The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization transformed the politics of abortion, turning an issue that once mattered most…
I don’t disagree with your point regarding this specific argument, but we want to avoid a tyranny of the majority for a reason. It’s dangerous. Popular rule isn’t good because there may be a time where what’s popular isn’t aligned to your beliefs. Or quite frankly to what is logically “right”. Law should be based on established reason, logic, precedent, etc. and not on what most Americans want. Most Americans are dumb.
If political results in the USA followed popular will instead of the fucked up system it runs, it would be a much better country. Trust democracy more.
The real wild thing is by and large a lot of policies the Democrats champion for have wildly popular uptakes across the entire political spectrum in the US but the Democrats themselves lack the overwhelming public support to implement them.
Florida passed a $15 minimum wage ballot measure and yet as a state votes almost wholly for Republicans.
Net neutrality has broad national support. Democrats never have sufficient legislative power to enshrine that. Repeat ad nausuem with all sorts of popular policies like inflation-tied minimum wage, secured abortion access, healthcare for all, legalize marijuana, etc.
These policies are popular. Half of Congress is represented (in loose terms) by a broad coalition of people who haven’t lost it but can’t really pass anything people really want because they lack the majorities needed to do so unopposed from both across the aisle and within their own ranks, and the other half have completely lost the plot.
I agree with most of this comment however I do not think more than 40% of the democrats currently in congress would ever vote yes on a universal healthcare bill no matter how air tight. The senate definitely doesn’t help, but I’m not even sure about the house.
Also, couldn’t they bring back net neutrality via the FCC right now? Sure it could get overturned by the next republican majority, but make a public commitment to keep changing it back every time the dems are in power so it’s a waste for companies to try and entrench themselves in business models that rely on its death.
Regardless, this is why I want to move to California so badly. Basically the only state consistently fighting for its people these days.
I do not think more than 40% of the democrats currently in congress would ever vote yes on a universal healthcare bill
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was, at least at its time, a revolutionary piece of legislation that got watered down by Democrats capitulating to Republican demands and “Democrats” (i.e. incredibly conservative Democrats who are Democrats in name but not really) weakening the bill and the fact the Democrats’ filibuster proof majority really only existed for a few weeks at best, and despite all of that, it passed and despite its weaknesses, have had immense positive impact on the lives of many everyday people. Democrats passed the bill knowing they would get eviscerated in the immediately following election, which they did.
A clean universal healthcare bill, no strings attached, handed to the Democrats with a sufficiently large majority such that the most conservative of their ranks can break without jeopardizing the bill’s passage, will likely pass. I wouldn’t bet my life savings on it, but the notion the Democrats in general wouldn’t pass public good legislation does not line-up with their actual legislative and voting history. If a clean universal healthcare bill makes it out of the current House’s subcommittee with no Republican gotchas, I’m fairly confident most of the Democrats will vote for it, and those that will not are likely to do so for political maneuvering knowing it won’t pass.
You may say I’m being idealistic, and honestly I admit I am. But I think chances are good with a strong majority trifecta, strong and large enough for holdouts to vote against and not jeopardize its passage. Such a majority will probably never exist for another half a generation at least though. And at least from my PoV, dismissing the possibility is a grim outlook and a great way to lead to both discouragement and disillusionment of the process, and at least to me, there is only one major political party that benefits from people being disengaged and disillusioned.
Net Neutrality as it stands currently is being implemented because a variety of states (WA, CA, as examples) implemented some form of NN that is similar but not quite different. The FCC tried to preempt the ability for individual states to implement their own NN-esque laws or requirements but this was shot down by the courts. The consequence is, pragmatically speaking, NN of some form exists without the FCC directly intervening anymore because telecom companies aren’t very keen in implementing this at a state-based level, so very much like how CA has an undue influence in emissions standards due to its large market and the fact no company really wants to build one product for CA and one product for some of the rest of the states.
A number of West Coast states are aggressively passing legislation to the benefit of their citizens (WA’s minimum wage law has been signed for a while now, for example).
You make a good point, but it would land harder if the Supreme Court was not already a complete disaster that has been exposed for currying favor amongst the rich and powerful. The independence of the the court system from the government is one of the most important measures of a functioning democracy. You can see what is happening in Israel as an example of this point. In the United States it is no different and sadly the Supreme Court has done an horrendous job at showing they maintain any kind of independence from the political arms of our country.
This is pretty much why many of the founding fathers were against democracy. They wanted the rich, property owning men to be able to vote but thought that the poor and the working class (such as it was at the time) needed to be controlled lest they try to take away the property that rightfully belonged to the people who inherited it. They weren’t looking to secure the rights of ethnic minorities (obviously). They feared that popular elections would lead to a loss of property for the wealthy, whom they thought were the best positioned by virtue of education, influence, and an inborn sense of noblesse oblige to act in the best interests of the country as a whole. Rich people were obviously not going to be in it for themselves. The rich are the most likely to be selfless, and in any case their interests were most closely aligned with the interests of the country.
