The freest and most democratic nation?

[RandomGuy]

The freest and most democratic nation?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/quality_american_democracy
Mar 1st 2010, 2:21 by R.L.G. | NEW YORK

I STARTED reading Ramesh Ponuru and Rich Lowry's article on American exceptionalism this morning, expecting that it would start an interesting week-long or so debate about what makes America America. Damon Linker in the New Republic gave the article a few points for "well-timed concessions", and so I thought perhaps it would really be thoughtful.

But this sentence tripped me up:

It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth.

There are five adjectives there. I won't disagree with "more individualistic" or "dynamic", and let's leave aside "more open" for vagueness. But the statement that America is "freer" or "more democratic" than literally every other society on earth, is argued largely through the quotations of founding fathers and Lincoln, as if saying something made it so. Then there is a bit of half-hearted comparison to other democracies, but it cherry-picked, and often represents only dubious proxies for "freedom" (government spending as a percentage of GDP) or aspects of "democracy" of dubious value (the fact that America elects rather than appoints many officers like sheriffs and judges).

How would we truly rate democracies if we had point-by-point, careful comparisons? Well, it so happens that a Washington-based and government-funded NGO, Freedom House, rates every country on earth for "free" and "democratic" qualities. (Full disclosure; I'm an advisor to the group.) Specifically, it gives every country a rating from 1 to 7 on political rights (call that "democracy") and another on civil liberties ("freedom"). America, as a matter of fact, gets an overall 1-1 rating; so do many of the other democracies, mostly in Europe. But there are finer-grained measures—subscores on questions like "electoral process", "rule of law" and "freedom of expression" that add up to the two topline measures. Not only does America not have perfect subscores; looking at the table for the most recent year with full data (2008), (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=414&year=2008)we see that right next to it in the table is Uruguay, which has higher scores in several categories and thus a higher overall score. Ranking all countries on these subscores, America comes in a multi-way tie for 30th place. So according to a respected NGO often considered to be on the centre-right (though the board is politically diverse), America is not the freest country in the world, or most democratic. It isn't second or third either. It's merely in the top tier.

You can go through Freedom House's methodology (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw10/FIW_2010_Methodology_Summary.pdf) and pick nits, of course. So let's go to the qualitative narrative (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2009&country=7729). What's wrong with America's political rights ratings ("democracy")? Freedom House mostly notes the things that we have in The Economist and everyone knows: the influence of money undermines the one-man one-vote ideal. Gerrymandering renders most congressional elections utterly uncompetitive. The party system is not realistically open to the rise of new parties. The electoral college allows a popular-vote loser to become president (and has done so twice). Corruption among high officials is not uncommon. What about civil liberties (Messrs Lowry and Ponuru's "freedom")? The legal environment is hostile to labour compared to other democracies. The justice system is usually agreed to be unfair to Latinos and blacks, and America imprisons a far bigger share of its population than any other democracy does. Racism hampers economic mobility. And because the report only covers the freedom on America's own territory, it does not cover secret prisons, torture or Guantánamo. Oddly, the report does not mention the mental destruction of José Padilla, an American citizen, in custody on American soil.

The Economist remains bullish on America's economy and polity, whatever frustrations we may have. America is exceptional, in its power and its dynamism. Meanwhile, read all of Freedom House's narratives and you'll find that there is no country report without criticism. Some of the things above are true of a few or many other countries. But America is not only imperfect. It is imperfect in ways that sometimes shock not only the Europeans Messrs Lowry and Ponuru sneer at, but also many Americans, including the centrist types who run a place like Freedom House. The blanket statement that America is the "most free, most democratic" country on earth strikes the serious comparativist as what it is: not an empirical fact but as an article of faith, one that needs to be accepted before a true patriot can go on to make minor, qualified criticism. This is not clear thinking, and since it is Messrs Lowry and Ponuru's premise, no argument based on it can be solid either. Nor is it real patriotism: a real patriot is an honest critic.

[RandomGuy]

Any solutions as to how to curb money in politics?

I think it is really our most corrosive problem at the moment.

I would be all for public financing of campaigns, with mandatory debates.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Any solutions as to how to curb money in politics?

I think it is really our most corrosive problem at the moment.

I would be all for public financing of campaigns, with mandatory debates.

I think we need to allow Unions and large multi national corporations run TV ads the night before an election. DO the ads have to be truthful? No, but they have the First Amendment right to lie..

