Liberalism And Conservatism

[steve_bank]

The reason Trump is in power is the fatal flaw in our liberal democracy. Anyone can get elected without any qualifications. A prime example is our Seattle mayor with absolutely no relevant experience. She had a few odd jobs. She got elected by populist slogans.

A few weeks ago we had a mass shooting at a public event, Bite Of Seattle. Police did their job, but it turned into a ridiculous destructive political mess, fueled by our inexperienced mayor.

It takes money for anyone to get elected, not just Trump.

Our founders did not want the president to be selected by popular vote, hence the electoral college. The first few presidents did not campaign.

 

[Emily Lake]

The reason Trump is in power is the fatal flaw in our liberal democracy. Anyone can get elected without any qualifications.

Our founders considered that a feature, not a bug. The required qualifications is to be a natural born US citizen age 35 or over. That's it. If the handyman down the road can get the votes, they can get into office. It's not necessarily likely of course, but it's possible. It's one of the few mechanisms the US has to avoid politicians becoming an effective aristocracy.

It doesn't happen all that often with presidents, but it happens pretty regularly with congressmen, senators, governors, mayors, etc. We get local upsets from people who aren't poli-sci students with a permanent political career, and that brings in new ideas and perspectives that sometimes are more in line with what the actual citizenry of that area wants.

A prime example is our Seattle mayor with absolutely no relevant experience. She had a few odd jobs. She got elected by populist slogans.

A few weeks ago we had a mass shooting at a public event, Bite Of Seattle. Police did their job, but it turned into a ridiculous destructive political mess, fueled by our inexperienced mayor.

It takes money for anyone to get elected, not just Trump.

Our founders did not want the president to be selected by popular vote, hence the electoral college. The first few presidents did not campaign.

As much as people rail against the EC when it doesn't go the way they want, I actually think it's a good system for a republic of semi-independent states. It helps balance the whims of the majority against the needs of each state, it tempers highly localized dense populations wielding power in ways that will harm other parts of a very big country.

If we had a different voting system, I'd care a lot less about the EC. But as long as we have FPTP, I think it's a useful approach. Not perfect, but does something useful.

 

[steve_bank]

The electors were intended to be land holders or businessmen, those who had a stake in the country.

From a documentary I watched on history of presidents.

AI Overview
In early American history, the office of Secretary of State was widely considered a stepping stone or training ground for the presidency, with four of the first six presidents holding the position first.

The first presents did not companion as we know it.

William Henry Harrison was the first presidential candidate to actively campaign "on the road" for office during the 1840 United States presidential election, breaking with the tradition of candidates remaining quietly at home.If you meant the first populist campaign (appealing to the common person/masses with a "man of the people" persona), that same 1840 campaign for Harrison pioneered the strategy. However, Andrew Jackson is widely credited as the first president to ride a true anti-establishment, populist wave into office during the 1820s.

That the system has a fatal flaw is evidenced by Trump himself. Everything the finders waned to avoid in a chief executive.

There are no experience or education requirements for elected office.

The triple balance of power has failed.

 

[Bomb#20]

Tocqueville also viewed USA as a tiny enclave on the edge of the world. He saw it as a radical experiment. Benjamin Franklin, correctly understood that USA would, in time, overshadow England. But nobody else seems to have thought that at the time. Certainly not Tocqueville. Tocqueville wasn't so much writing a book about USA, as writing a pamphlet to help him liberalise France. It was propaganda. We only think it's prophetic because, over time, he was proven correct. But that's survivor bias. Nobody remembers all the pamphlets which went nowhere. The 18th century was a time of radical and cooky political philosophies written, shared and talked about. Most utterly and completely bonkers.

Dude, have you even read his book?

"There are at the present time two great nations in the world, which started from different points, but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed; and whilst the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they have suddenly placed themselves in the front rank among the nations, and the world learned their existence and their greatness at almost the same time.

All other nations seem to have nearly reached their natural limits, and they have only to maintain their power; but these are still in the act of growth. All the others have stopped, or continue to advance with extreme difficulty; these alone are proceeding with ease and celerity along a path to which no limit can be perceived. The American struggles against the obstacles which nature opposes to him; the adversaries of the Russian are men. The former combats the wilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization with all its arms. The conquests of the American are therefore gained with the ploughshare; those of the Russian by the sword. The Anglo-American relies upon personal interest to accomplish his ends, and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of the people; the Russian centres all the authority of society in a single arm. The principal instrument of the former is freedom; of the latter, servitude. Their starting-point is different, and their courses are not the same; yet each of them seems marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destinies of half the globe."

-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America​

 

[Bomb#20]

...
In Sweden you can be a prime minister for life. It's not even a thing we discuss. We had one guy for 30 years. Nobody cared. Most of the 20th century Sweden was effectively a one party state. Nobody cared. Why didn't anyone care? Because Sweden was geopolitically irrelevant. Fun fact, that party is out of power now, but still controls the state media of Sweden. Nobody cares. Swedish police can beat people up without repercussions and jail people for extended periods of time without needing to explain themselves. Sweden is on Amnesty's naughty list. Nobody cares.
...

...
If you love the USA and Trump so much why don't you go live in the USA, instead of the apparent (to you) dump you live in now?

Um, last I checked, Copenhagen isn't in Sweden.

 

[Bomb#20]

...
And note that by your definition, Musk is a liberal.

You need to fix your definitions.

I think Musk is a liberal. He's a libertarian. Its on the extreme end.

