Enjoyed this essay Sam. I think you underestimate the power that states have, which shows up in the difference among states in many important policies. In some states like Maryland, county executives also have a lot of power in setting budgets. The messy mish-mosh of different local governing authorities adds to inefficiency but it also gives rise to variety and healthy competition.
Although it may usher in a world of harmful chaos this November, the electoral college was of course the condition precedent for this experiment in democracy.
Quite agreed. As a State worker, I realized that there is a lot of action at that level, since my work life hinged on 6 months of legislature every other year. And now as a County worker, I'm seeing how local government really touches grass.
The Feds splash cash around and get all the attention ever four years, but all the action is at the lower levels. Plus your vote counts a heck of a lot more in these elections, especially if one is psychotic/wise enough to pay attention to these small primaries. I've seen a few races decided by a few dozen votes, including a city race that came down to 4 (four!) votes.
The USA used to be a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized system with imperfect but still genuinely democratic governance structures based around it former, and completely different than today's parties, decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member Democratic and Republican parties of old. A process began after WW2, slowly at first, but the took a giant leap between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s that transformed the USA into a centralized (both in the public sector AND in the private sector) system and our two political parties had by then transformed (which, I would guess, was necessary to produce the leap) into centralized and publicly inaccessible exclusionary membership parties. Your referring to the system we've had over the past 40 years, which has been something that, in some of the most key areas, would be better described as centralized technocratic dictatorship, not a democracy. And I would reckon that centralized technocratic dictatorship is what Francis Fukuyama really meant when he wrote "liberal democracy".
I don't know enough about our political history to agree or disagree with most of your response, but I want to quibble with phrase "publicly inaccessible exclusionary". I wouldn't be surprised if some places, especially major metropolises are hard to break through. But I've been shocked at how easy it was to quickly gain a good reputation in Vegas with no professional connections before moving I moved here. And I suspect many other smaller / mid-tier cities may be similar — show up, work hard, earn a good name....and suddenly find oneself managing 8 and 9 figure capital projects.
And I had a solid shot at getting managerial roles in my agency, but I'm not particularly ambitious and I really did not want the headache. So yeah, there are problems with our system, but "centralized technocratic dictatorship" is a bit of an overreach.
Hi, thanks for the reply! I think there might have been a misunderstanding regarding what I meant by "publicly inaccessible exclusionary" and "centralized technocratic dictatorship"
When I wrote 'publicly inaccessible exclusionary,' I was referring to our political parties, in general but especially at the at the federal level. In the past, our political parties were decentralized, publicly accessible mass-member organizations, where local communities and grassroots activists played a big role in shaping party actions and selecting candidates. But weve reached a point where both the Republican and Democratic parties have become publicly inaccessible, exclusionary membership entities. For most all key policy areas, the ability of the general public to manipulate governance and effect the formulation, design, and execution of policy, is near zero. Americans are essentially disconnected and disenfranchised from the political system.
While it's true that people can still find success in local government, as you've had, the bigger issue is that local governments have been stripped of most of their power. States and cities used to play real roles in areas like antitrust, trade, fiscal policy, and banking/finance regulation. Now, nearly all of this has been consolidated at the federal level. We have a very centralized system that has very little space for policy variability.
We're hyper centralized I argue that we're closer to a 'centralized technocratic dictatorship' than a 'liberal democracy.' The general public has limited ability to influence the formulation, design, and execution of policies in most key areas, which is why I describe our current system in these terms."
Thanks for the clarification. And yes I agree that we should devolve more power back down to the states. I believe some of the discontent we see would be mollified if people felt like policy wasn’t all controlled in DC.
The USA used to be a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized system with imperfect but still genuinely democratic governance structures based around it former, and completely different than today's parties, decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member Democratic and Republican parties of old. A process began after WW2, slowly at first, but the took a giant leap between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s that transformed the USA into a centralized (both in the public sector AND in the private sector) system and our two political parties had by then transformed (which, I would guess, was necessary to produce the leap) into centralized and publicly inaccessible exclusionary membership parties. Your referring to the system we've had over the past 40 years, which has been something that, in some of the most key areas, would be better described as centralized technocratic dictatorship, not a democracy. And I would reckon that centralized technocratic dictatorship is what Francis Fukuyama really meant when he wrote "liberal democracy".
