You and I don't have enough common ground to discuss this. As I noted, I'll look for non-political discussions that we can both participate in.

I think Biden would have won a second term if he hadn't done so bad in the debate.

And it's noteworthy that the United States was willing to elect a black man, and not a black woman.

I don't have data, but that's my gut instinct -- there was a change and it was to a woman so vote for the penis-haver.

The question is whether and how you can tie such facts to a liberal-progressive social value system.

Sure, that's exactly what al-Gharbi and others have done. I don't think it is just some "unavoidable problem of urbanization," that the oh-so-progressive residents of the Upper West Side balked at unused hotels in their neighborhoods being used as shelters for Manhattan's homeless during the pandemic. It was the recurrent theme of "yes, progressivism... but not in my backyard — Count Timothy von Icarus

I want to thank you for pointing me to Al-Ghabi’s work. His thinking intersects some of my recent research, particularly the tension between personal and social autonomy and structural injustice. I want to offer a critique of his approach based on the relation between what I see as two main strands in his thinking. the first is the structural injustice theme.

Shaun Gallagher characterizes it this way:

“Standard accounts of action and interaction abstract away from the specifics of everyday life; they ignore the circumstances that are framed by social and instituted practices that often lead to structural distortions and injustices.” “Structural features of the specific practices or institutions within which individuals interact can distort human relations in ways that subtract from total autonomy and reduce the overall interactive affordance space.” “When structural features of cognitive institutional practices are exclusionary, closing off possibilities, or when such practices are designed so that whoever uses them comes to be dominated by them, with the result that their thinking is narrowed and determined, then again autonomy, not just of the individual, but of social interaction is compromised.”

“To the extent that the instituted narrative, even if formed over time by many individuals, transcends those individuals and may persist beyond them, it may loop around to constrain or dominate the group members or the group as a whole...Collective (institutional, corporate) narratives often take on a life (an autonomy) of their own and may come to oppose or undermine the intentions of the individual members. Narrative practices in both extended institutional and collective structures and practices can be positive in allowing us to see certain possibilities, but at the same time, they can carry our cognitive processes and social interactions in specific directions and blind us to other possibilities."

Notice that for Gallagher structural injustice takes place in spite of the best intentions of individuals participating within institutional practices. Is Al-Ghabi not saying the same thing when he states that even when a person’s heart and mind are in the right place, they can still be contributing to injustice? I don’t think so, and this is where the second strand of his thinking comes into play. Al-Gharbi, unlike Gallagher, relies on the moralistic concept of hypocrisy to explain what he sees as a failure to practice what one preaches. He relies on the ‘Gotcha’ moment when he asks the liberal do-gooder who contributes to all the rights causes, votes for all the right people, use all the politically correct vocabulary why they don’t pay their housekeeper or Uber driver a higher tip , or why they take a NIMBY attitude toward the proposed mixed income development planned for their street. They want to look that person in the eye , see them squirm and hem and haw as they realize they’ve been found out as morally culpable for choosing self-interest over altruism and, even worse, using their liberalism as a cover for it. What Al-Gharbi seems to have done is observe that, in spite of urban America being dominated by liberals, income inequality and racial segregation are as bad as ever. In searching for an explanation, he lands on good old fashioned selfishness and hypocrisy, and he dresses this up in the trendy vernacular of structural practices This mix of moralism and practice theory is a central feature of wokism, which after all has its origin in a religious context of spiritual enlightenment. Let me now critique this Sartrean ‘bad faith’ notion from the vantage of practice-based accounts that I prefer. These accounts don’t begin from an autonomous subject who choose their moral values and then attaches themselves to a community based on shared interests. Rather, subjectivities are constituted in their moral values as well as epistemic rationality through their interactions within an already existing community.

