It's exactly what the Founding Fathers left us - it's a representative democracy.

[pinto]

Does every representative vote as I would?
No, of course not, that's clear to me.

Does every representative reflect my specific concerns in their legislative work?
No, of course not. Nor do I expect or demand that.

Is the legislative process frustratingly slow and cumbersome.
Yes, at times exceedingly so, it seems.

Does the legislative process in a representative democracy work?
Yes.

In a season of political change, Democratic gains and the upcoming run to national elections, it may do us well to remember:

The New Deal didn't happen overnight. It was a hard fought battle.
Social Security and Medicare didn't happen in the span of a TV show.
Citizens' civil rights certainly weren't advanced in the course of a few months.
The VietNam War didn't end with one legislative action.
Watergate wasn't brought to it's ultimate denouement at one Congressional hearing.

All took a series of actions across the political spectrum to become reality. Yet *all* happened.

It seems the nature of a representative democracy that this is how it goes. Debate, discussion, compromise, two steps forward and one step back. Disagreement and consensus.

I think it is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended when they set the blueprint for our democracy.

[babylonsister]

1. What happens when people lie/cheat/steal to win elections and steal/minimize

our republic? Do you think they had a clue of the likes of the SC getting involved in elections, or a VP gone wild?

[pinto]

2. I think elections have been stolen since there were elections, but

the SC deciding one and a VP gone wild probably has them turning in their respective graves.

We're in for a bumpy end of the Republican 'permanent majority'.

[Prophet 451]

7. IF it ends

Given their record so far, I still have a horrible suspician that Bush/Cheney will try to stay in office somehow.

[pinto]

9. Nah. They are crumbling from the base up. The (R) monolith was a construct

and an operation that has become their own undoing.

Shakespearian ethos lives on.

[annabanana]

28. Maybe not if we can't ban proprietary software in voting machines..

and "vapor ballots" that cannot be recounted in contested races....

[Amonester]

40. Or if they pay (very well, I heard...) their dark-water (whatever their name)

(something like "PNAC" or Black-fire-or-water...) WITH OUR (NOT EARNED YET) MONEY...

Since the dic-k has "predicted" it, they could easily arrange for a "mini" mushroom cloud, then blame it on... (surprise?) IRAN!

Then, the Chimperial executive could declare themselves dic-ktatorts, suspend elections (because they know they would lose even after cheating...) and implement martial law for a decade (or two).

Like many, I'd never ever put that daunting "possibility" beyond them...

Fear, terra, be very afraid, ya know? (They must reality "miss" these good ol' days FOR THEM and their BANK ACCOUNTS).

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

3. The Founding Fathers left us a REPUBLIC.

What we had with the Pukes in charge of all branches was a Democracy, ie: Majority Rule.
Now we are back to being a Republic. It's a slow moving process to right the wrongs that have been done to our Nation. Damn Frustrating.

[Prophet 451]

6. "Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive n/t

[Senator]

18. "Republic" Merely Means Non-Monarchy

I fear you may be tangled up a bit in the dreaded "Not a democracy, but a Republic" meme. It's something that sounds reasonable but in reality is nearly devoid of content -- a particularly insidious type of propaganda. And in fact, neofascist propaganda. What makes the phrase so troublesome is not really what it says -- as the poster above points out, the 2 terms are not mutually exclusive -- but rather what it implies without actually saying.

(Note: It is not my intent to single you out personally, as you are far from alone in relying on this oft-repeated canard. In fact, the bulk of this post is a cut/paste, as this has become a pet peeve of mine.)

The word "republic" simply means "non-monarchy" (which would be a kingdom). Cuba is a Republic and the "evil empire" was the USSR(epublics). They also have/had constitutions. And since the US is not a monarchy, we are certainly a republic. But that's not really saying anything substantive.

The only real content in the statement is "not a democracy," which in addition to being false about the US -- implies something derogatory about democracy or democracies (and thus about America and Americans). The implication is that there is some "other thing" that is better than a democracy. The purpose is to allow people to fill that void with whatever vague notion they'd like to: presumably some form of a theocracy, or autocracy, or "our side"-ocracy.

