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.
What I find amazing is the dichotomy between this discussion and the discussions taking place in the Elections Forum. Here with virtually no exception one finds arguments advancing some level of political stratification while elsewhere the concern is the direct opposite, the deprecation of "establishment" politics and the "elitist" leadership of the two major political parties. Something is completely amiss if these are two diametrically opposing debates.
The number of Congressmen and Senators who either served in the Civil War or in WW II is significant because those two wars defined their entire generations respectively.
For those of you who may have forgotten, the POTUS is the Commander In Chief of all US armed forces. We Americans have never disdained military leaders, but have expected them to be civilians when they run for public office. Civilian control of the military is considered a cornerstone of American representative democracy.
I was aware that some of our leaders including the president have served our country in war time. I made the mistake of not adding the word sitting or holding office. When a monarch is out there with his own country man flying missions { Abdullah} or out in the field with his troops on a daily basis { Czar Nicholas} it sends a strong message that he does not consider his life more important then theirs.
What does democracy bring us with our sitting elected officials? They declare war and stay out of harms way and even make sure that their children are giving deferments so they won't have to serve. And of course deferments are handed out to the well connected and the wealthy. I mean their lives are so much important then some average Joe who might have been the one sent off to die in their child's place or the wealthy campaign contributor.
Your point is well taken and I would agree there is no difference in honor if a elected official served before or during war. Either way they served and fought along with their countryman. If there is another big war and the draft is re instated I think we can all conclude that our beloved democracy will be passing out deferments like candy.
Wars have always been fought for rich man's profit and have remained a poor man's fight.
The governing aristocracy, heredity or wealth, have avoided the uncertainty of combat for hundreds of years with very few exceptions.
Back to original question. We are a representative republic because the elites that wrote our Founding documents neither trusted or respected the common citizen. Given the educational levels at the time this was not a bad idea. Limiting the vote to land owning (wealthy), White (not slave), Church members (minimal socialization), males (not flighty females) was a way of the "natural rulers" to maintain control. It still works even though voting restrictions have been mostly removed.
We are still a republic to limit real control to the wealthy elites.
Democracy works best, but only if people are not overly encouraged to vote. Let those who are interested and informed vote - the rest should stay home and feel no guilt for doing so.
Voting is compulsory in 22 countries - laughably, North Korea is one! Central and South American countries almost all have such laws.
Here's an interesting breakdown of how various countries handle it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
Agreed. I'd go so far as to say that universal suffrage is extremely dangerous for society. The privilege of voting should have to be earned somehow.
I would also add that democracy does not work well at the national level is a large country. Democracy works best locally and on a smaller scale.
Wars have always been fought for rich man's profit and have remained a poor man's fight.
The governing aristocracy, heredity or wealth, have avoided the uncertainty of combat for hundreds of years with very few exceptions.
I'm afraid you are mistaken. The rich and poor have often fought in the wars. However, the rich would most likely be trained as officers and leaders, while the poor would remain soldiers. The distinguishable differences between the two remains to this day. Surviving a war as an officer would often raise one's social status considerably as well as his network to work with after the war.
So, not in the same way, but all classes did serve. Even kings would lead troops personally to battle on occasion.
Oh, and this would be easy to fix.
1) Minimum voting age = 30.
2) No one who doesn't pay taxes gets to vote.
What? You'd be cutting out some hard-core voters:
"If you live on Social Security benefits, you don't include this in gross income. If this is the only income you receive, then your gross income equals zero, and you don't have to file a federal income tax return."
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.