Libertarianism has been aptly defined as liberalism in the asymptotic limit as common sense goes to zero.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

...
In Sweden you can be a prime minister for life. It's not even a thing we discuss. We had one guy for 30 years. Nobody cared. Most of the 20th century Sweden was effectively a one party state. Nobody cared. Why didn't anyone care? Because Sweden was geopolitically irrelevant. Fun fact, that party is out of power now, but still controls the state media of Sweden. Nobody cares. Swedish police can beat people up without repercussions and jail people for extended periods of time without needing to explain themselves. Sweden is on Amnesty's naughty list. Nobody cares.
...

...
If you love the USA and Trump so much why don't you go live in the USA, instead of the apparent (to you) dump you live in now?

Um, last I checked, Copenhagen isn't in Sweden.

When I saw that he lived in Copenhagen I meant to check if there was a town of that name in USA (and yes I knew the original Copenhagen is in Denmark), but got distracted by other things. As I meant to twit him about living in Copenhagen (in NY) and he thinking he was in Europe, because the way he writes with so much admiration of USA and Trump, one would think that he was an American (and a MAGA).

 

[DrZoidberg]

...
In Sweden you can be a prime minister for life. It's not even a thing we discuss. We had one guy for 30 years. Nobody cared. Most of the 20th century Sweden was effectively a one party state. Nobody cared. Why didn't anyone care? Because Sweden was geopolitically irrelevant. Fun fact, that party is out of power now, but still controls the state media of Sweden. Nobody cares. Swedish police can beat people up without repercussions and jail people for extended periods of time without needing to explain themselves. Sweden is on Amnesty's naughty list. Nobody cares.
...

...
If you love the USA and Trump so much why don't you go live in the USA, instead of the apparent (to you) dump you live in now?

Um, last I checked, Copenhagen isn't in Sweden.

When I saw that he lived in Copenhagen I meant to check if there was a town of that name in USA (and yes I knew the original Copenhagen is in Denmark), but got distracted by other things.

I'm Swedish and I live in Copenhagen. I don't magically change nationality just because I live in another country. The Scandinavians are so integrated that I can move anywhere in the Nordic countries and expect the exact same services. It couldn't be easier. It's more annoying to move states in USA. Also all of EU is integrated. Not as closely. Movement within the EU is super easy.

As I meant to twit him about living in Copenhagen (in NY) and he thinking he was in Europe, because the way he writes with so much admiration of USA and Trump, one would think that he was an American (and a MAGA).

I think Trump is one of the worst elected leaders in all human history. That's how much I "admire" him.

In some threads I've been a devils advocate trying to see if there's any logic to his actions. It leads to more fun Trump discussions. And he is the gift that keeps on giving. I have laughed more at Trump's idiocy than I have at most comedians. So he's not all bad.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Tocqueville also viewed USA as a tiny enclave on the edge of the world. He saw it as a radical experiment. Benjamin Franklin, correctly understood that USA would, in time, overshadow England. But nobody else seems to have thought that at the time. Certainly not Tocqueville. Tocqueville wasn't so much writing a book about USA, as writing a pamphlet to help him liberalise France. It was propaganda. We only think it's prophetic because, over time, he was proven correct. But that's survivor bias. Nobody remembers all the pamphlets which went nowhere. The 18th century was a time of radical and cooky political philosophies written, shared and talked about. Most utterly and completely bonkers.

Dude, have you even read his book?

"There are at the present time two great nations in the world, which started from different points, but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed; and whilst the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they have suddenly placed themselves in the front rank among the nations, and the world learned their existence and their greatness at almost the same time.​

​

All other nations seem to have nearly reached their natural limits, and they have only to maintain their power; but these are still in the act of growth. All the others have stopped, or continue to advance with extreme difficulty; these alone are proceeding with ease and celerity along a path to which no limit can be perceived. The American struggles against the obstacles which nature opposes to him; the adversaries of the Russian are men. The former combats the wilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization with all its arms. The conquests of the American are therefore gained with the ploughshare; those of the Russian by the sword. The Anglo-American relies upon personal interest to accomplish his ends, and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of the people; the Russian centres all the authority of society in a single arm. The principal instrument of the former is freedom; of the latter, servitude. Their starting-point is different, and their courses are not the same; yet each of them seems marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destinies of half the globe."​

​

-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America​

I think everyone is forced to in school. I was. And there was a test.

I don't think Tocqueville was entirely honest. This is a hyperbolic propaganda text intended to sway the French people towards democracy. It's aspirational. It's not a factual report.

USA at the time was preposterously dysfunctional and corrupt. It was a frontiers society populated mostly by European adventurers. It would take decades before USA became anything coherrent, ie something resembling that which Tocqueville was describing. If he hadn't guessed correctly nobody would care about Tocqueville today.

 

[steve_bank]

18th 19th century America was corrupt and dysfunctional, and Brits, French, Germans were not? That is a laugh.

The Frenchman Lafayette and the Prussian Steuben were key figures in the success of the revolutionary army. High school history.

There are schools, streets, and towns named after them.

Plus he role of French aid and naval ships. French naval blockades at British ports. The revolutionaries would not have prevailed without the French.

Ben Franklin went to Europe toget support, he was also the American spy master inn Europe. It was no less complex than today.

America was an experiment, as is all western liberal democraciess.

Hungary took a hard turn to the far right under Orban. Suppression of free speech and press. Our VP went to Hungary to camping for him.

We are obviously under a serious attack from the far right. Trump is intent on establishing one man rule, if he can get it. He supports congressional candidates who will do what he says, he says so openly.

I'd have to look up details, It has been reported in the last rounds of European elections the far right made gains, Trump like nationalism. Anti immigration.

So, back to the question. Can the western systems based on individual rights carried to an extreme as they are pull themselves together and remain democratic?

Can we avoid slipping into authoritarianism?

Over here we desperately need common ground and compromise, while we culturally promote hyper individualism.