About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Friday, January 22, 2010

The rotting of American democracy

Let me get straight to the point: here is some of what is seriously wrong with American democracy and how to fix it. Of course, the point is entirely rhetorical, since I have no expectations at all that the corrupt political body in Washington or the nearly illiterate (in terms of democratic values) American public will actually act on it. Nonetheless:
1. Corporations (and Unions) are not people, they do not have fundamental rights like free speech (they have legal rights as legal entities, of course), and money does not equate with speech. Contrary to what the current Republican majority on the Supreme Court has recently, not at all surprisingly and highly disingenuously, decided.
Fix: Congress should pass a constitutional amendment that declares that rights are applicable only to individual persons, not legal entities.
2. Lobbying is a form of institutionalized bribery, a point related to the one above. In other democracies this is a crime, which is not to say that politicians aren’t corruptible, but it does mean that if caught they go to jail. Americans, who love to describe their system as “the best democracy in the world” apparently have no clue that all they have is the best democracy that money can buy. And they aren’t getting much for their money either.
Fix: all forms of lobbying should be outlawed. Individual citizens have the right to petition government, but corporations and other entities don’t have the right to pay professionals to cajole and bribe members of Congress.
3. The Senate’s filibuster is an idiotic and undemocratic tool. It is not in the Constitution, its current incarnation was implemented as recently as 1975 as a revision to Senate Rule 22, which itself is most certainly not in the Constitution and quite clearly contrary to its spirit. It makes it almost impossible for a party to govern even if it is elected with an overwhelming majority of votes.
Fix: the Senate can simply change its own governing rules and be done with it.
4. Speaking of the Senate, it is completely absurd that every State still gets to elect two senators, regardless of the population of that state. This may have made some sense back in 1787, when delegates at the Constitutional Convention were faced with a possible breakdown of negotiations if the individual colonies were not allowed a sufficient degree of independence (they called it “the Great Compromise,” it should have been called the Great Sham). But we don’t have “colonies” any more, and it is an insult to democracy that the smallest State (Wyoming, 544,270 inhabitants) has as much power in the most powerful chamber of Congress as the largest one (California, 36,961,664 inhabitants). Change that and we won’t have a “red/blue states” problem anymore.
Fix: we need a constitutional amendment to finally get rid of the “Great Compromise.”
5. Two parties is democracy on life support. A system that essentially — because of its structure — allows only two parties to vie for political control represents the bare minimum for a democracy, considering that it is just one step away from totalitarianism. I don’t buy the common idea that “there is no difference” between the parties. It should by now be painfully clear that the eight years before Obama would have been very different had the Dems been in charge. Regardless, two players is just not enough, and it breeds complacency and corruption.
Fix: this one is a tough cookie, because it would require widespread structural changes to the system, changes that of course would have to be designed and enacted by the two parties currently in charge. The disincentives are obvious. Still, getting rid of the “winner takes all” system during both primaries and general elections, as well as stopping the corrupt gerrymandering of electoral districts (just make ‘em coincide with counties, for crying out loud!) would go a long way toward accomplishing the goal. The best approach would probably be a grassroots effort that establishes alternative parties at the local level first, followed years later by attempts at a national election (the major mistake of third-party presidential candidates is typically precisely the fact that they jump straight onto the national stage without sufficient local support).
There is more, oh so much more, beginning of course with seriously curbing self-financing of political campaigns (this is becoming a game for billionaires, with an obscene amount of money being spent during every electoral cycle), for which goal public financing is really the only way to go. We should also have automatic and permanent voter registration whenever someone reaches voting age, as it is done in other civilized countries (when Republicans invoke the danger of voter fraud they are being nakedly dishonest). And elections should take place over two days and on weekends, to maximize participation. Still, if we could get through the five points above, the US would truly be a remarkable democracy, though still not “the best.” Instead, it is rotting away, and the stench is becoming unbearable.

80 comments:

  1. hear, hear!
    I'm liking your stuff more and more, Maximo. You're not just a skeptical and rational blogger - you have the guts to tell it like it is, and I like that. Plus i'm European, I find that a country without a basic universal health care system does not *fully* constitute a democracy.

    Great work, always looking forward to see new entries on my rss reader :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I hope your not confusing "rights" with legal rights or, worse yet, the law with justice or moraliy. To me, that just creates confusion.

    Legal rights have been accorded corporations (and now limited liability entities) as well as individuals for centuries, and I think for good reason; that's not likely to change, and I think it's silly to think it will. Most significantly, the right to contract, and property rights, of course. Perhaps it would be reasonable to consider a limitation of certain legal rights with respect to these entities, specifically First Amendment rights in this case. But, that creates problems as well. Citizens groups, religious groups, secular groups regularly incorporate, for perfectly sound reasons. Are they to be silenced as well, or just the for-profit entities?

    You may be coming to a conclusion a bit too hastily.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ciceronianus,

    I assure there is no confusion on my part between legal and moral rights (as for law vs justice, my naive take is that obviously the first should reflect the latter, and when it doesn't one talks of unjust laws).

    Free speech is a right that pertains to individuals, not legal entities. Citizen and religious groups have rights to free speech insofar there are individuals who are responsible for such free speech. Besides, nobody's talking about "silencing" anyone, including corporations. I'm referring to the obscene practice, now sanctioned by the Supreme Court, of buying elections by pouring millions of dollars into political campaigns.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also being a European, I will remain mostly silent on the US-specific stuff, as it is not my place to tell Americans how to organize their state. So for that angle, let me just say that it has at least one smidgen of advantage that my country managed to completely disintegrate itself in two world wars in that after each time we could start with a fresh constitution, not one that was written when the right to carry arms meant a front-loader musket and not an AK-47, and when women and dark skinned people in general were officially regarded as inferior. Would have been nicer if my ancestors managed to get a modern constitution without attacking the rest of world, though.

    What I find more interesting from my outsider perspective is then that which is the same everywhere in capitalist democracies, namely bribery and lobbying. And this is really an issue that is so difficult to tackle that I at times wonder whether a democracy is really compatible with private ownership of the means of production.

