If you want to move the Overton window any way or to do something to correct social injustices or problems, I think the way isn't to go full forward to a situation where idiotic culture wars discourse prevails. — ssu

Tell me whether police reform is more likely now or before the uprising. The problems aren't just discursive. To the extent you believe the countries these huge protests are in are democratic, you should believe that sufficiently large merely "symbolic protest"s will have some effect.

What cynicism about the effectiveness of these protests shows, in the background, is that these people are taking to the streets because they know, like you know, they have no other voice; what political issues they care about cannot and will not be brought to the table.

If we know that public political opinion is almost entirely decoupled from state policy and we criticise protesters (rather than governments!) on that basis... I mean, should we be suggesting they arm themselves? If we're calling them deluded and ineffective for peaceful protest and discursive interventions, in a context where we know their opinions will in all likelihood not translate into any policy changes, what are we saying?

If they're totally ineffective; if Occupy was the death rattle of protest as public registration of desire being effective, this is the purge frothing out the mouth.

So best way is to attack and vandalize a statue of Churchill in the UK? The talk shows will get the usual annoying people to bicker about the issue without any agreement: — ssu

Personally? I don't give a damn if the statues stay up or not, it's not like anyone in the protest had a choice in the creation of the historico-political symbolism of "their own" nation.

Is it the "best way"? I have no idea. How do you expect the start of a mostly peaceful anti-racist protest movement to make a targeted change regarding the systemic colonialism-racism of the global economy. At least when they fuck up a statue of Churchhill they've got a tiny bit of a voice. The institutions they need to frustrate and attack to start combating these issues comprehensively and at scale do not even have to pretend to care about anything but shareholder interest unless it's good marketing; maybe they need to be less civil.

Think what we're saying about a country if huge peaceful protests are "merely symbolic" and are thus likely to have no effect.

Tell me whether police reform is more likely now or before the uprising. — fdrake

I think there is a great opportunity to reform the police and it can have positive long term effects.

But one ought to focus on that. Not to get distracted into the ruinous "culture wars".

What cynicism about the effectiveness of these protests shows, in the background, is that these people are taking to the streets because they know, like you know, they have no other voice; what political issues they care about cannot and will not be brought to the table. — fdrake

Democracy works. If there is a will, there is a way. The real thing is about the will.

Personally? I don't give a damn if the statues stay up or not — fdrake

You wouldn't give a damn if MLK monument would be vandalized? Historico-political symbolism, you know.

How do you expect the start of a mostly peaceful protest movement to make a targeted change regarding the systemic colonialism-racism of the global economy. — fdrake

Like starting from a bit of realism and humility and have reachable goals: "systemic colonialism-racism" or "tthe global economy" won't change in a heartbeat, but what you can do is to demand and have better policing and end the militarization of the police.

That could work. But then again, you can go to fight against "the global economy". You see, I think that I and you can agree on some things, but we won't agree on everything. That's how people are. Capitalize (sorry, bad wording), utilize moments of consensus.

I think there is a great opportunity to reform the police and it can have positive long term effects. — ssu

Good, agreed.

Like starting from a bit of realism and humility and have reachable goals: "systemic colonialism-racism" or "tthe global economy" won't change in a heartbeat, but what you can do is to demand and have better policing and end the militarization of the police. — ssu

Just what the protests want.

Capitalize (sorry, bad wording), utilize moments of consensus. — ssu

Too early to tell what they can be leveraged into yet. The decentralised networks that lead to these protests sparking up everywhere will likely stick around. I'm hopeful.

But one ought to focus on that. Not to get distracted into the ruinous "culture wars". — ssu

So I don't understand if you're criticising me or not, we agree on pretty much everything substantive. What part of our agreement is in the culture war again?

Democracy works. If there is a will, there is a way. The real thing is about the will. — ssu

Seriously though. Really? You're willing to brand huge protests as blunted because they're part of a "culture war", that they're ultimately symbolic, and you're not wondering why their state isn't listening to them? Huge registration of intent for change is what protests are for; it's a vital democratic function. Are we in a democracy if "merely symbolic" huge protest doesn't do anything? If it isn't already enough?

So I don't understand if you're criticising me or not, we agree on pretty much everything substantive. What part of our agreement is in the culture war again?

