Friday, 20 November 2020

Prelude to war

Pure, Simple (or Simplistic) Democracy. Consider that this - DEMOCRACY - is a Sacred Cow. It cannot be questioned. The process cannot be questioned. The System cannot be questioned. Yes, this system threw up a Donald Trump in 2016. But this system also threw him out in 2020. The system WORKS!

Tell yourself that. Convince yourself that this is DEMOCRACY WORKING. This is the age of disinformation. And there is no greater disinformation and deception than to see something, and BELIEVE THE VERY OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SEEING.

The simple matter is if democracy works as advertised, then ok, maybe people are tired of slick politicians and Washington insiders, and are sold on the idea of an outsider, a maverick, someone who will rock the boat and get the rats off the boat. So 2016 - Trump. Besides Clinton was *bleargh!* Trump won? Understandable really.
Then there were 4 years of Trump. Four years of Trumpism. Four years of lies. The denial and mishandling of a pandemic. Eleven million infections, a quarter million deaths. And lies, lies, lies. Four years of incompetence.

And Biden DID NOT WIN BY A LANDSLIDE? And Biden did not beat Trump (to quote Lindsay Graham) "like a drum"?

If DEMOCRACY WORKS as advertised SHOULD IT NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS THAT TRUMP HAD TO GO? Sure, Trump will still have supporters, but ALMOST HALF OF THE VOTERS? OVER 71 million voters?

That Trump (eventually) lost in 2020 is not proof that the system works. That Trump lost with a respectable margin is proof that the system DOES NOT WORK. I love suspense as much as the next member of the audience. I think suspense and cliffhangers are GREAT! 

For a TV series. 

For the important things in life, it should be predictable and even boring. But maybe that's just me.

From the observation (what you see happening), you might conclude that Democracy (at least the form of democracy in the US) is not working.

Or you might want to ask, 'why is NOT obvious to HALF of the voters (71 million) that Trump has to go?'

Or you might want to ask, 'is it implicit in Democracy (or democracies) that the voters KNOW how to select GOOD GOVERNMENT?'

Or maybe you should be asking, 'is it the objective of democracy to choose GOOD government, or just REPRESENTATIVE government?'

And if the point of Democracy is to choose a REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, or in the case of POTUS, a REPRESENTATIVE POTUS, then what does the result say about how Trump is representing half of the voters in the US?

Perhaps you might come to the conclusion that NOTHING in Democracy, in Democratic institutions, in Civil Liberties, in the (US) Bill of Rights, in the (US) Constitution ensures that Democracy or its processes (i.e. voting and elections) is attuned to the objective of selecting/electing a competent government.

It merely ensures that voters will select someone they LIKE. Or who is LIKE them. Or the candidate that is MOST LIKE Them. In other words, a REPRESENTATIVE candidate.

You know what else is concerned about "likes"? 

Social media.

"Like. Share. And subscribe." Just replace "subscribe" with "vote" and you have the basis of pure, simple (or simplistic) Democracy.

At the heart of Democracy lies the seed of populism. People don't choose the candidate base on objective measures of competence and experience. It is at its core a visceral emotional choice based on "like". Which is why some voters voted AGAINST Clinton: they didn't like her. Some might even have voted for Trump instead in 2016. Maybe they liked him more. Or he entertained them more. 

In this election those who voted for Biden might have considered that he was the more reasonable, rational, and perhaps even more dignified candidate. They might have considered that 4 more years of Trump would be disastrous.

And those who voted for Trump liked Trump and his message. Liked that he subscribed to the same beliefs as them - Covid is a hoax, science is sketchy, the media are propaganda channels proposing fake news, there is a deep state, there is a conspiracy, fight the power.

One side is making a decision based on facts.

The other side is basing their decision based on beliefs.

Or maybe... (horrors!) BOTH SIDES ARE!

(It's just that you LIKE one side, and so can rationalise, or AGREE that they are "logical". By your standards.)

Until democratic questions - like elections - are decided on the same basis (facts or values), there will always be a credibility gulf in the result.

Or the result will be a civil war.

No comments: