Democracy, Populism, and the Tyranny of the Minority
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июл 2024
- Join political scientists Frances Lee of Princeton University, Steven Levitsky of Harvard University and coauthor of Tyranny of the Minority, and Kurt Weyland of the University of Texas at Austin and author of Democracy's Resilience to Populism's Threat, to explore some of the new theories and approaches to the challenges facing American democracy in 2023 and beyond, including proposed solutions. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
Register for upcoming programs: constitutioncenter.org/news-d...
Visit our media library to discover more online classes, podcasts, and Town Hall conversations: constitutioncenter.org/news-d...
Subscribe to the National Constitution Center on RUclips: ruclips.net/user/Constitu...
Follow the National Constitution Center on social media!
Facebook: / constitutionctr
Twitter: / constitutionctr
Instagram: / constitutionctr
Sign up for our newsletter: visitor.r20.constantcontact.c...
Wonderful, thoughtful, and passionate discussion among constitutional scholars! It was a treat to watch them discuss such a divisive topic with so much of academic integrity and respect. Beautiful!!
Lee is thoughtful. Well done.
Regarding Mr. Levitsky, representatives making decisions out of fear for what their constituents will think is precisely democratic. Those representatives, if they lose the favor of the people, will be voted out, so they should come to fear how their actions will affect their will. Now the nature of the responses, and the lack of thoughtful responses may be troubling today, but that is a failure on the part of our educational institutions and especially our centralized media system. A very uninteresting take from this man.
Thanks for the conversation ❤👍🇺🇸🦅⭐🗽
Can someone give me a summary about what was said and what’s this about?
No
Has Frances Lee heard about Project 2025?
Mr. Levitsky, Why does the United States have to be like everyone else?
Kein Mehrheit Für Die Mitleid; happiness,in slavery...
FYI, here's the definition of populism: populism, n. - a belief in the rights, wisdom and virtues of the people.
I am often amazed at elites that profess love for "Democratic institutions" but spit venom at the idea of actual democracy. It's a common theme amongst speakers at the Constitution Center.
I wish they would bring someone like Thomas Frank on to discuss the positive side of populism. In the 1890s, they were at the forefront of positive reform.
Well we are a republican democracy. Personally from my studies populism is something to be avoided, especially in light of the events of the 20th century. Populism in the age of a the internet and a centralized press is not what I am interested in.
@@JS-dt1tn our system was setup, from the beginning, to be highly undemocratic. Every attempt to make things more democratic has been resisted by established power. Almost every positive thing that has been accomplished in this country, was done by people organizing against the status quo. That is the essence of populism. Abolition. Universal male suffrage. Women's suffrage. Civil rights. All were forced upon the government by masses of ordinary people.
Our institutions serve to provide stability and to preserve the status quo. But when the status quo becomes this unfair and this corrupt, the center cannot hold. Real populism is about more than hatred and rhetoric (Trump-ism). It is about democracy, fairness, and equality. The original populists were farmers in the 1890s and they were amazing. That's what we need today. A movement of workers, farmers, small businessmen.
@@JS-dt1tn Also, the whole "we are a republic, not a democracy," is really more a cliche. The theory behind our system is that it represents the will of the people through a republican form of government. How democratic it actually is is up for debate. These folks are mostly arguing that is should be less democratic. I find that very problematic. As it currently stands, there is very little evidence that the government currently represents the will of the people.
@@ronwidelec7258 I didn't say "we are a republic, not a democracy", I said we are a republican democracy. The whole point is that the representatives are allowed to vote against the will of the people for a whole host of reasons. And the people are free to vote those people out of they fail to represent them well. None of that is cliche.
@@ronwidelec7258 As the people said in the discussion, many of our institutions have safeguards built-in to reject populist efforts. And as the comparative professor pointed out, this is part of the reason why we have been around for such a long time. But notice how he said the parties can be very populist as there are zero constitutional regulations for them. And notice how God awful, moralistically populist both sides are. The lack of a free media, a media which colludes with the parties to elect certain people, means that it would be (has been) very easy to shift sentiment in the country and move the parties to more extreme positions. All because of ignorance, emotion, majoritarianism, a centralized media system, etc. Populism in my mind is fuel to this fire.
Does Levitsky have anything to offer but his opinions? Cause that's all I hear.
I'm really quite shocked to hear Rosen, who has always ostensibly advocated for popular sovereignty, do a 180 and come out against the people.
Right!?! He LOVES Brandeis for his support of democracy, but now, in the era of Trump, seems to think we need more "guard rails," which is little more than a pretense for less democratic processes.
remove the politcization of the supreme court
Please produce evidence of a single Republican opposed to democracy.
EXHIBIT ONE:
ALABAMA SENATOR TOMMY TUBERVILLE
A single Senator thwarts the will of the other 99 Senators by holding up Military Promotions, because the Military refuses to bow down and agree to Senator Tuberville's Abortion Policy.
In one RUclips video, Virginia Senator Ron Klain nominated Military Members separately, and Senator Tuberville STILL objected.
@@rdelrosso1973 Tuberville is acting within the powers given him by Senate rules. You may not like his views, but he's not being anti-democratic.
I think they are mostly referring to the refusal of some to accept the results of the 2020 election.
Were there not several high ranking politicians who came out to question the legitimacy of the election results?