I think political science has moved past that model and has generally come to recognize that oligarchy is anti-democratic. Democracy would recommend free and widespread public education to try to make Americans less dumb.
Public education is tricky since it needs to be reformed before its truly a worthy cause. It could be great, but for now there’s a lot of issues with it and people latch onto those
I have a feeling a lot of the issues are introduced by people who are interested in taking public education private. There’s a strong push from the US right to spend tax money funding privately run charter schools or to simply fund religious education as opposed to public schools.
I think, like with health care, the US should look at models from other countries that work better than ours. For now, US universities rank among the best in the world, but politicians like Ron DeSantis are coming for them, too.
But then you get the rule of the minority with our current gerrymandering. Is that really better? You’re definitely right on established reason, logic, and precedent, but people can argue that they have points for all of those things that support abortion rights and points that support restrictions abortion. To basically anyone either side is established reason, logic, and precedent.
It’s not necessarily one or the other, you can cater to the needs of both the majority and the minority. They don’t come into conflict nearly as much as conservatives would have you believe. As long as we don’t cater to the needs of the minority that want to supplant the majority, and instead to those who want to live in harmony with everyone else.
Policies should in general be focused on the statistically proven as beneficial options. Instead we go for wedge issues that actually matter to no one.
I dunno if I use podcasts as my metric for how hot an issue is. The only time I really hear about that kind of thing is when people are complaining (albeit rightly so) about Joe Rogan’s latest attempt at keeping himself relevant.
Too bad it’s not based on either right now. Majority rule is far from perfect, but minority rule tends to be worse. Law exclusively based on logic and reason may be a noble goal, but the most dangerous and extreme ideologues believe their arguments to be perfectly reasonable. At some point someone has to decide what is logical. Who? And how are they selected?
Until we have good answers to these questions I’m in favor of democratic systems.
I don’t disagree with your point regarding this specific argument, but we want to avoid a tyranny of the majority for a reason. It’s dangerous. Popular rule isn’t good because there may be a time where what’s popular isn’t aligned to your beliefs. Or quite frankly to what is logically “right”. Law should be based on established reason, logic, precedent, etc. and not on what most Americans want. Most Americans are dumb.
Yeah that minoritarian Supreme Court is pumping out great decisions, letting a minority rule is clearly the way forward and not totally insane babble.
About six-in-ten Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases
Fox News poll finds voters overwhelmingly want restrictions on guns
Increasing share of Americans favor a single government program to provide health care coverage
If political results in the USA followed popular will instead of the fucked up system it runs, it would be a much better country. Trust democracy more.
So wild that 6/10 Americans want universal healthcare and yet it has almost zero support from the people actually in congress.
The real wild thing is by and large a lot of policies the Democrats champion for have wildly popular uptakes across the entire political spectrum in the US but the Democrats themselves lack the overwhelming public support to implement them.
Florida passed a $15 minimum wage ballot measure and yet as a state votes almost wholly for Republicans.
Net neutrality has broad national support. Democrats never have sufficient legislative power to enshrine that. Repeat ad nausuem with all sorts of popular policies like inflation-tied minimum wage, secured abortion access, healthcare for all, legalize marijuana, etc.
These policies are popular. Half of Congress is represented (in loose terms) by a broad coalition of people who haven’t lost it but can’t really pass anything people really want because they lack the majorities needed to do so unopposed from both across the aisle and within their own ranks, and the other half have completely lost the plot.
I agree with most of this comment however I do not think more than 40% of the democrats currently in congress would ever vote yes on a universal healthcare bill no matter how air tight. The senate definitely doesn’t help, but I’m not even sure about the house.
Also, couldn’t they bring back net neutrality via the FCC right now? Sure it could get overturned by the next republican majority, but make a public commitment to keep changing it back every time the dems are in power so it’s a waste for companies to try and entrench themselves in business models that rely on its death.
Regardless, this is why I want to move to California so badly. Basically the only state consistently fighting for its people these days.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was, at least at its time, a revolutionary piece of legislation that got watered down by Democrats capitulating to Republican demands and “Democrats” (i.e. incredibly conservative Democrats who are Democrats in name but not really) weakening the bill and the fact the Democrats’ filibuster proof majority really only existed for a few weeks at best, and despite all of that, it passed and despite its weaknesses, have had immense positive impact on the lives of many everyday people. Democrats passed the bill knowing they would get eviscerated in the immediately following election, which they did.
