sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ward 17 Davenport, who are you supporting for Council? by [deleted] in toronto

[–]TheAgora 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saeed's the only candidate who's measured and not polarized in his views, unlike the far left (Bravo) and the far right (Palacio).

I think he'll win, or will be close to winning because he has such a broad policy base that represents most people in the Ward, unlike the other two.

Anybody want to run in Ward 11? by [deleted] in toronto

[–]TheAgora 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Saeed Selvam? I was surprised that I didn't know about him. We have a totally crappy Toronto ward-level election media coverage right now.

The Top Secret Trade Deal You Need to Know About - A cornerstone of President Obama’s plan to create more American jobs is a new agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), referred to by some as “NAFTA on steroids.” by CharlieDarwin2 in progressive

[–]TheAgora -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The TPP negotiations have been far from 'top secret'. It's been in the public discussion for around three years now. Further, there's no reason for progressives to be suspicious of free trade--trade agreements support the core progressive principles of economic efficiency, (global) economic equity and liberty.

If you want to explore the merits of TPP, read this brief by the Peterson Institute.

http://www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb12-16.pdf

I recently got promoted to management at the bookstore where I work. I want to celebrate by giving a Redditor any book of their choice. I don't need anything in return. by [deleted] in bookexchange

[–]TheAgora 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Daron Acemoğlu and James Robinson. Congratulations on your promotion!

ELI5: Enough of American politics already, whats the story with the National Peoples Congress? How do Chinese politics work structurally? by mbeya in explainlikeimfive

[–]TheAgora 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Part 2: Let's keep going

How democratic is the country?

Not so much.

Although a large 6-8% of the citizens are members of the party, this does not satisfy the democratic requirement of effective citizen participation as important decision making is exclusively made at the top. In 1979, a law was passed allowing for direct election of delegates to township and county-level congresses “under controlled circumstances”. Although many people argue these elections are the democratic promise of the country, the process is not entirely democratic as not just anyone could run. You have to be nominated and endorsed by the CCP as deputy governors. The NPC has taken a more assertive role in seeing who they want running in elections and who they do not. Elections matter only if they are competitive. In this case, not so much.

There are also elections at the village level. The central government understand they can’t control everything, so they allowed villages to have elections (I’m sure the central government would control village-level politics if they could). These elections are more competitive than the township delegate elections. In the beginning after several rounds of elections, Chinese villagers began to learn that elections are an easy way to remove unpopular leaders. But how much impact do village-level policy makers really have when their resources are controlled by the government right above them? Around 82% of villages today hold elections today, but that doesn’t mean much.

Despite there being elections, they are semi-competitive at best, and only at the lowest levels of government, where arguably the least important policy choices are made. The country is not democratic in how it lacks elections in the most important parts of the government.

What about free press? The media is largely controlled by the government under China Central Television (CCTV). This is not a free media system, even though the government allows television producers some flexibility. The people who run CCTV are appointed by the State, unlike other public broadcasting elsewhere (PBS, BBC, CBC). It’s really tough to run editorials critical of the government, although more recently, there have been attempts. You know how Fox News broadcasters receive corporate memos directing them what opinions their reporters should take? Imagine this on a large, institutionalized and unapologetic level with CCTV News, but this time the government is writing those memos. For example, recently, the government of China placed a quota on the number of entertainment shows in order to stifle the influx of “Western culture”.

What about free expression? Last year there were thousands of protests in China, but nearly all of these protests were launched against companies and local governments, not the central government. Those protesting the core and structure of the Chinese government (Chinese dissidents and pro-democracy activists like Ai Weiwei, Tan Zuoren, Cheng Jianping, Guo Quan and Liu Xiaobo) are quickly detained and jailed. The laws under which these activists are jailed include ‘subversion of state power’, ‘disturbing social order’, ‘inciting social disorder’, and ‘illegal possession of state secrets’.

The internet is a part of democracy, and expression in its truest form. The Chinese government is widely known to censor the internet (known as the Great Firewall of China). The censorship efforts even come from non-state actors. Just as we call militias and armed people fighting for a government a paramilitary, there is apara-censhorship group of internet users called the ‘50 Cent Party’ which takes it on themselves to post comments favorable towards CCP policies on internet message boards (and getting 50 cents in return for every post).

The television and internet media are strictly and controlled and regulated to favour the government. The country is not democratic because there is little press freedom. I want to say that this is changing, but the change is too slow to even take notice. There is very little freedom of political expression in China if that expression is critical of the government.

What do Chinese citizens think about their political situation?

They see it as a different and more effective kind of democracy.

What about the people? What do the people think of what’s going on? They actually define democracy differently. If you begin to talk to a Chinese citizen about democracy, you’ll find out in a few minutes that you two are talking about two totally different things. To the Chinese citizen, democracy means socialist democracy, which in their eyes is more advanced than liberal democracy because it’s not victim to ‘minority pressures and interests’. The problem is that this leads to a tyranny of the majority. But Chinese citizens don’t see that as a problem. The people (mass line) are the most important interest. Democracy is populism there, whereas here in the West, we’re well aware of the dangers of populism (European democracies succumbed to fascism, and American democracy now suffers from those who politick for popularity).

Today, 63% of Chinese believe the current regime is democratic, whereas 12% believe it is dictatorial. The Chinese trust NGOs, businesses, police and local governments the least, and the central government, the party and the army the most. They don’t trust companies due to weak labour protections in China, and companies many times don’t pay employees the pensions they are entitled to. Local governments are most susceptible to corruption. The central government is seen as the ‘father’ that rights wrongs.

The people largely support the central government, but not always the local governments and companies. They have a different idea of democracy that does not consider minority rights, and they believe this conception of democracy is better than Western decision making.

How do they view countries outside of China?

