Glenn Beck: "Democracy does not work" (Limbaugh, illegal, Reid)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you would rather have Congress... appointed? Or what?
You dont think people can influence their representatives? Dont see how we got all the amendments we have, then.
The question is valid... under a democracy.
If Congress was strictly limited in what it could do, would it matter how it was selected?
Think about it.
How can you "secure a right to life" in a partisan manner?
Does a democrat or a republican or a libertarian have a vastly different ideology with respect to theft, mayhem, murder?
I don't think so.
The "real issue" is the socialist grab bag of bribes and power, that the current democracy has given the American people. That's why the progressives / collectivists incrementally dismantled the checks and balances of the original constitution.
The 17th amendment was one of the worst, and should be repealed. The states' power to check the excesses of the majority was gutted by that amendment. The recent "rush" legislation would never has passed a Senate composed of state appointed officers. Unfunded mandates would have been shot down, in short order. Likewise, the need for massive campaign funds to garner statewide support would not be necessary.
The 12th amendment is another gaff. It basically destroyed the original function of the Electoral College and transferred power to political parties.
Under the original system, there would be no partisan political control over the executive branch and the appointments to office. Nor would there be national campaigning, that requires "legal" bribery to fund.
Restoring the USCON to the intents of James Madison would cure many ills and ailments of the political system we suffer under.
For example, amend the USCON so that the Electoral College is strengthened. Instead of party bound Electors, each district elects someone whose judgment they know and trust. The Electors convene, and examine all candidates for office. No longer would a candidate need funding beyond a bus ticket to the college. The College could convene examinations, by committee. The College could swiftly winnow out the least competent candidates before the final vote. And the most popular candidate would become chief, and the second most popular (a rival, perhaps?) would be his vice president. Most folks don't realize that the function of the v.p. was to be the "fly on the wall" overseeing the president, and acting as a check on any partisan execution of the law. That's why the v.p. had no specific duties. He wasn't to be an able assistant, but a check on executive power. His position would be that of restraint upon the executive. (It worked too well - Geo. Wash. strongly disliked his v.p., John Adams.)
With respect to the Electoral College, I'd suggest that Electors hold office, as ombudsmen, for the duration of the presidency. When folks have a problem with the Executive branch, they would go to the Elector, not the local Representative. The Representative is in the legislative branch - not the executive branch. And the president is more likely to take a call from one of the 535 Electors who put him in office, than from one of the Congressmen, who are from a different branch of government.
A similar reform could be applied to the States, as well.
State assemblies could be composed of directly elected representatives, and a state senate composed of appointees from county governments. And the governor could be selected by an Electoral College, whose electors would hold office concurrent with the governor. This would off load the legislators from dealing with complaints, and streamline access to the executive branch.
The best part is that partisanship is preserved for legislators, but eradicated in the execution of the laws enacted.
Of course, this assumes that reforms are for the good of the people, not the good of the politicians and their cronies.
By the way, the president is technically the highest ranking SERVANT to the sovereign people. He is not their leader, but the executive charged with applying the laws enacted by Congress to secure their rights.
(I omit the governing of those who consented part)
I'll answer my own question. The BoR was ratified through a democratic process. Democracy.
No it wasnt.. 99% of the population could disagree with the Bill of Rights, but its only those who voted on the issue, votes who mattered. If this was a Democracy, than its the majority that mattered..
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
Ironically, central government haters praise the Constitution, which was crafted precisely to give the federal government powers it did not have under the Articles of Confederation.
Incorrect, the Constitution and the BOR LIMITS the powers of the federal government, it does not give them powers..
It limits the power of the government to limit your free speech
it limits the power of the government to take your arms away from you..
etc.
BECK: Direct-issue voting is a democracy. Democracies have never, ever stood. They -- our Founders did an awful lot of work and an awful lot of study of different systems. Democracy does not work. You need a republic. You can't have direct voting.
As much as it pains me, as I think Glenn Beck is about one IQ point above my lawnmower, he is right in saying "Democracy does not work"
Something I've posted before and has been discussed since the dawn of modern governing of people, I refer to Plato's position on this matter as paraphrased by William Durant.
Justice would be a simple matter, says Plato, if men were simple; an anarchist communism would suffice....
...why is it that these Utopias never arrive upon the map?
He answers, because of greed and luxury. Men are not content with a simple life: they are acquisitive, ambitious, competitive, and jealous; they soon tire of what they have, and pine for what they have not; and they seldom desire anything unless it belongs to others. The result is the encroachment of one group upon the territory of another, the rivalry of groups for the resources of the soil, and then war. Trade and finance develop, and bring new class-divisions. "Any ordinary city is in fact two cities, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich, each at war with the other; and in either division there are smaller ones–you would make a great mistake if you treated them as single states." A mercantile bourgeoisie arises, whose members seek social position through wealth and conspicuous consumption: "they will spend large sums of money on their wives." These changes in the distribution of wealth produce political changes: as the wealth of the merchant over-reaches that of the land-owner, aristocracy gives way to a plutocratic oligarchy–wealthy traders and bankers rule the state. Then statesmanship, which is the coordination of social forces and the adjustment of policy to growth, is replace by politics, which is the strategy of party and the lust for the spoils of office.
Every form of government tends to perish by excess of its basic principle. Aristocracy ruins itself by limiting too narrowly the circle within which power is confined; oligarchy ruins itself by the incautious scramble for immediate wealth. In either case the end is revolution. When revolution comes it may seem to arise from little causes and petty whims; but though it may spring from slight occasions it is the precipitate result of grave and accumulated wrongs; when a body is weakened by neglected ills, the merest exposure may bring serious disease. "Then democracy comes: the poor overcome their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing the rest; and give to the people an equal share of freedom and power".
