Why democracy and what is competent leadership

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 32
Topic's author
#1
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
Democracy doesn't guarantee our leaders have good character. Democracy doesn't ensure quality standards for politicians. Braindead conspiracy theorists with good charisma or connections can easilly gain power in a democracy. We want our leaders to be intelligent, well informed and generally competent at their job as crucial decision makers. Or, more accurately, the majority of people just want a leader that shares their ideology, regardless of how competent they are. Worse, many voters don't even have an ideology, just some emotions clever political campaigns can manipulate. The two party system practically prevents constructive dialoge between different polical views. Furthermore, some politicians are extremely ignorant of economics, law, science and technology. Why is it that a great country like the US, with millions of brilliant people, you somehow get a president who calls the scientific concensus on climate change "fake news"? 

How do you even approach politics in the US? Facts and evidence-based opinion certainly doesn't matter, and neither does your character. You don't need to be competent or likeable, intelligent or a teamplayer. What disadvantage holds millions of good leader candidates back? The answer: democracy.


I said it, democracy is the reason why America suffers under bad leadership.

In the US, democracy basically means a shouting contest and a culture war. This is not what the country need. It needs competent politicians and smart policies. They need to fix poverty, a failing educational and healthcare system, rising national debt, police shootings and civillian shootings, crime rates, corporate tax loopholes, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, climate change and frequent natural catastrophes. These problems are not merely jokes or ammunition in a mind war.


These problems are real, tangible, they harm people and need to be fixed. Is an endless shouting match really the way to solve them? 
Topic's author
#2
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
Important note: I do not support tyranny. I do believe rulers should serve the people not their own interests.
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Benjamin

    Well stated.
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Benjamin
It's not that democracy itself tends to spiral into an incompetent government. The problems with democracies occur when the people elected gain so much power that they are able to destroy the mechanisms that hold them accountable. While founding fathers can write safeguards into the constitution to try to prevent this, it is no guarantee over time that the people will allow leaders to remove many of those safeguards, be it in the form of the patriot act which is used today to justify surveillance and detention without habeus corpus or destroying the process to hold the most powerful congresswoman in the world accountable for manipulating financial markets to funnel wealth from the poor to the rich.

A powerful Democracy is a corrupt Democracy, as absolute power corrupts absolutely. We all lived through the abuse of "emergency powers" during Covid, the abuse of the emergency powers during the Iraq war, and now we are set to endure yet another series abuses with America's involvement in Ukraine under the guise of "emergency."

And as we saw in Canada, if you protest against such abuses, emergency powers will be invoked to destroy you for attempting to hold the Democratically elected government accountable through peaceful protests. A government powerful enough to give you everything also has the same power to take it all away.


#5
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Benjamin
I said it, democracy is the reason why America suffers under bad leadership.

In the US, democracy basically means a shouting contest and a culture war. This is not what the country need. It needs competent politicians and smart policies. They need to fix poverty, a failing educational and healthcare system, rising national debt, police shootings and civillian shootings, crime rates, corporate tax loopholes, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, climate change and frequent natural catastrophes. These problems are not merely jokes or ammunition in a mind war.
Considering how often the US splits 50/50 or 40/40/20 on most  issues- there's not likely to often be any leader that satisfies even 50% of the population.  The point of democracy is that the sovereignty, authority, and power necessary to address all the problems you list resides with the people and not the head of state.  If you are waiting for a leader with the power and vision to fix all these things for you, then you will likely wait a long time and you are essentially looking for an authoritarian you agree with.  The trick is not to vote for charismatic leaders with long agendas you agree with but for moderates with broad appeal that can make deals and compromises for the sake of popular policy change.

Take Bernie, for example.  Bernie has a plan to address most of the problems you list but correctly, Bernie would need to raise taxes 5-7%.  This is a show stopper because less than 1% of voters support such a tax increase.  Only 3% of Bernie voters support a tax increase that high.  So you get a competent politician with smart policies but his programs are all dead on arrival.  Biden made no such promises but had done more to alleviate childhood poverty in one year than any prior president except Roosevelt.  He's poured money into infrastructure and in just the past few weeks has done more to combat climate change than all combined efforts since Paris.

Ultimately, this comes down to voting out senators and representatives who don't care about your concerns (most Republicans) and voting in senators and representatives who do.  If we are waiting on a hero to fix our future, we risk waiting too long for heroes who may accomplish nothing.  Better to take the possible as it comes and teach everybody that these problems are our responsibility to fix. 


