I think it may come from the opposite of feeling safe. Losing a political dispute doesn’t matter because the people actually in power don’t give half a shit about what that (at best) 5% of the population who can understand a reasoned argument thinks. Arguing esp. online gives intellectuals an illusion of voice/power. Someone asks “Should we legalize drugs?” on Reddit and ten thousand people jump in the debate. But “we” have almost no say in whether drugs will ever get legalized or not. It is an illusion, it is a pretend-play at being democratic, a Toy Parliament. It is the people in power who decide and “we” have far less power to influence the public opinion than they do. Even if the public opinion is against it, that does not matter too much. In most countries we have either two large parties or two large coalition of smaller parties. Maybe three or four coalitions at best. What the public can do is to choose one over the other. They game is rigged so that newcomer parties have not much chance, it is established elites. So if they all agree they will legalize or not legalize drugs, they will not lose votes relative to each other. And even if they don’t all agree e.g. in the UK Greens would legalize and others not, voting is a package deal anyway, every voter must decide to buy the whole package of Greens, economic policy, immigration policy, everything, so one or two issue does not matter so much.
So the main reason it does not matter is that we are more or less powerless. It is playing at a Toy Parliament, pretending to be a force to be reckoned with in a Toy Democracy.
Nota bene, I am not even that much bitter about it, even though it may sound like so. I am probably fucked in the mind enough to not find monarchy or aristocracy automatically bad systems, and this kind of “democracy” is more or less a somewhat competitive aristocracy. The same kind of people are always in power, but the people get to choose if a given group of elites are in power say 30% of the time or 70% of the time. This is not necessarily a horrible system, arguably Rome worked on a worse ones for long.
But “we” have almost no say in whether drugs will ever get legalized or not.
It’s all complicated and certainly not “the voice of the people says let this be so!”, but public pressure is an element in political change. The marijuana legalization in the US is a good example. Even the commentariat can occasionally impact things—I’m thinking of the successful Google-bombing of Santorum :-)
But that’s a long and complicated discussion with little payment of rent involved...
Maybe three or four coalitions at best. What the public can do is to choose one over the other.
That suggest that democracy is just about voting at election day. That’s just not true. Public debate matters for policy changes.
Granted what the New York Times writes is more important than what happens at Reddit, but we don’t live in a world where the parliaments are separated from the rest.
ACTA didn’t go through because we live in a democracy where the internet allows people to politically organize in a way we couldn’t 15 years ago.
Look at things like the proposed EU Constitution and later the replacement, the Treaty of Lisbon. Pretty much about elites deciding what they want and pushing it on the people until they give in and ratify it. First they push the EU Constitution, the people of UK, France, Netherlands reject it via referendum. Fine, they rewrite it is as a Treaty of Lisbon, now the UK government is smarter and doesn’t even hold a referendum, just ratifies in the Parliament. Ireland holds a referendum as it constitutionally must, and the people say no. No problem however, the elites launch a massive advertising campaign and hold another referendum. They’ll just keep asking the question until they get a yes. No other country outside Ireland holds a referendum about it, which suggests a lot about whether the people would have accepted it or not. The message is very clear, the elites want it, and basically push it until they can make it happen.
Pretty much about elites deciding what they want and pushing it on the people until they give in and ratify it. First they push the EU Constitution, the people of UK, France, Netherlands reject it via referendum.
And now the pressure in the UK is strong enough that they get a referendum about leaving the EU.
But more importantly democracy is not only about voting but about public debate. The European idea has a deep intellectual foundation. A lot of those people of the 5% that can understand a reasoned argument are pro-European.
It’s interesting how you use the term “elites” as if it would mean something very different than “intellectuals”. In practice journalists are intellectuals who do form part of the societal elite that influences public policy.
Think Tanks have influence because they can afford to pay intellectuals to do nothing but think about a specific issue.
I think it may come from the opposite of feeling safe. Losing a political dispute doesn’t matter because the people actually in power don’t give half a shit about what that (at best) 5% of the population who can understand a reasoned argument thinks. Arguing esp. online gives intellectuals an illusion of voice/power. Someone asks “Should we legalize drugs?” on Reddit and ten thousand people jump in the debate. But “we” have almost no say in whether drugs will ever get legalized or not. It is an illusion, it is a pretend-play at being democratic, a Toy Parliament. It is the people in power who decide and “we” have far less power to influence the public opinion than they do. Even if the public opinion is against it, that does not matter too much. In most countries we have either two large parties or two large coalition of smaller parties. Maybe three or four coalitions at best. What the public can do is to choose one over the other. They game is rigged so that newcomer parties have not much chance, it is established elites. So if they all agree they will legalize or not legalize drugs, they will not lose votes relative to each other. And even if they don’t all agree e.g. in the UK Greens would legalize and others not, voting is a package deal anyway, every voter must decide to buy the whole package of Greens, economic policy, immigration policy, everything, so one or two issue does not matter so much.
So the main reason it does not matter is that we are more or less powerless. It is playing at a Toy Parliament, pretending to be a force to be reckoned with in a Toy Democracy.
Nota bene, I am not even that much bitter about it, even though it may sound like so. I am probably fucked in the mind enough to not find monarchy or aristocracy automatically bad systems, and this kind of “democracy” is more or less a somewhat competitive aristocracy. The same kind of people are always in power, but the people get to choose if a given group of elites are in power say 30% of the time or 70% of the time. This is not necessarily a horrible system, arguably Rome worked on a worse ones for long.
It’s all complicated and certainly not “the voice of the people says let this be so!”, but public pressure is an element in political change. The marijuana legalization in the US is a good example. Even the commentariat can occasionally impact things—I’m thinking of the successful Google-bombing of Santorum :-)
But that’s a long and complicated discussion with little payment of rent involved...
To the contrary, it can save a lot of people from wasting a lot of their time.
Empirical observations show that no, it can not X-D
That suggest that democracy is just about voting at election day. That’s just not true. Public debate matters for policy changes.
Granted what the New York Times writes is more important than what happens at Reddit, but we don’t live in a world where the parliaments are separated from the rest.
ACTA didn’t go through because we live in a democracy where the internet allows people to politically organize in a way we couldn’t 15 years ago.
Look at things like the proposed EU Constitution and later the replacement, the Treaty of Lisbon. Pretty much about elites deciding what they want and pushing it on the people until they give in and ratify it. First they push the EU Constitution, the people of UK, France, Netherlands reject it via referendum. Fine, they rewrite it is as a Treaty of Lisbon, now the UK government is smarter and doesn’t even hold a referendum, just ratifies in the Parliament. Ireland holds a referendum as it constitutionally must, and the people say no. No problem however, the elites launch a massive advertising campaign and hold another referendum. They’ll just keep asking the question until they get a yes. No other country outside Ireland holds a referendum about it, which suggests a lot about whether the people would have accepted it or not. The message is very clear, the elites want it, and basically push it until they can make it happen.
And now the pressure in the UK is strong enough that they get a referendum about leaving the EU. But more importantly democracy is not only about voting but about public debate. The European idea has a deep intellectual foundation. A lot of those people of the 5% that can understand a reasoned argument are pro-European.
It’s interesting how you use the term “elites” as if it would mean something very different than “intellectuals”. In practice journalists are intellectuals who do form part of the societal elite that influences public policy. Think Tanks have influence because they can afford to pay intellectuals to do nothing but think about a specific issue.
EU is a bit different, it’s widely accepted that it’s not democratic.
As to “can make it happen”, so, how is Greece doing?