The Left REALLY Needs To Decide Whether It's For Democracy... Or Not.

[ulTRAX]

No this is not a flame bait thread... it's simply a plea for the Left to deal with its Orwellian delusion that they are bringing democracy to the US.

I see it all the time... there's Dean's group... Democracy for America. When you ask at the DFA forum just where is the democracy in DFA they are dumbstruck. Same with Democracy Cell... where the only one trying to define democracy was myself. Today I was at Randi Rhode's site where there's orange ribbons for democracy in the US. GREAT! I want one. Maybe not. Just last week Randi was praising the US Senate which is one of the most anti-democratic representative bodies on the planet. Currently a mere 15% of the population gets 50% of the seats and soon it will be 10%.

As much as I respect Dean and Rhodes.... they really have to come to grips with the simple fact that they, like so many others on the Left, are using the word democracy as feel-good window dressing. They obviously have NOT taken the time to actually define what democracy is or could be. If they did they'd soon realize that their idea of democracy only validates our anti-democratic federal system.

[messiah]

1. Moderates are not "LEFT"

Allthough many on the left support Dean for some unknown reason.

[ulTRAX]

9. I'm using the term "Left" in the generic sense

Ya might want to put some thought into your responses... or are you determined to keep us guessing what you mean?

I'm referring mainly to all forms of Democrats. They comprise the "left" in the accepted spectrum of American politics. Dean and Rhodes are the left wing of the Democratic Party.

The REAL Left is somewhat outside that spectrum.

[messiah]

12. Oh so you mean left-wing

the neo conservatives I get you now.

[DireStrike]

2. So... what would you like? Direct Democracy?

We COULD do it, with the internet. Kinda.

But we need a functioning press for that.

[ulTRAX]

10. red herring alert!!

As soon as anyone brings up the topic of democracy... there's always someone who responds with the red herring that just won't die: if we're opposed to anti-democratic vote weighing schemes... which our federal system is full of... then we must be for the dreaded "direct democracy".

Why can't I just be for representative government where all votes weigh the same and each citizen has the right to vote their conscience and be guaranteed representation for their beliefs?

What RADICAL concepts!!!

[DireStrike]

18. I didn't say that.

I'm sorry if your past discussions on the subject gave you the wrong impression. You didn't mention any specific problems with our democracy so I brought up this extreme to ask what sort of system you wanted. In a roundabout way.

[ulTRAX]

26. our past discussions?

I'd have to look back but getting the Left to face up to its contradiction that it wraps itself in the mantel of democracy even as it supports anti-democratic government is a central theme in most of my threads. As for what I'd like to see.... this thread is pretty representative: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860

[Eloriel]

23. BullShit -- if you don't want a simple question like that

you'll have to be a GREAT deal clearer and more explicit yourself.

If you're not talking about Direct Democracy, then what the hell ARE you talking about? You don't give a clue. What is going on isn't good enough for you, but its opposite (direct democracy) isn't either. Just what DO you want, then? There are probably an infinite set of choices in between -- you'll hve to lay it out.

Or not. But if you don't, quit slamming people for guessing wrong.

And btw, I'll just take this opportunity to point out that our Forefrathers went to a LOT of trouble to ensure that minority views had some chance of being heard and even of sometimes triumphing, thus avoiding the "tyranny of the majority." I agree with the poster downthread (edited to add: Blurp is the poster) -- there are plenty of times and places where we don't WANT too much (pure) democracy.

[ulTRAX]

25. the reason I call it a red herring is.......

The reason I call it a red herring is because most of us have been raised to understand and validate what the Framers did... never to critique it. It has all the hallmarks of a secular religion. So whenever a critique is made... there will ALWAYS be someone who raises one of the two red herrings that refuse to die... "we're a republic not a democracy"... or "you don't want a PURE democracy, do you?" Why is is so difficult for Americans... even those on the "left" to think unemotionally about a basic topic such as democracy?

It doesn't take much creativity to realize all the anti-democratic elements of our federalist system can be eliminated and we can STILL have a democratic republic with a president and two chambers.