Seriously though. Really? You're willing to brand huge protests being blunted because they're part of a "culture war", that they're ultimately symbolic, and you're not wondering why their state isn't listening to them? — fdrake

The issue is that they are made part of a culture war. Nobody is protesting for the release of the Minneapolis policemen (perhaps a police union, I don't know). But people can be against vandalizing the statues of Churchill and Gandhi. You have start from something, you know. Just look at how Fox News is depicting the events. There's an objective there.

Are we in a democracy if "merely symbolic" huge protest doesn't do anything? If it isn't already enough? — fdrake

In a representative democracy it's the elections that count. Demonstrations can influence elections. Demonstrations can make someone resign, but who is elected or appointed afterwards is the real change. Demonstrations just show that a lot of people are against something or for something. But those feelings can change if the objectives of a movement change.

In a representative democracy it's the elections that count. Demonstrations can influence elections. Demonstrations can make someone resign, but who is elected or appointed afterwards is the real change. — ssu

Let's keep in mind that there've been protests like this for over 100 years; the elections haven't done much at all. What related gains there have been were all put on the table by grassroots organising and protest.

The following seems relevant enough to what to do about systemic racism to merit reposting here: (Any replies address to @Nuke)

There's been a LOT of discussion of race relations in recent weeks, and as usual the vast majority of the discussion focuses on emotion and vague calls for various kinds of largely unspecified change. We are told we are supposed to take race relations very very seriously, which is good, but apparently not seriously enough to actually do anything big and specific about race relations problems.

So, this thread will attempt to replace a pattern of vague emotional statements with a policy proposal which is both ambitious and specific.

In the spirit of getting serious, let's try to do more than just fire off some opinions and on the spot analysis provided as fast as we can type. Read that sentence again please.

Instead, I'm hoping you can help me nail down the price tag for the following proposal.

PROPOSAL: Every black American and American Indian should be provided totally free education (tuition, books, living expenses, everything) for any educational experience which can boost their income earning potential. This plan should continue until such time as the vast wealth gap between these groups and whites is erased. The plan should be funded by the richest 1%, that is, those who have most of the money and who have benefited most from America's rigged system.

Here are the kind of questions I hope we will address:

1) How much would such a plan cost? How many people are we trying to serve and approximately how much money is required to serve them as defined above?

2) What would the impact of such a plan be on the 1%? Would they barely notice? Would their economic position be crushed? How much money do they have, and how much of that would such a plan take from them?

If you don't like this plan and would prefer another one, ok, no problem. In that case, please start your own thread outlining your own plan. Thank you. — Nuke

According to the Kaiser Foundation, roughly a half million blacks are born each year in the United States.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/births-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

So, just as a place to start, let's say each new black person born gets a one million dollar life time voucher they can use for any educational experience which could boost their ability to earn. If I've done the math right (have I?) that comes to 500 billion dollars a year for the maximum cost of the program. Most people won't need that much, and many won't access the benefit, so the real price would probably be considerably less. How much less, I can't say.

This is the kind of nuts and bolts analysis I'm seeking help with.

The goal here is that we put our heads together and try to zero in on the cost of the benefit to the degree possible on a philosophy forum. It's not serious to throw out some lofty sounding idea if we don't have any idea what it would cost, and thus don't know how realistic it is.

A key aspect of this proposal is that the richest 1% pay for it. Thus, when anyone complains about the cost of the plan 99% of the time we can respond with, "this doesn't affect you".

But before we can claim the 1% can pay for this plan we need to know roughly how much it would cost, and roughly how much money the 1% have. — Nuke

Another useful explanatory link that helps explain why systemic racism is endemic in the US and how it's related to neoliberal economics.

"As Lee Atwater, who became chairman of the Republican National Committee after helping elect Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush, explained in a 1981 interview,

Y’all don’t quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously, maybe that’s part of it."

The leftist "fantasy" straight from the mouth of a right-winger.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/06/09/neoliberal-capitalism-depends-white-supremacy?fbclid=IwAR0uElUsxC2TwUfSk6hRls3dg6GIWwxZMIH_yQVMv7lCMq5WOBf2vAFUMyI

the elections haven't done much at all. — fdrake

There's our champion of the Republic.

Damn it, ya got us. Why'd Atwater have to spill the beans? He told you not to quote him! Guess us neolibs got a lot of repair work to do now.

