www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Thursday, October 31, 2024
Democracy is when the other side wins
A week from now, half of the United States of America will be in uproar. We don't know which half yet, but the chance of the loser saying "good game, congratulations, you won" are close to zero. In a recent poll, over a quarter of Americans feared a civil war after the election. Both candidates forecast the downfall of America if the other side won. To me that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what democracy is about: Democracy is about being okay if the other side wins. Democracy is the belief that whoever the majority is, the majority is always right. Democracy in a two party system is about some rhythm of alternation leading to a sensible compromise between two extreme positions. Changes in government must happen regularly, so that the concerns of all citizens are eventually heard.
I believe that democracy is under threat. Not only from would-be dictators, but also from groups who believe in their absolute moral superiority, and are ready to declare the valid concerns of large groups of citizens as being invalid. And that isn't limited to the United States. In Europe for example, any politician suggesting that some sort of negotiation would be needed to end the war in Ukraine is painted as a stooge of Putin, paid by the Russians. That narrative got a few cracks when the pope suggested "a stop to hostilities [and] a truce achieved with the courage of negotiations". Which sounds pretty reasonable to me. More reasonable than hoping that the end of the war could be achieved by an Ukrainian total victory. Realistically speaking, if Ukraine or NATO was ever on the way towards conquering Moscow, nuclear missiles would start to fly. Who wants that?
All politics requires compromise. In the current conflict between Israel and Hamas the two extreme positions both demand some sort of genocide on the other side. I can't understand how anyone can actually be 100% pro-Israel or 100% pro-Hamas in this situation. Domestic politics also requires a lot of compromise. There must be some sensible middle way in immigration policy between letting everybody in and throwing everybody out. Most countries also managed to find a nationwide compromise on abortion rights, which seems far more reasonable than having 50 states with different, frequently changing rights on such a fundamental issue.
Staying in power for more than one legislation period requires to some extent to address not only the concerns of the people who voted for you, but also the concerns of the people who didn't. Otherwise unaddressed issues tend to grow in importance and bring the other side to power faster. The current political trend to only cater to the most extreme political base is dangerous as well as unproductive. Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver's Travels, parodied a political system in which the opposition was permanently undoing everything the government did, leading to eternal paralysis. The only alternative to that paralysis is compromise, and that at the very least requires both sides admitting that the concerns of the other side are valid.
- posted by Tobold @ 10:42 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
‹Older
All politics requires compromise.
How do you compromise when the other side believes you as a person shouldn't exist?
How do you compromise when the other side believes you as a person shouldn't exist?
# posted by 
: 31/10/24 11:36
: 31/10/24 11:36
All sides believe that about their opponents in the loosest sense. Obviously compromise would be impossible if the other side want to kill you, but I doubt that is the case.
All three of the conflicts mentioned in this blog post have actors advocating for the deaths of folks on the other side. Obviously those sentiments can't be attached to everyone but they do exist.
Tolerating intolerance is the death of modern civil society.
Tolerating intolerance is the death of modern civil society.
If you study a bit of history, you will find that most wars did not end with the total victory of one side, but rather with some sort of peace agreement. And in the wars that ended with total victory, the victors rarely kill everybody on the losing side. So even if in war the purpose is to kill the person on the other side, ultimately some sort of compromise is needed.
# posted by : 31/10/24 12:51
: 31/10/24 12:51
Tobold: "Changes in government must happen regularly, so that the concerns of all citizens are eventually heard."
*Concerns of enough people to get a majority over the other party or to form a ruling coalition.
You don't need to get the approval of the majority of the voting populace but only those who chose to vote. Sure, you could say that it's their own fault when people don't vote, but if their concerns aren't addressed then people might just decide to not vote.
"[...] hoping that the end of the war could be achieved by an Ukrainian total victory."
Last I checked (arguably that was a long time ago), the declared goal wasn't the Ukrainian victory but to prevent the Russian victory.
No, those are not the same. If both sides lose or the war just continues by throwing some more supplies over the border but "No, we are totally not involved. You die to protect Western values please. Yes, yes, NATO membership (maybe)." - then that criteria is met.
I remember back in 2016 before the election a lot of colleagues viewed Trump as a publicity stunt without any chance of winning.
The next day people were flabbergasted and then immediately resentment kicked in. The media did their part of course in picking apart every small fart and looking for dog whistles left and right.
While I'm not really following the media, I don't recall seeing the same level of scrutiny and pettiness on a daily basis with previous presidents.
Post a Comment
*Concerns of enough people to get a majority over the other party or to form a ruling coalition.
You don't need to get the approval of the majority of the voting populace but only those who chose to vote. Sure, you could say that it's their own fault when people don't vote, but if their concerns aren't addressed then people might just decide to not vote.
"[...] hoping that the end of the war could be achieved by an Ukrainian total victory."
Last I checked (arguably that was a long time ago), the declared goal wasn't the Ukrainian victory but to prevent the Russian victory.
No, those are not the same. If both sides lose or the war just continues by throwing some more supplies over the border but "No, we are totally not involved. You die to protect Western values please. Yes, yes, NATO membership (maybe)." - then that criteria is met.
I remember back in 2016 before the election a lot of colleagues viewed Trump as a publicity stunt without any chance of winning.
The next day people were flabbergasted and then immediately resentment kicked in. The media did their part of course in picking apart every small fart and looking for dog whistles left and right.
While I'm not really following the media, I don't recall seeing the same level of scrutiny and pettiness on a daily basis with previous presidents.
<< Home
