Proof of Democracy's weakness - It is possible to elect as President 'a not very smart person' ...

[Blackhatjack]

People living in a democracy are not unintelligent as a whole. However, because of the way our system works, it is possible to elect individuals as President who have no business holding that office given their lack of intelligence, experience and knowledge.

Bush is proof of that weakness.

As a country, we have survived a long national nightmare --so far.

There may be a 'silver lining' as a result of the Bush cloud over our Presidency. People may once again become interested and engaged in what their government should be doing and is doing in their name.

[Turbineguy]

1. I think you are right

this is what complacency and stupidity beget.

The question is: Does it have to get worse and if so how much worse?

[melody]

2. That was the whole point of Bush's forced Presidency

To make democracy look back.

To badly paraphrase the old saying, it's a terrible form of government, except for all the others.

[Kutjara]

3. I think the real problem may lie in giving anyone, smart or stupid,...

...too much power. The Presidential system invests the President with too much authority, co-equal with Congress and the Supreme Court (and, in Bush's case, far more). I've always felt this was too much power for one man. I'd prefer the system used in other countries where the President is a figurehead, while the real power is invested in the legislature.

Of course, this is all based on the assumption that 500 idiots are smarter than one.

[MrModerate]

4. I don't think we'll see an upsurge in voter numbers . . .

Which would be one result of "people once again becoming interested and engaged." In fact, as politics gets more and more toxic, an increasing percentage of people will just stop participating at all.

However, those who *do* vote (right, left, and center) are going to be more careful not to elect such a fool again. I'm one of those who thinks Bush is a reasonably smart guy who happens to be a lousy speaker (not smart enough to be president, certainly, but not as stupid as he appears), at least IQ 120 or so. Instead of stupid, he's foolish, lazy, fanatical, uncaring, and arrogant, which looks a lot like stupidity when viewed in combination.

I also think that henceforth candidates are going to have to manufacture a meme for themselves indicating how smart they are (while, of course, not appearing smarter than the electorate that elects them) to distinguish themselves from "stupid" George. This sort of straining at gnats is second nature for political consultants, but should be entertaining to watch nevertheless.

[Odin2005]

6. I disagree.

Voter turnout seems to be a cyclical thing, it was low in the 20s and then surged upward when the Great Depression hit. The low voter turnout is mainly because of political apathy among Generation X (the folks born in the 60s and 70s). The 20s had the very similar "Lost" Generation that was also politically apathetic.

[MrModerate]

8. I hope you're right . . .

But I've been watching voter turnout decline my entire adult life, and simultaneously watching politics deteriorate from an iffy proposition to a cage match with flung turds.

The people I work with (mostly technical professionals, so that may skew the sample) are so disgusted that they just don't vote. And this is a middle-class, full spectrum (narrow-band, right-of-center to left-of-center) population.

That leaves the wingnuts and the leftist political junkies (I include myself among the latter). Not a very stable platform from which to govern a country.

[Selatius]

10. In general, I think people stopped voting in the 20s because of the war

People were disgusted the US went to war in the first place, even though they made it abundantly clear that they wanted no part of the European war. A great number of people died as a result, and the anti-war movement was smashed by Wilson's anti-dissident measures and the Red Scare. Then came Prohibition, which turned off even more people.

[Odin2005]

5. That's why the founders made 3 co-equal branches of government.

If Congress and the SCOTUS were doing what they are supposed to be doing we wouldn't be stuck with the "Imperial Presidency" effect. The late Austrian philosopher Karl Popper one stated that the main question of political theory should not be "who should rule?" but "How do we neutralize the effects of bad rulers?".

[Larry Ogg]

7. Intelligent people know that Bush was not elected.

There for your question should be, can dumb ass knuckle dragging Neanderthals be appointed as president?

[Vincardog]

9. I heard that Larry

[Selatius]

11. This was never a democracy, but I digress.

People are not educated, and that's a failure of American public schools, but that's also a failure of American culture that takes the notion of democracy for granted. When people are ignorant and are living in an environment that doesn't really encourage them to speak up and instead encourages the pursuit of materialism instead of the pursuit of knowledge of the world, you end up with a failing republic.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. 2,500 years ago Plato observed that...

democracy was always eventually doomed to failure.