On a more serious note, when the other side isn't just misinformed - but also have racist intentions or motivations - productive rational discussion isn't really worth it anymore. Discussion breaks down and everyone just starts trolling each other when we give up actually trying to reason with the opposition. Good, rational discussion was the reason I came to this forum and it's a part of good philosophy. It's a shame that apparently it's no longer possible when it comes to politics or one's political philosophy.

Thanks. I read the article. It was actually an interesting read, though I was left with a strong feeling that he was embellishing several of his stories. This is almost certainly nothing a non-police officer would catch, but as I was reading I wrote down a number of things that didn’t add up for me. I’m not sure if he was actually a police officer, but I wish I could find out which department he worked for, as well as the circumstances under which he left that department.

In any case that’s not really the point. Many of his observations are still apt, and I found myself agreeing with a number of them.

For instance, it is absolutely true that police officers are often expected to wear many hats, and perform some of the same functions as a marriage counselor, mental crisis professional, social worker, and so on and so forth — although they tend to be performed less competently by police officers, and on a more limited basis.

If there were a way to require officers to perform less of these functions, I would be on board with that. Though the practical implementation of such an idea would be very difficult, to my apprehension, the thought of lowering an officer’s workload (and thus raising morale, lowering stress, and retaining qualified officers, etc.) whilst simultaneously allowing better trained professionals to utilize their specialized training in appropriate situations is very appealing.

However, if you recall in my earlier post, I talked about how calls pile up, and how officers in my city, at times, only have enough time to respond to certain kinds of calls — such as those that are violent in nature, or have a real propensity to become violent in nature. If for the sake of argument we were to assume that other proposed specialized workers were able to somehow answer those other more innocuous calls, that would still leave police officers barely keeping their heads above water in regards to the other calls (i.e. they would have a very heavy workload as opposed to having an impossible one). But why have that heavy of a workload at all? If that is the case, then why not, rather than defunding a department that is already hurting, seek cuts elsewhere (like the military, as I suggested in my previous post).

Of course not all police departments are afforded the same amount of resources, nor do all police departments contend with the same level of crime or calls for service. But I do know that certain other police departments are, to varying degrees, experiencing similar problems as OPD. Thus it is my contention that any prospective defunding should be done on a case-by-case basis, and sweeping blanket legislation ought to be avoided.

For instance, it is absolutely true that police officers are often expected to wear many hats, and perform some of the same functions as a marriage counselor, mental crisis professional, social worker, and so on and so forth — although they tend to be performed less competently by police officers, and on a more limited basis. — Wolfman

However, if you recall in my earlier post, I talked about how calls pile up, and how officers in my city, at times, only have enough time to respond to certain kinds of calls — such as those that are violent in nature, or have a real propensity to become violent in nature. If for the sake of argument we were to assume that other proposed specialized workers were able to somehow answer those other more innocuous calls, that would still leave police officers barely keeping their heads above water in regards to the other calls (i.e. they would have a very heavy workload as opposed to having an impossible one). But why have that heavy of a workload at all? If that is the case, then why not, rather than defunding a department that is already hurting, seek cuts elsewhere (like the military, as I suggested in my previous post). — Wolfman

What's weird to me is that in the US people who can afford it go and see their psychiatrists en masse on a weekly basis to deal with their individual problems but either a) don't believe in sociological and mental health issues that are shared widely in a community and therefore require a coordinated approach or b) doesn't feel any solidarity with other Americans who can't afford it to help them. End result: little money for community projects.

Meanwhile, that huge work burden for police officers is a symptom of underlying social ills. Amsterdam is probably the unsafest city in the Netherlands but it's way safer than most US cities. There are no areas in the Netherlands where I'd be afraid to go at night. None. And 18 million people are policed with 5 billion USD a year and that includes some stuff like forensics and victim care, that I suspect aren't included in the budget for most PDs in the US.

I don't believe that US citizens are inherently more violent or criminal than their Dutch counterparts, so the level of crime is something that can be dealt with differently than answering it with police violence and incarceration. That's obviously not a matter of just shifting around money.

I think part of it is how the US is very top-down in their idea of governance. Laws and rules have to be enforced, fealty to a President that doesn't really deserve respect, that sort of stuff. At-will contracts and a limited social net, causes a power-relation with your boss that causes people to take shit a Dutch person would've sued you over and won.

And the police doesn't have the time (and most often doesn't have the skills necessary) to enter into a dialogue with community members and map what they think is going wrong, and discuss possible solutions and bring in sociological, city planning and policy specialists etc. to organise and guide such process and then come up with a plan that has a real chance of success. After that it needs to be implemented, the police has to be taken aboard as to their role of course, but they shouldn't be in the lead or responsible for it as they are now.