Thank you David. Yes, I think you're right. I was being probably more of a downer in this essay than is really warranted. Democracy is a very beautiful system and maybe even more so on a local level than nationally. I've never lived in a place with a permanent civil service, but my sense is that it inclines towards hopeless corruption and can really stifle the civic life of many places.
I think the Electoral College has long outlived its place in the United States. Also, I sighed at the description of George W as a warlord. Democrat Presidents are also warlords. All U.S. Presidents drop bombs. Harris will drop bombs if she's elected. Will some of that bombing be justified? Yes, but even those justified bombings will share Venn diagram space with far uglier interests.
Not to say your opinion of the outdated need for the Electoral College is incorrect. I’m
just interested in knowing if a recent social media post I read is true, that it’s possible for a presidential election to end up as 48 red states, 2 blue states, with the blue candidate winning the popular vote as long as the two states are California and New York.
The two states combine for about 60 million people, which is less than 20% of the total US population (330M), so I would guess that it couldn't happen.
Yeah Kamala's pointed inclusion of "lethal" in her speech was a reminder of that....I still distinctly remember the moment early during Obama's presidency that I realized part of the job description of any president of any party is ordering death and destruction.
He mentioned in the shorthand of our kingly lincolns wilsons et al. I admire LBJ greatly and i expect if i lived in a cyclorama of his decency, as i cld paint it in a charming Bosch hell scape that his clear eyed initial sign off on every killing order for the treatment of Vietnam would appear. It takes piratical four chambered words to describe our potuskpids. The cognate dissonance was absolving them. I picture the Lincoln command that the railroads be commandeared and i see pirates everywhere slashing throats .
The cognitive dissonance, I remember now- the distance of us from the simple attitude toward the absurd we grew up reading about. Albert C and John? Sartre, what was Sartres name thought it too small to say thr absurd is to be avoided. The same with presidents, poor failures at all events if their words dono rhyme with their means and meannesses. The same is our doorway for admittance to the rank of gvrntr we give these sociopaths.
Kahn showing what you can do when you limit your vocabulary to use what you have got. ( did Shakesp use only 2000 words, like i have heard or 2 million like elsewhere I heard?) For the sore hearts of our quickest artists, at the moment the Kkk achieved its widest scheme, oneill and Tennessee W. included a spectre haunting the forlorn loves in their transits of tragedy: the specter of public outrage. When that came for Nixon, he had thought it a bug in the old.
movie genres...Another American great pKD also thought the public superceded...Faith in the demos would look like eccentrics. abounding. People who have the itch to citizenship give shoutouts to the fringe ideas, they sotto voce ideas about flat earths and (Kubrick) masked costume balls of lusty politicians they entertain for just a few minutes. Norman Brown speculates that representative democracy breathes from the ability to identify with the hero. I guess I agree, that without powerful public referendums, our abillity to self identify with the Bums becomes too fractured. Asin California where referendums abound, the people were able to send up Conan the barbarian.
On a positive note, i point you to leeds for essays in the Theory sphere where the theorist says Not For Beauty's sake, that that would lure the changemakers away from their duty to agitate...but on the contrary, the pretty prettiness of a beerbottle in the wilderness, or a dangerous clear beverage in a glass asin Tennessee is a landmark of the moments those who care about the outcome of events take away from the public fray to regain their heroism. The ability to identify with the protagonist in cringy stories is to my mind the faster-than-belief- the faith that after violence, people can return to their supportive roles. The demos are hidebound shoemakers to the csar, or they are adrift, in too many alternate universes. Whereas ours is tragical. You could say democracy is not a force of nature, but a comical- tragical exception we were privileged to give our positive heckling, Do it again! Play it again you are saying, and so do millions and millions of us.
