Question for people who like Democracy

[ALawPoker]

OK, let's look at a few issues:

1.) Term limits (Strict limits/Let the voters decide when they want change)
2.) Campaign funding laws (Should there be a limit, and where do you draw the lines?)
3.) Foreign heads of state (Which world leaders should not be allowed in the US/to speak at US universities?)
4.) Amending the Constitution (Who should have the authority to do it and under what circumstances?)


My question is, regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, *how* exactly do you feel and if you feel strongly what is it based on?

I mean, a lot of things in life "feel" right or wrong to me. You're comfortable with what you think and basically why you think it, even if you don't have all the detailed justifications, and it's important to you. I'm wondering if anyone really feels that way about these specific issues. Are any of these the types of issues where if someone disagreed, that little voice inside you would just be irked and you'd feel the need to defend your case?

Obviously I have a point I'm trying to hint at here (maybe it's obvious, maybe it isn't), but I'm also just trying to understand you and how you think. So please answer as honestly as you can.

[ALawPoker]

Maybe no one likes democracy.

Since this thread will probably bomb, my point here is very basically that these 4 issues only exist when a democratic state exists.

While you might consciously justify one position or another for one reason or another, I really don't believe that deep down many people feel particularly strongly about them or believe they have some clear fundamental answer that other people should understand. I think it's more like "meh, I see that side too." That tells me something.

[BigLawMonies]

*Thread Save*

* If just looking at Phil Laak tilts you hard do not read*

OK I like representative democracy in a separation of powers scheme.

I have somewhat strong feelings on all of these issues, except constitutional amendment.

I think that the "meh" responses you refer to may come from the misalignment of some of these solutions with the problems they are supposed to address, i.e. that they imperfectly address a real issue in a democracy or they only prod at the manifestation/symptom of a different problem.

For instance I think our desire for campaign finance reform is rooted in other problems that it does not address-

1. A winner take all system that increases barriers to entry and creates a "race to the center"

2. Vastly expanded role of Fed.Gov --> high stakes outcomes --> money in politics.

Just off the top of my head, there is huge interest by NEA, Archer-Daniels-Midlands and other corporate welfare queens, big pharma (Medicare Part D), AgriBiz (Dow Chemicals, Monsanto for USDA regs + [censored] load of subsidies,etc) in any election at the federal level...

3. Political Apathy...watching 90 Hillary Clinton ads is not going to make me vote for her but just like buying brand name over generic voters will pay a premium for a product they at least know about....

I think a productive means of examining these issues would be to see what problem the mechanism is supposed to solve, the negative side-effects, and perhaps the misalignment.

Let's do a Cost-Benefit on Term Limits

Why Term Limits?

- Accountability: Afraid of divergence of official from constituents (i.e. captured by technocratic, "inside the beltway" thinking)

- Entrenchment Bad... --> corruption (i.e earmarks ensuring perpetual re-elections of congressmen in their districts)

-Entrenchment bad...-> overconfident (and thus poor) legislating (i.e. you turn into Sen. Joe "[censored] your personal autonomy and point of view i've been in the politics game for 4000 [censored] ing years so I know what is best for your dumb ass" Biden)

- Term limits = bulwark against tyranny (i.e. prevent a slippery slope to President-for-life)

Why not term limits?

- Forces loss of great leadership in some cases

- Thwarts people's will to re-elect (anti-democratic)

- Term-limits --> no accountability in last term, plus no accounting of future costs (aka [censored] the next guy)

- Entrenchment Good...expertise in governance and issues instead of having to "re-train" new congressmen constantly. The alternative is congress relies on industry experts and other interest groups (information-interest tradeoff).

- Entrenchment Good... need strong legislature to combat explosion in executive power..

- Entrenchment Good...alternative is government by bureaucrats and unelected agencies.

Conclusion: I think that there just must be an answer that makes officials accountable and not corrupt without kneecapping the legislative branch with term limits. The answer for people who believe in small government is generally to lower the stakes of elections and elective office and to rely on a more solid skeletal scheme of separation of powers.

Ultimately you have to decide where you stand philosophically on terms limits by looking at certain continuums:

efficiency vs. fear of tyranny

belief expertise vs. belief in common sense

etc.

Whatcha think?

[zasterguava]

How about they actually try democracy in America as opposed to polyarchy?

[BigLawMonies]

"How about they actually try democracy in America as opposed to polyarchy?"

Because in America we believe that participatory political process is not an end in itself but is a tool for the protection of individual rights and social welfare.

We believe further that these ends are threatened by majoritarian disdain for minority rights and love of expediency and therefore we balance democratic impulses and accountability with a representative system based on seperation of powers.

Could you be more specific in your concern or was that a rhetorical question?

[ConstantineX]

I have some thoughts on the first:

Term limits - Having short term limits increases public accountability, so if you assume a perfectly rational (by rational I mean voting for their long-term collective interest) populace, it would seem like a free lunch. But we know that the population votes for its special interests, can be mob-like and vote for only short-term gain, so the benefit of having a long term limits is that you allow prudent politicians who have a bit of a "lag" in implementing legislation that doesn't perfectly fit public opinion. Lots of bills that pass the House don't make it through the Senate for example, for prudent reasons on the Senators' parts. Representatives are usually more "craven", vocal proponents for their constituents, which is often not socially optimal.

I believe every politician once elected into office faces a dilemma. Most have genuine ideological beliefs that guide them - because people have innate biological instincts that help them separate truth-tellers from fakers - but those are easily discardable in favor of political success, that of course is why they are politicians.

You look around and wonder after the '70s and tons of historical data the Senate and House are still passing "price-gouging" legislation and local municipalities pass rent-control. This isn't any malevolent intent or grand-standing on the part of politicians but a real reflection of the changing mood of their constituents. But the politician knows that he will also end up having to deal with the adverse effects that legislation creates on his watch. Politicians with long terms can outright game the system, not delivering immediate gratification in hope that the shock goes away - but that's not very prudent, because voting "NO" is far too clear an indictment of a specific politician (see Adanthar, "Ron Paul is an opponent of the Civil Rights Act"). So they generally water down bills using gamemanship allowed by their long terms like arcane knowledge of Senate rules and filibusters and such.

Keeping in mind this trade-off, I don't think term limits are the real problem with democracy. If they were too short, nothing politically daring could be done. If they are too long, there's a lack of public accountability and incumbents tend to be re-elected. But in both cases most politicians really try to deliver what their constituents want - but they, and society doesn't want to deal with the collective results of their actions, ironically for collective action reasons. That's always the real problem with democracy.