    The problem is, how do you effectively outlaw bribery? And I see two subproblems here:

    1. As long as there are interest groups with a lot of money to throw around, they will bribe, the question is only how. Sure, in Germany official bribery is forbidden, and you will get into a lot of bad publicity if you accept a huge check from a hotel chain directly after lowering VAT specifically for hotels, as was just done by our Free Democratic Party. But if you, say, privatize a certain media sector and then, years later and after you left office just happen to be hired as a consultant by the biggest media conglomerate, being paid hundreds of thousands of Euros for six consultation talks per year, how can anybody really point a finger at you and say, this is a bribe? This was chancellor Kohl, by the way, but Schröder did something similar with a Russian Gas company. Think Cheney and Halliburton. All German members of parliament know that if they lobby for a segment of business now, they can expect to get a cushy, well-paid consultant contract or board of directors job at the moment they leave office, and how can you write a law that forbids them in principle to take up a job in the area they are most qualified in? Undoable, I'd say.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (continued)

    2. Democracies are not meant and constructed to be a system in which we rationally discuss the one best policy, not least because as you will know yourself such an objectively perfect policy does not exist. What does exist are different interests, and democratic governments are meant to be the arena in which these interest groups can be represented, struggle peacefully, and hopefully find some generally acceptable solution for their conflicts. So if you forbid Monsanto or Goldman Sachs to lobby by giving campaign money to conservatives, then you must also forbid an initiative to save the whales to support the campaign of a green, or an initiative for higher minimum wages to support the campaign of a red. In principle, you would have to forbid party membership fees, because what is a socialist worker's membership fee if not a form of bribery for the socialist party to represent his interests in politics?

    So from my point of view, bribery is unavoidable. Having more money necessarily leads to having a louder voice in government; if all else fails, you can blackmail politicians by threatening to move production oversees, or you just buy your own TV station to influence opinion, an option that is certainly not available to a poor person, although their vote should theoretically have the same weight. I see only one solution if you want to have a democracy that is living up to its name: not having private ownership of companies, not having obscenely rich people. Of course, that solution is very much not on the table for the foreseeable future, so we will have to live with corruption derailing all efforts to build a sustainable economy, at least until things are so messed up that people dare to contemplate more radical changes again. If governments keep solving bubble bursts by starting the next, even larger bubble instead of reforming the global casino, such a monumental mess-up could happen sooner than any of us would like.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You should also get rid of the whole Electoral College fraud. What the hell is that about?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Excelent comment, Mintman. What Massimo sees in the US and you see in Europe, I see in Latin America also. If you have money you have rights; if you don't, you obbey. I agree with your solution too: economical educational and decision making equality work together or don't work well I think, but I also find it very hard to imagine how to get there from the current scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ugh! When I heard about that supreme court decision I screamed out loud. We've had our disagreements but you're spot on here, Massimo.

    I'll add that while ciceronianus is right that "Legal rights have been accorded corporations (and now limited liability entities) as well as individuals for centuries," there's nothing in the constitution that suggests this is necessary, nor is there any reason Congress should be bound by precedent! That's a ridiculous argument.

    I'll offer a counterargument: can corporations vote? No -- and no one in their right mind would argue that we should let them. So why do we allow them to donate enormous sums of money to candidates?

    More importantly, though, giving money is not speech! You might convince me that corporations should be able to take out television ads, but giving money to candidates directly just isn't speech by any reasonable definition.

    If giving money is speech, then why can't I "speak with my money" to drug dealers and sex workers? It's free speech!

    I'm being a bit polemical here, but this issue makes me very angry.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If only, if only...

    Thanks, Massimo

    ReplyDelete
  10. If the corporation gains more stature, then the form of government will become irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If we suppose that the conservative ideology is a thinly veiled ploy to convince the middle class it's in their best interests to let the billionaires do whatever they want, the fact that the republican majority on the Supreme Court decided the way they did is no surprise. I just wonder how the judges gel their decision with their proclaimed goal of being on the side of the little guys--they just handed the big guys a cudgel and effectively said, "Go to work."

    ReplyDelete
  12. re: Mintman

    Why do you feel that the monetary influence of representatives is unavoidable? It exists because it's legal, and far more effective than reasoned argument, which would take it's place if campaign contributions/bribery were illegal. Free speech should be just that - speech. The more individuals represented by an interest (union, industry group, etc.), the louder the voice of that group in the discussion. Is that so crazy? For what aspect of their duties as political representatives of their constituents do congressfolks need more than the salary they are paid (campaigning is not in the job description)?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Increasing the overall number of voters would probably decrease average voter intelligence and informed-ness, no?

    ReplyDelete
  14. my favorite post so far - nice to see some vitriol!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Congress should pass a constitutional amendment that declares that rights are applicable only to individual persons, not legal entities"

    So only individuals with printing presses would have free speech rights, but legal entities such as newspaper and book publishers would not?

    Regarding 4, see Article V of the Constitution: "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Carter,

    newspapers are published by people, and their articles are written by people, last time I checked. Those would retain free speech right, yes?

    About the Constitution and States/Senate: yeah, that's why it would take a Constitutional amendment. Two Senators per State is an obscenity and a travesty against democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That's the logic of the Supreme Court ruling, which you object to. Individuals have free speech rights, so a entity made up of group of individuals acting together has free speech rights. Have you bothered to read the decision?

    The Constiutution can't be amended to alter a state's suffrage in the Sentate without that state's consent. Realistically, no state would agree to such a thing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Lot's here, but let me comment on just a couple of items:

    3. Be careful what you wish for. Don't forget that until 2006 the GOP had full control, just like the dems do now. The value of the filibuster is in stopping a slim majority from raming through major legislation. Historically it hasn't stopping the congress from passing landmark legislation, like civil rights and medicare. I urge you to read Robert Caro's "Master of the Senate". It will give you a new perspective on this seeming problem. The fact that there is so much partisanship right now is, in my opinion, temporary. This too will pass and the congress will become functional again. To bad Obama, who was voted into power partly to change that, hasn't been able to. Which is not only the GOP's fault.

    5. The gerrymandering problem is real. It is in big part though a creature of the liberal courts attempt at increasing minority representation in elected office. Going by county is a good idea, but then you get into the issue of your point 4.

    All in all, this is still, in my opinion, a great country. Despite your blog post and Glen Beck's histrionics, this country is incredibly resilient, and will survive and thrive. For a country this size, and as diverse as it is, I think we're doing ok.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Brian:

    I tried to argue that it is unavoidable because the bribery will then simply be conducted in a less direct, less open way. Of course it is nice in a way to have less blatant corruption of the political class, but the fundamental problem will not be solved. The fundamental problem is really the huge imbalance between the rich and the poor, and reforming campaign finance will only change the way the rich have to channel their money to achieve the same degree of influence as before.

    And to forestall inevitable comments from right-wing libertarians, by the way, I am aware that there are those who do not see a problem at all. I mean problem in the sense of "damaging the principle of ἰσονομία, which is supposed to underlie our democracies".

    ReplyDelete
  20. In response to the polemical, and apparently somewhat excitable, Scott:

    In his initial post, Massimo stated that a constitutional amendment should be adopted restricting rights to individuals. A fairly broad statement, not restricted to the right of free speech, or the right to vote, for that matter. To adopt such a measure as to all rights recognized in the law would be very silly. To do so regarding free speech rights may be reasonable.

