Targeted chaos and misinformation are at the heart of extreme democratic outcomes as they are the active ingredients needed for them to come to exist, to persist, and to propagate. One example of extreme democratic outcome is USEXIT or Trumpism.
Targeted chaos and misinformation are mostly based on fake facts or an alternative facts, which raises the question “Are extreme democratic outcomes when in conflict and the rule of law in liberal democracies incompatible?
I think yes, what do you think? Why do you think so?
Robert Reich's (2020) latest book, "The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It," shows how wealth and power in the United States have interacted ever more closely to install an elite oligarchy, eviscerate the middle class, and undermine democracy, hence the excesses this query alludes to. Clear of fake news (or extreme democratic outcomes), Reich (2020) demonstrates that the major fault line in American politics is shifting from Democrat versus Republican to democracy versus oligarchy.
Dear Olivier, thank you for your comment. It is indirectly related to the question extreme democratic outcomes and the rule of law, but thank you for your time.
Some food for thoughts linking your comment to what we had before 2016 and what we had in the USA 2016-2020
If you look at the USA from the point of conflict/interaction between normal democratic actors like the democratic party and the traditional republican party(party before 2016), then you are right with the tendency towards democracy(the common good first) versus oligarchy(the private good first), but they were bound by moral limits....Before 2016 you could have looked at this then from the sustainability point of view of morality and practicality.....
Moral and Practical Sustainability Gaps: Implications for the Current Liberal Development Model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282331974_Moral_and_Practical_Sustainability_Gaps_Implications_for_the_Current_Liberal_Development_Model
But if you look at it after 2016 from the point of view of the normal democratic party and THE TRUMP REPUBLICAN PARTY is is a fight between a normal liberal democracy point of view(normal democratic outcome where the majority view wins the democracit contest) VERSUS an extreme liberal democracy point of view(extreme democratic outcome where the minority view wins the democratic contests....)..... If you look at them from their democratic structure...extreme democratic outcomes have the opposite structure of normal democratic outcomes, but apparently even the parties in conflict can not see this yet....
Upside Down Democratic Outcomes: Stating the Complacency Conditions Under Which Extreme Democratic Outcomes Such as BREXIT and USEXIT Should Be Expected to Take Place Using Qualitative Comparative Means
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320443702_Upside_Down_Democratic_Outcomes_Stating_the_Complacency_Conditions_Under_Which_Extreme_Democratic_Outcomes_Such_as_BREXIT_and_USEXIT_Should_Be_Expected_to_Take_Place_Using_Qualitative_Comparative_Mean
Under an extreme democratic outcome the logic works backwards as the logic under normal democratic outcomes; but this understanding escaped the mind of traditional democratic theory thinkers in my view....which made it more difficult to rationally deal with the extreme democratic outcome in rational neutralizing ways from the normal democartic outcome point of view....Now after the fact it will be easier to understand the nature of extreme democratic outcomes and its rational logic and see it as the inverse opposite of normal democratic thinking rationality....Nothing Trumpism did from the trumpism point of view since Trump came down the elevator is irrational, but it looks irrational from the normal democratic point of view...
The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334964196_The_2016_shift_from_normal_liberal_democracy_to_extreme_liberal_democracy_in_the_USA_Pointing_out_the_structure_of_Trumpconomics_its_meaning_and_its_expected_local_and_global_implications_both_analyti
If Robert Reich's (2020)'s book was writing as if the trump republican party is the same as the traditional republican party of Reagan, Busch and so on that existed before 2016, then it may have inconsistencies as they are not the same as the logic of trumpism can be found fully if you flip 180 degrees the thinking of reaganomics....so Trumpconomics is the opposite of reaganomics....
If you would like to provide your view on the actual question in this thread, please do it.
Respectfully yours;
Dear Lucio,
What else, besides democracy, can You suggest for society? Certainly, it can direct to trumpism, as one of the side effects, but not in all cases. The best thing could be sociocracy for everybody, but it is impossible to reach it practically in large societies. However, for the certain small groups sociocracy is a good option.
Dear Arvydas, thank you for your comment. It is not directly related to the question though, the questionb is above extreme liberal democracy/extreme democratic outcome and the rule of law....
