Chile Constitutional Referendum, September 4th 2022

[Antonio the Sixth]

First off, I think that if a constitution is unpalatable to normies it has fundamentally failed. That’s job #2 of any constitution, right after all the stuff about institutional design and protecting rights.

Okay, see, this (and Edu's far stupider, obviously bad-faith iteration on it) is exactly the hand-wringing I'm talking about. Like, no sh*t, I agree a constitution shouldn't go into effect if it can't win over a majority of voters - that's democracy. I don't think Boric should stage an autogolpe and force it to go into effect. Obviously. I'm sure you don't believe that's what I was saying, but then what are you saying, exactly? What are paeans like these exactly supposed to achieve? I already said it was a tactical mistake on the part of the Constituent to fail to consider how normies would react to their final draft. That being the case, I have every right to say I think normies' complaints strike me (again, to the admittedly limited extent to which I've followed these debates) as insubstantial and misguided. Are you arguing they must be correct simply by virtue of being a majority? I hope not, as that's basically the caricature that anti-democrats make of us. Democracy is accepting that the people get their way even when they're clearly wrong (as they are in this case).

Secondly, the main arguments from the left (that wouldn’t necessarily be shared by normies - I think leftists can reasonably oppose a constitutional mandate that elected and appointed government bodies be at least 50% female) would probably be related to the political system and in particular the executive branch. There was (seemingly) a widespread consensus going into the process that the presidency was too powerful and that its powers should be reduced, especially on the left (Jaime Bassa ended up being the leader of the small and short-lived parliamentarist faction, for example). That didn’t really happen. They were reduced slightly in some areas and expanded slightly in others, but overall it’s still a very presidentialist system.

Okay, that is genuinely a huge shame. Presidentialism is a cancer that needs to be rooted out, probably most urgently in Latin America. Given that it doesn't outright increase the president's powers compared to the status quo, though, that's not really an argument against the constitution, though.

I agree the 50% female appointments thing is a bit much, though of course I wouldn't make that a dealbreaker.

[Antonio the Sixth]

First off, I think that if a constitution is unpalatable to normies it has fundamentally failed. That’s job #2 of any constitution, right after all the stuff about institutional design and protecting rights.

Okay, see, this (and Edu's far stupider, obviously bad-faith iteration on it) is exactly the hand-wringing I'm talking about. Like, no sh*t, I agree a constitution shouldn't go into effect if it can't win over a majority of voters - that's democracy. I don't think Boric should stage an autogolpe and force it to go into effect. Obviously. I'm sure you don't believe that's what I was saying, but then what are you saying, exactly? What are paeans like these exactly supposed to achieve? I already said it was a tactical mistake on the part of the Constituent to fail to consider how normies would react to their final draft. That being the case, I have every right to say I think normies' complaints strike me (again, to the admittedly limited extent to which I've followed these debates) as insubstantial and misguided. Are you arguing they must be correct simply by virtue of being a majority? I hope not, as that's basically the caricature that anti-democrats make of us. Democracy is accepting that the people get their way even when they're clearly wrong (as they are in this case).

Secondly, the main arguments from the left (that wouldn’t necessarily be shared by normies - I think leftists can reasonably oppose a constitutional mandate that elected and appointed government bodies be at least 50% female) would probably be related to the political system and in particular the executive branch. There was (seemingly) a widespread consensus going into the process that the presidency was too powerful and that its powers should be reduced, especially on the left (Jaime Bassa ended up being the leader of the small and short-lived parliamentarist faction, for example). That didn’t really happen. They were reduced slightly in some areas and expanded slightly in others, but overall it’s still a very presidentialist system.

Okay, that is genuinely a huge shame. Presidentialism is a cancer that needs to be rooted out, probably most urgently in Latin America. Given that it doesn't outright increase the president's powers compared to the status quo, though, that's not really an argument against the constitution, though.

I agree the 50% female appointments thing is a bit much, though of course I wouldn't make that a dealbreaker.

I mean, why shouldn’t people make XYZ thing a dealbreaker, as long as it’s a legitimate grievance and not something they’ve misunderstood or been lied to about? What’s your threshold for something that shouldn’t be a dealbreaker vs what “really matters”? If someone doesn’t like the proposal for some normie reason - some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with - and thinks it would make the country worse off, it seems arrogant to say that they’re stupid for basing their vote on that instead of “what really matters” (which is what? getting a new constitution at any cost?). You and I may disagree with someone for rejecting the new constitution because it was too presidentialist (or whatever argument they may have) and assuming that a second try at a convention would be better, but that doesn’t make them stupid for having different value judgments about it than you.

"What really matters", and I'm shocked I have to spell it out to you, is not having a constitution that was purposefully designed to distort representation in favor of the right and, on top of that, to impose supermajority requirements specifically targeted to make any remotely transformative left-wing policy impossible even when it enjoys a clear popular mandate. This affront to democratic principles is so egregious that it ought to have outweighed the sort of quibbles you were talking about. And yes, I do believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is deeply misguided to the point of irresponsibility (as to the people who actively support the status quo, of course, they're far worse than misguided).

If all this outrage is about the fact I said "stupidity", then fine, I know that language is best avoided in politics for a host of reasons. Feel free to substitute it with "misguided" or any other less inflammatory term that gets the point across. But please spare me the paeans about respecting disagreements. Disagreements happen because some people are wrong. Obviously I might be the one who's wrong, but since you're not even making that argument, I can't figure out what's even the point of this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I really don't want to make this a pages-long back and forth - that, more than whatever else, would be unfair to the Chilean posters who are directly affected by this and who should be driving this conversation.

To IBNU's point, I'll simply say that I've seen far too many times people who support the status quo pretend to be in favor of change, just not like this, when it's convenient, only to forget all about it when the opportunity has passed. Maybe it will be different this time - I really hope so. All I'm saying is that I'll believe it when I see it. And I'm happy to discuss the substantive points of the constitution and maybe have my mind changed on it! That's actually an interesting conversation to have, unlike the one we're engulfed in.

Alfred, at this point I have no f**king idea what you want me to say. I guess no one is allowed to be frustrated by an election outcome ever again? If you've never lashed out at voters for voting in a way you believed was deeply wrong, then feel free to cast the first stone if you're so inclined - but somehow I doubt it. Otherwise, you've just decided to harp on this specifically because it's vaguely related to stuff other people (people who, you know, are public figures with an actual influence on the course of things) have said, then I'm glad you had your fun but I hope you can give it a rest now.

Okay, one last thing

"No es que el pueblo nunca se equivoque, sino que es el único que tiene el derecho de equivocarse.” - José Batlle y Ordóñez

The fact that you're presenting this as a retort when it's something I have said to you, almost word for word, in this very conversation, just a few messages earlier is seriously making me question the way you're approaching this conversation. And I say this as someone who has a lot of respect for you as a poster.