracy Dies.
Borg don't caucus.
--Hiram
Nothing indicates one's desire for respectful, productive, informed conversation like posting something from the Free Republic message boards.
Hiram,
Of course the BORG caucus. They are linked in real time.
Sean,
Finding links regarding the BORG and Democracy was not as easy as it sounds... I take what I can get quickly... :-)
Well DFL caucuses aren't like that. Maybe Borg caucus as Republicans.
--Hiram
Or maybe we should just not take our political lessons from television.
Hiram,
I don't know it seems like the DEMs a pretty quick to launch anyone who is prolife, pro-religious rights, pro lower taxes, pro smaller government, pro public employee accountability, etc out the air hatch pretty quickly.
Sean,
Oh come now, this democracy index is just goofy.
One is "not" a strong democracy if people disagree. Really?
I don't necessarily agree with the democracy index, but this Borg comparison is just stupid.
No wonder the strong democracies are tiny more homogenous countries...
"I don't know it seems like the DEMs a pretty quick to launch anyone who is prolife, pro-religious rights, pro lower taxes, pro smaller government, pro public employee accountability, etc out the air hatch pretty quickly."
The leader of Democrats in the U.S. Senate from 2005-2017 was pro-life.
"One is "not" a strong democracy if people disagree. Really?"
I think you're misreading the point the group is trying to make. I think it is true, at least to a certain extent, that there has been a breakdown in the norms that made our system -- even with its checks and balances -- work pretty effectively. This is in large part -- but not exclusively -- due to our warped campaign finance system. Partisan gerrymandering also plays a significant role here. The incentives of our current system reward blocking the other team more than compromising to solve problems.
Compromising seems to have been like the latches on the conveyor of a roller coaster over the past 100 years. The cost of government has only gone up...
Shouldn't we be seeing more ups and downs if we truly had been compromising?
Now that one of the parties is actually trying to stop the slow steady creep towards Democratic Socialism... Wouldn't it make sense that the fight is intensifying?
And given the evaluation method scores Northern European countries as most Democratic...
Maybe it is actually a Democratic Socialism measure, and we should be happy to be failing?
How the Republicans Broke Congress
It seems to me that we're not a fully functioning democracy.
"Now that one of the parties is actually trying to stop the slow steady creep towards Democratic Socialism"
You clearly are delusional about what both parties stand for.
Sean,
Oh please... A large number of DEMs truly dream of turning the USA into Norway or one of the other Democratic Socialistic countries.
Do you disagree? Just look at how popular Bernie was a year and a half ago.
There are lots of pro life Democrats. The problem isn't with opposing abortion, but rather how to go about it. We are pretty much against building prisons for girls who have abortions. Republicans are for that, but it's not surprising that they choose not to make that explicit. So in a political context, does it really make sense for Democrats to publicly advocate policies not even Republicans will advocate publicly?
--Hiram
This seems related.
And this one
Sure, no one denies that it's tough for pro-life Democrats to get elected -- despite that, there's still more of them in Congress than pro-choice Republicans (and 2 of the 5 of them are retiring!). It's also literally inconceivable that a pro-choice Republican would hold Mitch McConnell's position.
I don't need candidates discussing jail cells, I just want a candidate that notes after 20 weeks the fetus and the father have rights also...
This it is a woman's body so she has all the rights is just silly.
Sean,
Please remember that I am fine with conflicting views within a society, it is this silly measuring technique that is labeling us less democratic just because we protect the voices of minority groups.
And I don't think anyone considers the GOP the "big tent" party... They have some pretty similar views...
"Do you disagree? Just look at how popular Bernie was a year and a half ago."
I don't deny that there's a significant portion of the party that favors more government involvement -- particularly in health care. I don't think, though, that you see broad advocacy for true socialism in the party. No one is talking about nationalizing industries, for instance. Or the sort of extensive workforce meddling that occurs in France. Or the radically different worker arrangements in Scandinavia. (Part of Bernie's popularity was the fact that he was the only real alternative to Clinton.)
" I just want a candidate that notes after 20 weeks the fetus and the father have rights also..."
There are a number of places that are ahead of you. In seven states, for instance, rapists who impregnate their victims can get shared custody.
"This it is a woman's body so she has all the rights is just silly."
Silly women! How dare they think they have agency! We need a bunch of men to tell them what to do!
I don't need candidates discussing jail cells,
What Republicans need is the opposite; candidates who find ways to avoid discussing jail cells. Specifics are the very last thing they want to talk about with regard to abortion.
--Hiram
In practical human terms, the way abortion plays out is a bit of a mystery. It's not as if there weren't ways to address the issue, but nobody ever seems to get to them. For myself, abortion is far from my favorite thing. I am strongly in favor of a variety of strategies to make it easier for women to have children, and to support that choice. Things like affordable or free care. Paid parental leave for both parents. Low cost care for babies and children with health issues. These are just a few ideas, but there are many more and I am open to considering all of them.
