QUESTION: Can you have Democracy with a Communist Economic System?

Values influence desires and they influence one’s understanding of justice and even competence. And I’m not talking in terms of black and white. I’m not saying that in other countries “the best” rise to the top, but I think we are able to say that in other countries “much better” people rise to the top, and we can look at almost any measure you can think of to justify this. Pick a few of your choice. The most basic one IMO, as I have suggested, is that half the electorate in the US has given up on it as a democracy. They don’t even bother to vote. This is a very serious indictment of any democracy you must admit.

So now we need to get more specific about what constitutes morality, and to a significant extent different people understand morality differently (see the Kohlberg link above). But some things are fundamental to a very high percentage of the public as they are basic components of the lowest levels of moral development. Should Clinton have had his philandering with Monica? Certainly not. I think we can all agree that that was immoral. Should Clinton have intervened in Rwanda? This is a little more complicated but if you acknowledge that he (and a lot of other leaders for that matter) were legally obliged to intervene if a genocide was occurring, and it clearly was, then you can say that that was immoral. He (and others) broke the law and let thousands die as a consequence.

The Iraq situation is also one where clear immorality and illegal action is leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Bush walked away from the legal US process to engage in an illegal war. If we can agree that they knew there were no WMD in Iraq then this whole war was based on a lie. He ignored the advice of the one qualified member of his staff, Powel, and essentially every other qualified voice in the world. This is a clear competence issue. When you break the law, when you lie to the world, when you ignore the advice of all the experts in order to pursue the agenda of a small ideologically driven group, at the expense of the lives of thousands upon thousands of innocent people, then that has to rank at about 53 on an essentially universal immorality scale of 1 to 10. I cannot think of a possible moral defence of this action.

Governments are not necessarily evil. They are never perfect, as humans are never perfect, but I’m concerned that the characterization of them as a “necessary evil” might act as some kind of excuse for their conduct, or some kind of excuse for us not taking our democratic responsibility for their conduct. In a democracy ultimately we are responsible for our governments. We can’t just shrug our shoulders and say “oh well, what can you do?” I’m not saying that everyone should be turn into full time activist, but I am saying that an individual is responsible for their vote and their voice. In whatever sphere of life you are called to you need to hold to what you honestly believe is right. As a Christian these days I fully admit that it’s very hard to walk into the ballot booth and find an option that clearly seems “right” but I truly don’t see how any Christian who understood what Bush was doing in Iraq could have voted for him in the last election. The clear immorality of it is simply shocking. Now I understand that there are many people who had little other information than what they were told by an uncritical media and certain leaders, so I’m not saying anyone who voted for Bush can’t be a Christian or anything like that. But I guess I am saying that as Christians we have a duty to be Christians in the voting booth and in political discussions in our lives, and clearly lies, deceit, an illegal war and needless slaughter in pursuit of what appear to have been a political objective are not things that any Christian should be supporting.

 

I think that i would disagree with this sentiment.

Except for the collective brain fart the American electorate has had the past eight years

 

I think Christians are facing a political crisis- Who do you vote for?

Unless you know the candidate personally, character, integrity, life and Christian witness how do you evaluate all the 'Christian' speak that candidates use?

Make an assumption for me, let's assume that both the Republican and Democratic political parties are heavily affected by non-Christian influence.
Assume with me for a moment that politicians at the highest levels in both parties are not very alligned with the Bible. Assume with me that both political parties are moving away from governing by Christian values.

If you made those assumptions then you know how I feel mostly about the direction of politics in America.

Now that is alot of meaningless assumption for you, but that is how I feel.

So who do I vote for?

What troubles me more is there is no choice. What democracy? Can anyone get elected except a Republican or Democrat. NO

Until proven otherwise, it is a fact.

I don't like the fact that only a Republican or Democrat can be elected, it smells of bureaucratic and autocratic control. Both parties receive their money from the same basic sources. Find the money, find the power.

 

Let me qualify. Most first world countries and most strong democracies produce much better leaders. Clinton was for the most part competent and, with at least 1 prominent exception, moral in his public life. Bush Sr. wasn’t bad, but then we have Reagan and also Nixon.

Now, recent Canadian events attributable to past PM Jean Chrétien certainly deserve to be listed in the crooked and immoral column, but overall if you look at Canadian leaders in the last half century and those in other strong democracies I think you can fairly say that the calibre of the leaders in these other countries is markedly higher than in the US overall.

 

See....I disagree.

It is so hard to defend a system that produced two terms for Bush. And the partisanship in the US is beyond crazy.