Now if I look at some of the funding graphs, it is no wonder that even the smallest altercation becomes a police intervention, that mentally ill people get tasered for not complying with orders etc. And since police are now responsible and if it's not improving, of course the reaction will be "let's give them more money". Contrary to what would be smart, people tend to do more of the same if things don't go their way instead of changing tactics. In a crisis people do what they are familiar with (which is why every crisis now, we just throw money at it. MBS crisis? Here's a trillion. Debt crisis? Here's a trillion. Corona? Here's two trillion. As if they are all the same. But tangent.)

Quite frankly, I find it a betrayal by the police union leadership of their members to accept such incredible scope creep of the services that cops should be providing to the community.

In your view, what should the basic task of police?

Thanks for the links (I'm not always getting notifications when people mention me so I didn't see them until just now). A couple of well written pieces I think. I want to share a couple more key quotes. This first is for @Baden, who asked (of one of my previous posts), what my mention of Jeff Bezos had to do with it...

The protests have provided a public relations windfall for Bezos and his ilk. Only weeks before George Floyd’s killing, Amazon, Instacart, GrubHub and other delivery-based firms, which became crucial for commodity circulation during the national shelter-in-place, faced mounting pressure from labor activists over their inadequate protections, low wages, lack of health benefits and other working conditions. Corporate anti-racism is the perfect egress from these labor conflicts. Black lives matter to the front office, as long as they don’t demand a living wage, personal protective equipment and quality health care.

Racism alone cannot fully explain the expansive carceral power in our midst, which, as Reed notes, is “the product of an approach to policing that emerges from an imperative to contain and suppress the pockets of economically marginal and sub-employed working-class populations produced by revanchist capitalism.”

The powerful elite will have representatives from every marginalised minority with whom they can associate. There are black CEOs, women judges, gay politicians, transgender popstars... All with one glaring exception - none of them are poor. Contrary to almost every other marginalised group in existence (tribal people are an exception), the poor have no representation at all with the powerful. Any movement that doesn't put them at the heart and centre of the issue can be subsumed into the neoliberal project by just adopting the 'best-and-the-brightest' from whatever is the group-de-jour. Then the remainder only have themselves to blame.

What's weird to me is that in the US people who can afford it go and see their psychiatrists en masse on a weekly basis to deal with their individual problems but either a) don't believe in sociological and mental health issues that are shared widely in a community and therefore require a coordinated approach or b) doesn't feel any solidarity with other Americans who can't afford it to help them. End result: little money for community projects. — Benkei

Yes, well, I believe that counseling, in many cases, does not produce much beyond short-term cathartic effects in its patients. As to why Americans often spend their money on this? Because they can do whatever they want with their own money. Because they perhaps think that counseling will help solve their issues, or perhaps maybe they just want to talk to someone. Whatever the reason, I think most people, who think they require counseling, are too busy worrying about their own problems to worry about other peoples’ mental issues, much less ponder about coordinated approaches to addressing mental health in the United States at an abstract or theoretical level.

Meanwhile, that huge work burden for police officers is a symptom of underlying social ills. Amsterdam is probably the unsafest city in the Netherlands but it's way safer than most US cities. There are no areas in the Netherlands where I'd be afraid to go at night. None. And 18 million people are policed with 5 billion USD a year and that includes some stuff like forensics and victim care, that I suspect aren't included in the budget for most PDs in the US.

I don't believe that US citizens are inherently more violent or criminal than their Dutch counterparts, so the level of crime is something that can be dealt with differently than answering it with police violence and incarceration. That's obviously not a matter of just shifting around money. — Benkei

You are quite right that Amsterdam feels quite safe. I’ve been there 7 times now, and I’ve never felt unsafe at night time. The shadiest thing I’ve experienced there is someone coming up to me, asking, “Coca? Coca?” and I think in many of those situations, they were actually asking me for the coca.

And yes, I agree that arresting people and incarcerating them is not the most effective way of dealing with criminals, especially considering that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is a broken institution. Arresting and incarcerating criminals is a sort of necessary evil that, as it currently stands, has to be done for practical purposes if for nothing else (better to not have murderers, rapists, and burglars, etc. out on the streets).