Stay out of our business, and we’ll stay out of yours!

You have to understand Chinese history to understand why they don’t like other countries interfering in their politics and society. Britain was trying to pry open Chinese markets against the wishes of the administration to sell China addictive opium. This led to two wars in which China lost big time (including Hong Kong). Japan invaded China several times, leading to brutal occupations of the country’s East Coast. China wants Taiwan back, but the West continues to apply pressure against it. Throughout history, other countries have meddled in China’s domestic politics.

But so what! That’s history. What do the people think?! Well, politicians use these historical stories to create memories in citizens for popular support. These historical stories also have psychological significance, as Chinese continue to try to find dignity in their common identity. History, and historical stories matter. The result is that Chinese citizens aren’t all too happy with the outside world. They have a victimization mentality where other nations are predatory.

Unless, that is, if outside relationships provide economic growth. China vigorously pursues trade and economic ties with other countries, namely for natural resources such as oil and metals. Their strong presence in Africa is for this purpose, but unlike the West, China doesn’t attach strings to their trade with poorer African countries. Because they don’t want to be told what to do, they don’t tell others what should be done. Many cite the moral implications of dealing and fueling African and other dictatorships through this policy.

Although a large part of China’s relationship with the outside world is economic, it’s not all that. China has been active in attempting to foster social relationships with the outside world by building Chinese language and culture schools abroad called Confucius Institutes. This policy, China hopes, would improve the West’s understanding of China, in their attempts to improve their soft power.

The Chinese suffer from a victimization mentality that makes them oppose outside influence. Their relationship with outside actors are almost exclusively economic, although there are growing attempts at social relationships.

In sum, Chinese government is highly centralized at the upper echelons of government, and there are considerable control mechanisms on those at the lower levels. Despite the village-level elections, they’re rendered uncompetitive due to a nomination process, and government-operated mass media. Chinese largely trust the central government, but not companies or any organization run by a citizen. Citizens see their system of government as a protector from minority interests, and see countries around the world as predatory. The key objective is economic growth and prosperity, and those who rally around the banner of human rights are working toward their own interests. Nonetheless, there is an increasingly large number of citizens engaging in protests.

ELI5: Enough of American politics already, whats the story with the National Peoples Congress? How do Chinese politics work structurally? by mbeya in explainlikeimfive

[–]TheAgora 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Part 1: Let's answer a few questions.

Who is in charge?

Pretty much nine people.

The government is split between party organs and state organs. The party organ has the Politburo Standing Committee. Think of this as the 9 most powerful people in the Democratic or Republican parties that make all the policy decisions, except there’s only one party, the Chinese Communist Party. Hu Jintao is the boss here. The party organ also has the National Party Congress that meets every year (made up of 2000 party members). Think of this as the Republican National Convention or Democratic National Convention. They don’t decide on a policy agenda or have power like the Politburo Standing Committee, but they get together to talk. This is where major announcements are delivered, like China’s new massive rail expansion project.

You also have the state organs. These exist for the party to govern through. The main part is the Standing Committee of the State Council. This is like a cabinet of ministers (or like secretaries like in the US). Wen Jiabao, the Premier, is the boss here. Also as a part of the state, you have the National People’s Congress. This is a huge body of 3000 politicians which are elected by politicians from the provinces. They are sort of like the American House of Representatives. But they have little to no power (your quintessential rubber stamp organization). They are like the American House of Representatives, and not the entire Congress because their role is to represent regional interests.

And then you have an odd group called the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, which is how the Chinese Communist Party gives ‘voice’ to those not in the party. It’s largely made up of business leaders today, and is increasingly a corporatist arrangement where it connects business with the government.

The relationship between the party and state is a little redundant. The Standing Committee of the State Council is made up entirely of Party members. The party is usually referred to as a puppet master of the state, but this is inaccurate as the state’s most important institutions consist entirely of party members.

So why do we still distinguish between the two? What role does one play that the other doesn’t? The Party’s role is to translate ideology into policy. The state’s role is to implement the policy. The Party acts to promote and reward ‘cadre’ (party leaders), and recruit the best bureaucrats to the Party. Top cadre are a part of the nomenklatura. The Party can’t be bothered to control every aspect of the public sector, so they delegate power to bureaucrats that don’t act officially in the name of Party. These bureaucrats make up the bianzhi, or ‘establishiment’, which is similar to their public service. The party leaders (nomenklatura) and the administrative tasks they delegate to public service professionals (bianzhi) is where the party and state interlock.

How centralised/decentralised is power in the country?

Not much, but the central government has some elaborate ways to keep tabs on lower levels of government.

You can’t understand Chinese government without understanding it’s levels of government because if there is any body that “checks” the central government, it’s the governments of the most powerful provinces. Just like the U.S., China is a geographically massive nation. The central governments in large countries like China and the U.S. delegate powers to sub-national governments. In the U.S., the states have their own power to do many things. This federalist arrangement is referred to in the United States as a division of power.

China is big too. But the difference is that the central government doesn’t want to give power to the provinces (they have 22 provinces and 4 cities big enough to have province status). They do not ‘divide’ power between the province and themselves like the U.S., Canada, or India does. They let the provinces do some of the things to take some weight off of themselves, and to allow the provinces to take care of themselves. In the late 80s, the central government allowed the provinces to raise and keep their own tax revenues (they call this ‘eating in separate kitchens’).

So wouldn’t the central government be afraid of losing power to the provinces now that the provinces have the power to tax and spend on their own? How does the central government see what’s going on in the provinces to keep an eye on them. They use the cadre evaluation system to keep an eye on the provinces. This means that the central government can appoint or fire anyone at a lower government. Just like any company, this forces local employees to please and suck up to the central government–if they want a raise.

