Glenn Greenwald was recently a guest on Piers Morgan’s show (appearing in a panel together with other guests). In a recap video Greenwald collects excerpts of his from the show. The collection forms a condemnation of the West’s rich record of aggression in the 21st century. Interestingly, Greenwald ties this record to the electoralist system.
Greenwald repeatedly makes the point that the consistent U.S. and Western aggression toward their enemies is the result of an aggressive consensus among Western elites, so that the public cannot vote to stop it, since all credible choices on the ballot support it. In fact, Greenwald points out, the public does wish to stop the diversion of resources into the war efforts, and since none of the mainstream parties offers this option, formerly fringe parties are gaining power at the expense of mainstream parties.
In addition, Greenwald offers an explanation for the difference between popular sentiment and elite consensus on the matter of war. While the large majority of the population is busy worrying about their affairs at home, he says, the extremely wealthy elites are insulated from any material worries and instead find their purpose in meddling abroad. While the specifics of this explanation can be disputed, the fact that the principle of distinction is at work – i.e., that the elected from a group with distinct characteristics from those of the population at large and that as a result the elected pursue objectives that do not serve the public – seems evident.
A final point, not made by Greenwald, is worth mentioning. An idea that is fairly popular among pundits and political scientists is that of the “democratic peace”. According to this idea, which supposedly goes back to Immanuel Kant, democratic countries do not go to war with each other. Especially in the face of the consistent aggression of the supposedly “democratic” Western states, it is worth noting how meaningless this claim is without an unambiguous definition of what democracy is. Without such a definition, the “democratic peace” theory is no more than a misnomer for the Pax Americana, where U.S.-allied countries are labeled “democratic” while countries attacked by the U.S. and its allies are labeled as “undemocratic”.
Filed under: Academia, Effects of electoralism, Elections, Press, video |
Adam Cronkright
Ali
Ahmed R. Teleb
avanderven
avergne
Alex Kovner
azakaras
Brett Hennig
campbellwallace
Simon Threlkeld
Nick Coccoma
codyhipskind
Common Lot Sortitionist
Conall Boyle
constitutionalism
davidschecter
Ethan McCutchen
graytmatter
gtridimas
Henry Tuttle
H.J. Hofkirchner
HpR
Carl Lundgren
James Kierstead
John Burnheim
jgarry20151
Jochen Krattenmacher
johnedwardtaylor
johnhuang865
Jonathan Crock
keithsutherland
Jacob Richter
kkoreilly
lukewhito
SimonPek
Nathan El
Nicholas Gruen
Owen Shaffer
Patrick Chalmers
Paul Gölz
peterstone
Pierre-Etienne Vandamme
pronfeld
Emil
rcaze
richwbrown
Roger Knights
roslynfuller
Pierre-Etienne Vandamme
shaharavin
tbouricius
Ted Wachtel
Joshua Laferriere
theodorestathis
towardsautonomyblog
Wayne Liebman
Yoram Gat
Oliver Milne
yes. i always reflect that it never even occurred to me to ever become an anti-war activist, because it seemed so childishly unlikely to be effective, but i was moved to become an activist when i learned of georgist, because for a while i thought obscurity was the main reason for its non-adoption. now i think the georgist taxation is just yet another good idea squelched by the elected elite. you know, like PEACE!
LikeLike
Fourth-century Athens, when the demos had kratos, was not known for its pacifism. Can you provide any examples (outwith John Lennon’s imagination)?
LikeLike
With regard to people having a choice, Republicans and Democrats alike agree that the Republicans are likely to take a significant “hit” in the midterm elections from voter backlash against Trump’s unilateral decision (without even informing Congress) to greenlight and participate in major war against Iran. It remains to be seen whether the Republicans will lose both houses of Congress. To be sure, it would be an even cleaner choice if voters could directly vote on this war through some type of ballot initiative or referendum. I am also unaware of any evidence that “wealthy elites” prefer this war – It seems to be a sui generis Trump decision.
Also, Greenwald rails against U.S. assistance to Ukraine (limited to material assistance, not U.S. troops) in its fight against invasion by a Russian dictator. Seriously? Why would any U.S. politician not support assisting Ukraine? – that is not even close to being a majority opinion among the U.S. public.
