I think that covid was the final nail in the coffin for the government of mixed types. The mandates and restrictions proved that the executive is now everything and that the legislature is completely irrelevant. The courts sort of matter, but they can be ignored when convenient.
You would think that the various congresses would fight harder to regain at least some power, but maybe they don't realize that they're obsolete yet.
Jan 26, 2023·edited Jan 26, 2023Liked by Tree of Woe
Excellent writing!
This is probably one of your best pieces; especially when you note correctly Plato's emphasis on government needing to be a "mean in overall exercise" of the three modes (i.e. democracy, aristocracy and monarchy). That already puts you way ahead of most contemporary thinkers.
These days even Classics and Philosophy students *get it wrong* when they misquote Plato and attribute to him the stance that "Aristocracy is the best of the three", something that he never said nor even implied in his writings. It's quite telling overall of how low the bar has become.
Your breakdown of the various Federalist papers was very educational for myself and likely many others (I for one never knew that the Athenian model was criticized in said papers for being "too democratic"!), so Thank You for that! Was quite the pleasure + pleasant surprise overall!
I was going to finish with some mandatory quips regarding human suffering, misery, wallowing, woe, etc.; but really not much else needs to be said at this point. Tanks are being sent East folks; so fill in the blanks! I for one choose to wallow a bit less and be educated a bit more this time around.
I actually think we are an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy. The elections are largely show pieces designed to placate the population. The government engages in mass propaganda and manipulation. The bureaucracy is largely independent of elected officials. And the bankers of Wall Street control the country more than anyone else.
In the 2016 election, 2500 individuals accounted for more than 85% of all political donations. That is less than .001% of the population largely controlling who has a chance to run for office. That sure looks like an oligarchy.
We have NOT devolved into a pure democracy! We are a mix of dysfunctional autocracy [i.e., the Deep State], oligarchy, and democracy. We have mixed government, but not the mix the Founders desired.
As I point out in Rule 6, there is no real democracy when districts get too large. We would need a House of Representatives with thousands of representatives in order to have the House be democratic. Such a House would work as a ratification/rejection of Senate proposals, but it would be too large to effectively initiate legislation.
Likewise, most states are too large to be proper republics, so going back to indirect election of Senators is not optimal. What we need to do is break up the big states into smaller states. No state should be bigger than Sweden, population wise. With such an increase in states, maybe the Senate would become unwieldy. The solution: drop down to one representative per state.
Contra the Founders, I think the President should be democratically elected. Julius Caesar was the democratic offset for the Roman Senate. Use the Social Security numbers to prevent states from pumping up their vote totals.
But far more importantly: elect the President with Range Voting. Plurality-takes-all breaks down with more than two candidates. H. Ross Perot's candidacy gave us Bill Clinton. A four-way race in the mid 1800s gave us a brutal civil war. Maybe we could use an elector system as the primary system. You need some sort of nomination round to keep the ballot from having too many candidates for The People to consider.
And yes, we should use Range Voting to elect Representatives and state house legislators as well. Two choices is not enough. (But a Pick One first round for nominations could be used to keep final ballots manageable. Prove that at least x% of the populace thinks you are the best in order to get on the final ballot.)
Huh. I'm probably missing something here, but my understanding is that the whole concept of the lay citizen's vote for President became moot and an illusion a very long time ago. It's been a fact since at *least* Woodrow Wilson was 'Stooge-in-Chief', as a lacky of the Rockefellers, I'm not sure about before.
That most Americans believe the U.S. is and always was, a Democracy, is true enough, but I only see that as an external indicator of how the power of the people has *decreased*, not an indicator of increasing Mob Rule. For a public laity not just poorly educated but more importantly, lacking in the ability to think critically, the concept of a Democracy is the most pragmatic illusion of power to hand them.
There's another thought creaking in my Rusty Brain- Wasn't the House of Representatives supposed to be composed of a percentage of each State's population? If it wasn't, it should have been. While not impossible, it would have made attempts to manipulate it more like Herding Cats than ever & definitely would have made sure that the Fed wasn't comprised of a miniscule fraction of the citizenry.