The bottom line is that the liberal who is also a NIMBY, and who is a meager tipper, and commits all the atrocities Al-Gharbi iterates, does practice what they preach. There is no hypocrisy involved. If you ask them and are willing or listen carefully to their reply , they will justify, on the basis of the discursive practices which they partially share with their community, the logic and morality of their position. Instead of looking for a moral ‘Gotcha’ moment, what is needed is to offer the person whose actions one disagrees with an opportunity to understand an alternative set of practices, a new interpretive rationality.
But one has to appreciate what one is asking here. Changing a deeply enmeshed perspective is akin to changing religious doctrine. It is easy for Al-Gharbi, because he has decided in advance what the ‘correct’ moral stance is (elimination of racial segregation and income inequality) and why people fail to live up to his ‘correct’ standards (they are hypocrites who fail to practice what they preach because they choose self-interest over altruism).

Al-Ghabi’s ‘selfishness vs giving’ binary misses the fact that the self is not a fortress originally walled off from the world , the moral task being to break down the wall. The self is a social construct, a product of discursive and material
practices and interactions. Our limits of compassion and altruism are not a function of Al-Ghabi’s fortress self but our inability to make intelligible and relatable the practices of those who are too ‘Other’. Either they must find a way to bridge the gap between their ways and those of our group, or we must find a way re-configure our own system of practices to make those Others recognizable to us. You’ll notice that NIMBYism doesnt exist in a normal family. Their backyard, if they have one, is filled with their children’s toys and swingset. Is this because of a moral choice on the part of the parent to be giving rather than selfish toward their children? If it is in our self-interest to be giving toward our children, our spouse, our friends, this is certainly not hypocrisy. Practice theories show that it is not an act of moral will that determines our generosity, or lack thereof, toward those different than ourselves, as though it were as obvious as Al-Gharbi wants us to think it is what constitutes racism , social injustice, unfair inequality, and who is to blame for it.

By making moral choice the kingpin of his approach, he marginalizes the role of discursive practices in its shaping of ethical and rational action to a peripheral status. As a result, he takes the cause of the injustices he rails against out of the historical contexts of the worldviews which are needed to make sense of them. So rather than seeing differences in how Otherness is perceived between social conservatives like J.D. Vance (whose focus is on individual character and personal responsibility due to his allegiance to the Enlightnement thinking of the autonomous self) and liberals who understand that it ‘takes a village’ as decisive for their actions, Al-Ghabi personalizes the issue. There just happen happen to be a large number of selfish hypocrites concentrated in big cities who won’t share. their toys. Meanwhile, one can find many social conservatives in small towns who are generous and who do all kinds of wonderful
things for ‘Others’.

I should point out that within the urban blue camp there is a whole spectrum of political philosophies , which I tend to see in developmental terms, ranging from old-style MLK or Obama-type liberalism, to Marxism , Critical theory , critical race theory and intersectionality, to postmodernism. The wealthy liberal lawyers and businessmen of the Upper West Side are overwhelmingly of the MLKObama type, which means they are only supportive of a limited degree of wealth redistribution. I see Al-Ghabi’s approach as a bit to the left of old-school liberalism within this spectrum. It seems to me the main way in which his thinking distinguishes itself from the old left is that he is more comfortable with considerable wealth redistribution.

Your opinion of human nature is different from mine.

Where is the connection with human nature? It would be more convincing to say that it has to do with being. Nobody would disagree that it take means or substance to be. You would agree that being in actuality is not always positive. Sometimes we must acknowledge that harm must come to others as a formal cost of being, some things must be taken away from others, and some things that another may not want must occur — in addition to their opposites. It is recalcitrant to deny this in hopes of defending the right not to bear it or be responsible for it.

If you can face it, this is a big part of what is disgusting about the behaviour of the extreme moralists you describe. They pay no attention to marginal groups who bear the weight that is inconvenient to see in their utilitarian principle. It is all about rallying the agnostic and apathetic to destroy enemies. It almost never has anything to do with the moral topics or premises themselves, because the claims are always too simplistic and one-sided.

This is a strawman. For one thing, a major focus of Al-Ghabi is the way in which elites choose to personally identify as "oppressed and marginalized," and this seems much harder to explain in terms of systemic constraints, particularly because it is a relatively recent phenomenon.

