tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post6753401665174958906..comments2008-01-25T14:20:09.904-05:00Richardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235r.chappell@gmail.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-61810138267631338732008-01-25T14:20:00.000-05:002008-01-25T14:20:00.000-05:002008-01-25T14:20:00.000-05:00I've responded in <A HREF="http://www.philosophyetc.net/2007/12/what-is-democracy.html#comments" REL="nofollow">the other thread</A>.Richardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-13980010174507369842008-01-25T13:38:00.000-05:002008-01-25T13:38:00.000-05:002008-01-25T13:38:00.000-05:00Yeah, I just guess the idea of a dysfunctional democracy isn't conceptually incoherent. Likewise, the idea of an oligarchy that makes up 60% of the population of a country just seems like a misuse of the word.<BR/><BR/>Why not just identify two different political virtues: participation by the people at large, and a general culture of open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity. What theoretical/moral/political payout comes with calling both of these virtues 'democracy', and anything that lacks at least one of the virtues an 'oligarchy'? To be honest, the distinction right now looks entirely rhetorical.Dereknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-23962701493726276762008-01-25T10:30:00.000-05:002008-01-25T10:30:00.000-05:002008-01-25T10:30:00.000-05:00"<I>This seems like a very odd and theory-laden description of democracy</I>"<BR/><BR/>I guess that reflects my odd <A HREF="http://www.philosophyetc.net/2007/12/what-is-democracy.html" REL="nofollow">theory of democracy</A>. It's not enough to just pander to the pre-existing "views of the average citizen". It's about improving the quality of public debate, enabling citizens to engage in good-faith deliberations and make <I>informed</I> decisions, etc.Richardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-11332186350666812752008-01-25T10:18:00.000-05:002008-01-25T10:18:00.000-05:002008-01-25T10:18:00.000-05:00Richard,<BR/><BR/>Two points:<BR/><BR/>1st, actual polls taken comparing Clinton or Obama to various Republican candidates are highly unclear. I don't think there's any real evidence that Obama is more electable than Clinton. It's just this bit of conventional wisdom that's been repeated so much everyone assumes it must be true.<BR/><BR/>2nd, You write: "I think our top priority should be to strengthen democracy: improving the political system to make it more responsive to reason." <BR/>This seems like a very odd and theory-laden description of democracy. (Plato would have qualified as a democrat on this definition.) Wouldn't strengthening democracy mainly be about improving voter turn-out, and getting a slew of candidates who better represent the views of the average citizens, and not the inner-power-circles of Washington, regardless of who's more reasonable or has a better line to the Good?Dereknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-71326834174950063262008-01-24T13:43:00.000-05:002008-01-24T13:43:00.000-05:002008-01-24T13:43:00.000-05:00if only every pundit had to bet on their predictions eh? <BR/>Then we might not get the mediocre commentary on elections we get in the media every day.Geniushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-57689830446164732112008-01-24T10:07:00.000-05:002008-01-24T10:07:00.000-05:002008-01-24T10:07:00.000-05:00"<I>better than betting odds</I>"<BR/><BR/>Well then, you stand to make a lot of money.Richardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-86960220915273796442008-01-24T02:31:00.000-05:002008-01-24T02:31:00.000-05:002008-01-24T02:31:00.000-05:00BTW, I have an extremely good (possibly perfect) record for predicting elections (and primaries) in the last decade or so for a wide range of countries better than betting odds, polls and any pundit that I have heard.Geniushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-70465212684672783872008-01-23T15:00:00.000-05:002008-01-23T15:00:00.000-05:002008-01-23T15:00:00.000-05:00I was talking about 'electability' for the general election, i.e. which Democratic candidate is most likely to beat the Republicans. The importance of this seems clear enough. (But I agree with you that it would be silly to vote based on 'electability' within one and the same election, e.g. voting for the frontrunner merely because they're the frontrunner.)Richardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-87418713486574395882008-01-23T12:06:00.000-05:002008-01-23T12:06:00.000-05:002008-01-23T12:06:00.000-05:00Richard, for the most part I am fine with your substantive claims about Obama. I'm hesitant mostly because of his lack of experience, but that's not a reason to think he would be a poor leader, it just leaves me agnostic about whether he would or not.<BR/><BR/>However, I can't stand certain terminology that is deployed in discussions about politics. One such term that makes be crazy is "electable" and I notice you place some importance on this suspect feature that good candidates are meant to have. So really, what does "electability" come to, and why should it matter to my choice of whom to vote for?Colin Carethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473707113508018304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-11014706555063655252008-01-22T03:26:00.000-05:002008-01-22T03:26:00.000-05:002008-01-22T03:26:00.000-05:00I guess on balance would prefer to see Obama win the Democratic nomination, however <BR/><BR/>He sails on a wave of the worst things in politics - the ability to spend hours saying nothing and yet have the audience leave thinking you was great. Like the article in the herald recently. The problem is that flair drowns out substance – and that is already a huge problem for the USA. You link to marks article which seems to highlight the benefits of subverting democracy in this way – benefits indeed. Whenever I see someone like that I think I should look a lot closer because I know hardly anyone else is.<BR/><BR/>I think a lot of the benefits you see in Obama's strategy are related to him not being the insider. His organization (and that of McCain) isn't quite the ruthless winning machine that Romney or Hilary has, so it chooses the strategies available to it.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Iraq, there is a danger that a more Doveish president will remain in Iraq and just do a miserable job of it. I.e. there may be a 'foolish middle ground' that is even worse than the extremes. I don't know if that would be the case or not for Obama.<BR/><BR/>If you want the person who has better knowledge of the facts or a better support structure I doubt that Obama beats Hillary and Bill (here after to be called Billary). And remember THIS.<BR/>http://www.pakistanlink.com/Hanif/09212007.htm <BR/><BR/>Now I know it taken out of context and all the candidates are now pretending that they are willing to exterminate life on earth if it will get al Qaeda, but it isn’t exactly reassuring.<BR/><BR/>> Overall: Compared to Hillary, Obama is more electable<BR/><BR/>And yet he is probably going to loose the primary… Besides in head to head McCain beats both of them (and I think the polls overestimate Obama), Meanwhile both candidates beat Romney.<BR/><BR/>I also predict he will under-perform polls.<BR/><BR/>GNZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1220135676981992542008-01-21T06:36:00.000-05:002008-01-21T06:36:00.000-05:002008-01-21T06:36:00.000-05:00Looks like you have a spam commenter, until Richard deletes the above I would suggest that no one be silly enough to click on the links in the comments.<BR/><BR/>Other than that I fully agree with you + I've been told that Thomas Pogge has been advising him on health care...David Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10511387997239132302noreply@blogger.com