In Oakland most crime is done by black people. This isn’t because black people are inherently bad or anything like that. It’s because they have had to contend with institutional racism, injustices, and socioeconomic problems that date back to the days of slavery and beyond. Sometimes people born into these circumstances (like my friend, Dre) end up becoming violent, criminal people. One of the reasons we tend to have more violent, criminal people than the Netherlands is because we have more people who grew up under the same circumstances as Dre. Most people in the Netherlands have not had to contend with these kinds of issues on such a large scale, so the crime dynamic is different.

In your view, what should the basic task of police? — Benkei

If we were able to just enforce the penal code and vehicle code, without having to deal with all of the ancillary functions that SLX and others have brought up, that would be ideal. It’s easier said than done — and many of these functions are not easily separable from what should be the basic tasks of a police officer — but I think cops in certain departments are unhealthy, stressed, and overworked; so it’s apparent that something has to change.

[deleted]

If we were able to just enforce the penal code and vehicle code, without having to deal with all of the ancillary functions that SLX and others have brought up, that would be ideal. It’s easier said than done — and many of these functions are not easily separable from what should be the basic tasks of a police officer — but I think cops in certain departments are unhealthy, stressed, and overworked; so it’s apparent that something has to change. — Wolfman

Funny how you talk about enforcement.

I thought it was to protect and serve. How does that equate/translate to enforce?

In the UK a radio host was suspended when he questioned his white privilege. A former Canadian cabinet minister was forced to resign from 3 positions for denying systemic racism exists in Canada. A chief reporter from the Western Mail was axed for opposing the protests. NYT Op-Ed editor James Bennett resigned due to the outcry over publishing an opposing opinion. A top Philadelphia Inquirer editor was forced to resign for daring to write the headline “Buildings Matter, Too”. Alexander Katai was dropped from the LA Galaxy because his wife commented “Black Nikes Matter” on an Instagram video of looting. — NOS4A2

Like in any crisis, there's some overreaction here. First example, the radio host has not been paying attention at all the past 2 years but grounds for suspension or dismissal seems a bit too much to me. I think the former cabinet minister got what he deserved (and he apologised). The book judge (chief reporter?) is a bit of an ass; I wasn't aware virtue signalling now also included genuine protest but whatever. James Bennett is just really bad at his job - hey, let's publish a government propaganda piece as "opinion". He should've been fired a few years back. Buildings Matter, Too is pretty fucking callous. So he got what he deserved. Katai is bullshit. I don't see how he should be punished for what his wife said. His wife is a piece of work though. Damn.

But it’s all one-sided, aimed only at those who express dissent from the current orthodoxy and is guided by the whims of emotion. It’s a testament to both the weakness of the orthodoxy, and the inability of its proponents to support it.

As usual @NOS4A2 is just propagandising. Don't swallow the bait. Here's just one lie.

Alexander Katai was dropped from the LA Galaxy because his wife commented “Black Nikes Matter” on an Instagram video of looting. — NOS4A2

What actually happened was:

"Tea Katai made the posts on her Instagram story earlier this week, and the Galaxy angrily condemned them as "racist and violent" on Wednesday. The posts included a photo with a caption written in Serbian urging police to "kill" protesters, another referring to protesters as "disgusting cattle," and a third sharing a racist meme."

By the way @NOS4A2 your random misleading complaints about leftists are off-topic. Go do it on the other systemic racism thread where that kind of thing is more tolerated.

I was complaining about corporate censorship, not leftists. But sorry I thought this was the low quality one. My mistake.

Feel free to start your own thread about corporate censorship. I'm going to keep this strictly on topic as there is some interesting stuff being posted.

:up:

Funny how you talk about enforcement.

I thought it was to protect and serve. How does that equate/translate to enforce? — Benkei

Ah no, you thought wrong then. That’s the slogan of Los Angeles Police Department — frequently misattributed to other police departments. I suspect it has something to do with Hollywood being in Los Angeles County (people get a lot of their [mis]information from movies).

In any case, enforcement isn’t something mutually exclusive from “protecting and serving,” so I wouldn’t get hung up on the verbiage. Should it come as any surprise that one of the primary functions of a law enforcement officer is to enforce laws? I suppose that language might seem overbearing or not politically correct enough for some.

There's our champion of the Republic. — ssu

It's true though. Elections do hee haw for the people in the streets. Historically too; you'd think if there was a big chance of an election changing something fundamental about institutional racism in the US it would've happened by now, no? Rather than being resisted at every step despite over 100 years of uprisings.