So do pro life people oppose these measures? Are they against considering them. Do they have positive ideas they wish people on my side of the debate to consider?
And let's look at other areas where there is in fact agreement. I don't want to put girls who have abortions in jail. I don't want to ruin their lives. And in all fairness, neither do folks on the other side of the debate. So where is the difference really?
--Hiram
Sean,
Please remember that the key Democratic issues are:
- Raising taxes on successful people
- Giving unsuccessful people more services and money
- Getting pardons / benefits for illegal residents
- Strengthening Employee Unions
- Universal healthcare
- Free post HS Educations
And do not forget that often Liberals raise Northern European countries as the ideal we should reach for...
Even if our country is far more complex.
As for the ProChoice / ProLife issue, I think we can agree that both parties are pretty entrenched and BORG like with regard to their party membership.
What Democrats propose is still a long, long ways away from European socialism.
As for the ProChoice / ProLife issue, I think we can agree that both parties are pretty entrenched and BORG like with regard to their party membership
Well, it's never the case that both sides do it. Just as a practical matter, Republicans aren't interested in dealing with the problems of the unsuccessful. It's not the unsuccessful who fund their campaigns. As others have pointed out, when Trump told the story about the cop who adopted the child during his state of the union speech, he pretty much ignored any discussion of what happened to the child's natural mother. As one of life's unsuccessful people her fate just didn't matter.
--Hiram
Sean,
We stand corrected... They like to call them Social Democracies...
And it seems many are confused.
And I disagree... I think many Progressive / Democrats see these as the Holy Grail.
Myth of Scandinavian Socialism
"While it is true that the Scandinavian countries provide things like a generous social safety net and universal healthcare, an extensive welfare state is not the same thing as socialism. What Sanders and his supporters confuse as socialism is actually social democracy, a system in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy. This is what the Scandinavians practice."
Netherlands is Changing
"In most of Europe the social democratic movement is facing exceptionally difficult times. Still, a collapse such as the one witnessed in the Netherlands is rare. Even more so than its sister parties, Dutch Labour was plagued by a political identity crisis."
"it's never the case that both sides do it"
This definitely is the case when you are a member of either side...
That "other side" is always worse...
Just venting...
I am thinking of giving up writing comments at MP !!!! 3 out of 4 seem to go POOF...
Not really, but I think I will go to cross posting them here somewhere or keeping that running Word document going again... It was always amusing when I would keep resubmitting comments with slight wording changes. I never did figure a method to their madness...
Both siderism is an attempt to either assign or avoid blame. It's not something that ever corresponds to any objective reality.
--Hiram
"I think many Progressive / Democrats see these as the Holy Grail."
Use whatever terminology you want, what Democrats are proposing ain't anywhere close to what those countries have. You can come up with all these articles that blather on about it, but what those articles don't do is actually stand the policies up side-by-side for comparison.
Hiram,
I bet you also disagree with the old adage that it takes 2 to argue...
Sean,
No blathering required, I just look at the 2016 DNC Platform Statement, and how excited people were regarding Bernie Sanders.
2016 Democratic Party Platform
Bernie on the Issues
I keep thinking we are Frogs in the Water.
The GOP gave into SS, Medicare, the DEMs demanded more.
The GOP gives into Medicaid and Welfare, the DEMs demand more.
What comes next? :-)
How far Left is far enough?
"No blathering required"
You can't just post the platform, wave your hands, and say "Voila!".
For instance, the Democratic platform called for women to get 12 weeks of paid leave after having a baby.
In comparison, Finland -- the least generous of the Scandinavian countries -- offers women 7 weeks of paid leave before the child is born and 16 weeks afterwards (plus 8 weeks of paternity leave).
In Norway, a woman can take 46 weeks of paid leave at 100% of her salary (or 56 weeks at 80%). In Sweden, a woman can take 13 months at 80% of her salary. In Denmark, a woman can take four weeks before and 14 weeks after. Fathers get two weeks, and then both parents can split 32 weeks.
So the Democratic platform is about one-third as generous as the least generous Scandinavian country. But in Appelen-world, that makes them the same.
I have great faith as soon as the DEMs attain their current platform, they will reset the goal posts and continue complaining about the obstructionist Conservatives... Do have any reason to doubt this given the last 100 years of improvements and demanding more?
And please remember what I initially said... I am not accusing all Liberals of such ambitious progressive goals. But there are a lot of them.
"Compromising seems to have been like the latches on the conveyor of a roller coaster over the past 100 years. The cost of government has only gone up...
Shouldn't we be seeing more ups and downs if we truly had been compromising?
Now that one of the parties is actually trying to stop the slow steady creep towards Democratic Socialism... Wouldn't it make sense that the fight is intensifying?"
"Oh please... A large number of DEMs truly dream of turning the USA into Norway or one of the other Democratic Socialistic countries.
Do you disagree? Just look at how popular Bernie was a year and a half ago."