[mogrovejo]

I would be all for public financing of campaigns, with mandatory debates.

Do you want to force your fellow citizens to spend money in something they may not want to use their money in because that's something you like? And in the name of...freedom?

Odd.

What about those who want public financing decide to actually put their money (their money, not others people money) where their mouth is and create some sort of mutual pool where they'd send part of their money that candidates would later use to pay for their campaigns? It seems to me this is the best of both worlds, everybody would be happy.

[TeyshaBlue]

Any solutions as to how to curb money in politics?

I think it is really our most corrosive problem at the moment.

I would be all for public financing of campaigns, with mandatory debates.

+1.

Why should money even be a factor unless we buy into the notion that money=free speech?

[boutons_deux]

"most corrosive problem at the moment"

... has been for a LONG TIME.

1. the Senate in non-proportional, a relic from times when the FF wanted to bring in the under-populated western states. Senate is a fucking disaster. A constitutional amendment to annul it.

2. campaign finance is nothing but legal bribery. Make PACs illegal, remove corps as "persons" with free speech rights, block all campaign contributions except from individuals.

3. The electoral college is non-proportional. annul it, and replace with direct election of the President by popular vote.

4. Weird cultists from Utah should not be able to buy campaign results in California. Stop out-of-state campaign contributions.

[mogrovejo]

+1.

Why should money even be a factor unless we buy into the notion that money=free speech?

Who holds that notion?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Who holds that notion?

more money more free speech

[spursncowboys]

If not money, then it would be who you know. I rather take someone with money influencing the politicians than some party affiliate or activist who never had a real job.

[mogrovejo]

Money=free speech is a convenient straw-man used by the lazy minds.

Money isn't free speech or speech. As a computer isn't speech either.

[spursncowboys]

more money more free speech

That's not what tupac said.

[Winehole23]

Money isn't free speech or speech. In the context of elections, it more or less is after Buckley v. Valeo.

[Thompson]

1. the Senate in non-proportional, a relic from times when the FF wanted to bring in the under-populated western states. Senate is a fucking disaster. A constitutional amendment to annul it.


You do realize that before an amendment can go to the states, the House and Senate have to pass it by 2/3 vote, right? You think 2/3 of the Senate will ever vote to disband itself? :lol

[boutons_deux]

"You think 2/3 of the Senate will ever vote to disband itself"

there are useful, intelligent, problem-directed fantasies, like mine, and inane fantasies, like teabaggers' and made-up shit by Repugs. :)

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes, the Senate was designed to check the excesses of democracy which croutons claims to want, yet secretly fears.

[boutons_deux]

"designed to check the excesses of democracy"

false. It was meant to give disproportional, unrepresentative power to underpopulated non-states that feared being overwhelmed and trivialized by the populous states of the East so they would agree to become states and join the Union.

I don't "secretly fear" democracy. I open detest the enslaved, polluted, dying shit hole that The American Experiment has become under the "conservative"-enabled business-friendly, scamming, racketeering, "free market" jackboot of the capitalists and corporations.

[RandomGuy]

Do you want to force your fellow citizens to spend money in something they may not want to use their money in because that's something you like? And in the name of...freedom?

Odd.

What about those who want public financing decide to actually put their money (their money, not others people money) where their mouth is and create some sort of mutual pool where they'd send part of their money that candidates would later use to pay for their campaigns? It seems to me this is the best of both worlds, everybody would be happy.

If you want to use, say, oil, you are forced to pay for the oil companies' lobbyists.

If you want to, say, use electricity, you are forced to pay for the utilities' lobbyists.

All of these costs are buried in everything you buy now, and each of them are pouring money into campaigns, and your congress members have to spend inordinate amounts of their time chasing after it.

Better to ban all of this, tax for the funding, and free up our congress to actually do things that might be in the public good rather than catering to who has the most money aimed at their campaigns.

That way the costs are all up front and transparent.

[RandomGuy]

1. the Senate in non-proportional, a relic from times when the FF wanted to bring in the under-populated western states. Senate is a fucking disaster. A constitutional amendment to annul it.

You would impose, then, a "tyranny of the majority"?

The arguments for such an equal representation are the same as they were 250 years ago.

I personally think the senate is a good idea.

[RandomGuy]

Money=free speech is a convenient straw-man used by the lazy minds.

Money isn't free speech or speech. As a computer isn't speech either.