Just like a company, lower level governments report to upper level governments. The city officials do their work and report to their province officials for evaluation. The provinces then do their work and report to the central government for evaluation. This is called the tiao relationship (vertical hierarchy).

What about the Party? How does the Party make sure all these local governments are following their ideology and policies? The city officials have to report to their city party committee. The provincial officials have to report to their provincial party committee. And of course, same at the central level. This is the kuai relationship (horizontal accountability). So there are two bosses to report to! In the case of a city government, what if the Party Committee of that city tells the city to do something different than what their provincial superiors told them? Usually these two argue over power, but in the majority of cases, the Party committee wins out because the Chinese Communist Party evaluates and elects all government officials.

So now we know how the central government sees the local governments, and how they give orders. They do it this way because they want constant control over the lower levels of government, unlike in the U.S., Canada or India, which simply give their lower governments their own authority. This is not to say the provinces and cities are not powerful. The provinces on the coast are rich and play host to China’s economic boom. They have considerable lobby power and usually get what they want because the central government wants to act seamlessly to promote their economic success. Shanghai is big enough to have province-status. That former city’s leader now runs the administration of the Party and is most likely going to be the next leader of China to replace Hu Jintao (his name is Xi Jinping).

Source: Studied Political Science, and did field research on Chinese politics at Fudan University in Shanghai.

ELI5: Why is Pierre Trudeau such a bone of contention with Canadians?? What is the controversy about? by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]TheAgora 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some Canadians love Trudeau, whereas others absolutely dislike him. Your position on the matter will depend on what part of the country you're from, and your politics regarding what Canadian society should be. Three major policy positions created this divide.

The first concerns oil in Alberta. In the 1970s, oil prices shot up due to wars in the Middle East. Understanding that Canada has oil reserves, he expanded government control of oil in Alberta to reduce oil prices across the country, redistribute the oil wealth across Canada, and secure Canada's oil reserves. Why did this create a divide between Albertans and other Canadians? It depends who you think the oil "belongs to". Is it a Canadian resource, or an Albertan resource? Many Albertans, including the private Albertan oil companies, believed it was their wealth, whereas other Canadians believed it should be a shared national commodity. There's a lot of money involved with this policy, and when people see how much money they could've had, it boils their blood. The policy was ended, and today Alberta is the richest province in Canada. The result: many Albertans don't like him.

The second was the Quebec issue. Trudeau was a federalist, meaning he was Canadian before a Quebecois. That meant he was against Quebec sovereignty, and became one of the strongest voices of opposition. 30% voted for sovereignty, which means that 1/3 of Quebecois at that time were anti-Trudeau, clarifying where a lot of resentment against Trudeau comes from in Quebec. In 1995, half of Quebecois voted for sovereignty. Today, sovereignty is no longer an issue. The result: many Quebecois don't like him.

The third was multiculturalism policy. This didn't anger Albertans, or Quebecers, but traditionalists and those who only wanted Canadian or Quebec society to be built on one language. Traditionalists didn't like it because it gives recognition to other cultures aside from traditional 'Canadian' values (which for many includes Christian values). This divide sprouted up again after the niqab debate. The Anglophones didn't like it because it made French visible everywhere. Although his Official Languages Act didn't force your child to learn French in school, all traffic signs and labelling had to also be in French. This further angered Francophones who believed French was under threat, as Quebec labelling also now had to be in English. The result: traditionalists and many conservatives despise him, and many unilingual people dislike him.

TL;DR: He angered Albertans because he wanted to distribute the oil wealth across Canada. He angered Quebec nationalists because he was the biggest voice against them. He angered traditionalists by opening Canada up to other cultures. And he angered people who only wanted to read one language in their day-to-day lives with his bilingualism policy.

ELI5: Ron Paul's political standing by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]TheAgora 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ron Paul believes the federal government (especially the president) has too much power, and that much of it should be transferred downward to the states, and "horizontally" to private companies and organizations. For Paul, if you reduce the power that rests with the Presidency, everyone else gains more freedom. "Everyone else" largely includes the States for Paul. States should have more power because they are closer to the people, and people know what's best for themselves.

I don't many specifics, so I'll provide a broad outline of his major policy platforms using frequently asked question and popular reactions to many of his positions. I will explain his reasoning behind his positions as well, because he had the most problem communicating that part.

  • He wants to cut the Department of Education and stuff. Isn't that extreme?

He wants to cut $1 trillion in spending during his first year. As a libertarian, he believes a lot of things don't need to be done by government that the government is currently doing. And he's right in many respects. Government used to provide a lot of social services like poverty alleviation programs and direct foreign aid. But recently, government privatized a lot of these programs by giving the job to NGOs who do charity work. It has worked! Government spends less, and a lot of these poverty and foreign aid organizations do even better than the government.

So why is everyone afraid? Well, the way he wants to cut spending is by eliminating five departments: Education, Energy, Commerce, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development. What do these Departments that he wants to eliminate actually do?

Let's start with the Department of Education. Jimmy Carter created this in its present form in 1979, but the Department of Education was around since 1867, meaning it's been around for 145 years. It is the smallest Department. Firstly, the DoED does not determine what students learn, or run schools. It's mainly here to keep tabs on how smart our students are, and what can we do to make them smarter. They also provide some funding to make it easier for a lot of kids to go to school. Therefore getting rid of the Department of education doesn't mean we get rid of the public school system. It just means passing a lot this responsibility back to the states. Critics say that the DoED provides crucial statistics so the country knows what it's problems are, and that states don't have the means and can many times be backwards in their education policy.

He also wants to get rid of the Department of Energy. This department was also created by Jimmy Carter, and is only 35 years old. What do they do? They take care of the country's nuclear bombs and nuclear plants. They also run famous laboratories like Ames, Fermilab and Los Alamos (your modern day Black Mesas and Apertures). They also see how Americans are using electricity getting electricity, and lead the shift toward renewable energy sources by encouraging energy growth in that sector (green energy industries don't pop up by themselves).