This is also a strawman of my position, because of course I acknowledge that even elites are bound to and by the very systems that give them their status. I have been commenting on what the American urban system produces. Should people be morally outraged by such a system? Sure, just as reformers were rightfully outraged over the excesses of the Gilded Age, slavery, etc.

American slave owners were surely also part of a system; that doesn't eliminate all of their moral culpability. And at any rate, even if it did and no individual slave owner bore any responsibility for the practice of slavery, it would still be the case that the system of hereditary chattel slavery in the US was morally abhorrent and in need of dramatic change. Likewise too for the Holocaust or the Holodomor. One doesn't need to embrace "Sartrean bad faith" to think these sorts of systemic events have moral valance. And if the outliers have moral valance, so to do the less outrageous cases of the Gilded Age or our new Guilded Age.

You've set up a false dichotomy where one either acknowledges systematic constraints (something Al-Ghabi certainly does) or gives systematic issues moral weight, but never both. Yet both are relevant. Those who campaigned to end slavery, serfdom, child labor, Jim Crow, etc. did so specifically because they saw them as moral issues, and they were successful, at least in part, because they eventually convinced others that their moral stance was correct.

The strawman lies in trying to reduce the entire project to a "gotcha." It isn't. If the books and scholarship that helped develop the ground for the "Great Awokening," and what has become the mainstream consensus in urban elite circles (e.g. Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow") have value, then surely a study of, and reflection on, how this social movement has actually pursued its stated goals is just as worthwhile.

But that wasn't even my original point. My original point was that I wouldn't hold up America's urban centers as a shining example of what the future ought to be, precisely because they seem to generate a social structure more akin to Saudi Arabia or Qatar than the what the leadership class actually wants. Yet those states, despite their tremendous wealth, don't represent good models. They are inherently unstable (for instance, most of America's major urban centers erupted into widespread riots not all that long ago), so even if GDP growth and technological innovation were our sole criteria they would have notable flaws. And I would argue that these systems make even the elites in those societies less free. Nor are people entirely constrained by systems. Even a member of a ethnocentric, jingoistic bronze age priesthood could remark of his own ethnic group in the 6th century BC: "the people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the foreigner, denying them justice" (Ezekiel 22:29, and note that this is not "Enlightenment individualism," the blame and punishment falls on the corporate whole precisely because society acts as a whole)

No doubt, institutions can constrain people, but people can (and often do) also change institutions, which is why it is hardly off base to point out cases where goals and actual policy are completely at odds. In particular, it's relevant when discussing why establishment parties in the West keep losing elections, particularly in cases where the populist right fields candidates with glaring problems.

You would agree that being in actuality is not always positive. Sometimes we must acknowledge that harm must come to others as a formal cost of being, some things must be taken away from others, and some things that another may not want must occur — in addition to their opposites. It is recalcitrant to deny this in hopes of defending the right not to bear it or be responsible for it. — kudos

You wrote:

If you are alive and breathing, chances are you have some moral indecency in you, one should be reminded of this from time to time. Whoever you are, you probably have a darker side of your personality and it needs to be fed regularly or else it will begin to hurt you from within. — kudos

I responded:

Your opinion of human nature is different from mine. — T Clark

The fact that living life unavoidably brings us into conflict with other people has nothing to do with "moral indecency" or a "darker side." It's how we handle that conflict that matters.

Yeah - this view is wild to me. Sanders is too far left damn,,,

Sanders would fit into right wing political parties in Europe. The American people must somehow not want healthcare and social services.

Or people in positions of relative privilege, don't want to sacrifice a bit of income, for a better country...

That’s it, really. It’s strange— because they’ve come to be convinced that these services, which other countries have, is unaffordable, or will raise taxes, or both. Plus stuff about shrinking government and pulling yourself by your bootstraps. All old, tired, evidence-free reasoning.

In the richest country on earth, it’s scandalous that we don’t have the same healthcare as Britain or Canada.

:100:

Well.

Let's hope we make it out alive during these 4 years. Maybe we will have a good strategy by then.

The American people must somehow not want healthcare and social services.