But... if you want to compare to Canada. Martin? Harper? Please! And Chretien was elected FOUR times! --- in part, because there was no genuine alternative. If an election were held today in Canada, I suspect Martin would win despite of the mass corruption his party's been up to. The 'official opposition' was a party who's stated mandate was to break-up Canada and only ran candidates in one province! Perhaps you were a fan of Mulroney? John Turner? Clinton and Bush 1 are starting to look good.

Or maybe Australia. Howard's your man?

I just think that if you looked collectively at the leaders nations have produced over the last twenty/ thirty/ fifty ? years...you'd find other systems haven't faired particularly better than the US.

Doesn't mean the US system is good. Or not in need of fixing.

 

It sounds to me that you have some talking points about the US that you tend to repeat in many posts. The governments policies do not tend to "disproportionately favour the rich." That's just your opinion because you don't like free market capitalism, and that's fine. The fact is the US creates more jobs and has a higher standard of living than pretty much every country. Our unemployment rate is among the lowest in the world. The fact is we have MANY poor immigrants come to the US, even illegally, because it is the best place for them to make a life for their families! If you ask a random poor person from any country where they would like to get a chance to work and live, and I bet most would say America.

And just because there is a less than 50% turnout rate doesn't mean the people have "given up on the US as a democracy." How ridiculous. And now you are talking about people being "disenfranchised?" Who in America is disdenfranchised? What are you talking about. Our democracy does not need to be "regenerated" either, it has been quite fine. I know there is plenty of anti-American sentiment in Canada, but try to keep your arguments grounded in reality.

 

Harper has not been and elected leader anywhere, don’t forget, and in spite of the Liberals troubles he’s still trailing in the polls. This says to me that in spite of the degree of cynicism that exists in Canada today about politicians, we’re not cynical enough to elect Harper. This is one of the things I’d hold up as an example of the strength of our system. Martin is mired in a mess that his predecessor has created but most would say that he is an intelligent highly competent individual whether you agree with his politics or not. You can vote against the man and still respect him. Match him up intellectually with Bush and there’s no comparison I’m sure you will agree. Chrétien was, IMO, a competent individual who did a lot of good things in his political career, but who apparently became very corrupt in the last decade or so. The mess that exists now is really his mess, not Martin’s. It’s true that it’s the same party, and I think there are some very legitimate questions about whether he can clean it up or whether the whole party should be swept out, but that brings us back to the issue of the alternative, Harper. Harper is a non-typical political leader in Canada, I suggest, who is there because of an unusual series of events beginning with the Quebec separation issue and leading to the Mulroney aberration and the implosion of the century old PC party. So we certainly have our issues but I don’t think they are the same issues. The Conservative party is maturing and if they get smacked down in the polls one more time and change leaders to a more competent, more Canadian leader then they could become the new PC party. You have to admit that Harper is a huge step forward from Stockwell Day, and if the next leader takes another large step forward to being in line with mainline Canadian sensibilities then our political structure may have righted itself. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t ever foresee me voting for the Conservatives, and I have never voted for a conservative party in the past, but many conservative leaders in the past have been respectable competent people.

As a side note, the official opposition is the Conservatives now, not the BQ.

And I’m not sure that raising Turner, a guy who was PM for all of 3 months and who was never elected, as an example is fair. He was the requisite English Liberal leader, if you recall, which is another unique problem to our (or at least the Liberal Party’s) traditions. If you list all the Canadian PMs who were actually elected in the last 50 years you get:

Diefenbaker
Pearson
Trudeau
Clark
Mulroney
Chrétien
Martin

In the US:
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Bush Sr.
Clinton
Bush Jr.

Do you still see no overall difference?

 

The facts indicate otherwise.





However, I am not ready to determine the widened inequalities in wealth exist because of the government policies or inspite of them.

 

I'd give the edge to the US. At best I'd call it even. Even with Bush II bringing down the average .

 

So the facts do NOT indicate otherwise. The truth is, the underlying economic forces are stronger than government actions. We do have a progressive tax system here. People under a certain income level do not pay income tax, and in fact many get extra money back, as long as they work, though the EITC. We have welfare, social security, etc. It's not as elaborate as those in Europe (nor do I want it to be! have you seen their unemployment rates?)

I am fine with having some very wealthy at the top if it means that our whole economy is top 3 in the world year after year. If this country is about the wealthy then why do the most poor seek entrance into the country? Because of opportunity.

Your charts also ignore that the people in the top 10 % changes all the time. In the 1970's Bill Gates was not that high. A few years ago, neither was Lebron James.