Interesting and persuasive analysis, but I’d add that the combination of capitalism and Citizens United has commodified both American elections and our “free” press. I’m not quite old enough to remember when Presidential candidates barnstormed and debated one another live and in person, but the overwhelm of political advertising, particularly on (national/local) TV, and true oddness of nationally-televised debates have only grown during my lifetime. American voter turnout and engagement have correspondingly dropped, as (I hope) has the horrifying 1950’s-1990’s US program of forcing “our” way of governing on less militarily powerful Whovilles who, um, didn’t ask for our help in the first place.
Even so — and with great appreciation for your raising the question — my answer is yes. I do believe in democracy, despite all the flaws and pitfalls you’ve cited. I’m registered, I’ll vote (blue!) in every race I’m eligible for this fall, and I’ll check the couch for loose change to support other vital races around the country…as imperfect as every race inevitably is, I truly believe I’m better off in the US than almost anywhere else.
Agreed with all that. Thank you Patricia. Yes, you're right, I didn't take much about money in politics in this piece, but that's a huge issue as well.
I think it is a bit of an outlier, specifically when we consider humans seem coded for a benevolent dictatorship. Then again , even the US was formed under one.. One Nation under God.
Haha. Love your breakdown of the different roles you play in your own life. That's right, we constantly move from one role to another. I've always found it a bit bizarre how the workplace moves so inevitably into hierarchies when friend groups, for instance, almost never do that.
That's because friend groups, Aka Anarchies, don't scale up. It's like a network relationship diagram, each person in the network can have a maximum of n-1 relationships where n*(n-1)/2 are the total. So for a friend group of 6 friends it's 15 relationships. For 20 coworkers it's 760. Very quickly you have to start creating a hierarchy because you can't manage that many lines of communication very well.
The USA used to be a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized system with imperfect but still genuinely democratic governance structures based around it former, and completely different than today's parties, decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member Democratic and Republican parties of old. A process began after WW2, slowly at first, but the took a giant leap between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s that transformed the USA into a centralized (both in the public sector AND in the private sector) system and our two political parties had by then transformed (which, I would guess, was necessary to produce the leap) into centralized and publicly inaccessible exclusionary membership parties. Your referring to the system we've had over the past 40 years, which has been something that, in some of the most key areas, would be better described as centralized technocratic dictatorship, not a democracy. And I would reckon that centralized technocratic dictatorship is what Francis Fukuyama really meant when he wrote "liberal democracy".
The USA used to be a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized system with imperfect but still genuinely democratic governance structures (which was for hundreds of years considered necessary, it was thought democracy required both the vote AND democratic governance structures, but we destroyed our democratic governance structures) based around it former, and completely different than today's parties, decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member Democratic and Republican parties of old. A process began after WW2, slowly at first, but the took a giant leap between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s that transformed the USA into a centralized (both in the public sector AND in the private sector) system and our two political parties had by then transformed (which, I would guess, was necessary to produce the leap) into centralized and publicly inaccessible exclusionary membership parties. Your referring to the system we've had over the past 40 years, which has been something that, in some of the most key areas, would be better described as centralized technocratic dictatorship, not a democracy. And I would reckon that centralized technocratic dictatorship is what Francis Fukuyama really meant when he wrote "liberal democracy".
Interesting analysis. I'd have to think more about that. But it probably is true that the centralized model that we currently have is very far removed from what the founders had in mind and we sort of kid ourselves when we assume a continuity.
We have a continental empire that has true external dependencies that are sourced from, and channeled through, a planetary one. But if capital “G” Globalism goes away…..
Enjoyed this essay Sam. I think you underestimate the power that states have, which shows up in the difference among states in many important policies. In some states like Maryland, county executives also have a lot of power in setting budgets. The messy mish-mosh of different local governing authorities adds to inefficiency but it also gives rise to variety and healthy competition.
Although it may usher in a world of harmful chaos this November, the electoral college was of course the condition precedent for this experiment in democracy.
Quite agreed. As a State worker, I realized that there is a lot of action at that level, since my work life hinged on 6 months of legislature every other year. And now as a County worker, I'm seeing how local government really touches grass.