A public option for healthcare polls decently well (i.e. modest majority support, and support amongst a sizable proportion of Republican voters as well). The problem is that the US electoral system is pretty much set up so as to result in the election of representatives who are significantly more radical than the median voter, while major reforms also must pass the Senate, where representation not proportional, and generally must pass with 60 votes.

This could be fixed of course, in a variety of ways (e.g. fixing gerrymandering, ranked choice voting, open primaries, making it easier to vote, particularly in primaries, abolishing the Senate, etc.). The problem is that the candidates who win in the current system are not the type of candidates who are likely to win in a system that more closely aligns to median preferences, so they have very little incentive to push for such changes. Not that this would fix everything, far from it, because people would still be invested in the "culture war" as a new sort of religion of sorts, but it might fix a lot of issues.

chances are you have some moral indecency in you — kudos

We are prone to sinning (whatever the list of sins may contain). Many nice people--decent, honest, cooperative, civiic minded--have people "chained to the walls in the dungeons of their mind". I've had to expand dungeon space at times, convert it to archival storage at other times. There's nobody down there right now. Over time the former inhabitants shriveled, dried up, crumbled, and blew away. Various science fiction and phantasy novels, plots, and characters (like from Herbert and Tolkien) were moved into that space.

Sometimes we must acknowledge that harm must come to others as a formal cost of being... — kudos

A New York Times editorialist said that "Democrats must learn to say no." Some people's interests have to be turned aside. Should the public be asked to pay for prisoners' and immigrants' "gender affirming" therapy and surgery? It may be a burning issue for several hundred or a couple thousand individuals, but elevating it to a public policy was a mistake. There are millions of illegal immigrants in the US. I don't think Trump will have the wherewithal to round up all of them and send them back. But they aren't entitled to be here. Admitting that isn't xenophobia or racism.

The National Health Care System in Britain is suffering under austerity budgets, apparently. Why? Brexit, for one; austerity-preferring conservative governments for another. Decent public services require a reasonably robust economy, and commitment.

Trump wants to shrink government. Since WWII, the percent of citizens who work for the government has fallen. The population has increased by roughly 200 million people over that time. Cutting the budget by 1/3 (Musk's plan) will be impossible (and is a very bad idea) because most government programs have important constituencies within every congressional district.

We may not have the most equitable health care system; we may have the most expensive health care system; our health care system leaves out some people. With careless management it could get a lot worse.

Yes, the 60 votes rule is now a serious problem. I don't know what it will take to get the Constitution amended again. I don't quite follow what you mean by "more radical". Do you mean politicians who promise public good but then don't deliver?

I remember who good Palin did when they tried ranked choice voting in Alaska. Great stuff. I agree with what you list, for sure, those would be welcome changes. I also assume overturning Citizens United would be good - but with this Supreme Court, it's not happening.

As for the Culture War. Yeah. That's a problem. Or better, it is presented as a bigger problem instead of focusing on much more serious stuff: destruction of the Earth's climate, raising inequality, etc.

That one is also difficult to navigate.

Well, the 60 vote threshold to remove the filibuster doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It can be done with a simple majority. It's a very long standing Senate rule, but the Senate can amend its own rules (with a 2/3rds vote; however through a convoluted process you can curtail the filibuster, Rule 22, by creating a new "precedent," with a majority).

The reason it isn't changed is because control of the Senate flips often, and each party knows that it will eventually be out of power and doesn't want to be steamrolled by a simple majority. Nor do they want to be forced to stand up to their own party to prevent stupid but popular votes from passing. For example, Republicans tried to force Democrats to actually take a vote on the wholesale abolishment of ICE (something more radical members had submitted). But obviously completely abolishing your immigrations and customs agency rather than reforming it is idiocy, and so the Democratic leadership was almost put in the position of having to vote down their own bill, angering their base.

And honestly, this isn't necessarily bad thinking when you consider some particularly dangerous policies that have been recommended, such as Trump's push to make almost all federal employees with any decision making authority political appointees who can be fired based purely on political loyalty. This would be an unmitigated disaster, easily the most damaging policy proposed in recent memory. Many Republicans know this is idiocy, and the filibuster keeps them from having to actively switch sides to vote against it.