    I tried, but apparently failed, to post a response to his response to my earlier post inquiring whether he objected to all corporations (including not-for-profit citizen/religious groups which have incorporated) being granted free speech rights, or just some corporations. If the latter, some rather obvious legal problems result.

    Respectfully, this may be a more complex issue than some think. The law is a rather complicated beast, particular the law applicable to the Constitution generally, and the first amendment in particular. Asserting elections should not be bought (with which there will be no disagreement)isn't very useful in considering the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Carter,

    no, it isn't the same logic at all. Individual journalists should have a right to free speech, not their papers. Corporations are legal entities, not individuals, so free speech shouldn't apply. People working for a corporation have that right, of course, as individuals.

    Benny,

    regardless, the filibuster is a profoundly undemocratic feature of a profoundly undemocratic institution. As for this being a great country, it's doing ok despite some serious shortcomings, like the one I pointed out. It has also done great damage to both the world and many of its own citizens, and a bit of humility on the part of Americans would be oh so refreshing once in a while.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Massiomo, newspaper and other media are coroporations. Naturally, they are made up of individuals. All corporations are in the sense they act through individual (corporations may own stock in other corporations, of course). You seem to maintain some corporations may exercise free speech rights, but some should not. Do I understand you correctly?

    ReplyDelete
  23. ciceronianus,

    obviously I did not express myself too clearly, but someone made the point for me earlier in this discussion: would you grant voting rights to corporations? I assume not, which means that the sort of rights corporations have are obviously different from those of individuals, correct?

    Free speech for me is close to a voting kind of right, not to the sort of legal rights that corporations have to have in order to function in our economy. (By the way, rights come with responsibilities, which corporations engaging in money=free speech bribery do not seem to have.)

    ReplyDelete
  24. So according to you, if the government restricted what book publishers and newspapers printed, it would not be an abridgement of speech as long as writers could still print and distribute books or pamphlets all by themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Carter, are you being dense on purpose or just for the sake of argument?

    Would you give book publishers the right to vote? Didn't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Instead of insults, how about clarifying your position?

    I wouldn't "give book publishers the right to vote", not that it's relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Carter, sorry, it has been a long day. Still, voting is not irrelevant at all. It is the same kind of right that I wouldn't give to corporations. Would you? I believe that analogy clarifies my position as much as I am able to clarify it: some rights simply should not apply to corporations. Beyond that we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I agree with your first 3 points. Points 4 and 5 are, well, woefully ignorant.

    Point #4 is absurdly myopic. The author clearly forgot about the other half of Congress. The House of Representatives *is* made up of a number of delegates based on population.

    The *whole point* of having the contrast between House and Senate is that *both* sides must ratify the *exact same text* before it is law.

    Making the Senate's composition population-based, just makes it yet another House of Representatives, which is stupid, redundant, and pointless.

    Point #5 lacks awareness of both history and the overwhelming amount of research in the mathematics of elections.

    The subject has been covered by far smarter minds, who have both some great analysis and some interesting proposed solutions. The author fails to talk about any of it, and instead makes some vague hand-waving motions at "The Problem of Two Parties" without having anything intelligent at all to say about it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. wakko,

    it's always dangerous to accuse others of ignorance when one clearly displays his own.

    Yes, I'm aware that the House is elected proportionally to population size, thank you very much. Apparently, though, you don't seem to know that in every other civilized country in the world the second chamber is also elected in the same proportion, and somehow this is not "redundant," usually because to become a Senator one has to be holder (the presumption is that older means wiser, as debatable as that is). Perhaps you know that the same holds for the Presidency, for which there is also a minimum age.

    As for the problem of two parties, I will stand by my point, which is based on readings as well as direct experience of both systems, until you actually provide an argument for why a two-party system would be best.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Massimo -

    I didn't say two parties was the best system. I said the author fails to recognize many other factors, including these:

    1. Two parties is not a formal requirement. It's simply the mathematically optimal configuration of any party-based system. More parties means that it's not "democracy", but is more "random-ocracy" where the decision behind which party is in power is, effectively, random.

    2. Historically, the U.S. started with a No Party system. Parties formed out of the inability to get enough publicity and votes for individuals. Parties provided a way of getting the message out prior to the development of more advanced communications methods.

    3. There are almost always candidates from the Green, Libertarian, Communist, and other parties on the ballot for most major elections. They simply don't garner many votes because *most people don't vote third party*. The only person to blame here is the voters.

    Lastly, there is plenty of documentation on why the Senate is configured the way it is. Most of the members of the Constitutional Conventions were prolific writers, and discussed their thought process at length.

    Most other governments don't have quite as strong a separation of powers as the U.S. For example, Britain's Parliament retains some executive, legislative, and even some judicial functions between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Hell, they can even vote the Prime Minister out of office, which is something our own Congress can't do.

    So, simply saying that the Senate would somehow be "fixed" by simply adding more members is disingenuous. You're making "grass is greener" claims without even taking the time to make apples-to-apples comparisons.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Free speech applies to corporations because curtailing the speech of corporations has the effect of abridging the speech of individuals. The fact that corporations don't vote has nothing to do with individuals ability to vote, which makes voting is an irrelevant analogy (besides, free speech is a fundemental right, voting is not).

    "I believe that analogy clarifies my position as much as I am able to clarify it"

    Amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  32. These issues go back to the gilded age, when the Court ruled that corporations are persons who have rights:
    http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

    Reversing this with a Constitutional Amendment is a vain hope; a better (but still faint) hope is that a different Court will reverse it in maybe 15-20 years.

    ReplyDelete
  33. wakko,

    one more time, assuming other's ignorance is dangerous. Yes, I am aware of all points you bring up, but the very concept of a "mathematically optimal configuration" of parties is sheer nonsense. Optimal for what? For whom? We are not talking about a mathematical game, we are talking about things concerning which we can make reasonable decisions.

    As for Britain's system, I will defend the position that it, together with several other European nations' systems, works a hell of a lot better (in the sense of being more democratic) than the American one. Being able to vote a Prime Minister (or a President, in the US case) out seems to be an *excellent* option.

    ReplyDelete
  34. While I won't comment on your constitutional amendment proposals to fix some very peculiar but historically important quirks in our democracy I do want to comment on the recent Supreme Court opinion dealing with corporate and organization funded speech. The issue has split First Amendment advocates and detrators but not only along party lines. In fact, while the Supreme Court may have seeming aligned itself in the all too familiar liberal-conservative way it was Justice Kennedy who broke the tie, a Justice with a strong commitment to civil liberties and First Amendment jurisprudence.