However, given your comment, we need to keep in mind:
a) A liberal democracy based on majority rule is expected to lead under chaos externality neutrality assumptions(stability) to a normal democratic outcome(NDO) all the time, big majority or small majority government, where the view of the majority on how to run the public good/justice wins the democratic contest,,,,, Without chaos, the minority view can never win an electoral contest as without chaos the majority view wins....
b) With targeted chaos that leads to or induce full true majority view complacency, then the minority view can win the liberal democracy democratic constest under majority rule as BREXIT and USEXIT showed in 2016...extreme liberal democracy/extreme democratic outcome reflects the minority view, and therefore it is not interested in the public good/justice...
Some food for thoughts can be found in the following articles:
True Democracy and Complacency: Linking Voting Outcome Expectations to Complacency Variability Using Qualitative Comparative Means.
Article True Democracy and Complacency: Linking Voting Outcome Expec...
Moral and Amoral Liberal Democracies: How Targeted Chaos Can Affect the Democratic Process?
Article Moral and Amoral Liberal Democracies: How Targeted Chaos Can...
Dear Lucio,
In my opinion, the more relevant theoretical and practical question considering democracies is whether they are real or formal. Formal democracy shows only the visibility in surface, not leading to the grounds, as is in some Eastern European countries.
Dear Arvydas, all democracies will reflect the dynamics between the majority view and minority view....normal liberal democracies are expected to tend toward stability of the common good/toward real democracy; and extreme liberal democracies are expected to tend towards inestability of the common good/towards authoritorianism.... the countries in eastern europe you may be referring to may have more in common with extreme liberal democracy a la USA trumpism than with normal liberal democracy like in Canada...
Do you have a view on the actual question, extreme liberal democracy and the rule of law.... You can take the current experience of Trumpism in the USA to have an idea....
Have a nice day!
Democracy should bring conflict to rest if a country practices rule of law.
Dear Lucio,
Yes, Your comparison between the USA and Canada is relevant, but why do call trumpism as extreme liberal democracy? First, to my opinion, extremes in political sense are only communism (in the left) and fascism (in the right). Do You agree?
Second, trumpism and governance like it, is more of a connection between democracy and authoritarianism - am I right? Do You incorporate authoritarianism into liberal democracy? - I think, it is not possible to unite "liberal" with "extreme", Am I right? Something missing or misleading in Your definitions.
In addition to my previous comment, certain form of neoliberalism mainly in economic and social, as well as cultural areas matters and can be extreme. I mean libertarianism. As , for example, the ideology and practise of Free Market institutes in Eastern Europe. But this neoliberal approach has other things to do if compare to trumpism. Anyway, the analysis of connection between trumpism and neoliberal/versus state/national aspects is very interesting for research. But it is another case than Yours, dear Lucio.
Lucio Muñoz
Trumpism - as you've called it - showed the split between the establishment Republican politicians and those they purported to represent. Lots of talk about smaller government, less taxes, more local control - but never any action because that would require a) political will and b) the devolving of power from Washington DC.
Candidate Trump ran a populist campaign in 2016, made a list of things that he would accomplish. Much in the way that the 1994 Republicans took Congress by stressing what they would do. In turn, unlike politicians who are only looking to get re-elected, he actually delivered on many of those promises. The normal political process was upended because he actually *wanted* to accomplish the things he promised, they weren't just campaign slogans.
In return for his policies, prior to the pandemic, the US economy was booming, unemployment was at a historical low, regulation/red tape was being eliminated, and people were actually growing their net worth. He had given us a list of people he was considering for the US Supreme Court, and when opportunity presented itself, he delivered from that list.
Those that opposed him were allowed (and often encouraged), by their local politicians, to break existing laws. A dictator, totalitarian, or autocrat (all things that Trump has been accused of being) would have crushed those situations by using the power of the federal/national government to override what was happening locally. President Trump offered to help localities - but never pushed/insisted upon.
As for fake facts you mention, when politicians *and* government officials knowingly lie to the Media (the fourth estate here in the US), one has to wonder who gets to accuse whom of delivering "fake" facts. This is done by both political parties, and erodes the public trust in both government *and* the media reporting on it.