As for the tyranny of the majority... let me see if I understand you. You believe that the solution against a tyranny of the majority is a system that permits a tyranny of the MINORITY? Where is the majority protected against that? Are you really thinking this through?

Obviously the BEST solution is to have the majority govern yet have protections for the minority... and that can be accomplished with formal protections such as the Bill of Rights... or giving the minority reasonable ability to obstruct the majority. The problem with the latter approach is since as citizens we all have multiple attributes... who gets that power? Currently it's based upon state residence. What's the moral justification for THAT minority to be granted extra power and privilege and not other groups? Oops... we're not supposed to ask that question.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulTRAX]

29. Great... so how can I respond to a deleted message?

Please repost.

[rwenos]

3. You Overstate

The praise for the Senate is not hard to understand. The Dem's are in the minority in the House, and locked out of the White House. The only power base we have is the minority-sensitive Senate Rules. Any pragmatic view says we play the cards we have.

"Democracy" is a slogan, nothing more. I think you're being too hard on the Dem's.

On the other hand, what do you suggest?

[ulTRAX]

11. democracy is a slogan?????????????

No... democracy is a doctrine that underlies the moral legitimacy of government.... and as such it better have some firm guiding principles.... not meaningless fluff.

[blurp]

21. Democracy means majority rule. It's nothing to do with moral legitimacy.

And it often DOES produce meaningless fluff.

Democracy just means "Most of us agree that you should do what we say" and has nothing to do with moral anything.

It's the simplest kind of "tribe logic" there is and it's the easiest thing in the world to do.

Be glad we don't have too much democracy or you'd be paying 10% of your wages to the national church, for example.

And what about the filibuster rule the Republicans are thinking about getting rid of? True democracy would mean that the filibuster rule ought to be gotten rid of. If they want Democrats to shut up, by-golly, just take a vote and they'll have to shut up! Hurray for democracy! /sarcasm

If you want to talk principles, you need to talk about individual rights like free speech, free press, separation of church/state, etc.

[ulTRAX]

24. that's not what Randi was saying

Randi was obviously in awe of the the Senate and how it operated. She suggested we all go watch it when in session.

But as for your comment... there's something radically wrong with the system where the only protection left against a GOP majority are the rules of an anti-democratic body such as the Senate. And there's nothing to stop the Senate from being democratic AND keeping the same rules. (actually I'm opposed to some rules... such as those of either House that grant seniority privilege. It's just another way of giving some US citizens more representation than others. It rewards a district/state that keeps in a bum because s/he can bring home the bacon and punishes a state/district that kicks a bum out.)

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. So, what exactly is our vision for our nation, and how do we

plan to make it come true? (Yeah, I know it's a shopping list of pipe dreams, but hey.. we gotta define it then strive for it, or else what is the point of being a progressive?)

----------------------------------------------------------
Save this nation one town, county, and state at a time!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm#why

[ulTRAX]

16. some ideas........

Here's some ideas I've been advocating...... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860

but first there has to be a reexamination of basic values: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2744460

[elshiva]

5. Dean is trying to define

democracy as a 50 state effort. He GOTV. He supports everyday people who run for local office. "Don't just vote, run," he says to young democrats. That is a way to define democracy.

[genius]

7. How is that differnt than the Republican message of 12 years ago?

Surely, he stands for more than that.

[elshiva]

14. Yes, he does, Genius

I just am having a hard articulating myself this morning...

[ulTRAX]

17. Dean is a Democrat... and that has nothing to do with democracy

Dean is trying to build up the infrastructure of the Democratic Party... and as we should all know... Democrats only give lip service to the concept of democracy. How many opposed Bush in 2000 claiming he was morally illegitimate yet would have accepted a Kerry win in the EC after losing the popular vote?

[genius]

6. I am getting concerned about the ability of members of du to discuss issue

If you bring up an issue, you are a basher - even though you just want to have an intelligent discussion. I'm sure there are a lot of infiltrators. But sometimes this seems like a war zone.