    I am concerned that corporations will further influence elections but it is clear under the now unconstitutional law they have done well. At what price do we pay when we hold that First Amendment protections don't apply to groups? How about labor unions and other interest groups who have been severely limited in getting their message out at election time?

    I think Congress will intervene to require additional disclosure of entities that take advantage of this new ruling. But I think I would be more afraid if the Supreme Court started to go down the path "exceptions" to Free Speech in this manner.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @Massimo -

    I need not assume anything, you continue to provide sufficient proof that what I say is true.

    The fact that you're not aware of the concepts underlying election behavior or the mathematics underlying election "fairness" only serves to reinforce my position.

    Look up Kenneth Arrow, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1950, and start there. After you're done educating yourself, you'll find that the problem isn't two parties. Instead, it's the inherent flaws with plurality voting that *cause* two parties to be the only configuration of plurality voting that gives any semblance of choosing a candidate that a majority of the people actually want. It still sucks, but it sucks less than having three or more "major" parties.

    The fact that you're not comparing the problems with European governments (including their own numerous civil rights abuses) with ours only further illustrates your ignorance of the many ways in which they are just as bad as we are.

    If you focus only on the good of one side and the bad of another, you end up with a horribly skewed perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Sorry to interject where I wasn't involved, but:

    C. Van Carter wrote: "I wouldn't "give book publishers the right to vote", not that it's relevant."

    You know its relevant. Come on man, the point you were just trying to argue was that an entity made up of a group of people should be granted free speech rights... yet you disagree on voting - how do you not see the contradiction in how this relates to individuality (ie a human being).

    I suppose you may agree with the notion that an entity of a group of people could cry as well? Or perhaps feel pain, when that entity is 'in the red'.

    Sorry, but you're either being naive on purpose or as blunt as Massimo was eluding to in spite of his day.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Two parties is the most mathematically stable outcome of our particular voting process (51% takes all), based on certain game theoretic models at least. I believe those models also suggest that both parties should be as centrist as possible, which probably means it's in one's best personal (political) interest to promote as much extremism on his side as possible, in an attempt to shift the center.

    Usually that's used as an argument that we need voting reform that encourages more diversity, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Great post, Massimo. Hope it gets wider distribution. A revolution, even a minor one, is in order, and these suggestions are a great start. However, an area that you didn't address that would go a long way to "fix" some of the problems would be term limits, for the obvious reasons. As to the Supreme Court's biased & dumb-ass decision (For Republicans, do the words "political activism" ring a bell?), anyone with even a basic understanding of the concepts behind the great American revolution knows that one of the main goals of the new government was to protect the rights of the individual, not money-grubbing, corrupt corporations. It was the individual who suddenly mattered; that's why it was a "revolution." The Court's recent decision is something out of Alice in Wonderland. Let's face it, we currently have a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, which stifles the individual and which is anti-democratic. Since most of us do not belong to this class, we are not being served by a "representative" government. Until our "representatives" have to live under, abide by, and be affected by the same rules, regulations, conditions, and policies (think health care) that the majority of Americans have to follow, a true democracy cannot exist.

    ReplyDelete
  39. ciceronianus,

    Yes -- I'm very excitable when it comes to this issue. But I've calmed myself and will make a few observations. I wasn't being very careful about distinguishing, in my post, between lobbying and "independent" speech -- e.g. taking out a television ad. As I understand it, the supreme court ruling addresses the latter but not the former. I think the former should be illegal, and that's what the bulk of my post was about.

    The latter is the one that pertains more directly to free speech rights, and I certainly do agree with you here: it's a very complex topic, and as I said in my first post, you might be able to convince me that corporations do have this latter right. But the fact is, corporations are not people, so I'm dubious of any argument granting them rights that aren't reducible to the rights of the individuals who compose them.

    ReplyDelete
  40. A comment on the "third party" question...

    Granted, in parliamentary systems outside the US, political power tends to be dominated by two major parties (e.g. SPD and CDU in Germany). But minor-party members do still win a signicant number of seats; e.g. in the current Bundestag, nearly 50%.

    A big reason for this particular disparity in representative outcome comes from their respective voting systems. For example, whereas all national legislators in the US are elected by simple plurality (or "winner-takes-all", WTA), under which victory goes to the candidate with the most votes (even if less than a majority), only half of German legislators are elected that way. The other half are elected via party-list proportional representation (PR), under which German voters cast a second vote for a party list and seats are then allocated to each party in proportion to the number of votes they receive. (Australia, by the way, uses a "single transferable vote" version of PR, instead of the "party list" version, in its House Assembly elections. That version would probably appeal more to the individualist tastes in North America.)

    The voting systems used in the UK and Canada are more like that of the US (i.e. WTA), and their legislatures are more "two-party" in nature as a result (see Duverger's law). However, for whatever reasons (e.g. scale, demographics, culture), one still finds more minor-party representation in those countries than one finds in the US (e.g. 9.6% of seats for Liberal Democrats in UK House of Commons and 15.9% of seats for Bloc Québécois in Canadian House of Commons, vs. 0% for any "third party" in either chamber of the US legislature and 0.02% independents in US Senate) -- not nearly as much as one usually finds under PR, but still significantly more.

    In other words, the "two-party" (read: "red/blue") mentality - at least at the national level - seems to be more widespread here in the US than it is even in countries with similar voting systems -- which, I suppose, begs the question: why haven't those other countries adopted PR (or, for that matter, preferential voting)? Perhaps they will eventually, and the US will then (as usual) serve as a kind of maverick or "rogue state" relative to other developed countries.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Correction: That's 2% independents in the US Senate [i.e. 2/100: Joe Lieberman (CT) & Bernie Sanders(VT)].

    ReplyDelete
  42. Perhaps the greater incidence of third parties in the UK and Canada is related to the fact that the government falls when there is a major defeat in parliament, whereas in the US the President and cabinet can still function for a time, at least until they need money from congress. For this reason, party discipline is much stronger in the parliamentary system than in the US congressional system. Typically in Canada and UK if you don't want to vote with your party you are out of the party. Contrast this with the wooing of votes from both parties when a major issue is at stake in the US (as with the health care reform). In the UK and Canada, if you have fundamental differences with your party you have to join or form another party (or sit as an independent), while within the US parties you can have major voting blocks such as Southern Democrats, etc. Canada has had three or four parties (not always the same ones) since the 1920's. If there is wooing to be done, it is done in a minority government situation, and at the party level, not so much at the individual level as in the US (e.g. the courting of Olympia Snow)

    ReplyDelete
  43. One of the most dominant complaints against democracies is when they take any action to defend their own borders. What the rest of the (less) free world shows is its actual stance and disbelief against the notion of freewill.

