Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (34623)	10/22/2001 12:50:46 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Yes, I believe I saw it when originally published. First, the idea of liberal democracy is the creation of responsible government. To this end, various key officeholders stand for election, on a recurring basis, and therefore have to answer to the voters. They are not obligated to vote by polls, but they are obligated to be able to explain themselves and their decisions. Representative government is supposed to permit a number of citizens to spend more time studying various questions and vote according to information and conscience. The House and Senate are like very large committees, and they further parcel out the work to smaller committees and sub- committees. In most circumstances, a committee recommendation is adopted at the next higher level, precisely because it did the work, and the higher level cannot afford to visit every question. The majoritarian principle is used in committee and in the houses of Congress, insofar as it is a useful way of gauging rough consensus. But over- all, the point is to get good policy, not to follow uninformed majorities slavishly. Furthermore, most political parties are coalitions, and key elements of the electorate frequently have greater clout because they are swing voters. This occurs within the legislature itself: the Republican majority was always somewhat narrow, and gave liberal/moderate Republicans more influence than they might have had. Coalition building is the way that numerically weak constituency groups band together to increase their strength. Thus, will of the majority is frequently diluted, and minorities frequently win concessions, even without Guinier- like contrivances. Thus, this whole push to adulterate democracy is likely to fail by being beside the point. Even more so is this the case on the "cultural democratic" front. Assimilation is still the norm, except among extremely culturally isolated communities. For example, every Chinatown in the country is becoming depopulated, as the inhabitants move to the suburbs. There is one exception, New York, which gets the bulk of both legal and illegal immigration, and is therefore constantly being replenished. Otherwise, there is still a proclivity towards upward mobility, moving out of highly homogeneous ethnic enclaves, and increasing rates of intermarriage among second and third generation immigrants. There is no reason to suppose, absent tyranny, that such things will change. Just 20 years ago, Jews were considered to be 4% of the population, but now they are rated 2% of the population, mainly due to intermarriage. I am the only one of my brothers who feels at all ethnically Jewish, as far as I can tell, because I am the oldest, and had the most cultural and religious contact before my parents got divorced. That is the likely course of things for most ethnic minorities, meaning that the "Melting Pot" is alive and well.