poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (11/08/84)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 8 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 102
Contents: Evil Empires
Voting
Speculations on Political Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue 6 Nov 84 12:31:55-EST
From: Larry Kolodney <UC.LKK%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Just a few comments on my old friend McGeers flaming:
From McGeer:
" Third. Steve thinks that Reagan should not call the Soviet Union an
"evil empire". Well, goodness me, I don't know what else to call it. From
the forced starvation of the Kulaks (while the Soviets exported grain!) to
the conquest and repression of Eastern Europe, to the rape of Afghanistan,
to Gulag, and to the attempted assasination of the Holy Father, Soviet
actions have been purest evil; and one can hardly deny that a nation which
dominates two continents and rigidly controls a score of "independent"
satellites is an empire."
Look, there's hardly a nation on earth that hasn't done its share
of "evil" things. Look at american genocide against Native
Americans. Our virtually feudal control over latin america,
harboring Nazi war criminals. Talk about "empire", the entire
western US was gained via "imperialism". And the "holy father".
Look at what the Catholic Church has done in its glorious
history: Kept millions in fearful ignorance, propogated virulent
anti-semitism, did the inquisition, the crusades and so on.
Institutions change. The SU today is quite different from
Stalinist times. So is the Catholic church.
From McGeer:
"But, Steve, no nation in the Soviet grip has ever
managed to get loose, unless you count China."
How about Egypt, Indonesia, Albania, Yugoslavia, Somalia?
And "unless you count china" is quite a BIG 'unless'.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 6 Nov 84 17:50:57-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: good guys and bad guys
I am appalled, and frankly, frightened, to see an intelligent,
educated, normally clear-thinking person like Rick McGeer defend a
world view where we (USA) are good guys and they (USSR) are bad guys,
"evil". Don't get me wrong; I think the USA has a better system, and
I'm glad I live here, and all that. But Steve Upstill is right about
how that sort of world view leads to problems, like an unwillingness
to negotiate.
"Evil" and "bad" and "immoral" and all those words are simply too full
of emotion and religious imagery. I know that connotations aren't
rigidly defined, but terms such as evil seem to have the implication
of inherent, immutable undesirability, of something unworthy of the
considerations applicable to the rest of humanity. Perhaps you can
say these words and not think of all the connotations, but your
audience will probably hear the connotations, and Reagan is helping to
spread this dangerous viewpoint. In such a viewpoint, there is no
room for opinions, differences, errors in judgment, good intentions,
change of government leaders, and no excuse for *caring* about "that
evil empire" (which happens to be made up of lots of people who don't
like their government's behavior any more than we do). You can't
really argue with someone using terms like "evil"; either you agree or
you must be evil yourself. And that's simply too few bits for an
issue as important as world relations.
I'll leave you with one last thought. One has only to look at history
to see that one of the greatest causes of malicious, "evil" deeds has
been the goal of eliminating "evil" - all religious persecution, for
example. Yes, let's be realistic about the USSR. But let's not label
them in such a way that we no longer see them as a *peer* which we
must work with and try to understand, like them or not.
Annette
[Actually, as a professing Christian, Reagan would (or should)
be the first to admit that he was evil too... --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 1984 14:07 EST
From: Dean Sutherland <Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: Voting for a Winner???
The main historical function of third parties in the US has been to popularize
(relatively) radical ideas. When a third party starts to get noticible
fraction of the popular vote, the major parties tend to embrace portions of
their platforms.
Consider the Populist Party of the 1890s (??? my history is a little too rusty
to be sure of that date). After about 20 years of building support, the
populists got about 15% (I think) of the popular vote in a Presidential
election. Although they didn't win, they did scare the pants off the major
parties, both of which adopted major portions of the populists platform. In
this fashion, the populists had a significant effect on American politics
without ever winning (or "having a chance of winning") a significant election.
This, in my opinion, is the major role of third (Nth???) parties.
Dean Sutherland
PS. The above does not necessarily represent the views of anyone other than
me.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 6 Nov 84 11:35:32-PST
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Various
Caring about the issues:
For the most part, people care less about an issue the further it
is from their personal lives, and the further away it is in time.