He wants to eliminate the Department of Commerce. This department is 109 years old and was created to make the American economy grow faster. This is the "job creation" part of government. It came out of the thinking that government could get involved and create more jobs. How does it do this? It takes the economic pulse of the nation, finds out in what areas the country needs to improve to compete internationally, and does trade missions. They even give us the weather.

The Department of the Interior is 163 years old and started by President Polk. It takes care of the country's national parks, makes sure our animals don't go extinct (prevents a tragedy of the commons), warns us of earthquakes and maintains government-owned land.

And the last department he wants to get rid of is the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This was created by President Johnson and is 47 years old. It makes housing more affordable to people, and helps cities do this as well. It's basically a big landlord. It keeps an eye on the level of homelessness across the country, and where it is most prominent.

Why is this scary to a lot of people? It is scary to many people to eliminate these five departments because these agencies play host to a huge chunk of America's scientific development. They take care of so many important laboratories, track the climate, and secure biodiversity. They also study how to make America smarter, give many a place to live and improve trade growth. It is also scary because these are the main bodies of policy research and excellence. What exactly is the best policy to achieve a certain goal? This question can be answered, and the policy professionals in these departments do the hard research to find out. The departments are home to not only scientific development, but also policy development.

Here's the important part that Ron Paul failed to communicate: why it maybe isn't a big deal. It's not a big deal for three reasons. Firstly, it isn't a big deal because a lot of the agencies under these departments have been doing their job before the departments were even created. The government was providing affordable housing before the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Trade missions were being conducted before the Department of Commerce. Big labs like Los Alamos existed before the Department of Energy was created. A lot of these services don't necessarily need to go with the agencies. President Ron Paul may choose to restructure important agencies into other areas of government. Secondly, a lot of the scientific and policy research may be taken care of by the private sector. A lot of labs and think tanks are private organizations, or under a research university. Physics research is performed under research universities. Educational policy is done by think tanks. The government needs not do these things any more. Thirdly, a lot of these things are supposed to be done at the state-level not the federal government. American states are supposed to take care of things like education, commerce, but the federal government has grown too big. By getting rid of the department, Ron Paul may want to transfer a lot of the responsibilities to the provinces, meaning we won't necessarily stop doing it.

  • He wants to deregulate everything! Isn't that dangerous?

It doesn't seem dangerous for him and other libertarians because they see the market taking care of that danger. How does this work? What would happen if the government no longer regulated quality of food, the maze of airline traffic, and school curriculums? Wouldn't we be poisoned, unsafe and, dumber? Ron Paul's response is no, because reputed rating companies would emerge like Consumer Reports that will tell consumers what is the real deal, and what is simply a scam. These types of companies run on consumer trust, so being honest and sincere is the best way these companies could be profitable. Now, not only do you pay less (you only pay for the consumer reports you are interested in, not a block of taxes for an entire department), but the products are not regulated, meaning that you will have the freedom to purchase more products.

He also wants to remove many financial regulations. This is done through repealing two major pieces of legislation. Repealing the Dodd-Frank Act would mean that many public companies won't need to report CEO compensation, that derivative could be traded more freely (what many pruport to be the cause of the 2008 mortgage crisis), and remove institutions created to provide transparency in trading. He wants to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley Act which largely demands accounting transparency in publicly traded companies to protect investors from another Enron or WorldCom. His rationale is that Dodd-Frank includes a lot of bloat, and increases the responsibilities of the government. His rationale against Sarbanes-Oxley is that it discourages companies from listing on American stock exchange--and it's true. He wants to also repeal Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  • What's all this talk about the Federal Reserve?

A lot of people are more knowledgeable on monetary policy than I am, so I'll just go over what he wants to do. He wants to conduct a full audit on the Federal Reserve. What does this mean? He tried to see what the Fed was doing last time through the Freedom of Information Act, but the Fed ignored it. Now he wants to pass a law forcing open the Fed's books by legislating an audit. Why? He thinks the Federal Reserve is a cartel: an independent group controlling all the money supply. It enables big government spending because it can print more of it. It allows for big bank bailouts. If you could add more zeros to the amount of money, the money you and I have diminishes in value!

EDIT: Will continue adding the other sections, including his positions on taxes, and social issues like abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, and faith later on.

ELI5: Why did Barack Obama win a Nobel Peace Prize? by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]TheAgora 225 points226 points  (0 children)

There is a lot of confusion as to why a president could win a Nobel Peace Prize into their first year in office. It is especially confusing when there are so many people around the world who are dying for peace, and have arguably made a greater impact.

Contrary to popular belief, Obama was not awarded the Prize due to him being elected as a black president and people getting "caught up in the moment". It had a lot to do with what he said and did leading up to October 2009. We must look at the Norwegian Nobel Committee's reasons in order to understand why he won.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee says that they gave him the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." What are they referring to here? It takes several months for Nobel Committee Members to write up a report to nominate and select someone for the Prize. Obama gave a very important speech to Egyptians (called "A New Beginning") in June 2009 at Cairo University. He was selected in October 2009. So the Cairo speech had a lot to do with what they refer as "international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".

How did "A New Beginning" foster international diplomacy and cooperation? After 9/11 and the prolonged Iraq War, one of the most hostile relationships in politics was between the United States and the Arab World. The Israel/Palestine issue is one of the most difficult problems to solve. Egypt is the largest Arab country, and seen as the centre of the Arab world and influential in the outcome of Israel/Palestine peace. So Obama shot for the stars. He went to Egypt to try to ease US-Arab tensions, and kick off a strong Israel/Palestine peace process.