It sets up a false dichotomy between "Bad Democracy" vs. "Something Good." Also, on a rhetorical level it projects a Democra(tic Party is bad) vs. Republic(an Party is good) subliminal message.

In an attempt to save time, I'll describe the next step in this argument (as I have had this discussion before).

Next comes an attempt to claim that "representative democracy" itself is somehow not democracy. And that this is the "other thing" that the founders wanted and agreed to, in order to avoid the dreaded "mob rule." The reality is that there has never been, nor could there be, a "non-representative" democracy. Not even in ancient democracies was there ever a situation that could be considered "direct democracy" (i.e., "mob rule).

But the "mob rule" threat is simply a bogeyman. Again, the intent is the same. To disseminate a message of "democracy is bad," without revealing that what is being promoted is some nonspecified form of fascism -- minority rule.

--

[personman]

25. The United States is not a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.

I strongly disagree with a lot of your views on democracy, direct democracy in particular.

If you've ever consulted your friends and arrived at a consensus, you've experienced it first hand, so I think it's ignorant to say direct democracy doesn't exist or isn't possible.

In one of my posts below I link a lot of videos disputing some of these notions. David Graeber in particular is an anarchist anthropologist who has made some interesting observations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1190658&mesg_id=1193021">See post #22

I don't think many would describe that material as "neofascist propaganda"

Pasted from Post #22:

Until we actually start listening to the people, and giving them a role in the process rather than manufacturing their consent and removing them from the political arena (washington consensus) talking about democracy is sort of pointless.

Our educational system and media are two good examples that completely undermine any democratic tendancies.

It's pointless to talk about democracy when the people are constantly lied to and misinformed from school age onward.


Links to some videos discussing the topic:

http://www.anarchismtoday.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7">Noam Chomsky "The U.S. is not a Democracy..."

http://www.anarchismtoday.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8">Howard Zinn on Truth in a Time of War

http://www.anarchismtoday.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=11">Anarchist and Yale Associate Anthropology Professor David Graeber on anthropology and anarchism

http://www.anarchismtoday.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7">Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media

-personman

[Senator]

29. That would depend on whether "meaningful sense" makes any meaningful sense

But as I've expressed no "views on democracy" -- other than an implied preference for it over fascism -- whatever you "strongly disagree" with is not in my post.

However, I would suggest that you consider how you can be certain that your "friendly consensus" was not achieved by the desire of some to avoid conflict or stalemate, rather than honestly express their preference.

---

[personman]

32. ...

"But as I've expressed no "views on democracy" -- other than an implied preference for it over fascism -- whatever you "strongly disagree" with is not in my post."

Your post:

"The only real content in the statement is "not a democracy," which in addition to being false about the US -- implies something derogatory about democracy or democracies (and thus about America and Americans). The implication is that there is some "other thing" that is better than a democracy."

Ok, you (sorry, I mean, this guy) seem to be saying America IS a democracy, and it's great, in fact there is nothing better.
So yeah, then, if you didn't express any of that, perhaps you could help me track down the poor misguided individual who did, as he seems to be using your DU account. Thanks.

"Next comes an attempt to claim that "representative democracy" itself is somehow not democracy. And that this is the "other thing" that the founders wanted and agreed to, in order to avoid the dreaded "mob rule." The reality is that there has never been, nor could there be, a "non-representative" democracy. Not even in ancient democracies was there ever a situation that could be considered "direct democracy" (i.e., "mob rule)."

Ok, I think that guy who isn't you is expressing views again...

"However, I would suggest that you consider how you can be certain that your 'friendly consensus' was not achieved by the desire of some to avoid conflict or stalemate, rather than honestly express their preference."

If you're not kidding, I long for the day that is our biggest voting issue.

-personman

[Senator]

34. I am not kidding

Because that has always been our "biggest voting issue." The necessity of selecting "the lesser of evils."

It may well be the lowest common denominator of "consensus," but it isn't anything else.

Now, stolen elections are a different matter entirely. I quite agree that this country has existed in a technical state of fascism since January 6th, 2001 -- when the Congress failed to implement the know consent of the governed. We can only strive to make that a temporary circumstance, through impeachment and/or an untainted election result in 2008.