The US Founding Fathers were wary of political parties, and were opposed to them. They expressed concerns that people's loyalty to the party would outweigh their loyalty to what was good for the country. Unfortunately we are seeing this come to fruition.
Dear Jerry, Thank you for taking the time to comment, you did not try to answer the question on compatibility of rule of law and extreme democratic outcomes/extreme liberal democracy like Trumpism.
However, based on your comments I can say the following:
The founding fathers anticipated the possibility of conflict between loyalty to party and loyalty to country and how it could affect the common good/Justice....
They did not anticipate the possibility of conflict between loyalty to a person; and loyalty to the country....and the reason they did not anticipate that is that they failed to see the possibility of someone going way, way out of normal expected liberal democratic values and use a relentless targeted misinformation campaign to position itself in a fight between lies and truth, between alternative facts and science based facts.....together with the knowledge gap that comes when the system flips from normal democratic outcomes be it the democratic party or traditional/Reagan republican party to an extreme democratic outcome where the trump republican party wins….
Trumpism is antidemocratic values, locally and globally, because under democratic values, processes and laws it cannot survive long-term…. So you see the first phase of Trumpism going out of the door right now,,,,
If the choice is loyalty to democracy or loyalty to Trumpism, loyalty to democracy should be expected to win as is where the true majority view is…
Do you think that the founding fathers had a dictator/authoritarian in their mind when granting absolute power to the president to pardon people to ensure justice? I do not think so,,,,they would not have wanted to give the absolute power to pardon to an authoritarian as a way to stay away from kingship, do not you think so?….
If you take the time to read even just the summaries of the papers I have shared you may see that the first phase of Trumpism is ending, but the democratic party leaders and the leaders of the traditional republican party left still probably cannot understand what happened in 2016 as people, academic and politicians tend to look at Trumpism from the normal democracy point of view when in facts the structure of Trumpism/extreme democratic outcomes is the inverse opposite of normal democratic forces…
If you have a view on the actual question of this thread, extreme democratic outcome when in conflict and the rule of law and compatibility
Arvidas, thank you for your comments.
Please, take a look at the summary or the operational concepts in each of the articles shared, you will find several reasons why BREXIT and USEXIT are extreme democratic outcomes that win the majority rule based democratic contest in liberal democracies under full true majority complacency....
If you understand what a normal liberal democracy and democratic outcome is, its values, and you flip them 180 degrees you get the structure of an extreme democratic outcome ....
Lets assume there is a country C and you can divide its population into two groups T and M, where T = True majority view and M = true minority view, and the rule is 1 person one vote, no chaos, no comlacency in voting as everybody votes....
Then you can state the contest in the normal liberal democracy
C = T.M
a) The case of the expected normal economic outcome(NDO)
Since T > M always after you add up all votes, whether T is the democratic party voters or the liberal party voters or any party voters
C = T.M------->NDO since T > M
b) The case of the unexpected extreme democratic outcome(EDO)
If we use targeted chaos and misimformation(K) to target the true majority view(KT) to induce full true majority complacency(TC), then the true majority vote collapses, and the minority view(M) wins then the democratic contest as now M > TC
K(C) = K[T].M = TC.M-------> EDO since M > TC
Hence, due to full true majority complacency(TC) induced by chaos targeted
to the true majority view(KT), and only when there is full true majority complacency we have an extreme democratic outcome(EDO).
If the true majority complacency disappears, we will have again a normal democratic outcome(NDO), which is what we are witnessing right now in the USA
Dear Sarudzai, thank you for commenting...
In a normal liberal demoracy there is an independent implementation of the rule of law where facts and proof and morality are a must to win litigation.... If the facts are with you and you have proof and morality on your side, you will win in court....
As extreme liberal democracies/extreme democratic outcomes come from targeted chaos which is based on alternative facts and lies and misinformation and amorality,,,, then not matter how many times extreme democratic outcome representatives go to court they will lose in court as courts need facts and proof and morality...
Have a nice day
Lucio Muñoz
Apparently we have a different view of "rule of law".
The constitution gives the President absolute power on pardon. Were there not questions with previous presidential pardons (Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich comes to mind)?