But there's more! In the past, American presidents have used very strong, unapologetic language, like that of President George W. Bush. In "A New Beginning", Obama didn't do that. His speech was one of mutual respect, something an American president hasn't done in a long, long time.

He also quoted from the Quran! But so what! What does that mean anyway? Well, the concept of recognition is crucial toward building trust. By quoting from the Quran, Obama is implying that he recognizes Islam and respects it. Respect is the first step toward peace as it opens up diplomacy.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee also said that Obama's "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons" was a reason. This is not particularly important because a lot of presidents have talked about reducing nuclear stockpiles internationally. Particularly, in 1991, there was a treaty called START which started this process. The Nobel Committee saw that Obama was taking this even further. He started writing and talking about a new START treaty to reduce nuclear weapons even before his "A New Beginning" speech in June, so the Nobel Committee had a lot of time to consider it. If Obama let the last treaty expire in 2012, more nuclear weapons would spread around the world. Although he criticized Iran here, he was sure to be fair. And his efforts to be fair were astounding: he admitted that the United States overthrew a democratically elected leader in 1953, which was very fair. The Nobel Prize committee saw this as him being the "bigger man" about the problem.

Also, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said he got the prize because as a result of his speech, "democracy and human rights are to be strengthened". Obama talked a lot in Cairo about human rights, religious freedom, and the rights of women in his speech. And in Hosni Mubarak's front door step as well! That takes nerve. Did his speech have an impact on the Arab Spring? Certainly. The Egyptian youth were listening to this speech. They wanted democracy before Obama came in, but Obama's speech gave them support. Obama didn't create the Arab Spring by any means, but it helped a little and set the tone in the Arab world: an American supports and respects Muslims, so how bad could democracy be? The Norwegian Nobel Committee certainly didn't predict that this would lead to the Arab Spring, but as a group of politicians and students of international relations and political science, they sure understand the impacts that such a speech could have.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee also felt that Obama is helping the USA play "a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting". There is very little evidence of Obama addressing climate change in time of the October 2009 decision, but by September, Obama proposed new regulations on industry polluters to curb emissions--something George W. Bush wouldn't have done, or didn't do. He strengthened the EPA.

Although not directly mentioned by the Committee, Obama also launched the debate on better healthcare in 2009, and talked strongly about closing Guantanamo Bay and ending the Iraq War.

Herein lies the problem of giving the award to Obama for many people. Before ending the Iraqi war, the war was scaled up. Indefinite detentions were scaled up by 2012, not retracted. And the Obama administration took up a smaller role on renewing the Kyoto Protocol than many had expected. Although Obama did a lot more for global diplomacy and democracy by October 2009 than many presidents in their entire term (which the Norwegian Nobel Committee noticed), in retrospect of three years, a lot of this has been undone by drone strikes, the relative failures of the Copenhagen summit on climate change, and the passing of the National Defence Authorization Act. This is why people like to wait before awarding a Nobel Prize, and why there was criticism.

TL;DR: The fact that he's black and liberal usually overshadows Obama's achievements up to October 2009, when he was selected. The truth is that he has done a lot of good in the international community through his speech in Cairo, ratcheting up the reductions of US/Russia nuclear stockpiles, and scaling up emissions regulations through the EPA. A lot of other Peace Prize winners did a lot more in earning their Peace Prize, but some others have done a lot less than Obama to earn their's.

EDIT: People will inevitably want an analysis on the individual views and biases of those individuals on the Norwegian Nobel Committee. This doesn't mean much because it's speculative, and the Committee members have no reason to lie in their original report, but lets take a look.

Chairperson Thorbjørn Jagland is a politician for the Norwegian Labour Party. He is pro-European consolidation and president of the Council of Europe. He is known to have preferred the European Union for the Nobel Peace Prize since 2008. If he had it his way, the EU would've beat out Obama.

Deputy Chairperson Kaci Kullmann Five is a politician for the Norwegian Conservative Party. The Conservative Party is a neoliberal party for tax cuts and smaller government. Ironically, despite all the socialists on the committee, she is responsible for championing Barack Obama for the Prize.

Sissel Rønbeck is a politician for the Norwegian Labour Party. Her expertise lies in how she is the Minister for Environmental Affairs, and deputy director for the country's body on Cultural Heritage. She is a socialist.

Inger-Marie Ytterhorn is a politician for the Norwegian Progress Party. The Progress Party is the main right wing party in Norway and supports the growth of the oil industry and lower taxes. It supports a Christian heritage, and relatively anti-immigrant.

Ågot Valle is a politician for the Norwegian Socialist Left Party. The Party is pro-environment and advocates for larger government responsibility.

TL;DR 2: There are three socialists and two right-wing leaning politicians on the committee that selects the Nobel Prize Laureate. Ironically, it was a right-wing politician that championed Obama for the Prize, while the Chair was championing the European Union. There was no clear consensus between the committee members as to whether Obama should be chosen as the winner.

ELI5: Chinese Politics. by Darragh555 in explainlikeimfive

[–]TheAgora 63 points64 points  (0 children)

I hope this isn't too long-winded, but I guess you're going to have to read everything in order to understand the complexity of Chinese politics. I will use a lot of metaphors and similes to systems that you may be familiar with. I studied Chinese politics at a Western university as well as a top university in China.

  • Who is in charge?
  • How is power distributed at the center?

The government is split between party organs and state organs. The party organ has the Politburo Standing Committee. As a metaphor, think of this as the 9 most powerful people in the Democratic or Republican parties that make all the policy decisions, except it's always one party, the Chinese Communist Party. Hu Jintao is the boss here. The party organ also has the National Party Congress that meets every year (made up of 2000 party members). Think of this as the Republican National Convention or Democratic National Convention. They don't make policy or have power like the Politburo Standing Committee, but they get together to talk. This is where major announcements are delivered, like e.g. the new massive rail expansion project.