Elected officials will tend to sink to the lowest common denominator-- driven by the need to promise the people more and more and demand less and less of them.

[Peace Patriot]

15. Yeah, but Plato was an elitist who wanted his Republic governed by "philosopher kings."

I wouldn't quote Plato with regard to modern democracy (except for his very excellent notion of educating girls in the same way as boys, and in the same schools--very progressive idea for his time). And all previous theories of governance are rendered moot by the development of the atomic bomb, which makes the President of the United States emperor of the world--capable of wiping out all live on earth--by definition. That is the heart of the problem, in my opinion.

As for American voters electing Bush, they didn't. Neither time.

I am on a rampage about this aggravating leftist notion that Americans are "sheeple." How do you account for the fact that SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people oppose the Iraq War and want it ended? Or that 56%--a significant majority--opposed it from the beginning (Feb. '03)? Nope. Something other than "the stupidity of American voters" is at work here. And you don't have to look far to see what it is: In October 2002, the Anthrax Congress passed two related bills--the Iraq War Resolution (IWR) and the "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA). The IWR guaranteed unjust war. HAVA provided the means to shove that unjust war down the throats of the American people, by fast-tracking electronic voting machines, all over the country, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls, during the 2002 to 2004 period. This WAS the fascist coup. And both parties colluded in it--which is why it was so difficult for the American people to realize what had been done. The e-voting coup was kept well under their radar--the most blackholed news story in our history.

The American people are not stupid. They have been DISENFRANCHISED!

[warren pease]

13. Not only possible, but apparently desirable

Every reasonably sensible person -- which excludes a hell of a lot of Americans -- knew this guy was thick as a redwood tree. The fact that he was packaged as a stumblebum rube rather than a Brahmin elitist -- despite Yale, Harvard, Poppy's Carlyle empire and the Bush crypto-fascist dynasty -- was another Rove strategy that worked in his favor when contrasted with the gentrified Gore and Kerry (leaving aside the fact that both elections were stolen).

He's the guy people wanted to get sloppy with over a few beers. He's the guy who represented pig roasts and anti-intellectual machismo. He's the guy who grabbed medieval religion by the neck and paraded it in front of some of the stupidest people ever to walk the earth in a disgusting display of sucking-up to the fundie loons.

Bush (and Rove et al) turned stupidity into an asset by milking Americans' traditional suspicion of intelligence and positioning him as a non-threatening boob.

Unfortunately, his controllers aren't quite as dumb. Insane, bloody minded, greedy, vicious parasites -- certainly. Just not dense as a sludge pump.

wp

[KoKo]

14. It depends on the Think Tanks who manipulate those they think don't have the

intellect to "understand the issues" that what you say hinges on.

I would say...when you take away any Media that most folks would watch and control it with Propaganda you are going to have many voters who just don't know the issues. So...they can be treated as "dumbdowned" by the Inner Beltway and Think Tanks as just the clueless "easily pascified" masses.

It's hard to be "engaged" if you don't have a computer, can't afford to pay for the hook up to wireless/DSL/Dial Up and are working two or three jobs to be able to sit on your butt and read stuff online to become "INFORMED."

Sadly...most of the C-Span callers on the Right seem to get their "Talking Points" from their church and spew out from a script. Those are the folks the "MSM" listens to. The C-Span callers and those who still have land lines at home who can pick up the phone when the pollsters call. It's amazing Bush's numbers are down so low when only those who have land lines are home when they call. :-(

Whatever...this is badly written...and i went on too long. But, I just wanted to say that the "Masses" are held down and manipulated so they have little chance to become politically educated. They don't have the money to subscribe to "Nation, Mother Jones, Vanity Fair" or to have access or wherewithall to find progressive sites with REAL NEWS and FACT CHECKING out on the NET.

It's a big problem. I hope our Dems can address this disparity before the Primary next January or the Election in '08.