    (A forum for assaulting Israel and America //www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147967927&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull )

    To examine the self-centered, self absorbedness and hypocritical nature of Americas most vocal critics, Hugo Chavez continues to make political moves to be THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN EVER BE ELECTED IN Venezuela and yet he has the nerve to make the accusation that the US employed an Electromagnet Wave to cause an earthquake so that the US can occupy Haiti and news sources actually publish the nonsense!?
    The place was catastrophe BEFORE THE QUAKE and Chavez knows it. Further I don't think has any natural resources to speak of...if that were the aim of course.

    Easy to imagine that someone else has no compassion and could not be motivated by such when CHAVEZ and other critics have never even conceived of the idea themselves.

    It just reveals what his heart is really like. He assumes that everyone else is all out for themselves because he is. Easy to read that one.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Massimo, I don't suppose you would put 'this' up on youtube would you?

    ReplyDelete
  45. oneblood,

    well, this essay isn't really philosophy in the strict sense, so no, it wouldn't fit my 5-minute Philosopher series, if that's what you mean.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Caliana:

    What the fornication does that have to do with the topic of the post?

    Listen carefully: Just because other countries have their issues does not mean that you are not allowed to criticize your own. In fact, as a citizen of a democracy, it is your right as well as your moral duty to be a critic of your own government, as you are the sovereign. I would go even further and say that it is your duty to place your own country under much stronger scrutiny than others - not because it is worse, but because it is yours, and the others aren't, and therefore not your business. That is why as a non-American I refrained, as mentioned above, from giving Americans unwanted advice on how to deal with filibusters or senate seats - it is not my job to do so. Likewise, it is not yours to tell the Venezuelans that Chavez is a nutjob. I guess many of them know that already, but then, many Americans thought the same about Bush, and that did not change anything either until it was too late to vote him out of office...

    ReplyDelete
  47. It is really hard for me to make up my mind about this Supreme court decision because of arguments like this one from from Irregular Times writer Jclifford:
    "Freedom of speech means very little if it doesn’t apply to people who join together in organizations with a common interest – whether those organizations are motivated by financial profit or by higher ideals. Corporations have to have free speech rights in the United States because they are a form of social organization that consists of individuals who have joined of their own free will, even though their motivation in joining is to earn money.

    It’s ironic that people are now arguing that freedom of speech is a threat to democracy. Free speech is actually a cornerstone to democracy. If we believe that allowing completely open free speech is a threat to democracy, then what we’re implicitly saying is that we don’t trust our own citizens to intelligently listen to what people have to say, and make a responsible decision based upon that.

    Actually, I do agree with that conclusion. I do believe that the American people are profoundly inept at making responsible decisions. I don’t believe that the American people have strengthened their minds to a sufficient degree to be able to listen to political messages with a critical ear and sort out the balderdash.

    The difference I have with the minority on the Supreme Court is that I don’t believe that it is either constitutional or practical to attempt to compensate for the soft brains of the American people by contorting the nation’s political discourse to exclude the most corrupt sources from political debate. We can’t create a simulation of a nation of intelligent, reasoned citizens by outlawing the political speeches of conniving marketers.

    The reason that, as Justice Stevens points out, the integrity of elected institutions across the country is now under threat, is not that corporations have the ability to buy advertisements for and against political candidates. The reason that the integrity of our local, state and national governments is under threat is that the American people are too cognitively immature to see corporate advertisements for what they are.

    The essential problem we face is that we, as a nation, are too damned stupid to distinguish a snake oil salesman from a physician. We can’t tell the difference between a genuine, issue-driven non-profit and a corporate shill. We’re too lazy as well – too lazy to do the research necessary to discover which advertisements come from profiteers, and which advertisements speak from honest principles."

    I would be happy to hear anyone's insight into this, Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Mintman "I would go even further and say that it is your duty to place your own country under much stronger scrutiny than others - not because it is worse, but because it is yours, and the others aren't, and therefore not your business."

    I do. I have plenty to say about what the left and sometimes even the right does in our country.

    There is no reasonable comparison between Bush and Chavez. That itself is even propaganda. Much of what Chavez says is clearly dictatorial and it comes from his own lips. Bush on the other hand made an occasional misstep in terms of how he referred to something but a lot of commentary that was generated about his decision making had a good deal of opinion entwined in it. No respectable person would take those kinds of complaints all that seriously.

    Bush was pro-life. The press more or less hated him for that and other conservative views.

    Too bad for them. Life just isn't as cheap for some people as it is for others.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Corporations (and Unions) are not people, they do not have fundamental rights like free speech (they have legal rights as legal entities, of course), and money does not equate with speech.

    This is quite a radical sentiment. Not even the dissent authored by Stevens in the Citizens United Vs. FEC case suggested corporations don't have free speech rights (or no fundamental Constitutional rights at all). On what possible Constitutional grounds could you say corporations have NO free speech rights? (And before it is said, the First Amendment only states "Congress shall pass no law... abridging freedom of speech" in regards to free speech rights, it doesn't specifically say "Congress shall not make any laws... abridging the freedom of speech of persons"). I don't believe you have any grounds to say such a thing. Not exactly "democratic" IMO.

    Fix: Congress should pass a constitutional amendment that declares that rights are applicable only to individual persons, not legal entities.

    And I assume this would apply to not-for-profit corporations as well, correct? (You didn't differentiate, but if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me and then let me know how you would make said law apply to only ONE type of corporation). If so, that means political advocacy groups can kiss their existence goodbye.


    Fix: all forms of lobbying should be outlawed. Individual citizens have the right to petition government, but corporations and other entities don’t have the right to pay professionals to cajole and bribe members of Congress

    So wait..... individuals have a right to lobby Congress, and individuals have a right to "pay" not-for-profit advocacy groups to lobby Congress, but for-profit companies don't? I'm not sure I get this. Do you believe they don't have that right merely because you disagree with what they advocate? (Lobbying, like it or not, IS petitioning the Government). Yet again, this proposal doesn't strike me as very Democratic.


    The Senate’s filibuster is an idiotic and undemocratic tool

    I beg to differ. It may be irritating, but the ability of a minority party to stall legislation from being jammed down the Senate is of the utmost importance. I wouldn't like the idea of them doing away with the filibuster, perhaps lowering the threshold, but not doing away with it all together.

    I don’t buy the common idea that “there is no difference” between the parties.

    I don't believe there's NO difference between the two, but I certainly believe they are much similar in regards to Governance than they would like to admit. (For instance, in many areas relating to National Security, Obama has continued Bush's policies down to the last detail, including indefinite detention, possible military commissions, drone strikes and targeted assassinations, over the top claims of states secrets, etc.)

