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.
And Hillary Clinton would have lost the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders in a truly democratic vote.
Plus, we are assuming that democracy somehow reflects the "Will of the people". That it isn't being manipulated by the media, corporations, and donors. And that the game of coalition party-politics, which tries to accommodate various groups through "wedge-issues" and identity-politics, doesn't result in a total distortion of the "Will of the people". Where you are forced to "choose a side" and adopt and defend all of the opinions and positions of "your side".
Do you honestly think Americans are pretty much equally-split on almost every issue? Why do people even believe what they believe?
I despise democracy because it is never democratic. Coalition politics causes each political-party to focus not on the interests of the entire population, or even the majority, but on small groups that ultimately decide elections. And not just the donors, but think of gay-marriage. Gays may be a tiny fraction of the population, but since elections are usually won or lost by only a few percentage points, catering to even tiny minorities can be the difference between winning and losing.
Re: bold: this is a self-refuting idea. The 'proof' of this is in the rest of the paragraph.
The concept of democracy can be, & is, & has been throughout our history, brought to fruition in many places, & in many times, & for example here:
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 defined liberty in Article 4 as follows:
Quote:
Liberty consists of being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man or woman has no bounds other than those that guarantee other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights.
Article VI – The law is the expression of the general will. All the citizens have the right of contributing personally or through their representatives to its formation. It must be the same for all, either that it protects, or that it punishes. All the citizens, being equal in its eyes, are equally admissible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents.
Any reasonable person aspires to liberty, & to equality, although a reasonable person realizes he may not be able to fully achieve these without the assistance of others, i.e. without fraternity. ( France has as their motto, Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. )
Your supporting argument, i.e. 'why you despise democracy' does not make sense. Fr'instance, given your example of same sex marriage. Those desiring to do so may be a small fraction of the entire population however the focus in defending the right to marry, is the affirmation that all people are equal under the law, all are born free & equal in dignity.
The idea of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité as natural law is expressed in the First Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Quote:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
No secret that Mitch McConnell and others of the GOP are enablers so that they could push their money and power hungry agendas through if they gave cover and a pen to the monstrosity in The Oval Office. One dirty filthy hand washes the other. These pieces of garbage can never claim patriotism ever again.
I think Mr. Frum is correct in his assessment of the status quo here:
Quote:
When highly committed parties strongly believe [in] things that they cannot achieve democratically, they don’t give up on their beliefs — they give up on democracy.
Also wholeheartedly agree with the following to counter:
Quote:
The only way to check Trumpocracy is through a constitutional movement that’s bigger than politics. The whole reason we have constitutional politics is to manage our differences. The goal is not to extinguish all differences; it’s to protect the right to differ.
"The Republican Party has a platform that can’t prevail in democratic competition."
"When highly committed parties strongly believe [in] things that they cannot achieve democratically, they don’t give up on their beliefs — they give up on democracy."
Most Americans don't want cuts to Social Security or Medicare. In fact, most want some form of universal health care.
Most Americans want government to protect the environment even if it means slower economic growth.
Most Americans want federal support for solar and wind power.
Most Americans want stronger pollution standards for industry.
Most Americans don't want a rapidly expanding budget deficit.
...
Lacking the public support for their agenda, Republicans have to rely on smear campaigns, gerrymandering, purging voting rolls, suppressing the vote, ... in order to win elections.
Re: bold: this is a self-refuting idea. The 'proof' of this is in the rest of the paragraph.
Democracy is supposed to be based on "The consent of the governed" and is supposed to represent "The will of the people".
I do not believe our government in any way represents the actual will of the people, nor is it a government by consent. The media "manufactures consent" and manipulates the will of the people through ridiculous partisan-politics.
Basically, if there were no political parties, and people could vote directly on what they actually believe, instead of having to ally themselves with a political-faction, the outcome would be significantly different from what we have now.
If there was no mass-media, and the infusion of billions of dollars into politics, the outcome would be significantly different from what we have now.
Or as Alexander Fraser Tytler wrote about Athenian Democracy back in the 18th-century...
"The people flatter themselves that they have the sovereign power. These are, in fact, words without meaning. It is true they elected governors; but how are these elections brought about? In every instance of election by the mass of a people—through the influence of those governors themselves, and by means the most opposite to a free and disinterested choice, by the basest corruption and bribery. But those governors once selected, where is the boasted freedom of the people? They must submit to their rule and control, with the same abandonment of their natural liberty, the freedom of their will, and the command of their actions, as if they were under the rule of a monarch.
Nor were the superior classes in the actual enjoyment of a rational liberty and independence. They were perpetually divided into factions, which servilely ranked themselves under the banners of the contending demagogues; and these maintained their influence over their partisans by the most shameful corruption and bribery, of which the means were supplied alone by the plunder of the public money."
Any reasonable person aspires to liberty, & to equality, although a reasonable person realizes he may not be able to fully achieve these without the assistance of others, i.e. without fraternity.