But your real argument seems to be with the efficiency and/or results of US democracy -- not with whether or not that is indeed what the founders intended our contract with each other (the US Constitution) to provide -- and what many Americans seek to restore.

--

[personman]

35. I wasn't talking about stolen elections

The United States isn't a democracy and was not intended to be. James Madison and the founding fathers knew that if we were a democracy, land would be divided up equally, the land owners and slave masters would lose a large part of their privilege. Parts of the government and constitution were put in place, basically to protect our owners from us. This is not popular control.

Our capitalism based economy that utilizes the Free(for some)Market is oligarchic. This is not popular control.

In a meaningful democracy, the political system, the property and the economy, would be under popular control. Not a single one of them are. How can that be democracy?

[Senator]

45. I know

I was just interjecting that things have changed materially since the neofascists succeeded in their election thefts.

But as for what the founders set up, it cannot be true that "the government and constitution were put in place, basically to protect our owners from us" because we are "the owners" of the nation. We The People are the only parties to the contract known as The US Constitution.

It is a neofascist "Big Lie" that the founders "feared" the electorate -- The People. They feared the formation of factions (political parties), they feared the power of monied interests, and they feared the instincts of men to act less than honorably. But they put the most fundamental -- and most immediate -- levers of power as close to The People as they could; in the House of Representatives (re-approved often) and in a chief magistrate (re-approved slightly less often).

To that they added "checks and balances" (including the Senate and Supreme Court) to buttress the interests of The People against those things they did fear. They were not designing an economic system and likely would not have done much different even if they forsaw the "evils of capitalism" that you rightly decry.

This is because your last statement is simply demonstrably false:

"In a meaningful democracy, the political system, the property and the economy, would be under popular control. Not a single one of them are."

All of these things are in fact "under popular control." Perhaps not to the level that you, or I, or someone else might like -- but undeniably to the level that "The Union" of all of us tolerates. Sufficient abuse of any of those systems lands real people in real jails (Jack Abramoff, Leona Helmsley, Ken Lay, etc...). This is what the implementation of "popular control" looks like. It resides in our laws and institutions and is at all times -- even if a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to implement change -- subject to our "popular will."

And we as individuals have always had the same power to effect such change. The "to do list" has always included a single item:

Persude a sufficient number of your fellows that immediate change is required.

That really is all there is to it.

---

[personman]

52. I'm not sure they have.

"I was just interjecting that things have changed materially since the neofascists succeeded in their election thefts."

I'm not sure they have. In the first video link I posted, http://www.anarchismtoday.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7">Noam Chomsky "The US is not a democracy..." (which was broken but is now fixed) Chomsky states people didn't really care that the election was stolen, and they didn't really care because they view our system as a game between the elites, and not a real election. He also backs up his claim, citing the "Vanishing Voter Project" run out of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

He states that the major public concerns aren't even allowed to come up, economic issues such as free trade and globalization.

"Issues on which the public has extremely strong opinions, but none of it could be brought up in the election and for a very simple reason, if you take a look at attitudes, there is a very sharp split between elite opinion, which are strongly in favor of all of this stuff, and the public which is strongly opposed to them."

"It is a neofascist "Big Lie" that the founders "feared" the electorate -- The People."

That depends what you mean by feared, they sure as hell didn't want agrarian land reform, or economic equality. It would not be a lie to say that would be something they were "afraid of." So in that sense, yes, they did fear the people.

"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body." - James Madison

That is the antithesis of the very idea of democracy.

"To that they added 'checks and balances' (including the Senate and Supreme Court) to buttress the interests of The People against those things they did fear."

Powerful elites with elite interests to check and balance the powerful elites with elite interests for us? We see how well that's working. More powerful elites equal a less powerful public. The bureaucracy weakens the people it claims to serve.

"This is because your last statement is simply demonstrably false:

'In a meaningful democracy, the political system, the property and the economy, would be under popular control. Not a single one of them are.'

All of these things are in fact "under popular control." Perhaps not to the level that you, or I, or someone else might like -- but undeniably to the level that "The Union" of all of us tolerates. Sufficient abuse of any of those systems lands real people in real jails (Jack Abramoff, Leona Helmsley, Ken Lay, etc...). This is what the implementation of "popular control" looks like. It resides in our laws and institutions and is at all times -- even if a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to implement change -- subject to our "popular will."

