Tyranny can be thought of as power without responsibility: the tyrant makes decisions that affect their subjects, but the subjects have no recourse against the tyrant if the decisions are bad.
The founding fathers of the US, and subsequent generations of Americans, have been wary of tyranny, and have sought protections against it in the form of a democratic government and a division of power. But what we’ve created has similar problems as tyranny.
I propose that our government represents the polar opposite of tyranny, in that, where tyranny is power without responsibility, our government often assigns responsibility where there was no power. Democratic elections in the US regularly oust politicians because of an economic downturn under their watch, without regard to their causal role in the matter. The most recent election is probably an example of this: the recession which began in 2008 shed jobs and instilled bitterness, and that bitterness carried into the polling booth to rout politicians who were likely uninvolved in the downturn (this is just one narrative of the most recent election, and I do not intend it as necessary to the case I’m making here, but rather as a hypothetical illustration).
The problem with this is that, just as responsibility is divorced from power in tyranny, it is divorced from power in tyranny’s opposite. The strength of a democratic system is that politicians can be punished or rewarded based on their actions; if they are punished or rewarded without regard for their actions, democracy provides no incentive for good government.
In particular, this phenomenon is likely to blame for some of the extremism in US politics. In order not to be lumped in with the majority, a politician needs to come out over-the-top in favor or against some popular issue, thereby maintaining plausible deniability: in the next election, the electorate will think first to their passionate speeches, and not to the general economic downturn.
I see what you’re getting at, and historically this has always been there. It’s certainly been ratcheted up in the last decade. We are now at a point I would call mob governance. The “town hall meetings” disrupted by a handful of so-called grassroots protesters was nothing more than scripted bullying sessions with no discourse, just sloganeering and every effort made to derail discussion. It worked. And now that’s all we see. The extreme right was successful with the tactic, and now the left will begin their own version. In the meantime, governance relies on whoever can attract the largest mob. Wisconsin anyone? The governor there can kiss his political future gone. It makes little difference the content of the conflict, he misjudged the opposition and is busy buying an energized voting constituancy that will remember. Anyone who supports him will suffer the same results.
The “punish the wrong guy” scenario relies on the uninformed, which is always most of the people who vote. Lacking any clear picture of what caused their problems, they lash out at whoever is in charge at the moment. The political operatives take advantage of ignorance and feed the “mob” all the fear and hatred and demonizing possible. Democracy only works as designed with an informed electorate. We have less of that daily. The responsible governance/political opportunism ratio is badly skewed, and I can’t see how it is going to improve any time soon.
I agree that the ignorance of the electorate is partly to blame, but the problem seems endemic to any very complex governmental system. It’s often impossible in a government such as ours to accurately ascribe responsibility for anything. We can look at a congressperson’s voting record, but the effects of those votes are not clear, especially for things like budgeting, which ostensibly plans for decades into the future. In such a system, even if one has all the knowable information, the unknowns are too many to reliably lay responsibility at an individual’s feet.
True, but we can hold policy decisions responsible if we developed reliable means testing. The military is famous for beginning some new weapons system that is outmoded or proven unreliable only to be produced anyway because some congressman needs jobs in his district. Every government entity with a yearly budget has learned to spend every last dime and ask for more for the coming year. Instead of rewarding constraint, we punish those with good management practices. Granted, the complexity keeps us foggy as to what is really happening, but means testing would certainly help the average voter to understand what is working and what isn’t. The CBO does the best it can, but it can’t take into account all the government programs that are allowed to function without responsibility. The vagueness of our ability to make reliable predictions is also the instrument that allows politicians to shirk responsibility. The real tyranny is the lack of reliable information.
There is no such thing as free and fair elections in the USA any more… thanks to conservative ownership of electronic machines along with the Citizens United ruling.
There is plenty of information out there. FOX News produces information 24 hours a day. There’s information about aliens, and the natural superiority of the white man, and there’s also information proving that the Israeli military regularly commits warcrimes. In a way, it is the information that is the tyrant as long as the informationeers are not held responsible for relevant analysis.