The Feds splash cash around and get all the attention ever four years, but all the action is at the lower levels. Plus your vote counts a heck of a lot more in these elections, especially if one is psychotic/wise enough to pay attention to these small primaries. I've seen a few races decided by a few dozen votes, including a city race that came down to 4 (four!) votes.
The USA used to be a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized system with imperfect but still genuinely democratic governance structures based around it former, and completely different than today's parties, decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member Democratic and Republican parties of old. A process began after WW2, slowly at first, but the took a giant leap between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s that transformed the USA into a centralized (both in the public sector AND in the private sector) system and our two political parties had by then transformed (which, I would guess, was necessary to produce the leap) into centralized and publicly inaccessible exclusionary membership parties. Your referring to the system we've had over the past 40 years, which has been something that, in some of the most key areas, would be better described as centralized technocratic dictatorship, not a democracy. And I would reckon that centralized technocratic dictatorship is what Francis Fukuyama really meant when he wrote "liberal democracy".
I don't know enough about our political history to agree or disagree with most of your response, but I want to quibble with phrase "publicly inaccessible exclusionary". I wouldn't be surprised if some places, especially major metropolises are hard to break through. But I've been shocked at how easy it was to quickly gain a good reputation in Vegas with no professional connections before moving I moved here. And I suspect many other smaller / mid-tier cities may be similar — show up, work hard, earn a good name....and suddenly find oneself managing 8 and 9 figure capital projects.
And I had a solid shot at getting managerial roles in my agency, but I'm not particularly ambitious and I really did not want the headache. So yeah, there are problems with our system, but "centralized technocratic dictatorship" is a bit of an overreach.
Hi, thanks for the reply! I think there might have been a misunderstanding regarding what I meant by "publicly inaccessible exclusionary" and "centralized technocratic dictatorship"
When I wrote 'publicly inaccessible exclusionary,' I was referring to our political parties, in general but especially at the at the federal level. In the past, our political parties were decentralized, publicly accessible mass-member organizations, where local communities and grassroots activists played a big role in shaping party actions and selecting candidates. But weve reached a point where both the Republican and Democratic parties have become publicly inaccessible, exclusionary membership entities. For most all key policy areas, the ability of the general public to manipulate governance and effect the formulation, design, and execution of policy, is near zero. Americans are essentially disconnected and disenfranchised from the political system.
While it's true that people can still find success in local government, as you've had, the bigger issue is that local governments have been stripped of most of their power. States and cities used to play real roles in areas like antitrust, trade, fiscal policy, and banking/finance regulation. Now, nearly all of this has been consolidated at the federal level. We have a very centralized system that has very little space for policy variability.
We're hyper centralized I argue that we're closer to a 'centralized technocratic dictatorship' than a 'liberal democracy.' The general public has limited ability to influence the formulation, design, and execution of policies in most key areas, which is why I describe our current system in these terms."
Thanks for the clarification. And yes I agree that we should devolve more power back down to the states. I believe some of the discontent we see would be mollified if people felt like policy wasn’t all controlled in DC.
The USA used to be a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized system with imperfect but still genuinely democratic governance structures based around it former, and completely different than today's parties, decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member Democratic and Republican parties of old. A process began after WW2, slowly at first, but the took a giant leap between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s that transformed the USA into a centralized (both in the public sector AND in the private sector) system and our two political parties had by then transformed (which, I would guess, was necessary to produce the leap) into centralized and publicly inaccessible exclusionary membership parties. Your referring to the system we've had over the past 40 years, which has been something that, in some of the most key areas, would be better described as centralized technocratic dictatorship, not a democracy. And I would reckon that centralized technocratic dictatorship is what Francis Fukuyama really meant when he wrote "liberal democracy".
Thank you David. Yes, I think you're right. I was being probably more of a downer in this essay than is really warranted. Democracy is a very beautiful system and maybe even more so on a local level than nationally. I've never lived in a place with a permanent civil service, but my sense is that it inclines towards hopeless corruption and can really stifle the civic life of many places.