I don't quite follow what you mean by "more radical". Do you mean politicians who promise public good but then don't deliver?

In order to be a candidate in a general election you need to win your party's primary. Primaries have much lower turnout. Many people don't even know they are going on. In many states, you need to have become a declared member of either party to vote in that party's primary. This means that the people who vote in primaries tend to be:

-older
-wealthier; and
-more ideologically motivated

than the general electorate. Think about it, who is going to get themselves to the polls in the spring or winter, long before the general election (particularly for off years when there is no presidential race and much less media buzz)? Who is going to want to actively declare themselves as a member of either party? On average, these people tend to be more ideologically motivated.

So, by the time the general electorate votes, they have already had their options picked by a group that tends to have different policy priorities. Add in gerrymandering and you tend to get representative who are both significantly more liberal and more conservative than the median voter. And this of course makes compromise more difficult.

In the richest country on earth, it’s scandalous that we don’t have the same healthcare as Britain or Canada. — Mikie

And they all do it for about half what it costs here.

And honestly, this isn't necessarily bad thinking when you consider some particularly dangerous policies that have been recommended, such as Trump's push to make almost all federal employees with any decision making authority political appointees who can be fired based purely on political loyalty. This would be an unmitigated disaster, easily the most damaging policy proposed in recent memory. Many Republicans know this is idiocy, and the filibuster keeps them from having to actively switch sides to vote against it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ah sure. I mean the way I see it, is that Republicans keep going further to the right (than almost any other developed country on Earth) dragging Dems to the right as well. Look at what happened with Build Back Better, Sinema and Manchin gutted it. So, can the 60 rule be changed or modified? I think Dems might want to consider this, the Republicans have too much influence.

than the general electorate. Think about it, who is going to get themselves to the polls in the spring or winter, long before the general election (particularly for off years when there is no presidential race and much less media buzz)? Who is going to want to actively declare themselves as a member of either party? On average, these people tend to be more ideologically motivated. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I see your point. I agree with a good deal of it. But outside of the Culture War stuff (and now immigration), I don't see how actual Republican policy would appeal to anyone other than the 1%. It's just deregulation and tax cuts, but they then add abortion and minority rights, etc., as the red herring that's how they get votes. I think those who profit from the Republicans know this, hardcore followers and more casuals too.

With Dems it's somewhat different. I mean compare them to what FDR did, it's hard to believe they even have the same name. I believe a populist Sanders social-lefty message would resonate with a lot of people. By the time it reaches the mainstream (the National stage), then you get issues about deficit and political feasibility thrown in to make the whole platform sound like Soviet Russia.

The fact that living life unavoidably brings us into conflict with other people has nothing to do with "moral indecency" or a "darker side." It's how we handle that conflict that matters.

If it's how we handle that conflict that matters, then you must agree that the two have something to do with one another. Otherwise, how could it matter at all? Have you ever heard of a criminal who did not in some heinous or indecent manner have justification in their mind.

"The awful thing about life is this: everyone has their reasons."
From The Rules of the Game (Jean Renoir and Karl Koch)

A New York Times editorialist said that "Democrats must learn to say no." Some people's interests have to be turned aside. Should the public be asked to pay for prisoners' and immigrants' "gender affirming" therapy and surgery?

Not sure what you mean about the second part. However, I blame Twitter most of all for the downturn against the left wing. The effect of it has been widespread polarization and reductivism. Beforehand the left wing had common sense.

If it's how we handle that conflict that matters, then you must agree that the two have something to do with one another. Otherwise, how could it matter at all? — kudos

"Moral indecency" and "darker side" are not terms, or the kinds of terms, I use to describe human behavior. That's what I mean when I say you and I have a different understanding of human nature.

To clarify, I was referring to a sublation point of causality. It no longer makes sense to discuss human nature and motivations. Instead it is better to refer to a will that is in and for itself. If we acknowledge the 'darker side' as this kind of external mechanism, it would inevitably lead to fallacious understanding. What is needed is an acknowledgement of one's darker side from the point of view of reason. Any reasonable person can see that it is impossible and pointless to avoid the universal determinations of evil and bad 'in-themselves.' However, if one subscribes to a less respectable sort of moral subjectivity, it is easy to avoid.