It is not at all clear that this is an irrational response--everyone
has the task of allocating their limited time to the things they find
most satisfying, and reading a bid for a new sewer line, or
understanding why who is doing whatever to whom in the middle east
last week, may not fit the bill! Personally, for example, I burned
out on any interest in Vietnam at all sometime around 1969.
The ideal solution, in my view, has two main parts:
1) The government simply shouldn't do very much.
2) What little government does do should be done at the
lowest level possible.
Rent control:
I will not buy property in any area that has rent control. If all
potential property owners took the same view, the municipalities
that pass it would reap the disaster they deserve!
Power to the peep-hole:
The only real way to do this is to not have the government have
much/any power--if power resides with individuals, people will get
what they want, based on the limts of their wealth and knowledge.
Paying more for govt:
I don't think the government should do anything besides defense
of the system from violent disruption. Since that's sort of an
"overhead" function (I want it done, but I have no intrinsic interest
in it), I would prefer to hire someone else to watch over my interest.
If I could *literally* hire someone to do
this (ie sell my vote, or my vote on certain issues), I would be much
better off. With any other service in a free market, you will get no
better service than what you pay for.
Voting for a winner:
Living in California, in conjucntion with modern sampling
techniques, has distinct advantages--long before the polls close
I will have a very good idea of how close the race is. If there is
any real chance that Reagan might lose, I will vote for
him, cause I sure as hell don't want Walter Mundane in charge.
If it looks like Ronny has it in the bag, I will vote Libertarian to
indicate my real preference.
Viting for a sure winner is dumb, unless you really do
support that candidates views. In my view, however, it's also
dumb to risk a significantly inferior outcome in a close race just to
express an opinion.
My algorithim for voting is:
1) If I really like someone's full spectrum of views (rare), I vote
for them.
2) If the race is close, and the difference is significant, I vote for
the one I like most/dislike least.
3) Vote for Libertarians
4) Vote for women
5) Vote against incumbents
I apply those rules in that order!
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 1984 15:41 EST
From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Waiting for the State to wither ...
I ask: if *all* the citizens of a country believed that
the government were illegitimate (ie, including the policemen and
members of the army, etc), how would the government enforce its edicts?
--JoSH]
Agreed. However, history seems more full of revolutions that have adopted
philiosophies than philosophies have fomented revolution. It's possible
that you could bring down a government by convincing its enforcement arms
that their function was fundamentally wrong. It's not a battle I'd like
to fight, and I don't think it's a battle that anyone is likely to win.
Mutineer armies usually build new and more repressive governments, not
utopias.
--Jim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 1984 15:56 EST
From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Letting the people have what they want
[OK, I'll ask you the question I once asked Sen. Joe Biden: "Should the
government give the people what they want or what they need?" I sure
hope you can give a better answer than he did... --JoSH]
Give the people what they need. But ask them about it first, on the off chance
that they might know what it is. (But give them the least you can, on the very
good chance that you might be wrong.)
--Jim
------------------------------
Date: 6-Nov-84 11:14 PST
From: Kirk Kelley <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Subject: The Conscious game
From: Annette
I finally realized the question that's really bugging me about how people
vote. ... Does anyone have any ideas (short of brainwashing and other
forcefully coercive means) on how to make the average man or woman on the
street care about the issues?
There is a proposal being discussed in the ARMS-D@MIT-MC digest called the
Conscious game. The discussion is about the relation of the game to the arms
race, but is just as relevant to other political issues. You can request back
issues from ARMS-D-REQUEST@MIT-MC. The original proposal is in V2 #68 with
discussion in #69 and #71 so far. It would be interesting to see the reaction
of POLI-SCI readers to it.
-- kirk
------------------------------
Date: Wed 7 Nov 84 14:09:28-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: salaries for representatives
Someone suggested increasing salaries of elected representatives; others
seem to be in favor of decreasing them. Suppose a representative was
paid the median income of his constituency? That might increase the
chances that the representative is actually in the same socio-economic
class as his constituents, and hence a more true representative. But
it would certainly give them all more incentive to help the people they
represent!
Annette
[Median income AFTER taxes, I hope!
It might be a better idea to have all the representatives paid the
median income of all the people they represent, to avoid attempts
at mere geographical redistribution of wealth by the politically
powerful. --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------