It is my opinion that right now we live in a United States where the "rule of man" has superseded "rule of law". Laws apparently do not get applied equally to those in power v the average American. The number of instances that can be cited is quite high. This was *before* the election of Trump - or maybe even one of the causes of his election. Additionally, the new DA of Los Angeles (and formerly the DA of San Francisco) has just announced that laws won't be prosecuted because the laws were created to prosecute the poor - https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-07/in-first-day-on-job-gascon-remakes-bail-sentencing-rules.
This begs the question of how "rule of law" can exist, if the people entrusted to enforce refuse to do so. The DA was elected by a majority, so obviously the normal democratic outcome (NDO) by your definition - but in turn the result is chaos by the actions of the individual elected.
It was my understanding (and that of many) that Executive Orders last for the time that a President is in office, but can be revoked after that by a subsequent Executive Order. They do *not* have the same lasting power as an actual law passed by Congress and signed by the President. If they did, then there would be no need for Congress as the President could issue EOs - in effect, making him/her a dictator.
But, in the past 4 yrs we have learned that is no longer the case - so much so, that a judge recently ruled that DACA (an EO from President Obama, issued in 2012) *must* be re-implemented as originally ordered AND accept new applicants. Please explain how this is acceptable under "rule of law"?
As for citing Robert Reich, he isn't one I would see as a person looking to 'step back' to the normal democratic outcome you seem to believe has been usurped by Trumpism. Reich is currently calling for a "Truth and Reconciliation" board to go after those that worked in the Trump administration - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/20/call-proposed-probe-trump-his-enablers-what-it-really-is-mccarthyism/
Again, I may be misinterpreting your thesis, but I'm not convinced of it. I would argue that during the era that you cited of DNO, people assumed that their elected officials would be "looking out" for them. They started realizing that they weren't - starting in at least 2010, culminating in President Trump's election in 2016.
Dear Jerry, I like to keep things simple in order to exchange ideas, just think about a dichotomy, Rule of law or outside the rule of law" if that makes things easier to link it with the expected nature of an extreme democratic outcome behavior/like trumpism....
As you know in democracies like the USA and Canada the rule of law means the rule of independent court system, independent at all levels of government....And the key word in the questions is, "when in conflict", meaning when in independent courts....
If you think the extreme democratic outcome(e.g. Trumpism) and the independent court system are compatible, please say so and add why you think so?
If you think they are incompatible, please say so and add why do you think so?
And we go from there
We need to enhance education in reason and ethics. The foundation to ethics via the science of rights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvD4DHMq1Y4
Dear friends,
The systematic dynamic/War Trumpism against normal democratic forces taking place in the USA right now is summarized systematically in Figure 6 in my publication shared above titled "The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically", Figure 6 I shared attached below for those who have not have time to take a look at that publication to see .... trumpism is a systemactic push against democracy from inside democracy....yet not many people can easity see this....
Dear friends:
It seems the last push of Trumpism against democracy in the USEXIT model summarized in Figure 6 above failed again while in conflict in the USA supreme court 9-0 votes, which a result consistent with the expectations of this question of inconsistency between extreme democratic outcome behavior when in conflict with the rule of law(independent courts) as fake facts and targeted chaos are not the goods you need to win in an independent court proceeding:
Supreme Court rejects Texas' and Trump's bid to overturn election
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/11/politics/supreme-court-texas-trump-biden/index.html
I'm confused here.
You cite the Supreme Court as refusing to hear the Texas lawsuit. There were 2 votes that supposedly thought it was something the court should listen to. Yet the three (3) justices nominated to the court by President Trump did not vote with him - which shows Judicial Independence that you say are required for NDO (independent court proceedings). They didn't rule on the arguments brought forth in the lawsuit- they rejected the lawsuit by stating that Texas had no standing to bring it forward.
Now given that the "rule of law" as you've determined it - is what is decided by an independent court system. I would argue that the definition is actually more along the "rule of man". In the US the Judiciary was designed as a co-equal branch of government, a referee between the Legislative and Executive when they came into conflict. It is the US Constitution (and subsidiary State Constitutions) that are the framework for what the courts rule is in violation of those documents.