You're right that those terms were put sort of bluntly though, it was a failed attempt at being whimsical and humourous.

Any reasonable person can see that it is impossible and pointless to avoid the universal determinations of evil and bad 'in-themselves.' However, if one subscribes to a less respectable sort of moral subjectivity, it is easy to avoid. — kudos

I have a different take on morality than others I have discussed it with here on the forum. Please believe I am not joking or being sarcastic when I say I do not accept "universal determinations of evil and bad 'in-themselves.'" For me, morality is the set of rules I use for my own behavior. I don't apply those rules to others. Rules that apply to people in general, myself and others, I call social control. They are the rules society at all scales applies to promote acceptable behavior and prevent disruptive or harmful behavior.

I don't think a more detailed discussion of this issue is appropriate here.

I have been commenting on what the American urban system produces. Should people be morally outraged by such a system? Sure, just as reformers were rightfully outraged over the excesses of the Gilded Age, slavery, etc — Count Timothy von Icarus

In order to be outraged by the excesses of a system like slavery, one has to be positioned within an alternative system of intelligibility. Most adherents of slavery, including prominent philosophers, were convinced it was morally justified, and this wasnt simply self-serving. This doesn’t mean a critique couldn’t arise from within the system of thought that justified slavery, but it would consist of reform within this system rather than an overthrow of it. Those advocating for such reforms generally agreed with the overall premise concerning the intellectual inferiority of slaves. To overthrow the system one needed to replace it with a way of thinking according to which whatever differences separated slaves from their owners did not indicate any innate traits marking them as less than completely human.

The issue of structural injustice arises in the context of the effect the perpetuation of the system has on reinforcing its grounding assumptions. If the result of treating a group of people as inferior and not fit to be integrated into society is to prevent them from attaining the very privileges that would allow the dominant society to recognize them as equals ( access to education and assimilation into the fabric of the community) , this will perpetuate the stereotypes even if it’s unintentional.

With respect to old-line liberal values among the urban elite, a critique from within this system would advocate for reforms along the lines of an increase in the minimum wage and more hiring quotas. But a critique capable of overthrowing this system would have to question the very assumptions grounding it , such as Lyotard’s notion of the differend, which asserts that there are certain wrongs that cannot be rectified within the terms of language set by a system that assumes a level playing field, such as Rawls’s veil of ignorance. Marginalized groups often end up being excluded from the terms of that ‘level playing field’, and more reform just perpetuates this exclusionary state of affairs. But what if all the wealthy power brokers in places like New York bought into Lyotard’s value system rather than old-style liberalism?

And by that I don’t mean simply pay it lip service, because if you understand how a value system operates, to be ensconced within it is to rely on it to make your world intelligible from both a rational and a moral perspective. I don’t think such an overthrow would solve the wealth inequality or racial segregation issue although it would make some progress in that direction. It would more likely shift the bounds of the issue from one of racial identity and class differences to one of philosophical value system. Adherents of different value systems speak different languages and belong to different cultures. Highly educated BLM activists, while aiming their rhetoric at residents of poor black communities, were really speaking to other academics, and the practical consequences of their ideas could be located in the context of the academic and skilled workplace environments in which they could apply these ideas to improve interactions with their colleagues.

Meanwhile, little by little residents of poor back communities, being mostly socially conservative rather than the BLM progressives who advocate in their name, are moving into the Republican party.

I don't think a more detailed discussion of this issue is appropriate here.

What issue? Am I making you uncomfortable? Your post reads like a rebuttal, but actually you are conveying my point better than I could have done myself.