    That said, I agree that only having two parties as main contenders is a stumbling block in this country. Problem is, solving it wont be easy.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Luke, BlaineStum:

    I understood Massimo's main issue to be "giving money should not count as free speech" and not "corporations should not have the right to free speech", but maybe I am mistaken. If the former, I do agree certainly agree with the sentiment. But again, what you say is partly why I argued that the problem of big money influencing politics is unsolvable in a democracy. Not having obscenely rich people would be a more workable solution to this problem, although less easy to implement (/understatement).

    Caliana:

    Well, I do not see the big difference, the more I think about it. Bush's insistence of being able to say "that does not apply to me" to every law passed by congress (a.k.a. signing statements controversy), the warrant-less wiretapping, taking away all human rights from people declared "enemy combatants" on a whim, arguably even stealing the first election, etc., all feel like what could be part of the definition of a dictator. On the other hand, Chavez was elected democratically at least the first time, and he has the additional advantage of not having started two wars of aggression leaving hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians dead. So, yeah. Dictatorship is hardly ever a binary character, and I guess both of them are somewhere around the 3-4 marks of a scale where model democrats are 1 and the most ruthless dictators ever are 9. I would also not say that Chavez is more of a nutcase than Bush, considering that the latter thinks that some god ordered him to attack Iraq.

    Anyway, that is all besides the point. Massimo's post was about how to improve US democracy. You behave like somebody entering a discussion on how to bake a cake screaming "but what about grilled locusts, aren't they gross?" Everybody looks at you with a furrowed brow and says, yes, maybe, maybe not, but so what? Venezuela has nothing to with the post above, and neither does whether "the media" (Fox?) "hate" Bush for being "pro-life" (weirdly, the dead Iraqi and Afghani civilians and his staunch support for the death penalty do not seem to count in your assessment of what that expression means).

    ReplyDelete
  51. Very interesting discussion. I've thought for years that the 2-party system leads to massive underrepresentation. I lived in Holland in the '70's and was startled to discover that they had 17 policial parties, all active. Because there were so many parties occasionally the government got into gridlock, which happened when I was there.

    They weren't able to elect a president for a year and a half. The Dutch have a great sense of humor and constantly joked about it. And you know what? All government services continued fine, no one got particularly upset about it, and eventually a president was elected. A very cool system.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Mintman: referring to GW "that does not apply to me" to every law passed by congress (a.k.a. signing statements controversy), the warrant-less wiretapping, taking away all human rights from people declared "enemy combatants" on a whim, arguably even stealing the first election, etc., all feel like what could be part of the definition of a dictator."

    Down in the south valley of Albuquerque months ago a there was a man who had abducted and held a 14 yro girl from CA. His doors were broken down without a warrant and he was instantly arrested. The officers claimed that they could see that he was either about to attack or possibly harm her. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but it really doesn't matter. I'm ALWAYS going to side with the police and or any force that seeks to protect. And I mean LITERALLY protect. So if you want to judge George Bush like he really intended to trounce on the rights of truly innocent and harmless people, I guess that is your delusion to live inside of. I do not believe it.

    Now, today, students are protesting Chavez banning stations that say anything unflattering about him. So are his criticisms of the US wrong or are the students wrong? And for the life of me I don't know why you wouldn't think that Chavez's abuses of power have nothing to do with a discussion on democracy??? They sure do.

    My views may not match up to your world view, MM, but it certainly is not irrelevant to bring up abuses for the sake of contrast.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I think Mintman touches upon the real issue at hand: "Not having obscenely rich people would be a more workable solution to this problem, although less easy to implement (/understatement)."

    Whether we are talking corporate influence, lobbying, etc, the underlining point is that it isn't necessarily the right to speech per se, but how well-equipped (wealth, resources, etc) you are to speak which undermines concepts like equality (or having a meaningful discussion of ideas regarding candidates we want/don't want to represent us, for that matter).

    I suppose the libertarian would say tough-cookies, if business A has the money and resources that business B, or union C, or non-profit D do not (or perhaps even more then they combined, as in some cases) - than the free market has simply spoken. But this is why libertarians, at least in my experience, seem to have a difficulty with democracy ( which usually contains the principal of equality; like everyone on an even-playing field, regardless of of wealth).

    Another point I think is worth mentioning/arguing is that cases like these represent why we cannot treat a document like the constitution as something sacred in that things like the first amendment should be scrapped and written anew to better fulfill the needs of the time (not simply updating/adding on to the work and ideas that were more suited to 200 years in the past).

    The first amendment wasn't originally conceived with the problems of today in mind - like corporations, lobbying, etc. Instead we have to superimpose 21st century meanings on 18th century ideas so we can sound like we've accomplished something meaningful (ie lobbying=petitioning... give me a break).

    ReplyDelete
  54. So what do you want? Do you have anything productive to contribute? "Look, our current system is not as bad as Venezuela's current system" does not cut it; it does not help to improve the US system. I mean, I can do one better: The Haitian infrastructure is better than Somalia's, so obviously they do not need to ever improve anything! Same logic. If you want to have a genuine reason to be proud of your country, you have to do more than scream "I am proud" in everybody's face and compare yourself to the next worst you can find.

    ReplyDelete
  55. caliana wrote: Down in the south valley of Albuquerque months ago a there was a man who had abducted and held a 14 yro girl from CA. His doors were broken down without a warrant and he was instantly arrested. The officers claimed that they could see that he was either about to attack or possibly harm her. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but it really doesn't matter. I'm ALWAYS going to side with the police and or any force that seeks to protect. And I mean LITERALLY protect. So if you want to judge George Bush like he really intended to trounce on the rights of truly innocent and harmless people, I guess that is your delusion to live inside of. I do not believe it.

    I don't know what is worse, the fact that you would use an anecdote like that to justify policy changes for the lives of countless others who may or may not share your ideas/values on a whim like that, or your emotionally-infused method in analyzing things like democracy. Ironically, dictators have been known to be susceptible to both of these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Enjoyed the post. A few points.

    (1) the 1st Amendment includes an imperative to the government about the types of laws not to be made, and is silent about the kinds of entities to which these prohibited laws might apply;

    (2) the distinction between "fundamental" and "legal" rights is without a difference in this context, since, rhetoric aside, government officials are (legally) bound only by the latter category;

    (3) imagine a parallel case: the police have decided to search the offices of your local corporation without obtaining a warrant: is that permissable, or an infringement?

    (4) If you deal with parallel cases like (3) and Carter's publishing analogy by claiming that the offices are offices of people, and the writing writing of people, your distinction between "people" and "corporations" looks like a case of special pleading; GE's board of directors is a collection of people.