A clean universal healthcare bill, no strings attached, handed to the Democrats with a sufficiently large majority such that the most conservative of their ranks can break without jeopardizing the bill’s passage, will likely pass. I wouldn’t bet my life savings on it, but the notion the Democrats in general wouldn’t pass public good legislation does not line-up with their actual legislative and voting history. If a clean universal healthcare bill makes it out of the current House’s subcommittee with no Republican gotchas, I’m fairly confident most of the Democrats will vote for it, and those that will not are likely to do so for political maneuvering knowing it won’t pass.
You may say I’m being idealistic, and honestly I admit I am. But I think chances are good with a strong majority trifecta, strong and large enough for holdouts to vote against and not jeopardize its passage. Such a majority will probably never exist for another half a generation at least though. And at least from my PoV, dismissing the possibility is a grim outlook and a great way to lead to both discouragement and disillusionment of the process, and at least to me, there is only one major political party that benefits from people being disengaged and disillusioned.
Net Neutrality as it stands currently is being implemented because a variety of states (WA, CA, as examples) implemented some form of NN that is similar but not quite different. The FCC tried to preempt the ability for individual states to implement their own NN-esque laws or requirements but this was shot down by the courts. The consequence is, pragmatically speaking, NN of some form exists without the FCC directly intervening anymore because telecom companies aren’t very keen in implementing this at a state-based level, so very much like how CA has an undue influence in emissions standards due to its large market and the fact no company really wants to build one product for CA and one product for some of the rest of the states.
A number of West Coast states are aggressively passing legislation to the benefit of their citizens (WA’s minimum wage law has been signed for a while now, for example).
deleted by creator
Almost like there’s more than two options, and maybe we should opt for one that doesn’t have an “either or” decision making process…
Tyranny of the majority > Tyranny of the minority every, single, time.
Personally I wouldn’t want any kind of tyranny. But I guess that’s just me.
You make a good point, but it would land harder if the Supreme Court was not already a complete disaster that has been exposed for currying favor amongst the rich and powerful. The independence of the the court system from the government is one of the most important measures of a functioning democracy. You can see what is happening in Israel as an example of this point. In the United States it is no different and sadly the Supreme Court has done an horrendous job at showing they maintain any kind of independence from the political arms of our country.
This is pretty much why many of the founding fathers were against democracy. They wanted the rich, property owning men to be able to vote but thought that the poor and the working class (such as it was at the time) needed to be controlled lest they try to take away the property that rightfully belonged to the people who inherited it. They weren’t looking to secure the rights of ethnic minorities (obviously). They feared that popular elections would lead to a loss of property for the wealthy, whom they thought were the best positioned by virtue of education, influence, and an inborn sense of noblesse oblige to act in the best interests of the country as a whole. Rich people were obviously not going to be in it for themselves. The rich are the most likely to be selfless, and in any case their interests were most closely aligned with the interests of the country.
I think political science has moved past that model and has generally come to recognize that oligarchy is anti-democratic. Democracy would recommend free and widespread public education to try to make Americans less dumb.
There’s a party that is in opposition to that.
Public education is tricky since it needs to be reformed before its truly a worthy cause. It could be great, but for now there’s a lot of issues with it and people latch onto those
I have a feeling a lot of the issues are introduced by people who are interested in taking public education private. There’s a strong push from the US right to spend tax money funding privately run charter schools or to simply fund religious education as opposed to public schools.
I think, like with health care, the US should look at models from other countries that work better than ours. For now, US universities rank among the best in the world, but politicians like Ron DeSantis are coming for them, too.
Tyranny of the majority is a myth.
People who use “tyranny of the majority” seriously seem to prefer the “tyranny of a specific minority” - which is the only existing alternative.
But then you get the rule of the minority with our current gerrymandering. Is that really better? You’re definitely right on established reason, logic, and precedent, but people can argue that they have points for all of those things that support abortion rights and points that support restrictions abortion. To basically anyone either side is established reason, logic, and precedent.
It’s not necessarily one or the other, you can cater to the needs of both the majority and the minority. They don’t come into conflict nearly as much as conservatives would have you believe. As long as we don’t cater to the needs of the minority that want to supplant the majority, and instead to those who want to live in harmony with everyone else.
Policies should in general be focused on the statistically proven as beneficial options. Instead we go for wedge issues that actually matter to no one.
Wedge issues like the majority versus the minority?
Trans men in sports is one of the hottest issues right now. Would you say you truly care about that at all?
I dunno if I use podcasts as my metric for how hot an issue is. The only time I really hear about that kind of thing is when people are complaining (albeit rightly so) about Joe Rogan’s latest attempt at keeping himself relevant.
Too bad it’s not based on either right now. Majority rule is far from perfect, but minority rule tends to be worse. Law exclusively based on logic and reason may be a noble goal, but the most dangerous and extreme ideologues believe their arguments to be perfectly reasonable. At some point someone has to decide what is logical. Who? And how are they selected?
Until we have good answers to these questions I’m in favor of democratic systems.