When http://www.anarchismtoday.org/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2">Consent is Manufactured, http://www.anarchismtoday.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8">when people are lied to, misled and misinformed from school age on, any democratic ideal inherent in what the "The Union" of us all tolerate, is undermined.

As far as sufficient abuses landing people in jail, I disagree with that as well. A couple corporate embezzlers, scammers, and crooked politicians get caught, but has a president ever spent a day in jail? The courts have thrown out the proceedings against Rumsfeld, Bush has enacted legislation to shield his people from accountability for their crimes. It's not just Bush, the history of american empire and disdain for democracy is a bloody, unaccountable one.

"And we as individuals have always had the same power to effect such change. The "to do list" has always included a single item:

Persude a sufficient number of your fellows that immediate change is required.

That really is all there is to it."

Appealing to the powers that be is one way, that's why I'm here. Is it a good way? is it the best way, or the only way? I sure as hell hope not.

-personman

[Senator]

54. Well, you've not demonstrated that they haven't.

Nor have you (or Chomsky) gone much further than registering complaint, rather than describing how "undemocratic" processes have permanently triumphed over democratic ones. As I said before, "your real argument seems to be with the efficiency and/or results of US democracy."

Certainly US democracy may be "undermined" and "weaken{ed}" at times. Today's neofascists have been with us since the beginning in one form of "Anti-Federalist" or another. And it's alway easy to point to this or that "monied elite" that is currently exploiting or surpressing the popular will for their own benefit.

But that's a far cry from making a case for the US being a "non-democracy."

While I agree that the bushcheney regime is an ongoing criminal operation, that does not mean they will elude real accountability indefinitely. And since you asked, yes -- a president has been found to have been a criminal and was only saved from jail by way of a pardon. Something that many of us were horrified to see the public/electorate tolerate -- but they did tolerate it. There could well have been a different result.

It may even be that enough of us have learned from that experience (and others). And that this regime will receive an even more substantive comeuppance. Perhaps even a trip to The Hague. That's what many of us are appealing to (rather, demanding) "the powers that be" to provide.

And I use quotes around that phrase because there really is no such thing. Not in this country. While it's easy to ascribe sinister motives and responsibility to unseen hands -- and create our own dragons to battle, in reality "they" are all just people. Often people who are as confused, uninformed, and/or hapless as anyone. And more importantly, people who can be convinced to change their minds and do things differently.

And you can watch it happening right now. On exactly the complaints Chomsky lodged in your post. Voters are "reappearing" and have been for years. Young people are becoming far more interested in politics than just a few years ago. Real change has taken place in how elections are run and the 2006 results were a direct result. Outsourcing and other problems of "globalization" have become crusades for people even as unlikely as Lou Dobbs.

The "sharp split" in opinion is becoming duller by the day as the Euphemedia "consent manufacturers" lose more and more influence with the public/electorate.

This is only possible in a real democracy.

--

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

36. ""Republic" Merely Means Non-Monarchy" ??????

I am not, nor have ever been, TANGLED up in any damn thing. You, Senator, are full of ShiT. We are, and have always been, a REPUBLIC. (bar the years that * et cheney boy ruled). So take your sweet "Canard" and shove it where the sun would Never shine. ahole.

mods, feel free to delete, but this dude is still a brain dead dip shit reguardless.

Second side note: Your posting of ~~"And in fact, neofascist propaganda"~~ Are you daring to call me a Neocon?? This tells me all I need to know about you.
dipshit that you are. Shove it Senator. You sound just like KaKaKKARL to me.

~IGNORE~

[Solon]

38. I think you misunderstand Senator...

There are some very basic forms of government, Monarchy is one of them, defined as a head of state whose title is passed down a family line. The Monarch in question can be an absolute monarch, limited in various ways, or just symbolic, but, at the same time, having a Monarch means you aren't a Republic.

A Republic is similar, the head of state in a Republic is NOT chosen within a family line, but rather is selected in various other ways. Examples include being directly(or indirectly) elected from the people, selected from within a single party, whether that party is the only one allowed, or simply won the election for that term, etc.

