Counter Argumenters
Macedo v. Kateb on patriotism (just practice)
if we've practiced just patriotism, and our country does something good, we deserve to feel/have pride; bonus: pride can motivate social justice because you have a desire to feel that pride again.
What is Unanimous Direct Democracy?
basic breakdown: everyone has to be absolutely unanimous on decisions, any negation dissolves it, and every citizen must vote. Because you make the laws you are self-governing and have autonomy. because rule making is unanimous, everyone's equal so no one has a higher authority.
According to the Grand Inquisitor, freedom and happiness are or are not compatible?
They are not.
what are (at least) 2 dangers of social media?
promotes individuation, unchecked hate, limits face to face organization, polarization, inflates ego, further personal agenda, etc.
Hint: think about hooligans...
the notion that participation can expand human character; Brennan doesn't think more participation is a good thing; Mill thinks it's beneficial to human character development
Explain the 3 temptations Christ was offered by Satan and the basic reason Christ turned them down.
1) power, 2) miracles, 3) political power/power of the sword; he turned these down because he wanted the people to have free will and to come to him willingly
What does Mill say about absolute monarchies vs. democracies?
Benevolent Despotism (Mill)
absolute monarchy is disastrous - you picture the king to be benevolent and all knowing, but he doesn't know what the people really want. should never choose such a government over democracy, no matter what, people of government must be involved; if not involved, citizens will be passive and not care/know enough to do anything about their own government. people without any potential voice in their own destiny have no incentive to learn - they will be like children. their intellectual and moral qualities will be diminished. government actions would become things that just happen to you. people would become devoted to private life with no interest in anything else (the world, principles, etc.)
Explain the "triadic relation" and offer an example
according to MacCallum: x is/is not free from y to do/not do z; ex. free to vote: citizens (x) are free from suppression/manipulation by state (y) to vote (z); ex. free speech: an individual (x) is free from cultural oppression (y) to express self (z); ex. holding property: an individual (x) is free from excessive taxation (y) to posses possessions (z)
1) decline in unions and organizational strength of ordinary citizens and rise of political machines; 2) campaign finance - unusually permissive of big money; 3) a big section of people are immigrants, felons, or imprisoned and cannot vote (DISENFRANCHISEMENT) - if labor force is mostly undocumented and/or disenfranchised people, it's going to tip balance
Wolff and Anderson
Compare and Contrast: the idea of democracy
Wolff: democracy strips people of their autonomy and authority; we're letting our decisions be made by someone else, etc. only solution is Unanimous Direct Dem: will never happen.
Anderson: her argument about autonomy: citizens set shared principles, goals, and representatives for themselves: practice autonomy; you decide for yourself what is an important pubic interest.
Democracy has instrumental and non-instrumental values - core value is equality of social relations: mutual respect, avoiding abuse/oppression/autonomy/collective learning.
evaluating incumbent party and deciding if they did a good job or not; looking into the past/history of a candidate. Heart of Bartel and Achen's article. This demands much less of citizens: all they need to know is how their life has been going under incumbent.
what is democratic authority?
dem. has more to do with structures of EARNED and ACCOUNTABLE authority; authority not of states, but of democratic leaders:
authority of leader is earned entitlement to deference!
(recognize her as someone with the authority to make claims on others and as someone with moral authority to lead...members of community ought to defer to her, etc.)
stout argues that there is actually legitimate and earned authority - not everyone has equal authority.
difference between having the power or capacity to act in a certain way and just having the mere absence of interference/prevention. ex. are you free to pursue your career? formal: there's no legal barrier stopping us (in this country). effective: can you actually?? ex. born into poor neighborhood, bad school system, living paycheck to paycheck, can barely survive, etc. can NOT do it. effective: narrower range of what you can ACTUALLY do.
What are safeguards against unjust patriotism?
constitutionalism, moral reading of constitution, educating, and international cooperation
1. loving our country is the same as loving the constitution, especially where constitution protects civil liberties
2. in the united states the constitution, as a document, is deeply flawed by fundamental moral principles and rendering and making those principles more inclusive would be practicing just patriotism
3. educate kids in a way that's self-critical, not heroizing. educate with a vivid awareness of history
4. important correctives for unjust patriotism; patriots shouldn't stay within country, but should pay attention to what outsiders see/perceive country to be. don't stay inward/within your own country. outward perspectives are critical
Stout v. Brennan: Political Participation
Stout: it's possible to engage people in ways that don't make hooligans and to prove otherwise you'd have to argue civil rights movement is hooliganism.