There are forms indexing forms indexing catalogs of more forms. If you’re a teacher you spend most of your time filling out forms. The information-gathering paperwork rises to meet the time allotted for work, then overflows into the realm of “free time.”
I think you’re referencing CYA information, the sort of mindless paperwork produced by someone who only has need of authority to create the forms you have to fill out. Your answers are CYA. “Yes, I filled out the form.” It isn’t the sort of information that provides clarity, that provokes the right questions seeking plausible answers. You ask for relevant analysis. The harsh truth is that only the very few want such a thing. Most people and probably 99% of fux news viewers only want to hear what they want to hear. You’re a teacher. Does the administration want to hear what you really think? Do the parents of your students really want to know how their child is performing in class? Fux news would disappear in a New York minute if it’s viewers asked for relevant analysis. So the blind lead the blind - and it’s because both sides WANT it that way.
BTW, Fox presents propaganda, not information. It only appears to be information to those who can’t tell the difference.
Carleas says that government often gives responsibility but not the power, and it simply points out the “convenience” that no one is responsible. The obvious answer is “the cat did it”. This is why we have politics, not policy.
I have said this before, but it is still relevant. What do people want? Not thoughtful rational discussion, most people just want to be left the hell alone.
If people can’t be bothered to listen to political analysis (as you say, and I tend to agree) then how the hell are we going to get them to read the results of “means testing on every government entity with a yearly budget.” These sorts of tests are only effective in a US-style democracy if the public actually cares to read these things and find out who is actually responsible for waste.
I do not believe that the US military is really a waste-free operation. Really?
What, people won’t take the time to digest some political analysis so instead we get them to check out a bunch of form 990-ez-style budget oversight documents?!?!
It’s not just a lack of information, but the impossibility of any individual digesting all of it and bringing it to bear when they cast a vote. Even a highly informed political spectator can’t understand all that their representatives are doing, or accurately appraise their effectiveness relative to possible alternative representatives. People have to use shortcuts when they’re making votes, so they ultimately lump together responsibility for outcomes where the responsibility should be divided, so instead of voting for a person, they vote for a party, or instead of voting for an all-around candidate, they vote for an issue. It seems irresponsible, but the alternative in a representative democracy is absurd.
I think the solution is to deemphasize representatives, and use all the great new communications technologies we have to introduce more direct democracy into government. Representation was efficient in the early US, but alternatives are present now that weren’t when our government was designed.
I’ll agree that there is too much information to be absorbed by practically anyone - up to and including some of our more idiotic representatives. At the same time, I question whether greater communication technologies are the answer. From my perspective, they are part of the problem. Gone are the days where three sources of news was all we had, and they pretty much reported news as opposed to grinding political axes. The cable and internet sources now allow “designer” information (like fux news) so that I don’t have to consider any information except what I want to hear. Can you imagine Beck being allowed on any major network? He survives because of the niche sponsoring by fux, which is a niche organization itself.
What we need is a government funded hands-off (politically) organization that sifts through the details and provides us with a condensed and managable picture of who, what, and how. There are many organizations who provide bits and pieces, but no single-source with credibility is available. It still wouldn’t guarantee that we’d pay attention, but at least there would be a go-to source to get enough information to make reasonably educated votes.
How would this organization be different from National Public Radio? NPR is supported by government subsidy (as well as substantial private donor support) and provides condensed, manageable analysis. It is a single source, and it is widely available. Of course, many would argue that NPR is obviously a left-leaning source of information, but what causes a bias like this structurally speaking. That’s the first question. What sort of organizational purity would foster a hands-off a-political credibility? (Is it possible that information itself has a leftist bias?)
The next question is how to sustain such an organization. NPR is currently under especially vicious attack at the federal and state level. I live in South Carolina, and public broadcasting in radio and television are inevitably getting the funding axe this year. Free market zealots suggest that if programming is worthwhile it should pay for itself in advertising or subscription dollars. Where do you even begin to talk about the worth of an organization’s being totally government funded? It doesn’t fit into such a nihilistic hyper-rational free market schema. Freeing programming from the constraints of market demand is valuable in itself, but it what terms can one make that case now?