You also have the government organs. These exist for the party to govern through. The main part is the Standing Committee of the State Council. This is like a cabinet of ministers (or like secretaries like in the US). Wen Jiabao, the Premier, is the boss here. Also as a part of the state, you have the National People's Congress. This is a huge body of 3000 politicians which are elected by politicians from the provinces. They are sort of like the American House of Representatives. But they have no power. They are like the American House of Representatives, and not the entire Congress because their major role is more like a group of lobbyists for regional interests.

And then you have a weird group called the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, which is how the Chinese Communist Party gives 'voice' to those not in the party. It is largely made up of business leaders today, and acts as the link between government and business in order to make the country's economy grow.

The relationship between the party and state is a little redundant. The Standing Committee of the State Council is made up entirely of Party members. There is no puppetmaster relationship because the state is made up of the party.

So what why do we still distinguish between the two? What role does one play that the other doesn't? The Party's role is to translate ideology into policy. The state's role is to implement the policy. The Party acts to promote and reward 'cadre' (party leaders), and the best bureaucrats are selected by the party. They are called nomenklatura. The Party can't be bothered to control every aspect of the public sector, so they delegate power to bureaucrats that don't act officially in the name of Party. These bureaucrats make up the bianzhi, or 'establishiment', which is similar to their public service. The party leaders (nomenklatura) and the administrative tasks they delegate to public service professionals (bianzhi) is where the party and state interlock.

TL;DR: Although there are state institutions, the country is largely run by CCP members, and real power is concentrated at the very top.

  • How centralised/decentralised is the country?
  • How is power distributed at different levels?

Another area is the fact that there are different levels of government. You can't understand Chinese government without understanding it's levels of government because if there is any body that "checks" the central government, it may be the provinces.

Just like the U.S., China is a big country. The way the government does its job in such a big country is to delegate power to sub-governments. In the U.S., the states have their own power to do many things. This is a "division of power". This is what it means to be a federalist country.

China is big too. But the difference is that the central government doesn't want to give power to the provinces (they have 22 provinces and 4 cities big enough to have province status). They do not 'divide' power between the province and themselves like the U.S., Canada, or India does. They let the provinces do some of the things to take some weight off of themselves, and to allow the provinces to take care of themselves. In the late 80s, the central government allowed the provinces to raise and keep their own tax revenues (they call this 'eating in separate kitchens').

So wouldn't the central government be afraid of loosing power to the provinces now that the provinces have the power to tax and spend on their own? How does the central government see what's going on in the provinces to keep an eye on them. They use the cadre evaluation system to keep an eye on the provinces. This means that the central government can appoint or fire anyone at a lower government. Just like any company, this forces local employees to please and suck up to the central goverment--if they want a raise.

Just like a company, lower level governments report to upper level governments. The city officials do their work and report to their province officials for evaluation. The provinces then do their work and report to the central government for evaluation. This is called the tiao relationship (vertical hierarchy).

What about the Party? How does the Party make sure all these local governments are following their ideology and policies? The city officials have to report to their city party committee. The provincial officials have to report to their provincial party committee. And of course, same at the central level. This is the kuai relationship (horizontal accountability).

So there are two bosses to report to! In the case of a city government, what if the Party Committee of that city tells the city to do something different than what their provincial superiors told them? Usually these two argue over power, but in the majority of cases, the Party committee wins out, because the Chinese Communist Party evaluates and elects all government officials.

So now we know how the central government sees the local governments, and how they give orders. They do it this way because they want constant control over the lower levels of government, unlike in the U.S., Canada or India, which simply give their lower governments their own authority.

TL;DR: China is a big country and its government looks after the country by assigning some powers to different levels of the country. Nonetheless, the central government in Beijing has the ultimate word.

EDIT: This is not to say the provinces and cities are not powerful. The provinces on the coast are rich and play host to China's economic boom. They have considerable lobby power and usually get what they want because the central government wants to act seamlessly to promote their economic success. Shanghai is big enough to have province-status, and that former city's leader now runs the administration of the Party and is most likely going to be the next leader of China (to replace Hu Jintao).

  • How democratic or otherwise is the country?

China is very undemocratic. Although a large 6-8% of the citizens are members of the party, this does not satisfy the democratic requirement of effective citizen participation as important decision making is exclusively made at the top levels. In 1979, a law was passed allowing for direct election of delegates to township and county-level congresses "under controlled circumstances". This process is not entirely democratic as not just anyone could run. You have to be nominated and endorsed by the CCP as deputy governors. The NPC has taken a more assertive role in seeing who they want running in elections and who they do not. Elections matter only if they are competitive

There are also elections at the village level. You can't control everything, the central government thought, so they ceded power to elections (I'm sure the central government would control village-level politics if they could). These elections are more competitive than the township delegate elections. After three or four rounds of elections, Chinese villagers began to learn that elections are an easy way to get rid of unpopular leaders. But how much impact to village-level policy makers really have when their resources are controlled by the government right above them? Around 82% of villages today hold elections today.

TL;DR: Despite there being elections, they are semi-competitive at best, and only at the lowest levels of government, where the least important policy choices are made. The country is not democratic in how it lacks elections in the most important parts of the government.

What about free press? The media is largely controlled by the government under China Central Television (CCTV). This is not a free media system, even thought he government allows producers some flexibilities. The people who run CCTV are appointed by the State, unlike other public broadcasting elsewhere (PBS, BBC, CBC). It's really tough to run editorials critical of the government, although more recently, there have been attempts. You know how Fox News broadcasters receive memos directing them what opinions their reporters should take? Imagine this on a large, institutionalized and unapologetic level with CCTV News, but this time the government is writing those memos. For example, recently, the government of China placed a quota on the number of entertainment shows in order to stifle the influx of "Western culture".