So is the United States a Republic, yes, but also is Democratic as well, we elect Representatives, and indirectly elect the President(theoretically).

A Democracy is a type of government where the people are allowed to, or have the right, to vote on various issue or for Representatives.

In any case, this leads to some interesting analysis about the nations of the world, for example Canada and Great Britain are Monarchies(with the same head of state), but are also Democratic(Monarch has little power, people vote for parliament). Whereas North Korea is a Republic, but isn't Democratic(single party state).

Saying the United States is a Republic and not a Democracy is a misnomer, the simple fact is that we elect both Representatives and Senators, and indirectly elect the President. If we aren't a Democracy, what are we?

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

39. We are a Republic.

Go back to grade school.:banghead:

[Solon]

41. Republic is too vague a term, that's the point...

Its by and large an exclusionary term, can you please define WHAT a republic is?

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

43. A republic is where both the majority and minority get

valid representation equally. "All sides heard from" kinda a thing, Ya know.

Rather Quaint, in this day et age. per the likes of cheney et all.

[Solon]

44. But they don't get that now...

For example, in both the House and Senate, Majority rules, Minority can sometimes interfere, but they aren't given "equal" representation, whatever that means.

In addition, the people who vote for the losing side in Senate or House races get NO voice in government, at least until the next election, this is called the Plurality voting system. Some Parliamentary Democracies don't allow that with Proportional Representation without "winner take all" elections. So, the United States ISN'T a Republic under your own definition.

Technically the United States could be considered, wait for it...a Presidential Constitutional Representative Democratic Republic, with State governments with more Direct forms of Democracy. Is that a mouthful or what?

[Senator]

47. A PreCoRDeR ??

Hey, that sounds vaguely profound. But too vaguely, I think, to pursue.

BTW, thanks for helping out here. I didn't even see the indirect response post until now.

--

[Matsubara]

51. In theory, we are a representative democracy. In practice, it's a sham.

Since the minority going to the polls are going armed with information that was overwhelmingly provided to them by a few megacorporations' media outlets, the megacorps' also finance the candidates' campaigns, the "choice" voters are presented with is fundamentally false. Is it any wonder that the only ones who ever have their bidding done by the politicians are the megacorps?

I don't think you can have a democracy, unless the people's issues can get an airing on mainstream media, and money is not the major factor in mounting campaigns.

[personman]

53. The leading democratic theorists say we are a "polyarchy"

Can wiki it. As far as I can tell it's a fancy way of saying representative democracy. The power rests in the hands of "the responsible class". And the public are fragmented and largely prevented from participating in a meaningful way, other then to give the powers that be a "keep going" vote every 4 years. Summarized from the video: http://www.youtube.com/v/LmJv_wf91W8">Noam Chomsky "The US is not a democracy"

Are we even any one thing? There are lots of different aspects. It's probably not that simple. I think Chomsky makes some interesting points though.

-personman

Also, I was reading "Property is Theft" by the anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, he states the word republic comes from "res publica" which means "public business". He also states that even a king can be a republican.

"A republican! Yes; but that word specifies nothing. Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs -- no matter under what form of government -- may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans."

This is from a different translation than my hard copy.

[Senator]

48. Well, to ignore your ignore

And since Solon has done such a fine job of explaining.

I'd only add that what that phrase is saying is that "We are a fruit, not an orange."

--

[poverlay]

4. WELL, I think it SHOULD happen in the space of a TV show... Maybe they could make it into a

reality show. Something like "Congressional Idol" or "So You Think You Can Legislate?".

Just a thought...

[Toots]

5. And exactly how do the Representatives, represent you if you don't speak up

What DU is all about is people speaking up. People are unhappy around here because they don't feel their interests are being represented so they are doing what good citizens should do. What are you doing except maybe telling everyone to shut the heck up and let the experts run things. I don't buy it. I vote and if they want my vote they must at least make an effort to know my concerns. I understand majority (supposedly) rules but sometimes I am not so sure. A lot of lobby money sure gets accepted on all sides of the aisle..