#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Benjamin
In America, we also delegate Democracy on a statewide level. Some Democratic parties have gained so much power in States like California and Colorado and New York that they are essentially a monopoly with no options for change. For 50 years, voters had no other options in those states other than to leave the State.

The end result is that those states are steadily becoming the most corrupt states in America and the most unresponsive to all those problems you listed. Namely poverty, a failing educational and healthcare system, rising national debt, police shootings and civilian shootings, crime rates, corporate tax loopholes, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, climate change and frequent natural catastrophes. 

Of course there are still mindless, irresponsible people in America that believe the leaders in those abusive States really do care about local issues, but reality says differently.


#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Benjamin
If you watch this and listen to what Geraldo Rivera says about this reality, it should be clear why Democracy is failing in America.

#8
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

The future of man is AI benevolent dictators.
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Survival of the fittest demands it.
Topic's author
#10
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
If you are waiting for a leader with the power and vision to fix all these things for you
I just want change to be lead and supervised by individuals who are smart enough and educated enough to understand the problems and how to fix them. There are a lot of experts out there but the wheel is put in the hands of random political squables and ignorant incompetent, often corrupt, leaders. Imagine putting a random celebrity in charge of a nation and seeing the country crumble, and remember that is often what happens. I do not necesarilly think American democracy is all bad, but I would certainly prefer having an unpopular but competent city planner or president, just as I would have a competent doctor or police officer.

The problem is that people don't seem to care about competence. I want a system which promotes people based on competence, not popularity.

If that system always leads to dictatorships or some other shit, then democracy is indeed the best of the worst systems of government as Plato said.
Topic's author
#11
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes it always baffled me how a two party system could be called democracy, especially when the outcomes are randomized or worse, stabilized. If your government can do whatever shit they want without fear of replacement then you are not living in a democracy, and certainly not a well-functioning one. I would much prefer a strong buearocracy of competent experts run a state than elected officials that are corrupt and incompetent. 

Why on earth is solving the numerous important problems seen as a political question rather than a definitive goal with practical obstacles in the way?
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Benjamin
would certainly prefer having an unpopular but competent city planner or president,
We had an unpopular competent planner in 2016 by every metric, Crime, security, financial stability, everything in your list. The problem is that there's too much corruption in DC for any one man to make a lasting difference since the government who now has the power to give you everything promptly took it all away in 2020.
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Benjamin
Yes it always baffled me how a two party system could be called democracy,
But in many states, it's a de-facto one party system, and with other states it's 2 party on paper only.

That leads to realities such as Cuomo becoming Governor of New York again because there are no alternatives.
Topic's author
#14
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
 The problem is that there's too much corruption in DC for any one man to make a lasting difference
Yeah. In a flawed system a good leader would be the exception not the rule, and giving any individual all the power necesary to fix everything is the same as giving them the power to become a dictator. I believe in a robust generation of leaders, I don't want to put hopes in any individual. The system should be fixed.
#15
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
@Benjamin
Let's debate this as our final debate... Are you up for it?
#16
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
I don't want to post my arguments to this thread in case this becomes our final topic, I am very interested in this as our finals debate, discuss with me on PM to negotiate the semantics and debate description.
#17
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Autocracy and authoritarianism are not synonymous with tyranny. Tyranny is a state that proponents of both egalitarian and authoritarian forms of government generally wish to avoid. There is an obvious reason, however, that authoritarianism and tyranny are correlated, and I think that correlation is more complex than "power corrupts".

Proponents of less democratic forms of government think of rulers like Julius Caesar, Rome's last dictator. Or  they think of his adopted son and successor Augustus, Rome's first Emperor. They ignore the inconvenient truths that are Caligula or Nero. Both Caesar and Augustus clearly brought the Roman state down a more authoritarian path and yet both did a lot of good for the people, at least during their lifetimes. And yet that is part of the problem. The fact that no rulers lifetime is infinite, and that includes good rulers.

When the ruler of an autocratic state dies they need to be replaced. If they are one of the minority of autocrats that is a good ruler that does not guarantee that their successor will be. However, the mere fact that they lead an authoritarian regime does by itself guarantee that their successor will have vast power over the state and society as a whole.

I mentioned Rome's first emperor. A good ruler by many accounts, so their centralization of authority may not have seemed like a bad thing. Whether it was good or bad in his own time however, what it objectively did do was establish a precedent. Turning the republic into an empire meant that there then had to be an emperor.