I think the Electoral College has long outlived its place in the United States. Also, I sighed at the description of George W as a warlord. Democrat Presidents are also warlords. All U.S. Presidents drop bombs. Harris will drop bombs if she's elected. Will some of that bombing be justified? Yes, but even those justified bombings will share Venn diagram space with far uglier interests.
Not to say your opinion of the outdated need for the Electoral College is incorrect. I’m
just interested in knowing if a recent social media post I read is true, that it’s possible for a presidential election to end up as 48 red states, 2 blue states, with the blue candidate winning the popular vote as long as the two states are California and New York.
I don't know if that math works! Would be astonishing if it does.
The two states combine for about 60 million people, which is less than 20% of the total US population (330M), so I would guess that it couldn't happen.
Yeah Kamala's pointed inclusion of "lethal" in her speech was a reminder of that....I still distinctly remember the moment early during Obama's presidency that I realized part of the job description of any president of any party is ordering death and destruction.
He mentioned in the shorthand of our kingly lincolns wilsons et al. I admire LBJ greatly and i expect if i lived in a cyclorama of his decency, as i cld paint it in a charming Bosch hell scape that his clear eyed initial sign off on every killing order for the treatment of Vietnam would appear. It takes piratical four chambered words to describe our potuskpids. The cognate dissonance was absolving them. I picture the Lincoln command that the railroads be commandeared and i see pirates everywhere slashing throats .
The cognitive dissonance, I remember now- the distance of us from the simple attitude toward the absurd we grew up reading about. Albert C and John? Sartre, what was Sartres name thought it too small to say thr absurd is to be avoided. The same with presidents, poor failures at all events if their words dono rhyme with their means and meannesses. The same is our doorway for admittance to the rank of gvrntr we give these sociopaths.
I definitely agree with that. That line was more about looking for an opportunity to link to Borat!
Kahn showing what you can do when you limit your vocabulary to use what you have got. ( did Shakesp use only 2000 words, like i have heard or 2 million like elsewhere I heard?) For the sore hearts of our quickest artists, at the moment the Kkk achieved its widest scheme, oneill and Tennessee W. included a spectre haunting the forlorn loves in their transits of tragedy: the specter of public outrage. When that came for Nixon, he had thought it a bug in the old.
movie genres...Another American great pKD also thought the public superceded...Faith in the demos would look like eccentrics. abounding. People who have the itch to citizenship give shoutouts to the fringe ideas, they sotto voce ideas about flat earths and (Kubrick) masked costume balls of lusty politicians they entertain for just a few minutes. Norman Brown speculates that representative democracy breathes from the ability to identify with the hero. I guess I agree, that without powerful public referendums, our abillity to self identify with the Bums becomes too fractured. Asin California where referendums abound, the people were able to send up Conan the barbarian.
On a positive note, i point you to leeds for essays in the Theory sphere where the theorist says Not For Beauty's sake, that that would lure the changemakers away from their duty to agitate...but on the contrary, the pretty prettiness of a beerbottle in the wilderness, or a dangerous clear beverage in a glass asin Tennessee is a landmark of the moments those who care about the outcome of events take away from the public fray to regain their heroism. The ability to identify with the protagonist in cringy stories is to my mind the faster-than-belief- the faith that after violence, people can return to their supportive roles. The demos are hidebound shoemakers to the csar, or they are adrift, in too many alternate universes. Whereas ours is tragical. You could say democracy is not a force of nature, but a comical- tragical exception we were privileged to give our positive heckling, Do it again! Play it again you are saying, and so do millions and millions of us.
"If we don't believe in democracy, no one else will." Well-said. Thank you, Sam for the mention, as well. That post a a bit expanded to include _Who by Fire_ also appears here: https://marytabor.substack.com/p/elena-ferrante-my-brilliant-frien
I hope, Sam, that you'll take a look and comment -- a girl can hope. All best, my friend for this excellent essay. I also suggest that you read Jay Adler on your subject here: https://ajayadler.substack.com/p/american-samizdat-character-and-courage He's amazing!