Quite incredible what you are saying. As if elections don't matter. Who needs them when there's the street?

Guess then according to you everything would have gone in a similar way as it did if in 1860 American voters would have elected Southern Democratic Candidate John C. Breckinridge from Kentucky to be the President. (If people don't know, the former VP of James Buchanan, Breckinridge served later as the Confederate Secretary of War in 1865.)

I think you're missing the point of protest. Elections are utterly trivial in political terms because they are just a snapshot of what the electorate think at that time. One would be quite reasonable, I think, to not even bother voting if one's politics were so left-field that your candidate had no chance.

Protests are designed to change public opinion by giving the illusion of a large force being of some opinion or other. Politicians, if they want to stay ahead, can't afford to be reactive to elections, it's too late by then. They must instead predict elections. Given that the above works (protests>public opinion>election>new policy), the politicians can quite confidently cut out the middle man. If they acquiesce to the demands of what seems likely to be an influential protest, they get to stay ahead of the curve and are already in the place they need to be come election day.

It's an upshot of our democratic system that protests work, not an affront to it.

Quite incredible what you are saying. As if elections don't matter. Who needs them when there's the street — ssu

Let's keep two flavours of claims distinct;

Elections are totally irrelevant.

Elections and representative politics has a terrible track record on addressing systemic racism. To such an extent that direct action (protest, uprising) has been required for every gain on that front.

I'm prepared to argue the latter. I think you even agree with it. I'm not prepared to argue the former; as it's nonsense.

Elections and representative politics has a terrible track record on addressing systemic racism. — fdrake

I've possibly just misunderstood what you're saying (or just read too much into it) but I can't understand how you could even argue the latter. Elections address nothing at all, they're a data gathering mechanism. In order to address anything at all we must persuade people to vote differently in an election and simultaneously persuade politicians that people are likely to do so so that they offer our preferred policies as a choice. (A third option is to persuade people to deal with some issue differently within the parameters of what is already legal/institutionalised, but that's an aside).

Either way, the actual mechanism by which politicians are given the authority to carry out their policies is not the same as the mechanism they use to determine which policies might attract such mandate. Effecting change on some issue requires action on the latter. So I think when discussing methods for addressing racism its just a false dichotomy from the outset to frame it as elections vs protests, they're not the same kind of thing.

The debate would be about the relative merits of, say, discussion vs protest, or pamphleteering vs protest, something like that, no?

I think you're missing the point of protest. Elections are utterly trivial in political terms because they are just a snapshot of what the electorate think at that time. — Isaac

I think you're missing the point of representative democracy.

Elections and representative politics has a terrible track record on addressing systemic racism. To such an extent that direct action (protest, uprising) has been required for every gain on that front.

I'm prepared to argue the latter. I think you even agree with it. — fdrake

I certainly don't, fdrake!

Since it's independence my country has avoided an ethnic conflict between the Finnish speaking majority and Swedish speaking minority, it has avoided the rise of fascism and turning into an authoritarian state in the 30's (like what happened in many Eastern European new states). It also avoided it's democracy being snuffed out to be turned part of the Communist bloc post WW2, although the price was an extremely conformative foreign policy towards the Soviet Union. And the reason is that the people voted sound politicians to didn't choose the dangerous radical elements of any time period on the ballot box. The political field has changed in time: there have been numerous protest parties that eventually have made it to power and new ideological parties like the Green party, which has had ministers in various administrations and even a Presidential candidate coming second.

So no, I don't believe that representative politics has a terrible track record. Representative democracy doesn't have to evolve into a corrupt system where the parties in power just look after themselves in order to stay in power and make it's members rich and not care about the people. It hasn't happened in my country and not in the neighboring Nordic countries, hence I don't believe that somehow Americans are incapable of having a working Republic themselves. You might think I'm naive in my belief or ignorant about all the problems in the US of voter suppression or how the two ruling parties put sticks into the machine with gerrymandering and limiting those who can vote, but to argue that "elections don't matter" or that "nothing will change if you just vote" is the wrong path which will lead to worse.

If you think that "direct action" will just end in mainly non-violent demonstrations, don't forget how full your country is with weapons and how willing in the end people are to use them. And remember that people adapt to bad things that just come to be the "new normal".

I think you're missing the point of representative democracy. — ssu

Which is?