When courts rule that the words of a constitution are no longer relevant, and can be made subservient to rulings of "the court" then the court has put itself above the framework that they are sworn to protect. This was the argument that Texas used in it's case to the Supreme Court. The state Constitutions delegate the responsibility of enacting voting laws to the Legislatures. In Penn, GA, Wisc, and Michigan, the Legislatures were not party to changes made for mail in voting - which by definition should have been unconstitional. Amazingly, those same state supreme courts that ordered/allowed altered voting rules saw no conflict with provisions explicitly stated under the state constitions.
How do rogue courts fit into your Normal Democratic Order?
Dear Jerry, the question is about inconsistency between extreme democratic outcome behavior when in conflict and the rule of law(independent judiciary) because fake facts and conspiracies and targeted chaos are not the currency that you need to win in court....Meaning no matter how many time you go to an independent court with fake facts or conspiracy theories you will lose, even if you have appointed the independent judges yourself as judges feed on facts and proof....
Facts
a) The Supreme Court 9-0 vote was the latest lost for President Trump/Trump party
b) He already had lost around 60 lawsuits before that
Trump loses election challenge lawsuit in Wisconsin, further cementing Biden win in presidential race
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/12/trump-loses-wisconsin-election-lawsuit-cemeting-biden-win.html
c) The two justices who said it was okay to hear the state of Texas suit also said they were not going to grant the remedies sought anyway
d) Had the Supreme Court heard the case and give the same ruling that would have been very embarrassing; and I think that is the reason why they chose not to hear it, including the judges nominated by President Trump
Where is the confusion? Extreme democratic outcome behavior like Trumpism as shown by the string of losses above is inconsistent with the rule of law as long as it keep using as proof fake facts...
If you can show that Trumpism goes hand in hand with the independent judiciary in the USA, please do it. And we go from there….
Otherwise, let’s leave it here to keep the focus strictly on the question at hand in this thread
Respectfully yours;
This is common in many forms of conflict. Their outcomes invariably remain polarised and non-resolved.
Dear Antonio, thank you for taking the time to comment.
If you read any of the articles I have shared in this thread, at least the operational concepts, you will find a definition of what is a normal democratic outcome and what is an extreme democratic outcome....and some of those articles share/compare their structure,,,
In short, an extreme democratic outcome in a majority rule based liberal democracy contest, one person one vote, takes place when the minority view wins the democratic contest...... a normal democratic outcome then is the one where the majority view wins the democratic contest....
The question is about an extreme democratic outcome and the independent rule of law and their compatibility, are they incompatible? Are they compatible? Why?
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Dear Joseph, thank you for your comment.
The question is a comparison of outcome when in conflict and the independent rule of law...in this case, an extreme democratic outcome in conflict....are they compatible or not? See for example, trumpism in conflict and the independent court system in the USA, are they compatible? or are they incompatible? WHY?
Respectfully yours;
Hi. This question is more Political in responding to which can be complex and controversial
Dear Michelle, thank you for your comment....
I am a scientist/researcher, not a politician. Hence, look at the question as such, as a research/science question as I do.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Sharing here final draft of paper about the 2016-2020 rise and fall of Trumpism using the thinking of the road from normal liberal democracies to permanent authoritarianism from within, it has some good food for thoughts:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349682410_Sustainability_thoughts_133_Stating_the_expected_step_by_step_road_from_majority_rule_based_liberal_democracies_to_permanent_authoritarianism_The_case_of_the_2016-2020_rise_and_fall_of_Trumpism?_sg=WRLVUYeypvysJFhtKYCbTTZZP7O9byOn7XMxcfHvhrh-NFEsTBYvQTi_OSzyu4EjF5qsJJa4rJWqNiH-XC5sGUAvg0ahoVF8cEW51XPI.-QBPNHf6ly3k8MUbygftWvjTwkQ62j8UUBniL8dmWVMuWuwnpCXBda_pBVskEJJlmzZGb0KfxanQmJcXHHu6ww
One of the main problems in our democracies is the lack of political discourse. This has been replaced by advertising and marketing techniques to get votes. This can only change through a regeneration of the political class. We need public servants who truly seek the common good and not remain in power at all costs.
Dear Montserrat, thank you for commenting. You did not try to answer the specific question posted here. However, I agree we need democracies who champion only the common good and where political discourse put the good of the country/democracy first.
If you do not have a view on the answer to the question posted here, let's let it here so as to keep comments within the scope of this question.
Have a nice day!