That’s what the American right want: have no doubt that their aim is to undermine the effectiveness of democratic government by destroying its capacity to operate. That’s exactly what they’re doing in the US right now.
And that is precisely why all democrats the world over should be opposing them.
Democracy means people not part of the demos opposing those elected by the demos.
It means, for example, the Tea Party being righteous in opposing something Caroline Lucas proposes in the UK Parliament.
Certainly an interesting definition of democracy.
Of course it’s fine when the British Left seeks to undermine the effectiveness of democratic government by destroying its capacity to operate.
That’s different.
Bill,
yes for you see they have good intentions whereas the right (in their book) always, by definition, has bad intentions.
Ritchie’s definition of “operate” seems to mean “spend as much as it wants”
You are making a common mistake of trying to use the dictionary definition of democracy rather than the lefty one. The lefty definition of democracy is things which a majority might want people and is the same as what the lefty wants, at which point it becomes the democratic will of the people and must not be denied. However this is not to be mistaken for popularism, which is things that a majority of the population might want but the lefty in question does not want, and are therefore a terrible evil which must be rejected at all costs. Plus being internationalists and collectivists the population in question can be very flexible and is not limited by the boundries of states.
The problem with the left is that they do not accept that people might actually be able to make decisions for themselves. They know what is good for you, you can’t be trusted to make that decision for themselves.
This is where Ritchie gets all worked up about neo-classical economics (or neo-liberalism). Neo-classical economics operates on the theory that markets work. Markets simply magnify individual choices. Democracy is simply the best way we know of translating individual choice into effective government. No wonder Ritche hates democracy, sometime individuals choose to pay less tax that really is a bitch aint it.
Offshore Observer, we know Ritchie doesn’t think people know what’s best for them – he says it here for eacmple:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/06/02/southern-cross-is-the-model-for-the-privatisation-of-the-nhs/ as response to comment #5.
Hasnt Ritchie’s reasoning (it’s getting in the way of what we think is best) been used by dictators to suspend constitutions and pass enabling acts?
There is, much as I hate to admit it, a teeny point behind what he is saying. The so-called “American Right” (as most USAians are somewhat to the right in British terms) aren’t attacking the actual policies, they are simply attacking the funding mechanism.
Have admitted that, of course, that they are able to do this is an artifact of the democratically agreed structuring of the US political system (much as a politically hostile or friendly Supreme Court can stall or advance Federal or State matters).
Therefore it is actually a flawed argument based on his blithe assumption that the unwritten British constitution with a weak upper chamber (with its endless avenues for abuse by a party with a clear Commons majority) is the ideal state solution.
This is no more than a standard, Monday morning, RMIAC outburst on the part of Norfolk’s Stupidest Man.
“Certainly an interesting definition of democracy.”
Some discworld fan will correct my misquote
“where everyone had a vote unless being disqualified on account of age or not being Lord Vetinari” but, with apologies to pTerry, it appears that a less intelligent reader may have misappropriated the idea to define democracy as following the dictates of an overweight accountant.
“define democracy as following the dictates of an overweight accountant”
Nowt wrong with that; just depends on which overweight accountant.
Mind you, what about if all of us overweight accountants had a vote, but no-one else? We’d probably elect a better House of Commons than we do now.