So when the first dies there must be a second, and so we got Tiberius. And the reason Tiberius was allowed to be so bad was because the precedent had been set by the centralization of power by previous rulers. And when the second dies there must be a third, and so we got Caligula. And the reason Caligula was so bad was because the precedent had been set by the centralization of power by previous rulers.

A tyrant in a docracy can be voted out. A tyrant in an autocratic society is more complicated to deal with.

You say that societal divisions between people that disagree with each other only exist because of democracy. If I was feeling charitable I would say that this claim is simply wrong, but instead I am feeling honest and therefore feel obligated to point out that in addition to being wrong this sentiment is also laughable and childish.

Your very first sentence is "_________ doesn't guarantee our leaders have good character". You choose to fill in that blank with the word 'democracy' without acknowledging that this statement is equally true no matter how you fill in the blank. If I was feeling charitable I would say this was short-sighted, but instead I am feeling honest and therefore feel obligated to point out that in addition to being short-sighted this sentiment is absurd and idiotic

Topic's author
#18
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
You say that societal divisions between people that disagree with each other only exist because of democracy
No. I said that a two party system leads to unreasonable disagreement and meaningless squables. 



You choose to fill in that blank with the word 'democracy' without acknowledging that this statement is equally true no matter how you fill in the blank
Aaaaand......? You do realise I am pointing out the obvious, not making some grand controversial claim. Our leaders are sometimes sh*t, democracy doesn't prevent that.



That authoritarianism and tyranny are correlated, and I think that correlation is more complex than "power corrupts"
I agree. You perfectly described the reason why giving a strong leader even more power is not a good idea even if he is "good". Again, I am not against accountability, division of power or term limits. All I am doing is pointing to problems within America's political system and how those in charge are often incompetent and relly on manipulation of gullible voters rather than rational evidence-based policies. All I am asking for is educated, intelligent leaders that have rational disagreements with each other rather than exclaim "fake news" every time facts stand in their ways.


They need not be authoritarian or unelected, just competent. Democracy should be about choosing the best leader, not about avoiding the worst of two.


#19
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,698
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Benjamin
I agree
#20
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Benjamin
Again, I am not against accountability, division of power or term limits.

They need not be authoritarian or unelected
So... Democracy, then.
Topic's author
#21
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yes. But democracy and a shoting match are not automatically equivalent. A better system should be possible, or maybe just sensible requirements for leaders.
#22
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Benjamin
A better system should be possible,
What is the better system?
#23
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
I find it puzzling whenever I hear or read someone rant about how terrible democracy is without providing an alternative.

At the end of the day you can either have a government in place to work on solving society’s problems or not. If not, please explain how that is better.

If so, then the only question is… who decides who gets who runs that government?
Topic's author
#24
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
I am rating about how terrible American leaders can be, how is that an attempt to replace democracy?
#25
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
Because you put the blame for American leadership incompetence squarely on democracy itself. You did go a step further to talk about the people but that’s kind of the point; democracy is the people.
#26
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

The 1993 Russian constitution declares Russia a democratic, federative, law-based state with a republican form of government. State power is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

This is why the future of Man is Artificial Intelligence benovolent dictators.
#27
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,078
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Benjamin
These problems are real, tangible, they harm people and need to be fixed. Is an endless shouting match really the way to solve them? 
I would rather have " shouting "  than shooting.  Bang Bang, He shot me down, Bang Bang, I hit the ground, Bang Bang, That Awful Sound, Bang Bang, My baby shot me down.  Nancy Sinatra song from 60's or so.

How do we keep the peace on Earth.  With peackeepers and peacekeepers come in many varieties

Originally, it was most likely the biggest man was the peackeeper, and maybe directed/guided and supported by his smaller friends/clan/tribe. They may made him chief.     Then along came smart person who gave a smaller a peacekeeper weapon to use as balance against the largest man.

This has all led to where we are today, with Putin with larger military man/might invading to conquer Ukraine on its tangental border

And the democracies offering support, --in various ways--   without loosing a single person in the fight, as they shout at Putin.

So Putin did not get what he wanted by shouting ---no NATO for Ukraine ever---   so he felt now was the time use his peacekeepers, even tho he is the one disrupting the peace. 







#28
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
democracy is the reason why America suffers under bad leadership.
What system would cause the U.S. to no longer suffer under bad leadership?
#29
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit


Artificial Intelligence Capitalist Benovolent Dictator
#30
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
Artificial Intelligence Capitalist Benovolent Dictator
For the benefit of worm man or intelligent man?