... and the Oscar for Shortest Incoherent Rant goes to...

uh, what?

Elaborate, if you would be so kind.

[smeagol]

"designed to check the excesses of democracy"

false. It was meant to give disproportional, unrepresentative power to underpopulated non-states that feared being overwhelmed and trivialized by the populous states of the East so they would agree to become states and join the Union.

I don't "secretly fear" democracy. I open detest the enslaved, polluted, dying shit hole that The American Experiment has become under the "conservative"-enabled business-friendly, scamming, racketeering, "free market" jackboot of the capitalists and corporations.

Freemarket? You hate free market?

So what is it you like, then?

[Drachen]

The freest and most democratic nation?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/quality_american_democracy
Mar 1st 2010, 2:21 by R.L.G. | NEW YORK

I STARTED reading Ramesh Ponuru and Rich Lowry's article on American exceptionalism this morning, expecting that it would start an interesting week-long or so debate about what makes America America. Damon Linker in the New Republic gave the article a few points for "well-timed concessions", and so I thought perhaps it would really be thoughtful.

But this sentence tripped me up:

It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth.

There are five adjectives there. I won't disagree with "more individualistic" or "dynamic", and let's leave aside "more open" for vagueness. But the statement that America is "freer" or "more democratic" than literally every other society on earth, is argued largely through the quotations of founding fathers and Lincoln, as if saying something made it so. Then there is a bit of half-hearted comparison to other democracies, but it cherry-picked, and often represents only dubious proxies for "freedom" (government spending as a percentage of GDP) or aspects of "democracy" of dubious value (the fact that America elects rather than appoints many officers like sheriffs and judges).

How would we truly rate democracies if we had point-by-point, careful comparisons? Well, it so happens that a Washington-based and government-funded NGO, Freedom House, rates every country on earth for "free" and "democratic" qualities. (Full disclosure; I'm an advisor to the group.) Specifically, it gives every country a rating from 1 to 7 on political rights (call that "democracy") and another on civil liberties ("freedom"). America, as a matter of fact, gets an overall 1-1 rating; so do many of the other democracies, mostly in Europe. But there are finer-grained measures—subscores on questions like "electoral process", "rule of law" and "freedom of expression" that add up to the two topline measures. Not only does America not have perfect subscores; looking at the table for the most recent year with full data (2008), (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=414&year=2008)we see that right next to it in the table is Uruguay, which has higher scores in several categories and thus a higher overall score. Ranking all countries on these subscores, America comes in a multi-way tie for 30th place. So according to a respected NGO often considered to be on the centre-right (though the board is politically diverse), America is not the freest country in the world, or most democratic. It isn't second or third either. It's merely in the top tier.

You can go through Freedom House's methodology (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw10/FIW_2010_Methodology_Summary.pdf) and pick nits, of course. So let's go to the qualitative narrative (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2009&country=7729). What's wrong with America's political rights ratings ("democracy")? Freedom House mostly notes the things that we have in The Economist and everyone knows: the influence of money undermines the one-man one-vote ideal. Gerrymandering renders most congressional elections utterly uncompetitive. The party system is not realistically open to the rise of new parties. The electoral college allows a popular-vote loser to become president (and has done so twice). Corruption among high officials is not uncommon. What about civil liberties (Messrs Lowry and Ponuru's "freedom")? The legal environment is hostile to labour compared to other democracies. The justice system is usually agreed to be unfair to Latinos and blacks, and America imprisons a far bigger share of its population than any other democracy does. Racism hampers economic mobility. And because the report only covers the freedom on America's own territory, it does not cover secret prisons, torture or Guantánamo. Oddly, the report does not mention the mental destruction of José Padilla, an American citizen, in custody on American soil.

The Economist remains bullish on America's economy and polity, whatever frustrations we may have. America is exceptional, in its power and its dynamism. Meanwhile, read all of Freedom House's narratives and you'll find that there is no country report without criticism. Some of the things above are true of a few or many other countries. But America is not only imperfect. It is imperfect in ways that sometimes shock not only the Europeans Messrs Lowry and Ponuru sneer at, but also many Americans, including the centrist types who run a place like Freedom House. The blanket statement that America is the "most free, most democratic" country on earth strikes the serious comparativist as what it is: not an empirical fact but as an article of faith, one that needs to be accepted before a true patriot can go on to make minor, qualified criticism. This is not clear thinking, and since it is Messrs Lowry and Ponuru's premise, no argument based on it can be solid either. Nor is it real patriotism: a real patriot is an honest critic.