LikeLike
On the question “in ancient Greece did one democracy war against another democracy” – google search AI responds “Yes, ancient Greek democracies frequently went to war with one another.” Simply to summarize, there are three main pieces of evidence: 1) Athens vs. Syracuse (Sicilian Expedition, 415–413 BCE); 2) Conflicts Among Allies in the Delian League (composed of democracies that Athens led); 3) Inter-State Warfare Across the Peloponnesian War (including shifting alliances based on strategic interests rather than shared political forms).
It is unclear whether the democratic peace theory describes well the behavior of modern electoral democracies. The dyadic version is most widely accepted: “Democracies do not fight other democracies, though they still engage in wars with non-democratic states.” Although there are critics, as there are in most social science research, this version appears supported by the evidence so far. Differing definitions of “democracy” or “war” support this conclusion – although it is not airtight. Whether a direct democracy or a lottery democracy would be significantly different in its war-like or peace-like tendencies under modern conditions is a matter of speculation, since these other types of democracy do not currently exist.
LikeLike
> a Russian dictator
How is Putin any more of a dictator than any US president any European elected president or prime minister? He consistently wins elections with comfortable majorities. Does this make him a dictator?
LikeLike
[Putin] consistently wins elections with comfortable majorities.
Mainly because the opposition are either murdered or prohibited from standing.
On a more serious note, Cammack argues that it was war that led to mass (assembly) democracy, as one of the key decisions was whether or not to fight. It would be the same people who voted in the assembly and then manned the hoplite phalanxes and rowed the galleys. I’m not aware of any evidence that this led to a more pacific outcome.
In modernity it might well be the case that it would be a moderating influence if the decision of whether to fight or not were taken by a large sortitional jury. The children of politicians and other elites had more success avoiding the Vietnam War draft than hoi polloi.
LikeLike
Seriously, Yoram? Of all the points I made in the two posts above, the only one you wish to quibble is whether Putin is a dictator or not? As you already know, or should know, there is more to democracy than simply winning elections. Although there are various definitions of democracy (with significant overlap), those that encompass elections require that the elections be free and fair. Murdering or otherwise intimidating or preventing electoral opponents, or miscounting their votes, does not qualify as free or fair.
Keith, the point about U.S. children of the rich escaping (or postponing) the military draft by attending college is interesting. College campuses frequently held protests because deferment is not the same as total avoidance. Perhaps to achieve greater equity, a number of changes happened in the 1970s: Military service was changed from draft to voluntary; the age for voting was lowered from 21 to 18; and government financial aid and loans for college were instituted or increased.
LikeLike
Sutherland,
> Mainly because the opposition are either murdered or prohibited from standing.
Really? Presumably those claims are based on a thorough investigation of the matter. Who are those promising opposition leaders who enjoyed such powerful consistuencies that they would have threatened Putin if they had not been eliminated?
Carl,
> Of all the points I made in the two posts above, the only one you wish to quibble is whether Putin is a dictator or not?
Well, that seems to me like quite a central point. I would think the ability to distinguish between “tyrants” and democratic rulers would be fundamental to a discussion of democracy. That fact that this point appears marginal to you is rather problematic.
> free and fair
That is a very useful formula. But what makes elections free and fair? Without a clear and unambiguously applicable definition it seems that this formula is no more than a tool for designating enemy rulers, whose elections are announced as not being “free and fair”, as “tyrants” and designating friendly rulers, whose elections are announced as being “free and fair”, as democratic.
LikeLike
The little I know about Russian politics is via the MSM, so no doubt it is little more than pro-Western propaganda, but the name Alexei Navalny springs to mind. If Putin did not consider him a “promising opposition leader”, why did he have him imprisoned on trumped-up charges and then murdered?
LikeLike
> no doubt it is little more than pro-Western propaganda, but the name Alexei Navalny springs to mind
Right. With enough propaganda one’s mind become a well lubricated automaton.
Let’s put aside the question of whether the charges against Navalny were trumped up or not and the question of whether Putin had him murdered. Since by your own admission you know little about Russian politics you are not in a position to answer these questions (and of course neither am I).
