We’ll be having our next LoOG symposium soon, starting on the first Monday in August (August 6). The subject will be “Democracy,” and the first question to our panelists will be, “Is liberal democracy viable?” I’d expect a lot of focus on the United States, particularly with this being election season here, but obviously the U.S. is not the only liberal democracy in the world and global perspectives are more than welcome.
As with our inequality forum a few months ago, anyone may take part, including official League contributors, unofficial League commenters, those quiet readers who too rarely share their thoughts with the rest of us, and folks from other blogs who want to share their perspective with us.
My hope is to have substantial contributions from a broad spectrum of ideologies and perspectives, and on a wide spectrum of subjects as well, ranging from the theoretical and philosophical (e.g., “Is democracy more trouble than it’s worth?”) to the partisan and pragmatic (e.g., “Is X [a political party, law, or court ruling] eroding the foundations of our democracy?”). Maybe you want to focus on the idea of democracy and liberalism, or the interactions of democratic and non-democratic societies, cultures, or institutions. I’m already told at least one post will involve beer, which sounds fabulous and is something I would never, ever have thought of on my own.
If you’re interested in writing but lack inspiration or focus, please feel free to correspond with me by e-mail and I’ll be happy to workshop out ideas with you. You can also send guest posts to me or by the usual channels for submission of a guest post (that is, to Erik Kain). My e-mail address is (burtlikko [at] gmail [dot] com).
Here’s looking forward to another great symposium!
Image source: S. E. Forman Essentials in Civil Government, A Text-Book for Use in Schools (New York: American Book Company, 1908), pg. 94.
“Is X [a political party, law, or court ruling] eroding the foundations of our democracy?”
Yes.Report
Awesome! Thanks for contributing!Report
viable meaning “to last a thousand years” or just “workable enough for the time being”?Report
You tell me. 🙂Report
man, the best i could do for you would be “democracy is messed up because the demos is insane” and that’s not helpful to anyone.Report
Why is it insane? Can anything be done about it? If not, is there an alternative to democracy that works better for n insane demos?
Inquiring minds want to know!Report
The demos is insane because it has no incentive to be sane. Welcome to rational irrationality.Report
“viable” means it can last for six years.Report
Just until Inauguration Day, by which time Herr Romney will have the troops in place.Report
No… no… He’ll drag me out of the humanities and force me into [gasp! the horrors!] an MBA program!Report
I’m planning to write a post that looks at democracy from a benefit-cost perspective. Basically, what is democracy actually good for?Report
I’d like to write about how the presidential election process weeds out eccentrics. Not necessarily for good reasons, but it does. What we get is not the best of the best, but the best of the blandest.Report
Heh, I tell my students that’s the primary virtue of democracy. I look forward to your take.Report
Yep, it’s also my take that the process does not generally produce the best, but generally avoids the worst – and this is its defining virtue. The ‘worst system except for all the alternatives’ kind of thing.Report
I realize that by using the terms ‘best’ and ‘worst’ I am moving a bit off what Jason seems to be saying. But ‘eccentric’ can quickly shade into ‘worst’ given the right (wrong) circumstances and a huge amount of power.
To avoid Godwining myself by bringing up a certain Austrian art student with…strange ideas, I’ll just note that Mugabe and Chavez and Amin were probably all just charming fellows with a few odd ideas, once upon a time.Report
If I can work up the energy for another major post I’ll write about the difficulty of aggregating preferences.Report
We’re going to have an Arrow’s theorem for dummies post? AwesomeReport
Maybe. The Condorcet’s paradox for dummies is easy to write, but the Arrow’s theorem for dummies is a frickin’ bear. A year or so ago a few blogging economists tried their hands at writing popular versions of it; IMO they all failed miserably. And they’re all smarter and better writers than me. Cross your fingers, maybe, but don’t hold your breath.Report
James, I know your angle is usually economic, but is there any way you could factor technological change into it? I have been trying to come up with a technological angle w/r/t the speed and ease of internet communications and I just can’t get it to come into focus in my mind. Maybe Blaise could help here.
Something like, is our democracy still running DOS when it could be running Mountain Lion? Is the fact that we sort of use an older ‘mainframe’ approach (which usually favors stability over flexibility) good or bad compared to a newer server/distributed approach (generally more flexible, and better failure recovery by use of re-routing, but also in my experience less stable due to increased number of variables and less rigid ‘rules’?)
Or take the way Google (the details are a trade secret) aggregates preferences (links) into Google placement rankings. Can we use the internet to do something similar in our democratic processes?
If we were to model any changes to our democratic system based on current communications tech & innovations, what are the risks, given that the current US Constitutional structure is intended to *slow down* popular fads and avoid the ‘madness of crowds’ (an apt description of the internet in certain modes if I have ever seen one) resulting in rapid and destabilizing catastrophic change?Report
You know, I am looking at my calendar, and there is little realistic likelihood of me being able to tackle any of these ideas with any justice in time, so I will throw them out there as idea seeds for any that want them.Report
Glyph,
I’m afraid not, because the problems are more fundamental than that. They’re not technologically solvable; in fact they’re theoretically unsolvable (that is, not solvable even in theory). That said, the upside is that they’re merely very problematic, not necessarily fatal.Report
Besides, I’m too much of a Luddite–I’ve never even heard of mountain lion! Thanks for making me remember, yet again, what a technological dolt I am. 😉Report
No worries. I look forward to reading anything you write on the topic. You, Jason and Roger are all really good at clearly laying out theoretical foundations for many of the things that make sense to me already, even if I can’t always clearly articulate the ‘why’.
A cynic might say I am just looking for justifications for the way I feel already. But I hope it is more just a case of, ‘yeah, that fits what I have seen.’Report
Glyph,
My prospective contribution hits upon many of these themes, but perhaps not exactly as you might expect. Mine is that improved technology and communications will enhance the flexibility and “exit rights” of the various players in democracy. This introduces competition for non exploitative institutions, and will act to inject choice and fairness into democratic states.Report
Awesome. Bring it on!Report
I’d like to see somebody tackle the following issues: 1) representation, a contemporary look at the classic delegate v. steward debate; 2) democratic responsiveness v. intentional speed bumps in the system.Report
Whether liberal democracy is viable is a rather settled argument. That is if one considers the current “western democracies” to be “liberal”. None have collapsed into dictatorship or anarchy with the possible exception of the Weimar Republic.
Now whether “liberal democracy” is the most desirable or efficient governance to ensure human happiness and justice is another matter.Report