[pinto]

17. Exactly. The point of a representative democracy is our responsibility to stay involved.

I'm not saying we ought to shut up and let the experts run things. We need to play our part in real time and let our representatives know, our legislatures know, our neighbors know and our public media know about our concerns.

Voting is only one part of citizen participation. We lose some, we win some. If people simply vote and sit at home expecting their every political concern to be addressed, they will be sorely disappointed as well as frustrated.

Change happens with an involved electorate. That's *our* job.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. I think there's more to what the Founding Fathers hoped for...

than what they expected. The Bill of Rights was supposed to be in the Constitution from the start, but it was succesfully argued that a Congress of good people already had enough to stop them from trampling on rights.

It wasn't long before they realized that mistake.

It also wasn't long before political parties arose, much to their amazement and consternation, and the rise of political parties immediately gave the means for organized corruption in all areas of politics.

Look back in history and see some of the real fuckups and robberies and maybe we're not living in such bad times after all. Is trying to steal Iraq really worse than stealing half an entire continent from the people living there, or stealing the other half from the people who stole it first?

Supreme Courts have been "conservative" for most of our history, as have Congresses and Presidents, yet we still survive as we muddle along.

[pinto]

11. Good points. Many Americans may not realize the Bill of Rights were amendments,

(ratified in 1791) not original Constitutional dictate. Ans as you say, even in the apparently apocalyptic political atmosphere, we survive.

:hi:

[Hosnon]

42. Well, the Constitution was ratified in 1789. For all intents and purposes, the Bill of Rights

can be considered part of the same mechanism.

[mmonk]

10. They left us a tool called impeachment. It was done for a reason.

[pinto]

12. And it won't go away as a legislative redress any time soon.

It remains an option.

[chknltl]

13. Yet many of our fellow DUers would help remove this...

...not deliberately in most cases but they diminish it non-the-less, perhaps to the point of irrelevancy. Maybe in spite of their efforts, WE THE PEOPLE will rise up and take back our Government...if not now perhaps in some future America...if we last that long.

[pinto]

16. This goes to my point of a representative democracy.

If we want more progressive voices in the legislatures - federal, state and local - we ought to find candidates to support that reflect that goal. Make our stands known to existing reps, media, and neighbors.

Likewise, if we want more centrist voices in the legislatures - do likewise.

'We the People' is the stirring opening statement to our Constitution.

*And* it is followed up with this important first Article, Section 1:

'All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.'

[Gregorian]

14. We had to fight a war to end slavery.

I find that impossibly hard to believe. But what it tells me is that the fights we are seeing are about financial gains. And that they'll be fought tooth and nail. It's hard to believe that inconsideration combined with stubbornness for things as reasonable as slavery should be the case.

I think we all know now that we're up against something just as vile. Just as difficult. A group of smart but evil people followed by a mass of blind followers. It's up to us to educate and fight at the same time. And it's all uphill. That's how the gravity of this kind of thing works.

I didn't need to post this. I suppose it's important to hear every voice. Maybe there is something valuable in all of what we say.

[alarimer]

15. They don't represent any of us; they represent corporations

That is what has happened to our republic.

[mmonk]

23. Yep. Representation costs keep going up.

Out of reach for a lot of people.

[puebloknot]

19. Is our children dying? nt

[napi21]

20. To some eztent that's true. I am constantly frustrated because

both my Sens and my Rep always vote with the Pubs, but I have to remember, I live in GA! These folks ARE voting the way the people who elected them want them to vote! I hate it, but that IS the way it's supposed to work.

[treestar]

21. Great post. Sometimes it is necessary to point out this stuff.

Americans today expect instant gratification and drama.

[personman]

22. The false democracy of elites.

Until we actually start listening to the people, and giving them a role in the process rather than manufacturing their consent and removing them from the political arena (washington consensus) talking about democracy is sort of pointless.

Our educational system and media are two good examples that completely undermine any democratic tendancies.

It's pointless to talk about democracy when the people are constantly lied to and misinformed from school age onward.

