Upon Which Foot is the Shoe?

The USA cannot be miserable at its own majority choice, can it? The Democrats are upset, but they can't, at the moment, claim to represent the USA. In fact, being disabused of the notion that they do represent the USA will, in the end, prove a good thing for some Democrats, as they are forced to recognize that they can't go on simply cancelling those who disagree, and must actually learn to talk to them.

The USA, at least, has the consolation of getting the president that the majority of voters wanted. That is, at least, a democratic choice.

For the time being, on this side of the Atlantic, we are contending with a freak result produced by a defective electoral system, with very little input from the people. (34% of the low turnout vote = supermajority).

I find myself irked by every mention of the word 'mandate' by a Labour minister. UK people certainly voted for change, in that they knew who they wanted to throw out, but who they wanted instead was obscure to say the least. What we are getting now is more partisan than popular.

But we had an opportunity to improve our voting system not that long ago, and we rejected it. It's too late to complain about the rules of the game, but we might take the opportunity to prevent repetitions of this travesty. We won't, of course, because the temporary beneficiaries of a broken system cannot envisage the day when the shoe may be on the other foot.

This is the price we pay for an adversarial party system. Julius Nyerere argued for a one-party state in Tanzania on the grounds that the country lacked the talent needed to waste some on opposition.

 
Loyal opposition, however, which holds the government to account without undermining the state, is an important check upon absolutism. But a loyal opposition has to show by argument why the government has erred, not just throw up its hands in horror.

Aesop's Fable #44: The Frogs Who Desired a King

Some people wonder why the frogs ever asked Zeus for a king in the first place. Were they not happy enough in their original free state? What was so bad about gambolling around in their pond with no-one to tell them what to do?

Most of the philosophers who have considered the state of nature concluded that it was a pretty rough and ready state of affairs, in which the strong preyed upon the weak and the weak had no redress because there was no system of justice. Rousseau, by contrast, imagined a noble savage who lived in tune with a natural world that he understood and in which he felt comfortable.

Well the frogs weren’t comfortable, or they would not have asked for someone to be in charge, who could act as a fount of justice.

Now, when Zeus threw a log into the pond, the frogs didn’t realise what they had been given. This was a nominal chief citizen, who wouldn’t actually do anything, but in the name of King Log, the frogs could have organised for themselves an elementary legal system to prevent bullying and exploitation, while in other respects remaining free. They could even have given the log a name: Emperor Claudius, for example, or perhaps Joe Biden.

But no, The frogs were not satisfied. A King ought to do things. A king ought to be able actively to improve the livelihood of the citizens. Well of course, who would not want that? Did no philosopher frog say, “Hang on a minute, chaps, the power to make moral choices may just as easily result in bad as in good?”

And so the frogs discarded King Log, who had been quite a good king, all things considered, and demanded a replacement. Zeus sent a water snake (or heron, in some versions) which began to devour the frogs.

The frogs complained to Zeus that this wasn’t the sort of king they’d wanted at all, but Zeus replied that they must live (or perhaps die) by the consequences of their own actions.

And Emperor Claudius was deposed and succeeded by Emperor Nero.