0
   

When you lose elections, must you back down?

 
 
Reply Mon 27 May, 2019 10:47 am
The following quote implies that popularity or unpopularity legitimates or delegitimates speech and ideas:

Quote:
"If you lose an election, if you lose seats, you have to be modest," added Frans Timmermans, the lead candidate for the Social Democrats. "We have lost seats and this means that we have to be humble."
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEI6QbLdrKgXRmLM8FRt6A-4qGQgEKhAIACoHCAowvIaCCzDnxf4CMM2F8gU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen


But why should it?

People are elected to pursue what they think and believe. If they are removed from electoral representation by voters, they can still continue to pursue their politics outside of government.

Representation within government is just a way of facilitating more efficient democratic discourse. In reality, democratic discourse goes far beyond government.

The idea that winning or losing elections should result in self-censorship of losers is, ironically, anti-democratic.

Such examples show how democratic principles can be subtly undermined within ostensibly democratic governments/states by ideas that spread quietly via the media and other channels.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 270 • Replies: 2
No top replies

 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 May, 2019 09:19 pm
I think the reason why they do it is because they calculate that a dose of humility will help them to win back voters.

But you are correct that people are still free to advocate for their beliefs even if they have suffered a defeat at the polls.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 May, 2019 05:14 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

I think the reason why they do it is because they calculate that a dose of humility will help them to win back voters.

But you are correct that people are still free to advocate for their beliefs even if they have suffered a defeat at the polls.

Yes, it's social logic either way. In social logic, there is no pursuit of right/good outside of what social consensus supports. A person doing the right thing or seeking to do the right thing has no legitimacy in minds of social-oriented morality, unless they are supported by others.

Likewise, a person or party that has no inherent legitimacy can be legitimated by social/political support in social logic. E.g. Hitler's Nazi party was elected by majority referendum, and they might understand on some level that that's wrong, but they think that there is no recourse without gaining popular/social support.

What I see is that goodness gets squelched by evil and the oppression keeps growing until it begins to generate madness and violent eruptions in societies, and then more insanity is generated to deal with the madness and violence. Within that soup of negativity, some clarity of vision emerges here and there, but gets squelched by popular conformity to ideas and beliefs that are inherently biased against reform.

Still, it is the job of those who see things clearly to go on pursuing their POV despite losing elections or any other obstruction that comes. Goodness is always a small search light within a vast darkness, but you have to go on shining that light regardless of unpopularity, because doing so encourages others to do the same instead of giving into majoritarian/popular madness.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » When you lose elections, must you back down?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/13/2020 at 12:17:49