The simpler question, for which the answer can be expected to be based on publicly available information, is what is the evidence that Navalny enjoyed strong pouplar support and could garner a significant number of votes? Apparently, you have no evidence regarding this question either so you are trying to answer it indirectly via making assumptions about the answers to the first two questions – assumptions which by your own admissions you have no basis for.
LikeLike
I suggest we focus on the topic of this blog (sortition) rather than Yoramocracy. Your definition of democracy as any form of government (including theocracy and other forms of dictatorship) that meets with the approval of its citizens will lead to this forum being dismissed as an eccentricity.
LikeLike
Yoram, I am sorry you don’t know how to distinguish dictatorships from democracies. Your current responses to both Keith and I appear to show that you are completely clueless on this matter.
I regard the ability to distinguish tyrants from democracies as a necessary qualification for a political blog of this type — and I expect you to already know which are which. Political scientists and lay people have known how to make this distinction for decades, if not centuries. And the distinction is based on something far more objective than “because the USA says so”.
LikeLike
> I suggest we focus on the topic of this blog
Was your self-admitted regurgitated propaganda also off-topic, or only my questioning of this regurgitation?
LikeLike
Carl,
> Political scientists and lay people have known how to make this distinction for decades, if not centuries. And the distinction is based on something far more objective than “because the USA says so”.
Well, then, if this distinction is objective and so widely known, why do you need to resort to insinutations? Why don’t you just spell it out explicitly here?
LikeLike
Google search on “what is democracy” yielded this AI summary, in addition to multiple links:
Democracy is a system of government where power belongs to the people, who exercise it either directly or through elected representatives. The word comes from the ancient Greek terms demos (meaning “people”) and kratos (meaning “rule” or “power”).
Core Principles
Popular Sovereignty: Political power comes from the consent of the people.
Political Equality: All citizens have an equal right to take part in government.
Rule of Law: Laws apply equally to everyone, including leaders.
Human Rights: Protection of basic freedoms like speech, religion, and assembly.
Main Types of Democracy
Direct Democracy: Citizens vote directly on laws and policies instead of using leaders.
Representative Democracy: Citizens choose leaders by voting in regular elections to make laws for them.
I am sure there are multiple definitions of democracy which substantially overlap.
LikeLike
Carl:> I am sure there are multiple definitions of democracy which substantially overlap.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oops, something went wrong, I meant to say:
Yes, and the focus is on the people exercising power (either directly or indirectly), rather than merely approving of government policies (which can happen under theocracy and other forms of dictatorship). The latter I refer to as Gatocracy, as it only appears to have one proponent. How to measure “approval” in autocratic regimes is even harder than assessing if an election is free and fair.
LikeLike
To assist in what might otherwise be a challenging analytical task, I asked Google to search “international time series on democracy in the world”. I won’t copy the whole response and accompanying links. The AI summary includes these four data sources:
Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem)
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Democracy Index
International IDEA (The Global State of Democracy)
Freedom House (Freedom in the World)
There may be other data sets, but these four should be enough to get anyone started. Hopefully, these will be helpful to anyone who is unclear on which countries are democratic and which not. Some even provide for gradations in between.
LikeLike
Carl,
Neither the AI answer nor the democracy indexes provide a useful answer.
The AI obviously regurgitates the standard platitudes. How can these be used to whether any specific ruler is a tyrant or a democratic leader?
The values which appear in the “democracy indexes” are simply a quantification of the opinions of the Western-linked experts which produce them. Is there any doubt that if Chinese or Russian experts were to produce a “democracy index” then the results would be very different?
LikeLike
The Western experts are free to produce whatever index best represent social and political reality – regardless of government approval or disapproval. The Chinese or Russian “experts” would not be free to produce any index that fails to reflect the propaganda or disinformation of their respective governments. Like it or not, the standard answers are basically correct: Electoral democracy under conditions of freedom is the best form of government currently existing in the modern world. I aim to improve it with some sortition-based supplements, not pretend that electoral democracy is no better than dictatorship.