So, by the time the general electorate votes, they have already had their options picked by a group that tends to have different policy priorities. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is something to be said for the argument that the U.S. is more oligarchy than democracy:

What, then, is our own condition? This question is more complex than it appears. We can begin by noting that we do not now have democracy. We certainly do not now have democracy in Aristotle’s sense of rule by the demos or the mass of the poor. We do not even have democracy in the sense of rule by all the people as a whole. Or at least we do not have direct rule by the people. What we have instead is something we are pleased to call ‘representative democracy,’ or rule by the people through representatives elected by the people.

What sort of regime is a representative democracy? Now there is, according to Aristotle, a simple rule for determining what sort of regime you have got: ask who is in control. This does not mean asking which individuals are in control. Nor does it mean asking which party is in control. It means, to follow the earlier discussion about the parts of the city, asking which part is in control, namely the parts of the rich or the poor or the virtuous.

Fairly clearly, it is not the part of the virtuous that is in control in modern states. A virtuous individual might come to power now and then, but this is incidental. It is not what the system is designed to produce. Even in the case of the occasional virtuous person, he does not so much rule as the party does, for the party rules through him. It is also fairly clear that it is not the poor either who are ruling. They are, for the most part, busy at their jobs and have no time or money, not to mention influence, to run successfully, or at all, for office. The only answer left is that it is the rich who are ruling. Evidence that this conclusion is correct is not difficult to find. For those have control who get elected. Those get elected who have access to the money needed for an election campaign as well as to the friends needed to help out with the campaigning. But only the rich, or those in the pay of the rich, have access to that kind of money and to those sort of friends.

There is a passage in the Politics where Aristotle gives a description of a regime that neatly fits a modern representative democracy. The passage is part of his discussion of the ways oligarchies are destroyed, one of which ways is through the rivalry of demagogues among the oligarchs themselves. Oligarchic demagoguery, says Aristotle, exists when some of the oligarchs play the demagogue to other oligarchs. But it can also exist, he continues,

“when those in the oligarchy are demagogues to the crowd, as the regime guardians were in Larissa, for instance, because it was the crowd that elected them. The same is true of all oligarchies where those who provide the rules are not those who elect to office, but the offices are filled from high property qualifications or from political clubs, and those possessed of heavy arms or the populace do the electing.” (Politics 1305b28-33)

Aristotle is doubtless thinking here of cases where, through such demagoguery on the part of oligarchs, oligarchies cease to be oligarchies and become democracies or tyrannies. But he may also be thinking of cases where one oligarchy takes the place of another. For change from oligarchy to oligarchy is one of the ways in which a regime can suffer revolution (1301b10-13). At all events, it is not hard to read this passage as Aristotle’s description of a modern election. He speaks of “political clubs,” that is, as the context makes clear, of certain clubs of oligarchs, from whom the elected come; of the populace that does the electing from these clubs; and of the demagoguery on the part of the oligarchs to get elected. What Aristotle here calls a ‘club of oligarchs’ we call a ‘political party’; what he here calls ‘demagoguery’ we call an ‘election campaign’; what he here calls a ‘change of regime,’ we call a ‘change of party.’

There are other similarities. It is evident from Aristotle’s discussion that it is not the whole oligarchic club that gets elected to office but only certain members of it. These members will manifestly be as much or more beholden to the club than to the people who elected them, and will manifestly be expected, by their fellows in the same club, to use office to benefit the club. Otherwise the club would turn against them. The same is true of modern political parties, where members elected to office represent the party no less, if not more, than they represent the people. For representation is at one remove. The elected party member represents the people by representing the party that represents, or claims to represent, the people. If this claim is true, then the elected member represents the party and the people. If it is false, he represents the party and not the people. Either way he represents the party.

Election is also a classic feature of oligarchy. It is certainly a feature of oligarchy in modern conditions. Only those with some prominence stand a chance of getting elected, and those with prominence are those with privilege of some kind, such as wealth, family, number of friends, and so forth (which are all marks of oligarchy for Aristotle; see 1291b28-30, 1293a30-31). This is all the more the case where one has to campaign to get elected. Election campaigns require much money, both to get one’s demagogic message across to the people, and to give oneself leisure from work to be able to go out campaigning.