Whether or not NPR is exactly the sort of information source you are recommending, don’t these attacks on NPR suggest that as a country we are pushing information sources in the opposite direction from the sort of responsible by-and-for-the-public media outlet that you are recommending?
Sean, the NPR situation is precisely the example I’m thinking of. Currently, the ultra-right defines any and all programs they disagree with as leftist, socialist, all the negative buzz words they can generate. That’s the problem. What we hear of policy isn’t policy, but who has the money to buy the media and the congressional representatives to pass laws protecting special interests. Does the name Koch mean anything to you? How about the national Chamber of Commerce? What is needed is funding backed by a poison pill to keep legislaters hands off of it. It could be something as simple as a 5.00 “donation” by every tax filing. It has to be seen as an organization with public funding. the organization would have to look like an omsbudsman sort of information gathering system if it were to have credibility across the political spectrum. Could such a thing happen in today’s social climate? Not a fucking chance. Maybe in a few years. There is going to be a back-lash coming from centrists as the extreme right agenda items fail. We’re starting to see the edge of it now. They are over-reaching, and the pendulum will start to swing back in due time. There is a limit to how much confusion the centrists will tolerate. The tea partiers will be followed by centrists willing to throw out the extremes on both sides. Shortly, extremism of any stripe will become the next no-no. Sometimes, in the heat of battle, we forget that common sense is still alive and well, and the american people are capable of common sense no matter how much they dabble with extremism.
Tentative, I never thought that I would end up rooting for “the silent majority,” but I think you’re right. I pray that these centrists start standing up for the basics, and soon. Hopefully this attack on Planned Parenthood will wake a few up. I feel like a big part of the values-voter demographic goes on certain way based on crowd swing, rather than actual personal opinion. I’ve always wondered how many hardcore right-to-lifers have had an abortion or love a friend/family member who has. It’s just so inexorably powerful when everyone in your church goes one way. Maybe if you have a message board to post on, you feel more empowered to go a different way. Go Internet!
The abortion issue might even be too polar, too hot. What issue will draw out the centrists? People in Wisconsin are riled up about an attack on unions, but no one with a soapbox seems able to crystallize the pro-union message in a palatable bite (nothing new there). What will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back?
Maybe the new “silent majority” of rational centrists will prove itself to be more than just the straw behemoth we’re used to. Failing that, my money’s on centrist Catholics and outspoken schoolteachers (picture an army of Atticus Finches [or Gregory Pecks]). No one else seems willing and able to speak truth to power.
I used to agree with this, but I now find it to be a contradiction in terms. Everything the government does that costs money will inevitably become a political issue, especially as we become more restricted by the swelling national debt. Further more, there’s little hope for a majority of people embracing truly politically-neutral analysis, because it’s a rare trait to be able to entertain the arguments for the opposing view (and a yet rarer trait to actively seek out ones own rational failures).
I think Sean hits on the solution:
It will be organizations like Facebook, Twitter, and more importantly (and as humbly as I can muster ) sites like ILP. They allow for a rapid and efficient exchange of information, and real in depth discussion of issues. The generative largely internet takes money out of the picture, since anyone with an internet connection can digest and return reams of information, and anyone with a modest surplus of funds can create a small but effective community to directly address other peoples views.
This is even truer of the internet, but I don’t think that’s a huge problem. Yes, most will tailor their information sources to exclude ideas with which they disagree, but at the same time we’re seeing a vast increase in the overall diversity of ideas. Having a few centralized news sources makes society think in lock-step. Having a large selection of sources lets people pick and choose their perspectives, but increases the set of perspectives that are defended. As Dewey called the states “the laboratories of democracy,” the internet is a network of laboratories of world-view. To support these statements anecdotally, I’m certainly guilty of customizing my information sources, but in spite of that I’ve had my mind changed on many occasions by information to which I’ve been subjected involuntarily while browsing.