[eg101]

13. you aint the only one

it is sad

[ulTRAX]

27. the Right has no monopoly on irrationality

We may like to believe that the Left is more noble and rational than the Right. While I, too, want to believe that... I know from raising simple issues like this that question core contradictions that many on the Left are just as just as irrational as those on the Right.

[NurseLefty]

8. I listen to Randi a lot, and I don't hear her heaping continuous praise

on the Senate. In fact, she was pissed that Barbara Boxer was THE ONLY ONE to stand with the House members to hold discussions over voting issues (Ohio electors) in the certification process.

[ulTRAX]

15. just last week....

Randi was describing a visit to the Senate... where she got to visit... was it LBJ's office? She was just full of praise for how seriously the Senate performed its responsibilities. Not a word about how anti-democratic this body is. But then... as a Democrat... she's also not really aware of how her Party stands in the way of Progressive reforms either.

[gumby]

19. "15% of the population gets 50% of the seats..."

OUCH!! That made my head hurt.

Goodnight....

[ulTRAX]

22. if that shocks you...... how about this......

Currently the 12 smallest states that can block any amendment make up only 4.5% of the US population. Since there are no protections against demographic trends in the Constitution it's theoretically possible that the 3/4 states needed to pass an amendment could be a minority of the population.

The majority of the Senate and the President can both represent a minority of the population yet there are no Constitutional protections to stop them from packing the judiciary or entering the US into international treaties which become the supreme law of the land.

[rman]

20. my definition of "Left"

radical democracy and no concentration of power (of any kind)

[ulTRAX]

30. what about economics?

Surely "Leftists" have positions on economics.

So just what do you mean by "radical democracy"? I'm just advocating for basic commonsense democratic principles here in the US... principles such as every vote weighs the same and every citizen has a right to vote their conscience and be represented for their beliefs (proportional representation) and not end up throwing the election to a minority candidate (run-offs). So even though these are basic reforms, it would take a series of Constitutional amendments to enact them on the federal level. If that hurdle isn't enough... there's the ideological blinders worn by those who think our system, anti-democratic and dysfunctional as it is, represents the best of all possible worlds.

[rman]

32. no concentration of power of any kind, includes economics -

no concentration of economic power; no limitless accumulation of wealth.

radical democracy is akin to direct democracy; ie without the go-between of electoral votes, a more direct control of the electorate over who gets to represent them wrt various national management issues. for instance, it wouldn't be a bad thing for the people to elect members of the FCC directly.

no concentration of media power is self-explanatory i think.

no concentration of political power would mean no political parties, just a representative for every x amount of people.

i think we agree on the basics for the most part, i certainly agree that what we have now is not democracy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. What democracy? This is an oligarchy.

The illusion is that we have a democracy because people get to vote. For what? For who? The "leaders" that are put forward, and placed in office by the fatcat capitalists. Pretending that politicians aren't beholden to, and controlled by, the monied interests that pay their way into office, is beyond naive.

Electoral "reform" is laughable as long as those making the "reforms" are in the pockets of the people paying them.

[ulTRAX]

33. electoral reform is also impossible if....

Electoral reform is also impossible if the People... even dedicated Democrats and Progressives live the Orwellian delusion that our anti-democratic system IS democracy. The only way I know to get through to these folks is to start with basic values... but even then their ideological force fields are up and resist anything that they sense poses a threat to their contradictions. So how do we perform political psychoanalysis on half the population?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Probably too late.

The population is convinced that we live in a free society in which we have a "government of, by, and for the people" because they get to vote. The mere fact that the candidates for high office are virtually indistinguishable, that they are all feeding from the same trough, that they are, of necessity if not conviction, paid by the same masters and perpetuate the system for their own benefit, is ignored under the rubric of "we have the best government in the world".

I foresee the downfall of this faux "democracy" not from the efforts of progressives here, but from the forces aligned against the neo-empire from without.

As has been tried by previous decaying empires, this one is now trying to avoid the inevitable by the use of brute force. It is hiring mercenaries to take the place of the "citizen" army and expending it's wealth on armaments.

Oh, well, it sounds like I'm singing to the choir.