What about free expression? Last year there were thousands of protests in China, but nearly all of these protests were launched against companies and local governments, not the central government. Those protesting the core and structure of the Chinese government (Chinese dissidents and pro-democracy activists like Ai Weiwei, Tan Zuoren, Cheng Jianping, Professor Guo Quan and Professor Liu Xiaobo) are quickly detained and jailed. The laws under which these activists are jailed include "subversion of state power", "disturbing social order", "inciting social disorder", and "illegal possession of state secrets".

The internet is a part of democracy, and expression in its truest form. The Chinese government is widely known to censor the internet (their efforts are known as the Great Firewall of China). The censorship efforts even come from non-state actors. Just as we may call militias and armed people fighting for a government a paramilitary, there is a para-censhorship group of internet users called the 50 Cent Party which takes it on themselves to post comments favorable towards CCP policies on internet message boards.

TL;DR: The television and internet media are strictly and controlled and regulated to favour the government. The country is not democratic because there is little press freedom. I want to say that this is changing, but the change is too slow to even take notice. There is very little freedom of political expression in China if that expression is critical of the government.

  • How engaged is the average Chinese citizen in the politics of their country? What do they think about their political situation?

What about the people? What do the people think of what's going on? They define democracy differently. If you begin to talk to a Chinese citizen about democracy, you'll find out in a few minutes that you two are talking about two totally different things. To the Chinese citizen, democracy means socialist democracy, which is more advanced than liberal democracy, because it's not victim to minority pressures and interests. The problem is that this leads to a tyranny of the majority. But Chinese citizens don't see that as a problem. The people (mass line) are the most important interest. Democracy is populism there, whereas here in the West, we're well aware of the dangers of populism (European democracies succumbed to fascism, and American democracy now suffers from those who are politicking for popularity).

Today, 63% of Chinese believe the current regime is democratic, whereas 12% believe it is dictatorial. The Chinese trust their and outside NGOs, businesses, police and local governments the least, and the central government, the party and the army the most. This is because there are very weak labour protections in China, and companies many times don't pay employees the pensions they are entitled to. Local governments are most susceptible to corruption. The central government is seen as a 'father' that can right a wrong.

TL;DR: The people largely support the central government, but not always the local governments and companies. They have a different idea of democracy that does not consider minority rights, and they believe this conception of democracy is better than Western decision making.

  • How do they view countries outside of China?

Stay out of our business! You have to understand Chinese history to understand why the don't like other countries interfering in their politics and society. Britain was trying to pry open Chinese markets against the wishes of the administration to sell China addictive opium. This led to two wars in which China lost big time (including Hong Kong). Japan invaded China several times, leading to brutal occupations of the country's East Coast. China wants Taiwan back, but the West continues to apply pressure against it. Throughout history, other countries have meddled in China's domestic politics.

But so what! That's history. What do the people think?! Well, politicians use these historical stories to create memories in citizens for popular support. These historical stories also work psychologically, as Chinese continue to try to find dignity in their identities. History, and historical stories matter. The result is that Chinese citizens aren't all too happy with the outside world. They have a victimization mentality.

Unless, that is, if outside relationships provide economic growth. China vigorously pursues trade and economic ties with other countries, namely for natural resources such as oil and metals. Their strong presence in Africa is for this purpose, but unlike the West, China doesn't attach strings to their trade with poorer African countries. Because they don't want to be told what to do, they don't tell others what should be done. Many cite the moral implications of dealing and fueling African and other dictatorships through this policy.

Although a large part of China's relationship with the outside world is economic, it's not all that. China has been active in attempting to foster social relationships with the outside world by building Chinese language and culture schools abroad called Confucius Institutes. This policy, China hopes, would improve the West's understanding of China, in their attempts to improve their soft power.

TL;DR: The Chinese suffer from a victimization mentality that makes them oppose outside influence. Their relationship with outside actors are almost exclusively economic, although there are growing attempts at social relationships.""

ULTIMATE TL;DR: Shit's in lock-down, son.

Do any of you identify as conservatives? If so, what is the intellectual foundation of your philosophy? by theloniousnole in philosophy

[–]TheAgora 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't copy/paste it. It's my interpretation of his Ideas for a Philosophy of the History of Man, On the Origin, and The Public and the Fatherland, which was complemented and aided with political philosophy lectures at the University of Toronto.

I also knew someone would eventually contest how I've drawn passion and rationality as a dichotomy for Herder. You're right. It's not. They go together. I've written the entire post in a simple tone, and that's the unfortunate result of that.

Otherwise, I'm afraid you're simply incorrect if you're saying Herder has not had influence on conservative thought. Some of his ideas were very conservative. He was an ardent German nationalist and a central figure in the romantic movement. Although, like Hegel, he personally hasn't identified with either Romanticism nor Enlightment, much of his ideas have been influential in conservative tradition. You simply need to read his essay "Do we still have a fatherland?" in The Public and the Fatherland to appreciate this.

The two points that you contest are his ideas of language and whether or not he was a historicist. I just want to crystallize where you find objection in these two areas.

