The long read: Once a stalwart of Hong Kong’s journalism scene, Wang Jian has found a new audience on YouTube, dissecting global politics and US-China relations since the pandemic. To his fans, he’s part professor, part friend
A very interesting and insightful take from a foreign journalist on the outside looking in.
Policy has only aligned with the will of the people 55% of the time. That’s not so bad, assuming we just ignore the observed and prevalent phenomenons of elite capture of public opinion and manufacturing of consent.
Of course, democracy exists when we discard the unsavory bits of reality, anything can be democracy when its meaning is an empty signifier.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
I’m not saying democracy can’t exist, it can and it should, but it’s only a fleeting notion in any society based on dominance hierarchy. Democracy does not exist without a well-informed public, a people plagued by ignorance do not have free will, and in consequence do not make their own decisions.
There is nothing representative or democratic about US democracy, if we are being honest with ourselves.
We define successful collective representation as Congress either passing a popular bill or defeating an unpopular one. By this metric, 55% of these 103 issues were collective representational successes.
I don’t think you read, or maybe understood what this was about and the metrics used, but that right there disproves your assertion. This is simply about the comparison of public opinion polling on specific bills. 45% was the other side.
This is policy, not democracy. Democracy is a wider swathe of things where policy is one portion. Your assertion that we’ve never lived in. Democracy because of this is faulty.
You started with a thought terminating cliché, then followed up with ad hominems, then an assertion based on cherry-picked information, and topped it off with a strawman. That is not an argument, you have made no argument.
An oligarchy in democratic accroutements.
Okay, you’re clearly trying to level up the insanity of your comments with this pretentiousness. The italics…WOW 🤌
You’re either a second year Philosophy student, or just really like this which is…WOW.
Policy has only aligned with the will of the people 55% of the time. That’s not so bad, assuming we just ignore the observed and prevalent phenomenons of elite capture of public opinion and manufacturing of consent.
Of course, democracy exists when we discard the unsavory bits of reality, anything can be democracy when its meaning is an empty signifier.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
I’m not saying democracy can’t exist, it can and it should, but it’s only a fleeting notion in any society based on dominance hierarchy. Democracy does not exist without a well-informed public, a people plagued by ignorance do not have free will, and in consequence do not make their own decisions.
There is nothing representative or democratic about US democracy, if we are being honest with ourselves.
I don’t think you read, or maybe understood what this was about and the metrics used, but that right there disproves your assertion. This is simply about the comparison of public opinion polling on specific bills. 45% was the other side.
This is policy, not democracy. Democracy is a wider swathe of things where policy is one portion. Your assertion that we’ve never lived in. Democracy because of this is faulty.
Well at least you’ve shifted your argument from ad hominem to the fallacy of incomplete information. Bravo!
My only argument is that your assertion is wrong.
You started with a thought terminating cliché, then followed up with ad hominems, then an assertion based on cherry-picked information, and topped it off with a strawman. That is not an argument, you have made no argument.
You should revisit my comments then, sir/madam/other.