I've been thinking about this for a while...I thought I'd see what you guys think.
When does free speech make a government completely ineffective?
I believe freedom of expression is the most important component of a democracy. But I it comes with a tradeoff - government effectiveness. Effectively it increases the bureaucracy present within the government, because everything is weighted by the possible outcomes and reactions by the public. This is a form of self-criticism which I believe is a weakness inherent within a democracy.
I believe blind support is bad, but so is complete condemnation of your country's policies.
A current example of this is Iraq. A past example is the Vietnam war. Two unpopular wars, limited in their possible outcomes because "limited victory" is the best the country can achieve. Certainly this is the case in Vietnam, where self criticism basically ruined any chance for victory. I think that this is also the case for Iraq.
Rewind a bit. Have you thought about Watergate's impact?
Here's a scandal where the President's power base took an astounding hit. Prior to this point Presidents pretty much didn't have to answer for too much. Also prior to this point, the press' role was pretty much limited to covering what the President's office wanted them to know, rather than kicking over as many rocks as they could. Eisenhower used his power to his advantage. He would simply threaten credentials when asked, or simply answer "I'm not answering that...its a dead topic." The President was able to intimidate the press...and therefore it was easier for the office to set the agenda without interference. Not so today. I can't remember the last President that wasn't criticized almost full-time.
In fact, up until Watergate, Nixon used the same tactic. But after...now the press has free reign...little is out of bounds.
So my question is one of a balancing act. Obviously freedom of expression is unbelievably important. But simple decisions become minefields. More input is required, so decisions take longer, and are more likely to be a compromise limiting the results...instead of a "90% or better" answer.
Is freedom of the press/freedom of speech/self criticism worth the eroding of our government's power?
Note that I'm not trying to get a clarification on whether you trust your government or not. I'm of the belief that they're representative of the society you are a part of...which is why they were elected.
When does free speech make a government completely ineffective?
I believe freedom of expression is the most important component of a democracy. But I it comes with a tradeoff - government effectiveness. Effectively it increases the bureaucracy present within the government, because everything is weighted by the possible outcomes and reactions by the public. This is a form of self-criticism which I believe is a weakness inherent within a democracy.
I believe blind support is bad, but so is complete condemnation of your country's policies.
A current example of this is Iraq. A past example is the Vietnam war. Two unpopular wars, limited in their possible outcomes because "limited victory" is the best the country can achieve. Certainly this is the case in Vietnam, where self criticism basically ruined any chance for victory. I think that this is also the case for Iraq.
Rewind a bit. Have you thought about Watergate's impact?
Here's a scandal where the President's power base took an astounding hit. Prior to this point Presidents pretty much didn't have to answer for too much. Also prior to this point, the press' role was pretty much limited to covering what the President's office wanted them to know, rather than kicking over as many rocks as they could. Eisenhower used his power to his advantage. He would simply threaten credentials when asked, or simply answer "I'm not answering that...its a dead topic." The President was able to intimidate the press...and therefore it was easier for the office to set the agenda without interference. Not so today. I can't remember the last President that wasn't criticized almost full-time.
In fact, up until Watergate, Nixon used the same tactic. But after...now the press has free reign...little is out of bounds.
So my question is one of a balancing act. Obviously freedom of expression is unbelievably important. But simple decisions become minefields. More input is required, so decisions take longer, and are more likely to be a compromise limiting the results...instead of a "90% or better" answer.
Is freedom of the press/freedom of speech/self criticism worth the eroding of our government's power?
Note that I'm not trying to get a clarification on whether you trust your government or not. I'm of the belief that they're representative of the society you are a part of...which is why they were elected.