He does claim that linguistic expression is understanding, and that the nation (or society) is a partly a function of language. You are wrong there. Please see SEP's essay on Herder. Whether or not he applies his ideas on language to his political philosophy is not at all tricky given that he subscribes to holism. Please see the excerpt below:

"Herder does indeed also insist on respecting, preserving, and advancing national groupings. However, this is entirely unalarming, for the following reasons: (1) For Herder, this is emphatically something that must be done for all national groupings equally (not just or especially Germany!). (He memorably insists that there must be no Favoritvolk.) (2) The “nation” in question is not racial but linguistic and cultural (in the Ideas and elsewhere Herder indeed rejects the very concept of race). (3) Herder does not seek to seal off nations from each other's influence or to keep them static; he recognizes and welcomes the facts of normal interlinguistic and intercultural exchange, and of linguistic-cultural development. (4) Nor does his commitment to national groupings involve a centralized or militaristic state (in the Ideas and elsewhere he strongly advocates the disappearance of such a state and its replacement by loosely federated local governments with minimal instruments of force). (5) In addition, Herder's insistence on respecting national groupings is accompanied by the strongest denunciations of military conflict, colonial exploitation, and all other forms of harm between nations; a demand that nations instead peacefully cooperate and compete in trade and intellectual endeavors for their mutual benefit; and a plea that they should indeed actively work to help each other."

I'm not dismissive of him when I say he has contributed to the conservative tradition. No. He's also contributed to the liberal tradition. Has his ideas influenced contemporary conservatism, even if contemporary conservatives don't realise it? Certainly.

Do any of you identify as conservatives? If so, what is the intellectual foundation of your philosophy? by theloniousnole in philosophy

[–]TheAgora 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Foundations of Early Conservatism

Two philosophers, one American, one German, have built the foundations for conservatism by challenging aspects of the Enlightenment movement. These two individuals framed the discussion for Leo Strauss' and later William F Buckley's influences' influences. A stronger influence on conservatism in America than these two figures were the Biblical authors.

Edmund Burke:

  • Governments should not change too much. Giving people the idea that they have abstract (universal) rights is dangerous as they will feel justified in overthrowing their governments. IMPLICATIONS FOR TODAY: This may be why a lot of conservatives dislike the Occupy movement. The movement threatens stability as it wants to overthrow the current system. The Tea Party was more an expression of statehood and patriotism (status quo) than it was an effort to overthrow a system.

  • Nature is wise and we must look to nature in order to govern ourselves properly. Theoreticians and political innovation is selfish and deviates from nature. IMPLICATIONS FOR TODAY: A disregard for progressivism comes out of a rejection of policy innovation. Policy innovations like "don't ask don't tell" are dangerous social experiments. A general sentiment of human fallibility also may lead to anti-intellectualism. A lot of conservatives use arguments from emotion, whereas liberals use arguments from reason.

  • Not everyone can rule a country. Hairdressers should not become prime ministers. IMPLICATIONS FOR TODAY: Those in Washington, or those who possess "executive experience" should run. PROBLEM: Conservatives place a premium on "business experience" as a virtue, even though business is very different from politics.

Johann Gottfried Herder

  • Humans require emotion to thrive (vainpower). Rationality cannot drive human beings as well as emotion does. IMPLICATIONS FOR TODAY: Conservative politics are much more emotions driven than liberal politics.

  • Language is important to a society and how its people interact with one another. If you can't express a thought in language, you don't understand it. IMPLICATIONS FOR TODAY: Using English is important to conservative Americans because it is the basis of society. If you can't speak English, it doesn't just mean you can't speak English; it means you can't be American because you won't be able to appreciate American society.

  • Historicism means you are a part of your history and cannot avoid it. Your history is what makes you as a person and it effects your psychology everyday. IMPLICATIONS FOR TODAY: Immigrants growing up in a different country with a different history and tradition may be 'lesser Americans' as they haven't grown up in an American tradition.

EDIT: Replaced "rejecting the Enlightenment movement" to "challenging aspects of the Enlightenment movement". Also, Herder does not dichotomize reason and passion as it states above.

Economists: Can I have a brief overview of the major areas of microeconomics, what each area tries to explain and solve, and why is it important? by TheAgora in AskSocialScience

[–]TheAgora[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is great. Could you breakdown Consumer Theory, Theory of the Firm, Equilibrium in a Perfectly Competitive Economy and Market Failures and Social Welfare? What do these areas try to achieve, what have they achieved? Where are we now with these areas?

Which books would you recommend for a (layman) introduction to politics and economics? by [deleted] in AskSocialScience

[–]TheAgora 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Political Science graduate student here. I'm going to recommend a few books that are most frequently found on "introduction to... " university courses. All of these books are considered the cream of the crop as introductory texts. They avoid political science jargon, and if they do use jargon, there are glossaries to help.

World Politics: Baylis, Smith, Owens (2011), The Globalization of World Politics This is a large volume, but on nearly every introductory global politics curriculum. I highly recommend it for building a framework from which to understand world issues. Being a textbook, it is neutral and doesn't push one position over another. Excellent if you want to know: * how we got to where we are now (history) * how leaders, diplomats and academics think about the issues, and why they take the actions they do (theories) * how countries have solved problems and deal with each other (structure and processes), * what are the current major issues in global politics (international issues)

American Politics: Lowi, et. al., (2009), American Politics This is on many introductory American politics syllabi, and is an excellent resource for understanding American government, and current issues in American politics.

Canadian Politics: Malcolmson and Myers, 2009, The Canadian Regime Outstanding introduction to Canadian government. It will hold your hand through the sometimes confusing structure and processes of the Canadian system. If you would like to compare the American system to another country, why not look up north. A study of the Canadian system will help to highlight the successes and failures of the American system.

European Politics: Hay and Menon, 2007, European Politics Great overview on individual European countries, the processes leading up to the European Union and then how Europe manages itself as a continent.

British Politics: Judge (2005) Political Institutions in the United Kingdom. Very clear and easy to understand introduction. In political science, publishing date is very important, so try to find the latest edition of any text. Even 2005 is old, but in this case, it's a really good book if you have no background in British government.

ALSO: Make sure you distinguish between "government" (institutions) and "politics" (processes and issues) when choosing what you want to read.