In principle, of course, anyone can run for office. In practice only the rich can. In principle too anyone can win an election. In practice only members of the main party can. Such differences between democratic theory and oligarchic practice Aristotle calls ‘sophistries’ or ‘sophisms’ (bk. 6[4], chap. 13). They are ways in which the regime deceives people by appearing to be one thing while really being another. Other sophistries include the fact that while all the people can vote, nothing is done to ensure that they all do vote. In fact, the opposite is usually done. When party workers, for instance, talk of “getting out the vote,” they mean getting out the vote only of those they think can be relied on to be supporters of their own party. They have no desire to get out another party’s vote, nor even to increase the number of voters simply, so as to ensure that the result reflects as much as possible the opinion of the people as a whole. Their interest is in victory, not in getting a full expression of the people’s views. If only members of their own party come out to vote they will not be upset. The universal right to vote is often more for show than for reality.[11]

The oligarchic character of contemporary politics is also evident from the way in which parties use their power to control the process of registering as a candidate for election. These procedures are sometimes labyrinthine, and it is hard for anyone but a member of the officially recognized parties to get registered. There is also the fixing of electoral boundaries, indulged in by the dominant parties, to ensure that only members of one party and not also those of another stand much chance of getting elected within a certain electoral district or constituency. Oligarchic too is the way parties allow anyone to join the party, and even to pay a fee for the privilege, but only allow the very rich, or those who contribute large sums, to have ready access to the leaders of the party and to get from them what they want. The oligarchic clubs are oligarchic all the way up. The more you pay and the more friends you have, the more influence you can exert on what the club does, especially when the club controls the most powerful offices. And it is the club that rules, and not just those members of the club who hold office. The members who hold office need the other members both to get into office and to stay there (for they need the party to keep supporting their candidacy at succeeding elections). Hence they are in the club’s debt when they get into office and must pay back these debts by using office to dispense rewards. They are obliged to be demagogues to their own party as well as to the people at large.

There is another oligarchic sophism that needs noting, though it is seldom noted as such. While securing oligarchic denomination it masquerades as the exact opposite. — Peter L. P. Simpson, “Freedom and Representation,” in Vices, Virtues, and Consequences, pp. 204-7

What issue? — kudos

My personal understanding of morality.

you are conveying my point better than I could have done myself. — kudos

We use different language, so I guess I misunderstood.

However, I blame Twitter most of all for the downturn against the left wing. — kudos

One can reasonably blame Twitter, and several other social media sites, for animosity towards the left and for polarization. The algorithms encourage whatever gains the most eyeballs (to sell to advertisers) something that quiet, reasoned discourse doesn't do. And, of course, people respond to outrage by supplying more fodder to feed the hungry algorithms.

As a longtime midwestern leftist, I have never found most fellow midwesterners all that receptive to leftist ideas. It isn't that "the people" are all troglodytes or rednecks. Most people just hold mainstream values, which some leftists sneer at. Socialism (as they misunderstand it) just isn't attractive for most people. Their family is the center of their lives; they're not interested in radical social experiments. Bread and butter issues (like whether they can afford good bread, meat, milk, fruits and vegetables, clothing, transportation, health care, and all that) are the most important thing to we working people, and we are roughly 90% of the population.

Senator Sanders was emphatic that the people Democrats need to serve are working class people--none of whom, by definition, belong to an 'elite'. Address and legislate working class concerns--things like a $17 federal minimum wage; inflation (to which people living paycheck to paycheck are very sensitive); the high cost of renting or buying a home; and so on.

Men, women, straights, GLBT, hispanics, asians, whites, Blacks, etc. are almost all working class. Yes, the working class has some layering by wealth, but as a group, none of us has much wealth. As a group, we have to get a regularly and reliable paycheck to make ends meet. That's what Democrats need to focus on--so say Bernie and me.

As a longtime midwestern leftist, I have never found most fellow midwesterners all that receptive to leftist ideas — BC

Wiith some exceptions. Milwaukee had a Socialist mayor:

Frank Paul Zeidler (September 20, 1912 – July 7, 2006) was an American socialist politician and mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, serving three terms from April 20, 1948, to April 18, 1960