From: jimruttshow8596
The “Jim Rutt Show” has undertaken an ongoing series exploring the problems of current representative democracy and possible alternatives [01:17:00]. The host, Jim Rutt, notes his personal orientation is generally more egalitarian and less centralized than the current system, not leaning towards top-down or centralized schemes like monarchy [02:09:00].
Critiques of Current Representative Democracy
The current form of representative democracy faces several fundamental issues:
- Voter Dissatisfaction [01:46:00]: A significant portion of the population (e.g., 48%) is often dissatisfied with outcomes [01:46:00].
- Lack of Real Control [09:54:00]: Democratic systems are often not fully in control of the state, as power structures exist outside of the democratic process [09:54:00]. The executive branch, in practice, doesn’t function as a true executive but rather as agencies micromanaged by legislative bills [13:50:00].
- Politician Motivation [17:40:00]: The primary job of politicians, especially in Congress, often devolves into fundraising and generating media presence, rather than statesmanship or legislative work [17:40:00]. Bills are often written by lobbyists or activists, not by elected officials themselves [16:40:00].
- Symbolic vs. Objective Reality [03:38:00]: There’s a gap between the symbolic and objective realities of politics. Voters feel a sense of power and importance from democracy, but this feeling is largely negligible in a game-theoretic sense [08:01:00]. The system is described as giving people “what they want good and hard” [06:13:00], echoing H.L. Mencken’s observations [06:09:00].
- Internal Contradictions: The prevailing idea that “democracy is good” but “putting politicians in charge of the government is bad” creates a paradox. This negative characterization of politics dates back to the Progressive Era, a response to the perceived corruption of the Gilded Age [21:00:00].
- Disconnected Steering Linkage [01:11:01]: The system functions as if the wires from voters to power are disconnected, making changes purely symbolic unless power is genuinely restored [19:47:00].
- Weakness and Apathy [01:09:34]: Modern democracy is weak because the population is largely politically deactivated and apathetic [01:09:34]. Voting energy is often driven by a sense of collective fear [01:23:47], where each side aims to hurt the other [01:32:30].
- Illusion of Democracy: Like North Korea calling itself the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” the term “democracy” today primarily serves as a claim to legitimacy rather than an accurate description of governance [01:08:02]. The American system is seen as having been fundamentally altered, with democracy “vanquished” around 1933 when FDR’s personal power grew, marking the beginning of an “oligarchy” that masquerades as democracy [01:25:51].
Proposed Alternatives
Liquid Democracy
The discussion touches upon liquid democracy, a system where individuals can either vote on every issue or delegate their vote to a proxy, often specialized by category (e.g., defense, healthcare) [03:54:00]. The idea is that proxies would recursively move towards experts, collecting the “wisdom of crowds” [04:52:00].
However, a core critique of liquid democracy is that it operates under the unexamined assumption that “democracy is actually in control of the state” [09:49:00]. It is described as a “herbivorous idea” or a “sheep” [00:55:28], not optimized for “contending for power” [01:14:47]. Historically, liquid democracy in practice (e.g., the Pirate Party) often devolves into infighting and lacks articulate leadership, preventing it from effectively gaining or holding power [00:56:00].
Solid Democracy (A Carnivorous Liquid Democracy)
To address the perceived weakness of liquid democracy, a thought experiment for a “solid democracy” is proposed:
- Power Amplification: The goal is to take a large number of people (e.g., 70 million voters) and generate maximum power, turning a “deer into a lion” [00:26:00].
- Irrevocable Delegation: Instead of constantly reversible delegations, the “solid democracy” would lock in a voter’s delegation for a significant period (e.g., four years), or even for life, to guarantee support and allow leaders to act with confidence [00:28:01]. The strength of a bond (like marriage) increases with its irrevocability [00:47:37].
- Centralized Control: Delegated power would be focused on a single point, allowing a leader to act decisively, much like a general leading an army [00:32:34]. This includes delegating not just the power to vote, but the power to participate in the political process [00:49:35].
- Political Mechanism: This system could recruit candidates (e.g., 435 for the House) chosen for their public image, acting as “pretty faces” rather than independent statesmen, with a single, combined staff for the entire party. This enables “extremely tight party discipline” and block voting, maximizing power in a legislature [00:44:55].
- Direct Action: Such a system could enable a leader to mobilize supporters for direct action, such as occupying federal buildings or taking control of government agencies, relying on sheer numbers rather than violence. This demonstrates force and cements a new regime [00:53:53].
Monarchy
The thought experiment of “solid democracy” leads to the conclusion that the ultimate form of democratic power, when optimized for gaining and holding power, resembles a monarchy [01:22:20].
Arguments for Monarchy
- Effective Leadership: Modern corporations, which are highly effective, operate as monarchies with CEOs recruited by search firms for their leadership capacity [01:05:33]. This suggests that concentrated executive power can produce excellent results [01:06:15].
- Historical Precedent: Monarchy is described as the “natural system of government” for a fundamentally apathetic and disengaged population who “just wants to grill” (i.e., live their lives without political interference) [01:12:00]. Historically, the “pre-modern era” saw an alliance of “monarchy and democracy against oligarchy,” with the king and the people united against nobles [01:12:55].
- Overcoming Factionalism: A monarch, like Caesar or Augustus, can be a unifying figure who takes responsibility for the whole state rather than being a “representative” of factions [01:24:53]. The goal is to de-escalate “cold civil war” conflicts by removing the mechanisms that allow parties to hurt each other [01:32:43]. When fear of the “other side” is removed, universal apathy can take hold, and people may question the need for a complex democratic system [01:29:10].
- Efficiency and Order: Monarchy can lead to “efficient government” and reverse “chaos and ruin,” as seen in places like Singapore or Hong Kong (pre-2019) [01:40:57]. The transition from chaos to order can be a “joyous” feeling for the populace [01:19:13].
- Sustainability: Monarchy is seen as a more sustainable system than it appears, often only failing due to external interference from global powers [01:32:46].
- Lessons from History: Figures like Deng Xiaoping in China and Salazar in Portugal are cited as examples of leaders who, after gaining absolute power, used it for the good of their countries, bringing stability and order after periods of turmoil [01:45:57].
Concerns about Monarchy
- Finding the Right Leader: The primary concern is identifying a “philosopher king” and preventing the system from devolving into a “corrupt, nepotistic, inbred” regime [01:05:04].
- Historical Abuse of Power: Recent history provides examples of centralized power leading to totalitarian regimes like Hitler’s, Stalin’s, or Pol Pot’s [01:23:25]. However, it’s argued that these were “wartime regimes” or “anomalies” that emerged in a “global democratic/oligarchic empire,” different from a transition originating from the center [01:41:50].
- Potential for Violence: Despite the claims of peaceful transition, the idea of a powerful leader backed by a potentially armed populace raises concerns about violence and the imposition of will [01:16:02].
Ultimately, while the current American institutional structure is seen as broken, leading to polarization and a “cold civil war” [01:15:05], the idea of a monarchy remains a contentious alternative, with the host concluding that while the discussion was intriguing, he was “not convinced” [01:49:06].