When I was an exchange student to Germany, I studied the German Grundgesetz (essentially the Constitution, directly translated as base-law) and found it to be far more representative in its democratic policies specifically in parlimentary elections. If there are 100 seats available, and party X gets 51% of the vote party, Y gets 29% of the vote, Party Z gets 10% of the vote, Party A gets 7% and Party B gets 3% of the vote, then Party Z gets 51 seats, Y - 29 seats, Z - 10 seats, A - 7 seats, and B - 3 seats. I thought this was genius!

[Winehole23]

When I was an exchange student to Germany, I studied the German Grundgesetz (essentially the Constitution, directly translated as base-law) and found it to be far more representative in its democratic policies specifically in parlimentary elections. If there are 100 seats available, and party X gets 51% of the vote party, Y gets 29% of the vote, Party Z gets 10% of the vote, Party A gets 7% and Party B gets 3% of the vote, then Party Z gets 51 seats, Y - 29 seats, Z - 10 seats, A - 7 seats, and B - 3 seats. I thought this was genius!If no party gets a majority in a parliamentary system, the influence of the "fringe" parties ( parties Z, A and B in this case) can be greatly magnified beyond their numbers, and no confidence votes can cause the government to fail. Just look at Italy as an example of the kind of instability this can cause.

Whereas in our system the majority party has to capture Dems and Republicans in the middle. Both ends have to be played against the middle, rather than the extremes, as often happens in a parliamentary set-up.

Don't get me wrong, the two party duopoly sucks. Even still, I'm not convinced a parliamentary system is necessarily better.

[symple19]

"most corrosive problem at the moment"

... has been for a LONG TIME.

1. the Senate in non-proportional, a relic from times when the FF wanted to bring in the under-populated western states. Senate is a fucking disaster. A constitutional amendment to annul it.

2. campaign finance is nothing but legal bribery. Make PACs illegal, remove corps as "persons" with free speech rights, block all campaign contributions except from individuals.

3. The electoral college is non-proportional. annul it, and replace with direct election of the President by popular vote.

4. Weird cultists from Utah should not be able to buy campaign results in California. Stop out-of-state campaign contributions.

Wow, I agree with all but the first statement...

[boutons_deux]

"influence of the "fringe" parties ( parties Z, A and B in this case) can be greatly magnified beyond their numbers" exactly the same problem with, eg, 1, 2, 3 "centrist =(DINO)"., Senators who wield power at the 51 or 60 vote threshold way beyond their single votes, and amplified again when they represent 1/2 of state with less than a million voters. How democratically representative is it when 1 senator representing a 1/1000th of 300M people holds legislation hostage for the benefit his corporate owners (and his personal income/perks and his post-office lobbying future) ? That's why the Senate is an anti-democratic disaster, that's why lobbyists hit primarily on the Senate, 100 bribed votes is cheaper than 435 bribed votes. Bribery, "it's a business", spend no more than you must.

[Drachen]

If no party gets a majority in a parliamentary system, the influence of the "fringe" parties ( parties Z, A and B in this case) can be greatly magnified beyond their numbers, and no confidence votes can cause the government to fail. Just look at Italy as an example of the kind of instability this can cause.

Whereas in our system the majority party has to capture Dems and Republicans in the middle. Both ends have to be played against the middle, rather than the extremes, as often happens in a parliamentary set-up.

Don't get me wrong, the two party duopoly sucks. Even still, I'm not convinced a parliamentary system is necessarily better.

So what that means is that (gasp) they have to create a coalition and compromise on certain things. i.e. bi or multipartisanship, TRUE multipartisanship. I have voted for Ralph Nader before SPECIFICALLY because I wanted to get him the 5% necessary to get a third party the funding available for the following election. I don't even agree with over half of his ideas. I just wanted to have a third (or fourth) voice out there who might cause the "big 2" to start holding themselves to their words. Shoot, if the Tea Party people stuck to their original message of fiscal responsibility and didn't go all wackadoo and align themselves with idiots. I may have voted for a tea party candidate specifically for the same reason (but the underlying principals of the party still have to have something in common with my ideals and the Tea Party oscillates between unorganized and hateful, the Greens at least had an underlying ecological agenda that I could get behind).