I think that covid was the final nail in the coffin for the government of mixed types. The mandates and restrictions proved that the executive is now everything and that the legislature is completely irrelevant. The courts sort of matter, but they can be ignored when convenient.
You would think that the various congresses would fight harder to regain at least some power, but maybe they don't realize that they're obsolete yet.
Excellent writing!
This is probably one of your best pieces; especially when you note correctly Plato's emphasis on government needing to be a "mean in overall exercise" of the three modes (i.e. democracy, aristocracy and monarchy). That already puts you way ahead of most contemporary thinkers.
These days even Classics and Philosophy students *get it wrong* when they misquote Plato and attribute to him the stance that "Aristocracy is the best of the three", something that he never said nor even implied in his writings. It's quite telling overall of how low the bar has become.
Your breakdown of the various Federalist papers was very educational for myself and likely many others (I for one never knew that the Athenian model was criticized in said papers for being "too democratic"!), so Thank You for that! Was quite the pleasure + pleasant surprise overall!
I was going to finish with some mandatory quips regarding human suffering, misery, wallowing, woe, etc.; but really not much else needs to be said at this point. Tanks are being sent East folks; so fill in the blanks! I for one choose to wallow a bit less and be educated a bit more this time around.
I actually think we are an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy. The elections are largely show pieces designed to placate the population. The government engages in mass propaganda and manipulation. The bureaucracy is largely independent of elected officials. And the bankers of Wall Street control the country more than anyone else.
In the 2016 election, 2500 individuals accounted for more than 85% of all political donations. That is less than .001% of the population largely controlling who has a chance to run for office. That sure looks like an oligarchy.
We have NOT devolved into a pure democracy! We are a mix of dysfunctional autocracy [i.e., the Deep State], oligarchy, and democracy. We have mixed government, but not the mix the Founders desired.
As I point out in Rule 6, there is no real democracy when districts get too large. We would need a House of Representatives with thousands of representatives in order to have the House be democratic. Such a House would work as a ratification/rejection of Senate proposals, but it would be too large to effectively initiate legislation.
Likewise, most states are too large to be proper republics, so going back to indirect election of Senators is not optimal. What we need to do is break up the big states into smaller states. No state should be bigger than Sweden, population wise. With such an increase in states, maybe the Senate would become unwieldy. The solution: drop down to one representative per state.
Contra the Founders, I think the President should be democratically elected. Julius Caesar was the democratic offset for the Roman Senate. Use the Social Security numbers to prevent states from pumping up their vote totals.
But far more importantly: elect the President with Range Voting. Plurality-takes-all breaks down with more than two candidates. H. Ross Perot's candidacy gave us Bill Clinton. A four-way race in the mid 1800s gave us a brutal civil war. Maybe we could use an elector system as the primary system. You need some sort of nomination round to keep the ballot from having too many candidates for The People to consider.
And yes, we should use Range Voting to elect Representatives and state house legislators as well. Two choices is not enough. (But a Pick One first round for nominations could be used to keep final ballots manageable. Prove that at least x% of the populace thinks you are the best in order to get on the final ballot.)
Huh. I'm probably missing something here, but my understanding is that the whole concept of the lay citizen's vote for President became moot and an illusion a very long time ago. It's been a fact since at *least* Woodrow Wilson was 'Stooge-in-Chief', as a lacky of the Rockefellers, I'm not sure about before.
That most Americans believe the U.S. is and always was, a Democracy, is true enough, but I only see that as an external indicator of how the power of the people has *decreased*, not an indicator of increasing Mob Rule. For a public laity not just poorly educated but more importantly, lacking in the ability to think critically, the concept of a Democracy is the most pragmatic illusion of power to hand them.
There's another thought creaking in my Rusty Brain- Wasn't the House of Representatives supposed to be composed of a percentage of each State's population? If it wasn't, it should have been. While not impossible, it would have made attempts to manipulate it more like Herding Cats than ever & definitely would have made sure that the Fed wasn't comprised of a miniscule fraction of the citizenry.