You don't understand my criticism of democracy. In simple-terms, it is a fraud, and it could never exist, except by force.
"Without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him." - Lysander Spooner
Men do not vote for "the good of society", nor do they even vote for "liberty" or "fraternity" or any other such nonsense. They vote their own interests. They vote to benefit themselves with at best indifference to those who disagree with them. And in most cases, they vote purely their own wallets.
No secret that Mitch McConnell and others of the GOP are enablers so that they could push their money and power hungry agendas through if they gave cover and a pen to the monstrosity in The Oval Office. One dirty filthy hand washes the other. These pieces of garbage can never claim patriotism ever again.
Ah good ole Vox. They're so Left-biased they put The Onion to shame inventing BS.
I will happily agree that Donald Trump is a loudmouthed obnoxious annoying person. But his actions are no more a threat to Democracy than any other president from FDR on. In terms of actions, he's been a very run-of-the-mill President. He's been more restrained than many in his actions. You can hate on him for frequently not knowing what the hell he is talking about and that's completely fair. He lies. He exaggerates. He screws porn-stars when his wife is pregnant, then pays them to keep their mouths shut. By no stretch of the imagination is Donald J Trump a good upstanding moral person.
But this hysteria is why I won't be voting D anytime soon. It seems the entire Democrat Party has lost touch with reality. They make ridiculous statements like "Trump is literally Hitler." Hitler who killed 6 million Jews, 27 million Russians, seized power after losing in an election, outright silenced and killed all opposition, etc. That guy? It's an insult to Hitler's victims even imagining there is any comparison. Yet the entire Left of the political divide has bought into this weird fantasy where Trump is doing a whole host of things that he simply isn't doing.
Trump is a New York City business Democrat in Republican clothing. That's why he acts the way he acts. Actual Republicans are fairly timid, conservative, moralistic, stuffy and pretty wimpy when challenged. He is nothing like them. Trump's not particularly interested in abortion. Not really, but he'll go along to get along. He has zero interest in fighting against gay and LGBT rights, etc. He's the guy that actually got the traditionally anti-gay RNC to energetically applaud Peter Thiel, a gay guy saying that he's proud to be gay and Republican. Trump is fundamentally changing the Republican Party, for the better in many ways. And he's a master at trolling and manipulating the entire political Left. It really is fascinating to watch.
I wonder why liberals are the only people who cite 'conservative' David Frum.....
The people who make arguments don't like democracy. Democracy gave us Trump.
Democracy is a fragile thing. People who study history know this.
It requires a delicate balance of an informed electorate and candidates of good character, and everyone plays their part as a sacred duty.
Sadly, we already know that most adult Americans could not pass a simple High School civics exam. Posts here prove that daily. Trumps character, or lack of, is never disputed. We all know his flaws.
All of the great democracies of the past fell because demagogues led the people down a path from which there is no return. The people are persuaded to give up control by some means, usually a manufactured pretext. The Roman Republic fell in just that way. Caesar was very popular with the common folks of Rome during the Republic, but these people were not sophisticated enough to understand that the qualities they admired the most about him would lead their country down a nightmare path that lasted centuries.
The Wiemar Republic similarly. Florence, Athens, Krakow, the First Republic of France ...
Our founding fathers were aware of the dangers, and therefore put many checks in place to prevent any one demagogue from accruing too much personal power. WE have enjoyed the blessings of the longest running stable republic in modern history. Trump is pushing against these constraints. It's as if he does not understand the constitution, but not only that, he doesn't care for it and would not miss it.
Trump violates his oath of office frequently. What will his successor do?
Ah good ole Vox. They're so Left-biased they put The Onion to shame inventing BS.
Rather than address the message you attack the messenger.
The quoted point: "No secret that Mitch McConnell and others of the GOP are enablers so that they could push their money and power hungry agendas through if they gave cover and a pen to the monstrosity in The Oval Office. One dirty filthy hand washes the other."
Do you agree with this statement or disagree?
Either way, why? Post your reasons here: .................................................. ................................
By the time I was 8 years old, I had already realized that republicanism was antithetical to freedom, equality and democracy. And both my parents and almost all their friends were republicans. In fact, this whole region was strongly conservative and unfriendly to those of other stripes. What a conversion it's been, to shift to our current liberal majority. It gives me faith in humanity, to see that so many areas of our country have rejected the ugliness and self-serving greed of republicans and are becoming even more blue, in the face of this current abomination in the White House and the redneck states. There will be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth among that bunch, when they have to answer for their attempts to run our ship-of-state onto the rocks.
And it is way past time for the conservative voices who recognize the destruction that is being done, to speak up and condemn it, as the quoted author in the OP has done.
But you live in a state/area that has evolved
While mine has regressed—
It is difficult to believe in “humanity” when you see people who totally resist seeing the real effect of their voting for a conservative branded ideology that is really the enemy of the people voting FOR it...
I despise democracy, but why is plutocracy better?
We have the worst system in the world....except for all the others. Our system has worked very well for 243 years....let's not muck with it much.
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.