 

That has to do with the quirks of how US campaigns are run actually caused by spending limits on the party. In the US we by tradition recognize parties but constitutionally speaking parties aren't part of the system and its just individuals running. As an individual in a race they need money to run and if the party is limited in what they can provide then its up to the individual to raise the money. In a parliamentary system people are voting on the party, even if it is personified by a particular person. The party can raise the money so it doesn't need a rich candidate to raise their own money. Back inthe day of unfettered campaign spending by the parties in there were more candidates who weren't wealthy since they relied on the party to provide and all they had to do was work the political machinery to get nominated.

Its true that elections in the US have gotten way more expensive but at the same time if a candidated didn't have to rely on their own wealth or what they could raise on their own you would see more candidates who weren't wealthy running. Spending limits don't matter when its not your own wealth you are relying on.

I'm not that up on Canada's political system so I'm basing this on my own general understanding of parliamentary systems and not Canada's in particular.

 

Strictly Constitutionally it is the Executive branch who appoints representatives since they are ambassadors. In regard to what these NGO's do yes by treaty they cold overturn federal policy but tha doesn't mean they overrule federal policy. Any dictates of a treaty are still subject to the same consideration as any other law and conflicts with existing law are either resolved through the courts or new legislation.

They may or may not have the public welfare in mind but ultimately under a democracy the Admin that appointed those diplomats can be voted out and a new one Admin. could demand to renogotiate or withdraw from those international organizations.

 

I'm not sure how much you can divorce government from economy. Even under the most Laissez Faire system you still need someone to enforce contracts and arbitrate disputes.

 

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.

 

Progressive tax system compared to which countries? The government policies, if anything, haven't done nearly as enough to slow down ever increasing wealth inequality. Over the years, especially with the Bush's economic policies, the tax burden of this country has shifted towards the middle class tax payers. You call that progressive?

Why is this relevant to the discussion? Plus, they are not the typical examples in the steady "disequilibria" of the overall economical situations.

 

Not a fan of Chretien, Martin, Mulroney or Clark. Or, for the most part, the individuals they ran against. You labeled Chretien as immoral and crooked. Should we add Mulroney? I'm not quite as willing to give Martin a pass on Chretien's government given he was its most high profile cabinet member during the time of its corruptness. I'd take Clinton or Bush 1 over that lot.

And a system that produces Harper...who was an improvement over Day...who was an improvement over Manning...can hardly be one that's said to produce a high caliber of candidates. I happened to like Trudeau...but many of your Albertan comrades would disagree.

What I like about the US system, is that it continually produces new candidates. Trudeau hung around forever. As did Clark. (Chretien did too...but at least he was being elected!). In the US, Kerry had his shot...but will now step aside. As did Gore....and Dole. I like that. Harper had his shot...blew it...and sticks around.

There's lots I don't like about the US system. In many ways I prefer the parliamentary system. I just don't think it's correct to say, however, that the US system systematically produces weaker candidates. I often don't like their candidates...but that's because my politics is much further left (read--sane) than those of many of our gun-loving, bible-thumping neighbours to the south. I have no explanation for Bush II.

 

I think he meant by definition. In other words the rich pay at a higher rate than the poor, at least as far as income tax is concerned.

 

1. "Any dictates of a treaty are still subject to the same consideration as any other law and conflicts with existing law are either resolved through the courts or new legislation." Not true, in practice a treaty by nature will become the existing law, instead of conflict there is capitulation; legislation is one way of challenging a treaty but that is very difficult.

2."They may or may not have the public welfare in mind but ultimately under a democracy the Admin that appointed those diplomats can be voted out and a new one Admin. could demand to renogotiate or withdraw from those international organizations." Not true. NGO's and the bureaucracy of govt. operate above the power of political parties. Groups like the G8 Summit, Bildeberger Councils, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission etc.

You can't vote out the groups that power broker both political parties.

link

 

Rhester;

There have been cases involving treaty law ajudicated through US courts. If I'm not mistaken there have been recent cases regarding the Mexican nationals convincted without representation of the Mexican government along which is required by diplomatic treaty. Also aren't many of the court decisions regarding the treatment of enemy combatants based upon the applicability of the Geneva Conventions?

Even if the representatives of the organizations you name the US can still pull out of those organizations and its possible for those organizations or a treaty to be of such importance that it becomes a campaign issue leading to the election of an Admin who would pull out of that treaty.

We're not helpless in the face of international regimes but have as much recourse under our republican form of democracy as we do under any other issue at the Federal level.

 

China is about as communist as the guy selling me fake rolexes in front of Mao's mausoleum in Tiananmen square last week.

There's a big difference between having state owned industries (Amtrak) and being a communist country

There's nothing communist about this place in an economic sense anymore as far as the Marxist Leninst sense. Nothing.