Fred, I suspect part of the differences are that you place such an overwhelming focus on political parties as the center of control and corruption, while others may view parties as virtually appendages of more significant power centers (whether that be corporate wealth, unions, intellectual elites, or whoever). For example you quote A. MacIntyre to support your view...but I believe, as an anti-capitalist, he was writing about an oligarchy of wealth that narrowed the range of options voters were allowed to deal with, rather than political parties.
IF political parties in the U.S. were indeed the most powerful centers of control and corruption, your proposal to steer clear of party structures entirely might be interesting to more people. But I suspect many people see parties as merely pragmatic "super-structures" catering to the needs of the real oligarchs. I know plenty of party officials, and can assure you they are not "in control" of things. Terry Bouricius ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Gohlke" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [EM] language/framing quibble Good Morning, Juho I've been on the fence about whether or not it is appropriate for me to respond to your last message on this thread. Since I'm aware you "... value many of the political systems of today higher than ..." I do, and since we've exchanged many thoughts over the past year, I fear anything I say may sound more like a harangue than a positive contribution. I have no wish to be argumentative. Still, after considering the matter, I've decided to offer two observations: re: "... in many democracies people can influence the direction of their country." I do not believe that to be true. As Dr. Alasdair MacIntyre of Notre Dame University (cited by Dr. Ted Clayton in 'The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy') said: "Politically the societies of advanced Western modernity are oligarchies disguised as liberal democracies. The large majority of those who inhabit them are excluded from membership in the elites that determine the range of alternatives between which voters are permitted to choose." re: "Of course despite of this the systems have plenty of faults and we should seek and implement improvements whenever we can." It is not possible to 'seek and implement improvements' until we itemize the faults. We must identify them before we can correct them. To that end, we might consider starting with these: * An oligarchic party structure that controls the choices made available to the people. * Corruption, caused by the parties' need for funds to conduct their operations, that leads to the selling of legislation to benefit the donors rather than the public (like the gutting and eventual repeal of the Glass-Steagall Acts, enacted to protect the public from the excesses of the financial industry; a political act that so obviously led to the world-wide financial chaos we now endure ... in your country as well as mine!) * Incitement of passionate support rather than inspiring thoughtful consideration of public concerns. * Defeating the checks and balances intended to prevent the excessive accumulation of power. If these are, as I see them, serious concerns, what specific improvements can we make to prevent their destructiveness? Practical Democracy addresses and forestalls each of these faults. Other alternatives must exist. What are they and how can we implement them? Should I keep belaboring you with such questions? Fred Gohlke ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
