Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAndrew Sullivan is blind: It’s elitists who helped give rise to America’s neo-fascist movement
Andrew Sullivan is blind: Its elitists who helped give rise to Americas neo-fascist movementMike Logfren, Bill Moyers at Salon
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/27/andrew_sullivan_is_blind_its_elitists_who_gave_rise_to_trumpism_partner/
"SNIP...............
Sullivan employs the arguments of a profoundly anti-democratic elitist who held that wise philosopher kings ought to rule over the riffraff. But is his specific charge true that too much democracy is responsible for Trumps Mongol devastation of the Party of Lincoln, allegedly because during the 1970s the parties adopted direct primaries as a substitute for the selection of candidates by party bosses? The evidence is wanting.
Hyperdemocracy or Elective Oligarchy?
Let us suppose our presidential nominees were still chosen for us via the smoke-filled room (a method known in Sullivans mother country as the old-boy system). In 2016, on the Democratic side, our nominee would be Hillary Clinton. On the GOP side it would be Jeb Bush, a truly exciting prospect. In reality, of course, we have the direct primary system, but it has hardly given rise to a mob-instigated revolution: for 28 of the last 36 years, a Bush or a Clinton has occupied the presidency or the vice presidency, and we still have in Hillary the thrilling potential for a further eight years of the same dynastic dyad.
The other institutional features of Sullivans alleged hyperdemocracy do not strike one as particularly Jacobin. Gerrymandering has achieved such perfection that in many congressional districts it denies a large number of voters fair representation. Wherever they run state governments, Republicans have engaged in shortening voting times, closing DMV offices, requiring onerous identification procedures and other measures to suppress voting by constituencies they dislike. The population of California is 66 times that of Wyoming, and both states elect two US senators. These arrangements do not resemble the systems of highly democratic states like Finland or New Zealand, but they would fit comfortably within the Whig oligarchy of 18th-century England. The Electoral College is an archaic system that inflates the power of small states. The conventional wisdom is that it has served us well, but it has not: four times (1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000) it elected the candidate with fewer popular votes.
Sullivan might object that in any case he is not arguing in favor of majoritarian democracy. But would he suggest that the travesty of 2000, when the philosopher kings of the Supreme Court chose a president too stupid and incurious to pay attention to an intelligence briefing warning of imminent attack on the United States, was a better outcome than obeying the will of the people?
...............SNIP"
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 500 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Andrew Sullivan is blind: It’s elitists who helped give rise to America’s neo-fascist movement (Original Post)
applegrove
May 2016
OP
Sullivan was an Iraq War proponent and harsh critic of anyone who opposed that invasion
Bluenorthwest
May 2016
#3
tenderfoot
(8,438 posts)1. Andrew Sullivan's track record rivals William Kristol for accuracy.
For the life of me - I don't get what people see in him. He's never been right about anything either.
malaise
(269,257 posts)2. +1,000
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)3. Sullivan was an Iraq War proponent and harsh critic of anyone who opposed that invasion
Oh how he attacked everybody who was right while touting every right wing hack starting with Cheney as profoundly skilled and trustworthy people. Later when he had to retract all of that he claimed he was so sorry that he'd never stop apologizing but within a week he was back to pontificating through the hold in his hat and presuming for himself some great authority.
If there was a rule by elites, Sully would not make the cut.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)4. What color is Sully's blog this week?