Brennan: participation turns hobbits into hooligans and hooligans exercise power over others. They don't know enough to be involved.
ALSO:
stout saying that citizens need to be more informed and organized over experts is a direct response to brennan;
stout says people who lack organization don't know much at all, but people who get involved become changed (gain expertise).
what are ballot initiatives and what are the problems with them?
1. vote for candidates and also can vote on laws; seems to circumvent legislative corruption that stalls voting. idea that this will put power back in the direct hands of voters;
2. big corporations can still influence people (buy candidates or voters) - elites do this be exerting disproportionate power. Campaigns/politics are hugely resource intensive: it's expensive to get signatures to get something on the ballot; can frame language in a certain way; massive ad campaigns; exercises of corporate and privileged power
Dangers facing democratic movements
under iron rule of oligarchy, grassroots will either fail and things will stay the same or they get power and forget democracy.
dangers: for core leaders to dominate the rank-and-file; demonizing the opposition/treating them unjustly (dangerous because alienate people from joining you); danger to not broaden and to only serve constituency; charismatic leader becoming a puppet to big corps/elites.
explain autonomy v. doing what you want
you can be doing what you want but still lack autonomy;
ex. addiction, you want next fix, but you're not controlling/governing self and that impulse;
other ex. doing what you want based on following bad/wrong information ex. not getting vaccine because told there are microchips in it (irrational! bad decisions!); autonomy is exercising rational control over yourself and it can be impaired by addiction, desire, etc.
education makes you more autonomous.
What's the problem of expertise and what is Stout's solution to it?
unorganized citizens lack expertise and knowledge, which makes them vulnerable to false information and unable to participate in democracy
ex. CEOS - tell workers that they have to accept low wages because they would have to close otherwise and workers believe it because CEOS are the experts
AND
you need experts who can transmit information to the masses of people - his solution is not to go to experts but to encourage citizens to learn; give them confidence to speak out and knowledge that they have support behind them; give access to trustworthy sources of info.
Similarities between Anderson and Stout
culture - caring - dem. is not just about formal institutions, instead a well functioning democracy predisposes certain kinds of culture: people have to act like citizens, not subjects; a citizen is one who recognizes itself as responsible and having a duty to hold others accountable; they have to care. being a citizen can be powerful.
Name at least 4/5 of Achen and Bartels values of democracy.
1. elections provide authoritative accepted agreements about who should rule; 2. voters reject incumbent party the longer it has held office/reinforces that gov. changes hands/ parties that win office are inevitably defeated; 3. free elections means we get to research and critique what incumbents have done - they have to tolerate opposition; 4. voting improves human character; 5. elections hold minimal accountability (politicians seeking re-election will try to hide moral/ethical corruption, etc.)
State the definition or proposal of democracy given by ONE of these thinkers: Wolff's proposal, Mill's definition, OR Stout's definition.
Wolff's proposal: we'd still have elected representatives, but the have no real power (they'd put ideas out there and mention problems and would debate; these debates would be online, on like CSPAN); people who vote, they're the ones that have the power (online, direct voting would be done by the people, not representatives);
Mill: Ordinary people can get involved in democracy/office and they should. democracy is the best form of government. sovereignty remains with the people in a dem. and they have power to remove elected officials/elect them and anyone can get involved in political affairs.
Stout: republic - polity officially devoted to securing liberty and justice for its citizens; to get from republic to democracy/a republic is a democracy insofar as it 1) removes restrictions on who is a citizen; 2) opens up sufficient opportunities for citizens to influence and contest official decisions and laws; 3) is animated by a spirit of mutual recognition and accountability.
what's political participation v. private freedom. Explain both.
way of enhancing freedom by ensuring community can govern self well v. way of lessening freedom by making you do something.
1. for some people the idea of freedom includes the idea of political participation - to promote this, encouragement of political participation must happen.
ex. Australia: compelling participation by fining people for not voting; compels collective action in making own laws
ex. education: way of enhancing careers and enhances political knowledge
2. some people see freedom as private, ex. meaning you can marry who you want, have religious freedom, etc.
exists in private life, can I do what I want
what are the problems with term limits?
there's an idea that term limits will limit corruption but because of various reasons it actually reduces incentives of members to specialize in a policy area. Term limitations just shift power from elected officials to relatively inaccessible officials, bureaucrats, and influence peddlers. KEY: lobbyists are savvy, they've been around the block and getting green (new) politicians each term means you will always have someone new to manipulate (which wouldn't happen with seasoned politicians). seasoned politicians would be more likely to pass laws they're motivated by.