    (5) Your analogy with voting rights is odd; I suspect it's undergirded by your appeal to isonomia--in this case, one person, one vote. But notice the large discrepancy between the two cases. Voting is highly regulated. The options are controlled, the possibilities severely restricted, and the value of each vote precisely equal. Is any of this true of expression?

    (6) I'm deeply ambivalent about the SC ruling, but my ambivalence is largely a factor of its possible bad consequences. As I understand the term, "fundamental" rights are, at least in part, those we hold to be worth protecting even (and some would say especially) in the face of very bad consequences. Obviously, there has to be some tradeoff, but the line isn't always so easy to divine.

    As ever, I appreciate your thoughtful perspective on these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Mintman: Look, our current system is not as bad as Venezuela's current system" does not cut it; it does not help to improve the US system. I mean, I can do one better:"

    That's not the point at all. The point is that much of Chevez's criticisms of the US are almost identical to those of the left and yours. You seem to recognize that he is a nut, but, of course, you are not??!!!

    And no idea where you get that I am screaming something about being proud. I am German too. I just don't identify at all with the popular, political attitude of the leftist, communist policies coming from your and my county. Talk about arrogance? Germans ARE terribly ARROGANT. Immigration is hardly even allowed in Germany. Several years visas for foreign workers at the most? I know that it is also a hard working culture too but inclined to reserve judgment and action on anything moral and righteous. That precisely is how the collective "we" fell head over heels for propaganda during the time of the Holocaust in case anyone missed that.

    Say anything negative about a true dictator? Ah! you must BE THE DICTATOR!! Of course, why didn't I think of that?!

    THINK.

    ReplyDelete
  58. That precisely is how the collective "we" fell head over heels for propaganda during the time of the Holocaust in case anyone missed that.

    Again, the irony here is that that was a right-wing phenomenon.

    Also, collectivism isn't exclusive to left-wing causes. I don't think someone like Bill O'Reilly, for example, is thinking of only himself when he considers the "white, christian, male power structure".

    ReplyDelete
  59. Well Massimo,

    I couldn't agree with you more on your prescription. But then again I also agree with you on your definition of ethics as presented in your discussion with Julia.

    Given those two things, I give the probability of sucessfully arguing your (my) position as one chance in ten million.

    We face counteracting challenges. One, those that agree with our ethic are immune to appeals from emotion and want hard data that the solutions proposed will work. Two, those that disagree with our ethic don't care about hard data and need an emotional appeal to warrant a change in at least any one small aspect of their world view. And three (here's the real kicker), both sides demand a consistant repetive message.

    I'm the empiricist, the answer clearly won't come from my subset of the group (although the problem I layed out above does). So, I think it is a truly philosophical conundrum. How do you merge the three requirements?

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Again, the irony here is that that was a right-wing phenomenon."

    Where the Spirit of God ISN'T there is no racial or gender unity. Safe to say that God's Spirit was not with the the Third Reich.

    I have a 1948 copy of Joseph Goebbels Dairies. 1942-1943 I really don't even like to open the book, but I'll do so if I need to be reminded of certain things. If I didn't know better I would almost be sure that these references about Goebbels and Hitler were talking about people who are alive today. The spirit of the quest to put God behind us is certainly alive.

    "The aims and method of Nazi foreign policy are disclosed with a frankness and cynicism that makes National Socialism stand forth as absolutely amoral and immoral, as ready to cheat friend, foe and neutral alike. Hitler's and Goebbel's contempt for other nations and their public men was abysmal. Goebbels gloatingly planned the extermination of all Jews, and the reduction of all Christian churches to impotence." pg. 30

    ReplyDelete
  61. In the words of Dr. Evil:

    "Riiggght..."

    ReplyDelete
  62. Caliana:

    Great stuff; now you have gone from demanding the cake makers' opinion on grilled locusts to lambasting them for not being Christians. How, again, will that help decide whether to put more flour into the mixture? Even putting aside the very slight problem of the non-existence of gods, I cannot really remember the bible verse that goes "thou shalt have a two party system, for verily: a third party is an abomination in the eye of the LORD". Likewise, I am wondering where Jesus addressed the issues of filibusters or campaign finance, seeing how he never came into contact with a democratic system and was honestly convinced that the end of the world and its judgment would come within ca. 50 years of his teaching anyway (Matthew 16:28, 23:36, 24:34; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27).

    Still, I feel compelled to answer at least one of the many off-topic falsehoods you are propagating. Hitler was a catholic and frequently mentioned divine providence and Jesus (whom he strangely considered not to have been a Jew) in his speeches. The great majority of the German bishops and priests were on the side of the Nazi government - the few dissidents among them, like Dietrich Bonhoefer, are celebrated so much today by embarrassed Christians precisely because they were the exception. Most importantly, the millions of Germans who were in the SS, SA, NSDAP, and of course the common Reichswehr soldiers were virtually all either catholic or protestant, simply because virtually all Germans were so, and the Nazis were recruited from them. Of course I am not saying that they committed the atrocities because they were Christians, but being religious apparently also did not keep them from doing it. A few high ranking Nazis were some kind of weird mysticist pagan-revivalists, but definitely not rationalists, atheists or humanists, which is what you are impotently raging against here. You would have more luck arguing that Stalin and his adherents were atheists and anti-christian, but then you would still have to show that this was the reason for the bad things they did, or that they would not have done them if they were Christian, which seems to be a tough thing to do considering the aforementioned Nazis as well as medieval crusaders or genocidal conquistadores as counterexamples. But judging from your confused ramblings I guess it would be asking to much of you to do what you, in a textbook example of projection, demand of others: to think these issue through logically, understand the concept of a No True Scotsman fallacy, discriminate between correlation and causation, or understand complex historical processes.

    Massimo:
    This is your blog, so I would like to ask what your preference in the face of inane Gish-gallops, derailment of discussions and overall trolling is - commentors correcting the misinformation and distortions such as those spouted by Caliana or ignoring them to keep the discussion on topic?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Mintman,

    you may have noticed that I never comment on Caliana's posts, unless they are actually pertinent to the topic at hand, and I can't remember when that happened last time. On the other hand, my policy is not to block any comment unless it is a death threat, explicitly offensive for no reason, or an advertisement.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Mintman "Hitler was a catholic and frequently mentioned divine providence and Jesus (whom he strangely considered not to have been a Jew) in his speeches."

    The Catholic church was (and may still) teach that the (their) church came to replace the Jews. This is referred to as Replacement Theology. The Bible explicitly says otherwise. If the Catholic church does not follow key doctrines of the Bible how can it be considered Christian? I do not considered the RCC Christian.