Carleas that’s a beautiful idea, but I don’t really see how it prevented GW Bush from being a tyrant, only his limited time in office prevented him from further damage.
Bush is a good example of the general thesis. I think he made a lot of bad decisions, but he’s also blamed for a lot that he didn’t have anything to do with. He was blamed for a lot of our economic problems, when 9/11 and laws created by Democrats (which required issuing loans to dodgy borrowers) are at least as likely to blame for much of the US stagnation.
As for the generative internet preventing Bush-like tyrants, much of its development was too late in Bush’s term to really change things. Facebook only became available to the general public in 2006, and Twitter was created the same year. There’s also the problem that the system we have is, again, set up for a less well connected society. First-past-the-post voting is terrible for a diverse society, as Nader’s effect on the 2000 elections showed. It is likely that Gore would have won in a preferential voting system.
Enough with this elephant in the room! I want tusks!
Preferential voting is where you don’t just dangle a chad next to the candidate of your choosing. You choose multiple candidates, and rank them according to your preference. I.E. I choose Ralph Nader, BUT I also choose Al Gore as my second choice. That way marginal candidates can garner votes without the voter fearing that they are splitting the left (or right). Splitting is a product of a two party system which is dependent on single-candidate voting (as opposed to “preferential voting”)
Also, Carleas is more or less tacitly suggesting that this Preferential Voting should eventually be offered on the internet, much like a New York Times Poll. We rank our candidates online. We don’t have to stand in line. We get to support third partiers without compromising the Democrats. Also, internet users (who skew towards informed college graduates) get to make decisions about who runs the government. People who understand how government works choose who runs the government. Also, to return to the former issue, they do so in a way which better represents their real views (i.e. I don’t hate this other leftist candidate, but I do prefer the Green Party candidate).
When I think of “Tyranny’s Opposite” in the USA, I think of a Demarchy (based Lottacracy) system with Meritocracy being voted on by the general, adult citizenship.
The first vote could be to nail down what constitutes an adult (16, 17,18, 19, 20, 21 yrs. old etc.). IMO, the way the system waffles back and forth now is ridiculous. Also it would be nice to have very limited meritocracy beyond being an adult US citizen, who has the ability to communicate, to really involve a variety of people in the decision making processes from the local city/county levels upwards in a committee format similar to a jury with a foreperson who reports to the public.
That’s an interesting idea, MM, thanks for the pointer. I read a while ago about a study showing that the best way to promote people in a company is by lottery.
I’m familiar with the idea of “policy juries” from other forms of direct democracy, but always as a society-wide thing. Some of the benefits of this direct democracy depend on broad participation. But a demarchy that had separate panels for separate policy issues, or maybe policy areas, such that most people will participate one more times during the course of their lives, would maintain much of those benefits, but would tend to quell the overload of everyone speaking on every issue.
A more modest reform that I would like to see is to make all laws machine-readable. This would have several benefits:
-It would force lawmakers to be explicit and dry in the wording of laws, and would force them to nail down the logic of how a law would work, which would make interpretation and application more straightforward.
-It would force laws affecting the same areas of society to be coherent together, by making it much easier to test the consequences of a law on other laws in the area. It would also encourage explicit recognition of common terms across multiple pieces of legislation. Redundancy would also be less likely, because again it would be clear when multiple laws effect the same outcome.
-Perhaps above all, it would make it easier to open-source the law, and make it more accessible. Services could easily be devised to answer the question “is this legal”.
Of course, some of the law is difficult to express rigorously, but I think in general we should strive to avoid that kind of law anyway. Much of the law is more cut and dry: $x is the min/max for this service or that contribution; y% is the most/least allowable exposure or required insurance. Tax law, for example, should be almost entirely automated.
) sites like ILP. They allow for a rapid and efficient exchange of information, and real in depth discussion of issues. The generative largely internet takes money out of the picture, since anyone with an internet connection can digest and return reams of information, and anyone with a modest surplus of funds can create a small but effective community to directly address other peoples views.