To deny the DEM party has a bunch of really crazy Progressive in it, is like me saying that the GOP has no "Tea Party" whackos. :-)
"I have great faith as soon as the DEMs attain their current platform, they will reset the goal posts and continue complaining about the obstructionist Conservatives."
You're the one resetting the goal posts here. *You* are the one who said the DNC platform was proof of our Scandinavian desires. Now that your talking point there has evaporated in the face of the truth, you've (once again) made up what you think Democrats believe and told us that we're wrong.
PLEASE STOP DOING THIS.
"Shouldn't we be seeing more ups and downs if we truly had been compromising?"
Here's a secret: Republicans like big government every bit as much as Democrats. They're never going to get rid of Medicare in any meaningful way, because they know when Granny gets a bill for a $25,000 health care premium, it's the death of their party politically.
Of course it is proof of the desires of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party... Why do you deny this?
Progressive folks like Ellison are Leaders in the Party.
I have no doubt that Medicare and Social Security will be around for a LONG TIME. Please remember that the GOP was okay with government programs until they started taking a lot of money from successful people so it could be used to subsidize the poor choices and efforts of unsuccessful citizens.
Now the strain occurs because the Liberals just want to continue that progression.
Increasing government control and intervention was okay to a point. However the Progressives seem pretty insatiable.
"Of course it is proof of the desires of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party... Why do you deny this?"
The Democratic platform supports changing our parental leave policies to be almost as generous as Somalia's (14 weeks at 100%). Why can't you acknowledge that at Democratic platform levels, our parental leave policy would still be one of the stingiest in the world? Democrats aren't proposing anything remotely resembling European-style regulations.
"Now the strain occurs because the Liberals just want to continue that progression."
Let's talk facts here for a moment. As has been discussed before, payments from traditional welfare programs like TANF and SNAP haven't kept up with inflation and enrollment (as a % of those eligible) in many programs has dropped substantially since Clinton-era welfare reforms. (For instance, only about 25% of families below the poverty line got TANF in 2013 compared to 68% in 1996.)
TP: Virtually All Welfare Benefits Are Now Worth Less Than In 1996
I think we will have to agree to disagree regarding DEMs and Social Democracy.
I'll have to read up on it further. Here is the CBPP version.
My initial question is why are the focused on TANF / SNAP?
Are they accounting for:
- Child Tax Credit
- Medicaid
- Earned Income Tax Credit
- ACA subsidies
Saying TANF and SNAP are reducing and ignoring all the credits that have been added is disingenuous... Remember that the goal is to get these folks learning, working and independent... Not to keep them cozy and trapped in generational poverty.
Here is a Heritage article on Work / Welfare.
"I think we will have to agree to disagree regarding DEMs and Social Democracy."
Meaning: I can't accept that my talking point has been blown to smithereens by the facts.
"Saying TANF and SNAP are reducing and ignoring all the credits that have been added is disingenuous."
Republicans support the CTC and EITC. Heck, they just *expanded* the CTC. Some "strain"! Are you going to accuse them of putting us on the train to Stockholm?
If that is how you want to interpret that, please feel free.
So you know my goal is to get total government expenditures down to 1/3 of the US GDP... What is your goal?
The USA is at ~37% during these good times. Here are some points of comparison.
As for welfare... You said "it wasn't keeping up" and provided a source. I think the source is suspect because it did not include the new versions of workfare.
Please remember that I am fine with helping / pushing people improve, learn and become independent. TANF and SNAP are focused more on resolving immediate problems.
As for the child tax credit and school lunch subsidy that pretty much every citizen qualifies for and receives for... I have mixed feelings.
Why are single people and those with no kids helping to pay for my kid??? It is a mystery. The youngest just turned 17, so no more free money soon. :-(
"What is your goal?"
Already answered that one.
"I think the source is suspect because it did not include the new versions of workfare."
OK, fine. I didn't include the welfare that *Republicans* have been focused on growing.
And Mitch McConnell, one of the leaders of your "party that's trying to stop Democratic Socialism", just signed off on a deal that's would raise government spending by $350B over the next two years on top of the deficit-busting tax cut from six weeks ago. They're doing quite the bang-up job, right?
What was that answer again? As much as government needs??? :-)
Seems like a pretty vague goal.
Does that equal? 175B/3,800B or a 4.6% increase?
I assume the DEMs would not let them raise Defense without raising Domestic, even though Defense is very low vs History
You know my view, I would prefer them leave the budgets fixed for a few years...
"Seems like a pretty vague goal."
That's because there's no evidence that % of GDP is a meaningful metric in regards to economic performance.
You know me... I am more interested in it as a measure of personal vs government control...
I sure wish I had that 15.5% of my personal compensation to save, invest, spend, give away, etc instead of it being taken and invested / distributed by the government. (ie payroll taxes)
And I appreciate being able to choose my employer and/or health insurance company. As compared to some state mandated entity.
As for "economic performance", I think America is pretty good proof that a somewhat lower percentage is better. We make so much wealth that we can afford to be "world police and humanitarian" and run massive trade deficits with other countries for decades....
Post a Comment