~ 💕 Mary
It's a great piece Mary! Sorry I'm less of an active commenter than I should be. Who By Fire is looking fabulous. Very excited to read!
Interesting and persuasive analysis, but I’d add that the combination of capitalism and Citizens United has commodified both American elections and our “free” press. I’m not quite old enough to remember when Presidential candidates barnstormed and debated one another live and in person, but the overwhelm of political advertising, particularly on (national/local) TV, and true oddness of nationally-televised debates have only grown during my lifetime. American voter turnout and engagement have correspondingly dropped, as (I hope) has the horrifying 1950’s-1990’s US program of forcing “our” way of governing on less militarily powerful Whovilles who, um, didn’t ask for our help in the first place.
Even so — and with great appreciation for your raising the question — my answer is yes. I do believe in democracy, despite all the flaws and pitfalls you’ve cited. I’m registered, I’ll vote (blue!) in every race I’m eligible for this fall, and I’ll check the couch for loose change to support other vital races around the country…as imperfect as every race inevitably is, I truly believe I’m better off in the US than almost anywhere else.
Agreed with all that. Thank you Patricia. Yes, you're right, I didn't take much about money in politics in this piece, but that's a huge issue as well.
I think it is a bit of an outlier, specifically when we consider humans seem coded for a benevolent dictatorship. Then again , even the US was formed under one.. One Nation under God.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/benevolent-dictatorship
Haha. Love your breakdown of the different roles you play in your own life. That's right, we constantly move from one role to another. I've always found it a bit bizarre how the workplace moves so inevitably into hierarchies when friend groups, for instance, almost never do that.
That's because friend groups, Aka Anarchies, don't scale up. It's like a network relationship diagram, each person in the network can have a maximum of n-1 relationships where n*(n-1)/2 are the total. So for a friend group of 6 friends it's 15 relationships. For 20 coworkers it's 760. Very quickly you have to start creating a hierarchy because you can't manage that many lines of communication very well.
Great piece!
The USA used to be a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized system with imperfect but still genuinely democratic governance structures based around it former, and completely different than today's parties, decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member Democratic and Republican parties of old. A process began after WW2, slowly at first, but the took a giant leap between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s that transformed the USA into a centralized (both in the public sector AND in the private sector) system and our two political parties had by then transformed (which, I would guess, was necessary to produce the leap) into centralized and publicly inaccessible exclusionary membership parties. Your referring to the system we've had over the past 40 years, which has been something that, in some of the most key areas, would be better described as centralized technocratic dictatorship, not a democracy. And I would reckon that centralized technocratic dictatorship is what Francis Fukuyama really meant when he wrote "liberal democracy".
The USA used to be a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, and semi-scientifically decentralized system with imperfect but still genuinely democratic governance structures (which was for hundreds of years considered necessary, it was thought democracy required both the vote AND democratic governance structures, but we destroyed our democratic governance structures) based around it former, and completely different than today's parties, decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member Democratic and Republican parties of old. A process began after WW2, slowly at first, but the took a giant leap between the latter 1970s and mid 1980s that transformed the USA into a centralized (both in the public sector AND in the private sector) system and our two political parties had by then transformed (which, I would guess, was necessary to produce the leap) into centralized and publicly inaccessible exclusionary membership parties. Your referring to the system we've had over the past 40 years, which has been something that, in some of the most key areas, would be better described as centralized technocratic dictatorship, not a democracy. And I would reckon that centralized technocratic dictatorship is what Francis Fukuyama really meant when he wrote "liberal democracy".
Interesting analysis. I'd have to think more about that. But it probably is true that the centralized model that we currently have is very far removed from what the founders had in mind and we sort of kid ourselves when we assume a continuity.
We have a continental empire that has true external dependencies that are sourced from, and channeled through, a planetary one. But if capital “G” Globalism goes away…..
Umm then what @mike Moschos? Please finish your thought
re-decentralization and re-democratization
Hmmmm… maybe? Informed citizenry?
https://open.substack.com/pub/lononaut/p/the-trouble-with-lawyers-and-judges?r=g5jaj&utm_medium=ios