Democracy Paradox
Subscribed: 15,469Played: 121,585
Subscribe
Β© 2024 Democracy Paradox
Description
Is it possible for a democracy to govern undemocratically? Can the people elect an undemocratic leader? Is it possible for democracy to bring about authoritarianism? And if so, what does this say about democracy? ββMy name is Justin Kempf. Every week I talk to the brightest minds on subjects like international relations, political theory, and history to explore democracy from every conceivable angle. Topics like civil resistance, authoritarian successor parties, and the autocratic middle class challenge our ideas about democracy. Join me as we unravel new topics every week.
211 Episodes
Reverse
Top Podcasts
The Best New Comedy Podcast Right Now β June 2024The Best News Podcast Right Now β June 2024The Best New Business Podcast Right Now β June 2024The Best New Sports Podcast Right Now β June 2024The Best New True Crime Podcast Right Now β June 2024The Best New Joe Rogan Experience Podcast Right Now β June 20The Best New Dan Bongino Show Podcast Right Now β June 20The Best New Mark Levin Podcast β June 2024
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States
π΄β πΊπ±π»ALL>Movies>WATCH>αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺ>LINK>πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
I think you completely misunderstood Sunstein's point about interpretation vs. amendment. He was saying that people with different methods of Constitutional interpretation can always say that the resulting decisions from other methods (with his proviso thst there needs to be a discernible theory of interpretation) are wrong and should have been achieved via amendment rather than via interpretation. So, as he said, the answer to your question always depends on one's theory of interpretation.
The guest's use of and adherence to definitions really helped structure and clarify the conversation. It's nice when people seem to know what they mean. :)
For my part, I'd have appreciated definitions of democracy and populism, in particular. The guest seemed to be using vague notions that might have implied either circularity or irrelevance (i.e., using words in ways people don't mean them). I view democracy as a theory (or assertion) only about the legitimacy or root power of a system of governance. It is not an operational structure. Populism seems like a mere mechanism. Again, though, the meaning of "populism" was very unclear/ imprecise.
Minor note: You're misusing "begs the question" when you mean "raises the question." To beg the question is to commit the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion.
Great discussion.
Enjoyed the discussion, but didn't quite understand the added value of the Jim Crow analogy. I.e., how does the comparison help Indians or others chart a better way forward?
You were firing on all cylinders in this one, Justin. Great guest, great questions. There were questions I wish you'd asked, but none that I thought were weak or superfluous, so I think it'd be great to have additional conversations with this guest. Great job; I really appreciated this one.
As with all politicians, Cenk does a good job of casting cynicism as earnestness. It's hard to tell what he actually thinks versus what he thinks is expedient to say. Several of his responses were either garbled or incoherent, but he talked long enough to distract from the question.
Great conversation; easy to see why you value it. Having worked on governance issues in the Philippines, including on Mindanao (including Davao and Bangsamoro), I sympathize with the pain in her voice. Watching Filipinos endure Duterte's administration was like watching a friend live through an abusive relationship. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely to change. The religiously conservative culture and weak institutions predispose many areas to honor culture, patronage systems, & local tyrants.
As is typical in discussions of "leadership", it was insufficiently defined. Ironically, the concept of leadership benefits from the same hollow charisma and old-money cachet that benefits so many ordained "leaders". Here, the concept was conflated with influence, virtue, followership, success, etc., such that it was internally inconsistent. The label selects on dependent variables and shifts the focus from institutions to individuals. Changing the rules changes the champions.
Another great discussion.
Great conversation. I really appreciated the questions that challenged some of the rationale. Those help clarify the case and show its strengths and limitations.
Bland take on democracy and world politics. If you like caressing youself and your leaders endlessly, this interview (and probably this whole show) is for you.
Eesh. Not sure how this podcast got in my subs, that happens quite often where this app will just subscribe me to random BS but this is a bit too far. The irony of the author talking about Russian and Chinese misinformation while glorifying the number one purveyor of misinformation in the world, the US government and the media that prop up its crimes as some noble quest for "democracy" which it has never experienced a day in its war-torn life.
I really enjoyed this conversation. One criticism: @12:41: You referred to "decolonizing" the literature via inclusion of local people's perspectives. Obviously, those perspectives are relevant and truly need and deserve consideration--particularly in the rare instances when research informs governance--but "decolonization" is a terrible word choice with large amounts of unnecessary and inaccurate baggage. You seem to insinuate that a colonial perspective is necessarily inherent in a researcher's nationality or ethnicity rather than a mindset. Colonialism is a point of view, not a skin tone or home address. Similarly, it implies that local people are rarely or never complicit in colonialism. Both of those are simply wrong, though they do reflect the fashionable nonsense of identity politics and a celebration of victimhood (real or concocted) that provides a sort of race-based culpability or exoneration that alludes to the idea of "noble savages". It's a flippant ad hominem that d
Great episode. Very glad you chose to give it a looser structure and let the conversation flow.
This was a miss for me. The topic was interesting, but the guest offered exceedingly poor evidence and rationale for his opinions. I think it would have helped for him to define his terms first, because he seemed to have a rather loose and fluctuating notion of the definitional criteria of revolutions. E.g., need they aim for regime change or does policy change suffice? How does he differentiate between demonstrations, movements, coups, revolts, etc.? Moreover, he seemed to have little appreciation for epistemological progression or methodological rigor. Rather than starting with (i) a specific description of phenomena and building an evidentiary basis for (ii) prediction from which to assert (iii) explanatory theories, subject to clear means of falsification, he seemed instead to leap straight to explanations. For example, @10:17+, he described selecting on the dependent variable, and indeed you followed up by compounding that over-interpretation (re: the causal influence of prop
Justin, I just listened to a podcast that brought you to mind and thought I'd pass it along. It was episode 486 of the 99% Invisible podcast (which focuses on design), in which they rebroadcast an episode from the Rumble Strip podcast followed by a discussion with the host/ creator of Rumble Strip. The rebroadcast portion is about town meetings in Vermont, and the follow-up interview is a bit about creating a podcast. The combination of governance and podcasting brought you to mind and I thought you might enjoy that episode.
"Place-making" is not new. This is a real point of irritation for me with academics, and social "scientists" in particular: they love to pretend they have found or invented new concepts and to ignore vast amounts of research already done on those topics, both in their field and in others. It's a startling degree of willful ignorance, incuriosity, or arrogance (combined with condescension toward past researchers)... but it is handsomely rewarded and obsequiously accommodated in their fields.