    The RC Church also follows many gods but Jesus. The saints, Mary, the priest and then maybe Jesus. The doctrine is upside-down and is an absolute perversion of what the Bible really says on many key doctrines. The RC Church gets away with it because most Catholics DO NOT READ their Bible. And that is how a whole nation was (mis) lead into killing 6 mil Jews and 5 mil gentiles. To get God COMPLETELY out of their heads and hearts. As if...

    I see that many people who are now skeptics once belonged to the RCC. I'd like to change that.

    Romans 11 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who [are] natural [branches], be grafted into their own olive tree?

    The rest of Romans 11 is very clear that God has NOT put Israel aside.

    Romans 11 http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=11&v=18&t=NKJV#18

    ReplyDelete
  65. "On the other hand, my policy is not to block any comment unless it is a death threat, explicitly offensive for no reason, or an advertisement."

    Ah, you know me well enough. I'd never touch anyone even if I had a strong disagreement with em. I might even try to protect em. (lacking the "go to war and kill" gene)

    You may see me adversarially. And that would be understandable. I do not see you that way. I think of you as someone who has years of bad church doctrine to weed out and discard. And if you like never change your pov, M, I'd still care about your life just the same. A human-being made (and loved) by God & in His image.

    Yes and it has nothing to do with the the discussion on democracy. I know. I'll get me back on track.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Romans 11 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who [are] natural [branches], be grafted into their own olive tree?

    caliana, using words or verses or books to mean whatever you want them to mean is neither clever or honest.

    That Romans verse itself has absolutely nothing to do with what you're trying to say about the catholic church. Why pretend otherwise?

    If only more people understood its really people who give meaning to things rather than things having any meaning themselves, we can do away with things like religion.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Notice, in addition, that not one member of the Supreme Court argued that corporations *don't* have the right to free speech. The minority admits as much. Stevens writes (in an opininion in which all the minority justices concurred): "The majority grasps...that speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation.... Of course not, but no one suggests the contrary, and neither Austin nor McConnel [precedent cases] held otherwise. They held that even though the expenditures at issue were subject to First Amendment scrutiny, the restrictions on those expenditures were justified by a compelling state interest." Nor did any of the justices argue that spending money is not a form of expression.

    The sole nub of contention between the majority and minority is whether there is a compelling state interest to limit what both treat as standard examples of expression. See Glenn Greenwald's posts on this, here: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  68. Darek: "That Romans verse itself has absolutely nothing to do with what you're trying to say about the catholic church. Why pretend otherwise?"

    If you have the patience for it pick up my link and read the (entire) chapter 11. Inductively, if you read the whole chapter you'll understand easily that the "natural branch" is referring to the Jews. And there is also the implication through the whole chapter that there are some who think Israel ought to be cut off.

    Isn't that 100% true?

    "If only more people understood its really people who give meaning to things rather than things having any meaning themselves, we can do away with things like religion."

    I guess PEOPLE don't give meaning to secularism? Lol!

    ReplyDelete
  69. caliana,

    "Isn't that 100% true?"

    No. Its not.

    You are connecting the dots. You are trying to wrangle together meanings from two different time periods thousands of years apart. You are trying to play the role of editor, historian, religious scholar and psychic.

    Stop pretending.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "I guess PEOPLE don't give meaning to secularism? Lol!"

    You did not understand what I said. Secularism, just like every other man-made concept doesn't mean anything in and of itself. People have to give it meaning (in this case with religion present).

    Does a child, without given the instruction or undestanding, simply come from the womb knowing who Jesus or Jacob or Muhammad are? Or what secularism is? No. People have to give these names and ideas meaning - in this case to other people to perpetuate the concepts.

    ReplyDelete
  71. C: And there is also the implication through the whole chapter that there are some who think Israel ought to be cut off.

    Isn't that 100% true?"

    D: No. Its not.

    Did you read Romans chap 11?

    Okay so maybe it is not 100% of the world that wants Israel to "be
    cut off". But it is 100% true that there are plenty who do.

    A LOT of the world does and has tried repeatedly to cut the Jews out of their covenant with God - WHY!? Ridiculous to continue to do that when the covenant supposedly does not even exist! So I know for a fact that God's covenant remains intact with the Jews. Most of the world proves that there must be something to it with their actions towards Israel.

    NOW that would be something to bring up in one of the important meetings in the middle east with world leaders. "Good morning gentlemen. That thing about God calling Israel and the Jews His holy place and His holy people, that no long is true...no one believes that anymore."

    HA! Who would accept that either? No one. They are ACTUALLY thinking that they can change the course of history and possibly even Gods mind or will on the matter.

    As if...

    "You did not understand what I said. Secularism, just like every other man-made concept doesn't mean anything in and of itself. People have to give it meaning (in this case with religion present)."

    I did understand what you said. Secularism is a choice (regardless of how it was arrived at)just as non-secularism is. The fact that it appears that humans have contributed to either set of ideas doesn't make them more or less a choice that can be decided upon.

    And I think that Gods law is written on each persons heart whether they choose it or not. Secularism, as far as I can see, is just a reaction to not wanting to choose Gods way.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I think we could solve the issue here by taking a closer look at the word "free". I know we have a couple of hundred years of precedent on the meaning of "free speech" and it has been liberalized almost to the point of meaninglessness. My proposal: speech, without control or consequences (one meaning of free), only applies if that speech is made without cost (the other meaning of free). Stand in the public square and say what you please, sit on your neighbor's porch and say nasty things about the government without being hauled off to jail. It costs you nothing monetarily and therefore risks no censorship. But... pay a printer to print a 1,000 flyers, buy a radio station, purchase a million dollar Super Bowl ad, or hire someone to go to Washington and you've put yourself into the control zone. Free speech is free but paid speech is regulated.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "I did understand what you said."

    "Secularism is a choice ... "

    No. You don't understand. But how could you? It seems apparent that any kind of nuance or 'grey' is something you're simply not interested in (perhaps capable of?) nevermind entertaining it for discussions' sake.

    Though, I suppose the world seems simpler when viewed as either black or white, red or blue, left or right, god or secularism...

    As for your former comments, I think they speak for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  74. So does my music. :)

    Anthony Evans - Meaningless

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pdN1i9OqCI

    ReplyDelete
  75. @Blaine:

    "On what possible Constitutional grounds could you say corporations have NO free speech rights?"

    Um, what part of "We the People..." don't you understand?

    ReplyDelete
  76. I don't know whether this is serious or a joke, but I hope it is serious. The company does exist. Be sure to watch the video! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  77. We are not a Democracy --- We are a Constitutional Republic

    ReplyDelete
  78. We are both, constitutional republics are a particular kind of democracies.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.