8 ms·

>We are missing something essential to the DNA of a functioning democracy, and it’s not obvious there’s any way to fix it. Chasing Utopia, while not having ans

>We are missing something essential to the DNA of a functioning democracy, and it’s not obvious there’s any way to fix it. Chasing Utopia, while not having answers how to get there, and for that matter even not knowing what this utopia looks like. This is just I don't like what happened so let me see what could have made it not happen, that's all. Let me rearrange the world with no regard to how messed up it would get. As exemplified in... >It’s not clear American democracy can survive commercial media He could have gone little more meta and said It's not clear if humanity could survive humanity. American experiment is longest surviving thriving experiment of democracy, security and prosperity to date. We are not going to change because you don't like the results. This election worked despite commercial media, it shows that American democracy is surviving and thriving. Any proposal to "fix" the situation must come with enormous proof of it working, and at reasonable cost, and with no significant downside, otherwise we would rather keep what we have, thank you very much. >And the picture of Clinton as policy-wonk-in-chief is both compelling and again, tragic. This is her central feature: How is it most have no clue about this bit of her character? The problem was Americans became too aware of it. Libya and Syria was her to own, and what it did to Europe was colossal failure as a policy-wonk. North Korea became what it is now on her watch. She should have lost with greater margin on that basis alone. I see this as not enough people paying attention. Her problem was not that not enough people knew her record, but that she had lot of record for people to judge her for, and they found her not only lacking, but disastrous. >Overwhelmingly, they believed their “representative democracy” was corrupt because it did not “represent” — at least them. And yet the campaign did nothing fundamental to address this fundamental fact about us. "it did not "represent"" is wrong way to look at democracy, instead of people selecting professional representatives from Dems or Reps to represent issues that they themselves are not convinced of, the people chose Trump to represent them. At the end people won, campaigns lost, it was beautiful to watch. And I thank Trump of giving the people that, and as Michael Moore professed "it felt good". >That blindness leaves the field wide open for the party of no — no taxes, no immigration, no health care, no (more) social security, no protection for privacy, no network neutrality, no family planning, no dreamers. No arguments offered. Just take this and shove it down your throat, because that's the world they want to live in. Do I have an opinion or not? Do I get to hear why this is good for me or us, or not? Why are these the axioms of Dem platform? Why should I accept them? >If we fixed democracy first, we might create a world in which the wisdom of the wonks could be heard again. Democracy needs to be fixed because Clinton lost. Is that the argument here? This just got ridiculous. Does Lawrence, as a wonk himself, thinks that if Democracy is fixed then he would get better audience to his wonky thoughts? Did it occur to him that making people see things your way may be one of the basic skills of being a wonk? A skill, which he himself has compared to others whose thoughts get no attention from anyone. Like this comment here on hackernews, lol. Trump had this skill in heaps, and he made it count. Glad he did. Long live America.

acjohnson55 9y ago
> Chasing Utopia, while not having answers how to get there, and for that matter even not knowing what this utopia looks like. I'm not sure whether you have much prior knowledge of the author, but he has advanced plenty of ideas on how the situation can be improved. > American experiment is longest surviving thriving experiment of democracy, security and prosperity to date. We are not going to change because you don't like the results. This election worked despite commercial media, it shows that American democracy is surviving and thriving. Any proposal to "fix" the situation must come with enormous proof of it working, and at reasonable cost, and with no significant downside, otherwise we would rather keep what we have, thank you very much. This is only really true if you frame "democracy" as being whatever America has been, at any given time. The extent to which American security and prosperity have anything to do with democracy is debatable. > Democracy needs to be fixed because Clinton lost. Is that the argument here? This just got ridiculous. No, American democracy failed because a complete charlatan is president. The fact that this is the case, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, is only the final failure in a long chain of democratic dysfunction. I'd argue that an effective system wouldn't give voters the choice between two intensely reviled candidates, to begin with. And I also agree with Lessig that our media culture succeeded in commercializing a chaotic and shameful campaign, while failing miserably to focus the election of issues that actually matter.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  >while failing miserably to focus the election of issues that actually matter They failed? They decide what they should focus on, or should you decide for them? Who gave you the judge position? Care to take any efforts into claiming that judge position? Why should I or they grant you that? They, or I, should change our ways because you don't like it? What argument you have to claim that people didn't focus on what they should have in voting for Trump? I see that as a supremacist statement. May be he would have won with bigger margin, if they had really paid attention to what was going on. >This is only really true if you frame "democracy" as being whatever America has been, at any given time. The extent to which American security and prosperity have anything to do with democracy is debatable. :s/democracy/utopia You get the idea. No description of utopia other than in the utopia Hillary was president. Well, I reject the thought, as no argument was given. I quite like America and would rather live here than any place else. All are free to leave America if they don't like it. If you propose changing America, you wish alone is not going to cut it, put up an argument. I am quite aware of Lawrence's work, and have supported/appreciated it. Above comments were a response to that article, not an attack on Lawrence. I am sure he can defend himself quite well, if he happen to read it.

acjohnson55 9y ago

> Chasing Utopia, while not having answers how to get there, and for that matter even not knowing what this utopia looks like. I'm not sure whether you have much prior knowledge of the author, but he has advanced plenty of ideas on how the situation can be improved. > American experiment is longest surviving thriving experiment of democracy, security and prosperity to date. We are not going to change because you don't like the results. This election worked despite commercial media, it shows that American democracy is surviving and thriving. Any proposal to "fix" the situation must come with enormous proof of it working, and at reasonable cost, and with no significant downside, otherwise we would rather keep what we have, thank you very much. This is only really true if you frame "democracy" as being whatever America has been, at any given time. The extent to which American security and prosperity have anything to do with democracy is debatable. > Democracy needs to be fixed because Clinton lost. Is that the argument here? This just got ridiculous. No, American democracy failed because a complete charlatan is president. The fact that this is the case, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, is only the final failure in a long chain of democratic dysfunction. I'd argue that an effective system wouldn't give voters the choice between two intensely reviled candidates, to begin with. And I also agree with Lessig that our media culture succeeded in commercializing a chaotic and shameful campaign, while failing miserably to focus the election of issues that actually matter.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>while failing miserably to focus the election of issues that actually matter They failed? They decide what they should focus on, or should you decide for them? Who gave you the judge position? Care to take any efforts into claiming that judge position? Why should I or they grant you that? They, or I, should change our ways because you don't like it? What argument you have to claim that people didn't focus on what they should have in voting for Trump? I see that as a supremacist statement. May be he would have won with bigger margin, if they had really paid attention to what was going on. >This is only really true if you frame "democracy" as being whatever America has been, at any given time. The extent to which American security and prosperity have anything to do with democracy is debatable. :s/democracy/utopia You get the idea. No description of utopia other than in the utopia Hillary was president. Well, I reject the thought, as no argument was given. I quite like America and would rather live here than any place else. All are free to leave America if they don't like it. If you propose changing America, you wish alone is not going to cut it, put up an argument. I am quite aware of Lawrence's work, and have supported/appreciated it. Above comments were a response to that article, not an attack on Lawrence. I am sure he can defend himself quite well, if he happen to read it.