LikeLike
I don’t doubt the sincerity of the Western-linked experts (although unlike you presumably I don’t doubt the sincerity of the Chinese and Russian experts either). Experts everywhere tend to be aligned with power. It is power, after all, that grants them the privileged status of “expert”.
But sincerity is beside the point. The fact that someone, or some group, is sincere does not validate its judgments.
> Electoral democracy under conditions of freedom is the best form of government currently existing in the modern world
How is “best” defined? Who gets to make the judgment about the goodness of a system? To me it seems that, when goodness is supposed to be aligned with democratic values, the goodness of a system should be judged by the very people who are ruled by this system. Thus, the judgment of experts is irrelevant, and the people themselves, or a statistical sample of the people, should pass judgment on the democratic-ness of the system under which they live.
LikeLike
Yoram:> the people themselves, or a statistical sample of the people, should pass judgment on the democratic-ness of the system under which they live.
That begs the question of what is democracy (in your view it is any system of government of which citizens approve the policy outcomes) added to the further complication of how to “pass judgment”. In the past you have been content with public opinion polling.
LikeLike
Yoram, it occurs to me that any dictatorship can easily undermine the democratic spirit of any sortition body. They need only present the old “silver or lead” option to any, some, or all of the participants. Of course, many dictators will be a little more subtle. Hence, whether we discuss sortition democracy, electoral democracy, or direct democracy, it is imperative to know whether the regime in question is democratic or dictatorial. Otherwise, we could easily end up with mock sortition, mock elections, and mock vote counting. Hence, if we adopt your position of radical ignorance, such that no one, not even you, can determine which regimes are democratic, half-democratic, or even not-at-all democratic, how does any amount of sortition cure the situation?
Also, if by some quirk of fate, Putin were ever put on trial for the alleged murder of his political opponent, how would it be possible for any judge or jury to convict him “beyond a reasonable doubt” if neither the judge nor the jury actually witnessed the crime in question? Indeed, how would it be possible for any alleged criminal to be convicted of any crime whatsoever, seeing as how nearly all alleged criminals plead “not guilty”? So should we just accept the testimony of dictators that they are actually democrats and let them do as they please? Those are the consequences of radical skepticism.
LikeLike
> if we adopt your position of radical ignorance, such that no one, not even you, can determine which regimes are democratic, half-democratic, or even not-at-all democratic, how does any amount of sortition cure the situation?
It is not that I claim that no one can determine the nature of a regime. Indeed, it is the opposite. I claim that every member of the society ruled by a regime can determine the nature of the regime within which they live. It is thus up to those members of society to collectively make that determination, on an egalitarian basis where the determinations of all members count equally.
> if by some quirk of fate, Putin were ever put on trial for the alleged murder of his political opponent, how would it be possible for any judge or jury to convict him “beyond a reasonable doubt” if neither the judge nor the jury actually witnessed the crime in question?
Again, there seems to be some confusion. My point is not that determinations cannot be made. My point is that assertions by Western-linked experts, agencies and media (no matter how often they are repeated) are far from sufficient evidence for any claim of fact regarding the enemies of the West to be taken as being true. We have been treated to so many lies of this kind that one has to be a highly indoctrinated true believer to still take those claims at face value.
BTW, note that even if we assume that Putin did order the jailing and/or the killing of Navalny, my question above remains unanswered:
> The simpler question, for which the answer can be expected to be based on publicly available information, is what is the evidence that Navalny enjoyed strong pouplar support and could garner a significant number of votes?
Without such evidence, the elimination of Navalny does not support your claim that Putin’s electoral victories are due to the elimination of alternative candidates.
Finally, and maybe most importantly, you are still avoiding providing any objective criterion for a regime being democratic (or for elections to be “free and fair”). The fact that you find this challenge so difficult to meet should, I think, lead to sketptical re-examination of Western political conventional wisdom.
LikeLike
Yoram:> you are still avoiding providing any objective criterion for a regime being democratic
Given the etymology of the word “democracy”, the (non-trivial) requirement is to demonstrate that the people (a collective entity) exercise power. I have, over the years, tried to argue that this involves a combination of elected advocates and decision making by large quasi-mandatory juries. This can be operationalised by demonstrating whether the outcome would be invariant (within an agreed margin of error) across different samples of the same population.