-personman

Links to some videos discussing the topic:

http://www.anarchismtoday.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7">Noam Chomsky "The U.S. is not a Democracy..."

http://www.anarchismtoday.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8">Howard Zinn on Truth in a Time of War

http://www.anarchismtoday.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=11">Anarchist and Yale Associate Anthropology Professor David Graeber on anthropology and anarchism

http://www.anarchismtoday.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7">Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media

-personman

[JNelson6563]

24. It's a democratic republic

Cause we don't want the power to go directly to the great unwashed masses. No, the illusion of "power to the people" will just have to do.

Julie

[originalpckelly]

26. Representative democracy is a sham in our country.

It's more like elective aristocracy.

[Selatius]

50. The problem is elections are run on private money, not taxpayer dollars. Europe has learned this.

We have not yet learned it. In many parts of Europe and elsewhere in the world, lawmakers ensured that all public elections are run on public taxpayer dollars. Any outside money that gets into the system is labeled as a form of bribe money. It's only a novel idea to Americans, but this advance or evolution in representative democracy has existed for most of the 20th century. In the US system, this innovation has not been incorporated in, much to the detriment of middle class voters and the working poor.

[genie_weenie]

27. The Founders NEVER intended for 1 man

to be able to send the nation into war. That power was left for the legislature, the idea being it will be more difficult for a group of men to declare war v. 1 man.

I think the problem is with the stretching of boundaries and reallocation of powers.

Much like the Pope and the early church, the history of the US has been the tendency for 1 man to expand his powers and become authoritarian. Combine that with the march towards empire, (Louisiana Purchase, Texas, Mexican-American war, seminole Wars (Florida), The wars against the native americans, the Philippines under McKinley, Hawaii, Cuba, the Panama Canal, and the Making of the WARFARE STATE post WWII) have brought us to the American Empire and Imperial Military.

[Virginia Dare]

30. No and they never intended us to fight any wars of aggression..

on foreign soil. Of course, the Bush Admin. craftily continues to insist that the ethereal osama bin laden declared war on us and attacked us on our soil first. What he had to do with Iraq is another matter, and that is the war that Congress approved. It totally flies against everything that our F.F.'s stood for, and we will pay for it many times over in the future.

[porphyrian]

31. My patience was gone six years ago.

You're wasting your time if you're looking for it.

[blueworld]

33. Who's being represented again? Democracy was it?

Discussions & debates have been AWOL for 5 years, although there's been a heartwarming increase in tears & theatrics & bloody pie-charts.

I've seen legislative agendas that have enough time for resolutions honoring National Handicapped Groundhog Education Day, but precious little on voter suppression corrections.

I hope to Zeus it won't take another 12-year presidential term to get any decent social reform completed, even if it is a Democrat elected in '08.

[ulysses]

37. sure, "a republic if you can keep it".

The problem is one of keeping it by following the rules when your enemy - and I don't mean "opponent", I mean enemy in this case - has long since thrown the rule book out the window.

[Matsubara]

46. The founding fathers left us a nation where only a priveleged minority could even vote.

It took 200 years just to get us as close as we are to a SEMBLANCE of democracy, and that progress is quickly being erased.


But sorry, I don't lionize the founding fathers like that. If they had had their way, blacks would still be enslaved, and women and non-landowners would not have the vote.

They did NOT want "the masses" to participate in the system. That we've made inroads to get our voices heard at all would doubtless make the racist, patriarchal, classist, bluebloodedfounding fathers roll in their graves.

[Selatius]

49. They left us a flawed structure that should be reformed whenever a problem is identified.

They saw firsthand the problem of political parties arising and the deleterious effects of gerrymandering on minority voting blocs. This would also have a tremendous effect on disenfranchising the Black vote. History has shown us these flaws, and we have corrected some of them, but we have not corrected others, such as a two-party system.

The lessons of history tell us that political parties are likely an inevitability in such systems with massive amounts of people, but it also tells us that the more political parties compete against one another for power, the less the chance that a one-party oligarchy emerges. A system built on proportional representation or a mixed system such as that seen in the Federal German Republic avoids the dangers of one-party rule, something America has failed to learn.

The lessons of history also tell us that privately run elections are harmful in terms of representing the will of the people, that elections run with only taxpayer dollars prevents the rise of an oligarchy of lawmakers who serve monied interests.