A fatal disease? I hope I am just a hypochondriac
from 
PolMach Forums
PolMach Forums
I have made my decision whom I will vote for in the upcoming presidential election. However, my concern goes far beyond who wins. Over the course of my lifetime, I have become concerned at the direction of our political system, which has always been democratic in spirit, if not technically a democracy.
I suppose that there is disagreement over the most important causes of America's greatness, but I have always felt that our political system was at the top of the list. So, as one who loves his country, I feel concern that an erosion of democracy is likely to undermine America's might over the long run. My grandchildren, I fear, cannot count on the same blessings that my parents and I enjoyed.
Therefore, a big part of me is pleased to see the level of involvement in the upcoming election. I can be annoyed at the material put forth by those on the other side, but I always remind myself that it is apathy, not the Bushies, who are the truly dangerous enemy. Apathy has not been so thoroughly trounced since the days of the Vietnam War.
However, there is a major problem, and I see it as a contrast to the days of the Vietnam War. For all the emotion, for all the noise, the two sides do not present clear positions on much of anything.
To see what I mean, try this. Imagine yourself talking to an intelligent junior high school student. Without giving any hint as to which side you are on, explain what the two candidates believe, and on what basis they justify those beliefs. (No partial credit for explaining only your guy's side and claiming the other guy is too terrible to credit with an explanation
)
It's tough to do! Both sides present slogans, sound bites, and images, and both sides (or their surrogates) present plenty of humor at the expense of their opponents, but the concept of argumentation about issues has become almost quaint. Truly, a vast portion of people have come to "root" for a candidate in a not-so-different way than they root for a sports team. It is all entertaining in an emotional way, but it has little to do with taking part in governance.
That is the first reason that I am alarmed. If the man who wins has not run on a set of propositions that he has argued for, then we have nothing particular to hold him to. In effect, we have elected a four year king, not the head of a participatory democracy. Given my view that it was our form of government which got our country where it is today, this sounds an awful lot like we are poisoning the goose that lays golden eggs.
It gets worse, though. When the electorate does not perceive the contest as one between competing ideas, then there is no sense that the losing faction has lost to a legitimate force. I may not agree with the other guy, but I would have to respect the population's right to choose, if the vast majority of the population had been aware of the ideas they were choosing. There is great force in the concept of: "We have argued the issues, and the majority went the other way."
However, in the upcoming election, I don't believe that the losing side will feel anything like this. Either side would feel that the opponent might have used advertising more cunningly, that the other guy's campaigning tactics were better chosen -- but that is not at all the same thing as believing the the public has chosen its course. It would be more accurate to say that the other guy was simply trickier.
In fact, this atmosphere opens the door wide to dirty tricks of all sorts. Dirty tricks are only an extension of the kinds of campaign tactics currently in use -- and since I am furious that some of the other guy's tricks are working, I feel justified in absolutely anything my side comes up with to counter that injustice. And since I figure the evil doers on the other side may do most anything as Election Day approaches, I would support almost anything my side cooks up.
A quick bit of Roman history. The Roman republic fell apart when their elections deteriorated from demagoguery, to corruption, to endless litigation, to war and chaos -- and the end of the republic, at a point in time when Rome's external power was unmatched.
As I say, I am concerned. Test yourself: Would you accept most any tactic on the part of your man? Has it become a matter of "Win at all costs?" If your man won, but you had a pretty good idea that he had done something illegal to accomplish that, would you support him anyway?
I suppose that there is disagreement over the most important causes of America's greatness, but I have always felt that our political system was at the top of the list. So, as one who loves his country, I feel concern that an erosion of democracy is likely to undermine America's might over the long run. My grandchildren, I fear, cannot count on the same blessings that my parents and I enjoyed.
Therefore, a big part of me is pleased to see the level of involvement in the upcoming election. I can be annoyed at the material put forth by those on the other side, but I always remind myself that it is apathy, not the Bushies, who are the truly dangerous enemy. Apathy has not been so thoroughly trounced since the days of the Vietnam War.
However, there is a major problem, and I see it as a contrast to the days of the Vietnam War. For all the emotion, for all the noise, the two sides do not present clear positions on much of anything.
To see what I mean, try this. Imagine yourself talking to an intelligent junior high school student. Without giving any hint as to which side you are on, explain what the two candidates believe, and on what basis they justify those beliefs. (No partial credit for explaining only your guy's side and claiming the other guy is too terrible to credit with an explanation
)It's tough to do! Both sides present slogans, sound bites, and images, and both sides (or their surrogates) present plenty of humor at the expense of their opponents, but the concept of argumentation about issues has become almost quaint. Truly, a vast portion of people have come to "root" for a candidate in a not-so-different way than they root for a sports team. It is all entertaining in an emotional way, but it has little to do with taking part in governance.
That is the first reason that I am alarmed. If the man who wins has not run on a set of propositions that he has argued for, then we have nothing particular to hold him to. In effect, we have elected a four year king, not the head of a participatory democracy. Given my view that it was our form of government which got our country where it is today, this sounds an awful lot like we are poisoning the goose that lays golden eggs.
It gets worse, though. When the electorate does not perceive the contest as one between competing ideas, then there is no sense that the losing faction has lost to a legitimate force. I may not agree with the other guy, but I would have to respect the population's right to choose, if the vast majority of the population had been aware of the ideas they were choosing. There is great force in the concept of: "We have argued the issues, and the majority went the other way."
However, in the upcoming election, I don't believe that the losing side will feel anything like this. Either side would feel that the opponent might have used advertising more cunningly, that the other guy's campaigning tactics were better chosen -- but that is not at all the same thing as believing the the public has chosen its course. It would be more accurate to say that the other guy was simply trickier.
In fact, this atmosphere opens the door wide to dirty tricks of all sorts. Dirty tricks are only an extension of the kinds of campaign tactics currently in use -- and since I am furious that some of the other guy's tricks are working, I feel justified in absolutely anything my side comes up with to counter that injustice. And since I figure the evil doers on the other side may do most anything as Election Day approaches, I would support almost anything my side cooks up.
A quick bit of Roman history. The Roman republic fell apart when their elections deteriorated from demagoguery, to corruption, to endless litigation, to war and chaos -- and the end of the republic, at a point in time when Rome's external power was unmatched.
As I say, I am concerned. Test yourself: Would you accept most any tactic on the part of your man? Has it become a matter of "Win at all costs?" If your man won, but you had a pretty good idea that he had done something illegal to accomplish that, would you support him anyway?
JoeUser Forums