My hot take (which should in no way be interpreted as simping for monarchy, authoritarianism, fascism, or the like, as I do think a representational system is more likely to remain good and free for longer)...
My hot question: do 'representational systems' represent the population better than monarchies and 'authoritarians'? Do you think that Putin and Xi are more in line with the Russian and Chinese populations, than European critters with European populations, or vice versa?
If you took our current system and set it back a couple hundred years, you'd have similar quality of life to the feudalism of the time. If you took a monarchy and advanced it into the present...you'd have similar quality of life.
This is mostly right. But most Americans attribute their country's success to 'our system of government' rather than to more mundane factors like geography and the lack of a serious nearby nation-state competitor. That is unlikely to be the only thing, just like the system of government perhaps also played a role (while also a result of geography and the lack of a rival).
If this was a monarchy, we may well have murdered our king many times over by now...for better or worse.
Or perhaps there would be a modus vivendi between the kings and the elites that would prevent such a thing. It's a mistake to assume that in a monarchy the king has 'all the power'. There is a reason the people who elect the president and the Congress can 'throw the bums out' many times over without anything changing.
My hot question: do 'representational systems' represent the population better than monarchies and 'authoritarians'?
I think all systems get corrupted, but that's a good point. A lot of dictators or authoritarians do represent their peoples better. At least in the short term. Less representational systems can move faster, which is both good and bad. You can have populist leaders who give their people want they want, and you can have out of control despots.
But the same is true in a representational system...but it seems to just make it harder for the populists. Uh oh.
But most Americans attribute their country's success to 'our system of government' rather than to more mundane factors like geography and the lack of a serious nearby nation-state competitor.
I do think founding principles still carry a big impact, but that's more societal than governmental.
My hot question: do 'representational systems' represent the population better than monarchies and 'authoritarians'? Do you think that Putin and Xi are more in line with the Russian and Chinese populations, than European critters with European populations, or vice versa?
This is mostly right. But most Americans attribute their country's success to 'our system of government' rather than to more mundane factors like geography and the lack of a serious nearby nation-state competitor. That is unlikely to be the only thing, just like the system of government perhaps also played a role (while also a result of geography and the lack of a rival).
Or perhaps there would be a modus vivendi between the kings and the elites that would prevent such a thing. It's a mistake to assume that in a monarchy the king has 'all the power'. There is a reason the people who elect the president and the Congress can 'throw the bums out' many times over without anything changing.
I think all systems get corrupted, but that's a good point. A lot of dictators or authoritarians do represent their peoples better. At least in the short term. Less representational systems can move faster, which is both good and bad. You can have populist leaders who give their people want they want, and you can have out of control despots.
But the same is true in a representational system...but it seems to just make it harder for the populists. Uh oh.
I do think founding principles still carry a big impact, but that's more societal than governmental.