But even democracy ruins itself by excess–of democracy. Its basic principle is the equal right of all to hold office and determine public policy. This is at first glance a delightful arrangement; it becomes disastrous because the people are not properly equipped by education to select the best rulers and the wisest courses. "As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them" (Protagoras, 317); to get a doctrine accepted or rejected it is only necessary to have it praised or ridiculed in a poplar play[or in contemporary media] (a hit, no doubt, at Aristophanes, whose comedies attacked almost every new idea). Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course. The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd so loves flattery, it is so "hungry for honey," that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the "protector of the people" rises to supreme power. (Consider the history of Rome.)
The more Plato thinks of it, the more astounded he is at the folly of leaving to mob caprice and gullibility the selection of political officials–not to speak of leaving it to those shady and wealth-serving strategists who pull the oligarchic wires behind the democratic stage. Plato complains that whereas in simpler matters–like shoe-making–we think only a specially-trained person will serve our purpose, in politics we presume that every one who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill we call for a trained physician, whose degree is a guarantee of specific preparation and technical competence–we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one; well then, when the whole state is ill should we not look for the service and guidance of the wisest and the best? To devise a method of barring incompetence and knavery from public office, and of selecting and preparing the best to rule for the common good–that is the problem of political philosophy.
But the danger in conditioning these people -- Beck fans, who only read what they're told and interpret it as they're instructed to, who are not exactly inclined to question -- conditioning them to reject and dismiss the whole concept of democracy -- that they may have a say in their government, that they ARE the government -- is to head down the road toward despotism, seems to me, Tn.
But the danger in conditioning these people -- Beck fans, who only read what they're told and interpret it as they're instructed to, who are not exactly inclined to question -- conditioning them to reject and dismiss the whole concept of democracy -- that they may have a say in their government, that they ARE the government -- is to head down the road toward despotism, seems to me, Tn.
Perhaps, but then the greater danger I see is that so many people are so easily conditioned. This tells me that our educational system is grossly and severely lacking in teaching the basic skills of critical and rational thinking.
Our Republic and even more so, a direct Democracy is based on the idea that the average person knows what is best in matters of governing, and as it stands today, this scares the begeezus out of me. Now don't get me wrong, I welcome the notion and concept of Democracy and I hope that some day, our civilization will be able to achieve a level of enlightenment that it could realize such a thing. On local matters it seems to work much easier for me as local issues are best understood by the local people it effects. In national matters and even more so in foreign policy, I shudder to think what would happen tomorrow if the average American were to vote on say, nuking Iran or something.
"Democracy" and "Republic" are not contrary terms. We currently have a democracy in the form of an elected democratic republic. we certainly don't have a direct democracy of ballot measures for everything, but that's only one form of democracy.
Perhaps, but then the greater danger I see is that so many people are so easily conditioned. This tells me that our educational system is grossly and severely lacking in teaching the basic skills of critical and rational thinking.
Absolutely! It's deliberate, too. Keep the people numbed out and stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Our Republic and even more so, a direct Democracy is based on the idea that the average person knows what is best in matters of governing, and as it stands today, this scares the begeezus out of me. Now don't get me wrong, I welcome the notion and concept of Democracy and I hope that some day, our civilization will be able to achieve a level of enlightenment that it could realize such a thing. On local matters it seems to work much easier for me as local issues are best understood by the local people it effects. In national matters and even more so in foreign policy, I shudder to think what would happen tomorrow if the average American were to vote on say, nuking Iran or something.
I agree regarding local issues, which is exactly what Glenn Beck dismissed out of hand in the transcript in the OP. 'S why I posted the thread.
CALLER: ... .[Some people I talked to] tend to think that if we had direct-issue voting, we'd get a more fiscally conservative result.
BECK: Well, I haven't talked to Pete Sepp or some of the other people, but I have read an awful lot of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, even Hamilton, Adams -- I have read a lot of those guys' words and a lot of the things that inspired them that shows that democracy does not work.
PAT GRAY (radio host): But isn't he just talking about, like, ballot amendments and things like that? Like -- I mean, I think that sort of thing is great. I mean, you can't do every little bit. I think a democracy fails if you're trying to do every little piece; you have to have representatives there --
"Democracy" and "Republic" are not contrary terms. We currently have a democracy in the form of an elected democratic republic. we certainly don't have a direct democracy of ballot measures for everything, but that's only one form of democracy.
True, but I think we are much closer to direct democracy than ever before. I mean lets face it, the only principles held by our elected officials today is the principle of holding their soggy finger in the wind to see how the electorate is moving, then react to as closely adopt a position they most want to hear.
John McCain's bid for President was little more than a case study in how fast one man could contradict a life long career of positions in favor of the flavor of the day. Even Obama is guilty of this, just look at his stance on Iraq during his first days in the Senate compared to today.
Jon Stewart could run a daily hour long programs for a year of nothing more than clips of our political leadership making completely contradictory statements. God bless "The Google"
If you're talking to me, Glennie, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and so forth are just symptoms of the huge problem TnHilltopper was talking about above: that the target citizenry are too dumbed down to think for themselves (if I got you right Tn). They have no tools to help themselves. So they turn to whatever chattering self-serving device hits the right emotional knee-jerk buttons. It's like the 1920s. As for putting too much faith in this manifestation, there are millions of them and they do a lot of damage.
Well I think it is a problem in general from both sides of the electorate, but in the case of the freeping right, there is a stronger tendency towards being belief driven and authoritarianism.
I shy away from people of "faith" because by its very nature, faith is unexamined belief and that to me is a concept I just can't get my mind around. While this probably more pertains to the right, it also occurs among the left as evidenced by those liberals who remain silent on Obama's less than liberal decisions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