But this is very different from the people approving of the outcomes of various systems of government. If this is your goal, then you should adopt a new word for it (so I won’t need to refer to it as Gatocracy). You can then introduce your own criteria to operationalise it, but it has nothing to do with democracy per se. If the people approve of the decisions of their supreme leader this doesn’t make the regime democratic.
LikeLike
Sutherland,
> This can be operationalised by demonstrating whether the outcome would be invariant (within an agreed margin of error) across different samples of the same population.
Here is a refutation of this obvious falsehood, dating back to 2012: https://equalitybylot.com/2012/04/21/direct-democracy-and-mass-politics-part-1/#comment-3151.
> this [the people (a collective entity) exercise power] is very different from the people approving of the outcomes of various systems of government
Different in what way? In a system that consistently produces policy that is felt by the population as promoting its (the population’s) values and interests, what would be the basis for the claim that the people do not exercise power?
LikeLike
As you know all too well, my model presupposes a range of proposals that match the ideological diversity of the citizen body. Alex’s superminority principle assumes a minimum of three, and more if the threshold is reduced.
>what would be the basis for the claim that the people do not exercise power?
It could as well be on account of a benevolent dictatorship.(or oligarchy). There’s nothing in principle wrong with that, but under any form of dictatorship the people do not exercise power, particularly if no alternatives are on offer (as in your “refutation” of superminority).
LikeLike
Yoram, I have provided for you (at your request, I might add) an AI summary definition of democracy and 4 sources for you to find out which countries are democratic and which not, but you reject both based on spurious grounds. I see your various reasons for rejecting these fairly objective truths as an endless spout of nonsense. So if you don’t mind, I will bow out of this particular discussion.
Before I leave, I will mention one other thing, your dismissal of the Navalny murder as somehow OK because there is no “proof” Navalny could have won the election if he remained alive is rather shocking. If Mr. Putin ordered it (as I believe he probably did) he did it for at least two reasons: a) sideline a political opponent, and b) deter other opponents who might have any plausible chance of winning. Even if Navalny were a complete nobody with no political ambitions, murder of anyone (plausibly and probably, even if unproven in court) is generally regarded as a moral disqualification for public office by most voters in democratic countries.
LikeLike
Sutherland,
> my model […]
We’ve been over this as well https://equalitybylot.com/2024/12/17/a-review-of-lottocracy-in-the-journal-of-sortition/#comment-51638. Your tendency to endlessly and earnestly repeat thoroughly refuted talking points may be respectful of tradition in some circles, but is rather boring.
> It could as well be on account of a benevolent dictatorship.(or oligarchy).
The question was how could anyone tell – other than by mere assertion – the difference between democracy (“the people exercising power”) and “benevolent dictatorship” or any other system that consistently produces the outcomes desired by the people.
To do so, one would somehow have to argue that even though the system consistently produces the desired outcomes, any potential causal mechanism between the desires of the people and the outcomes can be ruled out. How could that be done?
LikeLike
Carl,
> 4 sources for you to find out which countries are democratic and which not
My question was not about which countries are democratic and which are not. My question was about how could one tell which are and which are not in an objective way. Providing answers to a question I did not ask can hardly be considered a satisfactory response to the question I did ask.
> dismissal of the Navalny murder as somehow OK because there is no “proof” Navalny could have won the election if he remained alive is rather shocking.
It is unfortunate that you pay so little attention to what your interlocutor actually says. At no point did I say that if Putin had Navalny murdered then that is “OK”. What I said was that substantiating the claim that Putin’s electoral victories are due to the murder of political opponents requires showing some evidence (at no point did I ask for “proof”) that whoever Putin supposedly had murdered would have had siginificant electoral success had he not been murdered.
LikeLike
I’m bowing out as well, as we shouldn’t encourage Yoram in this nonsense. It will only serve to bring this blog (and the wider sortition movement) into disrepute.
LikeLike
> I’m bowing out as well
You’ve been promising this for years, but you never keep your word.
LikeLike