The end of US democracy?

[Haggis McBagpipe]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

Please, don't ever suppose that I have anything less than respect for you and your point of view. It hurts me when you doubt it.

It isn't that I doubt your respect for me - a remark like 'haggis, calm yourself' simply causes me to question my respect for you.

My concerns are shared by an ever-growing segment of the American population, and no, not just hard-left thinkers and conspiracy theorists. To dismiss the danger of erosion of freedoms is in itself dangerous.

Interesting that Americans will fall to the ground frothing at the mouth about the dangers of lost freedom at the merest suggestion that gun control would be a good thing, or that socialized medicine would help countless Americans regain some normalcy in their lives. if only these same patriotically blinded Americans had the same open eyes when it comes to what Generalissimo Busho and his henchmen are doing to civil liberties.

 

[crash]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

Crash, why do you assume there will be an election?

Why do you think those rights to democracy cannot be snatched away in a state of martial law? And maybe accidentally forgotten to be returned?

If Americans don't believe they can lose their freedom, they will.

Well we cannot be 100% sure that there will be an election that is for sure. If you remember FDR spent 12 consecutive years in the white house leading up to WWII. Its not unheard of for democratic mechanisms to be put on hold during tough times (which would be needed to cancel this election).

As I mentioned in my prior post, even if this where the case and the president had to spend a long term in office (rare) there still is a separation of powers that is very iron clad in the United States. Not even in a time of war has a president of the United States enjoyed the same power over his country as the Prime Minister of a Westminster parliament under normal circumstances. There could be some day that the bill of rights is suspended in a certain location at a given time but as we have seen in a place like Canada where a weaker form of democracy is practised, it still did not mean the end.

I would be far more concerned about the limited Canadian democracy enduring.

 

[American Voice]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

The late Tip O'Neill, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, once made the comment that "all politics is local." You must be careful not to exaggerate the significance of extremists and their views, which invariably focus on remote issues such as foreign policy and "national" politics. The more remote the matter, the more ardent their uninformed opinions will be.

My niece's husband is a perfect example. He's a fundamentalist conservative with a permanent Reagan fixation. He has opinions which he is incapable of even discussing. He just takes positions, and then dares you to elicit a rational defense of them, as if they were self-evident and absolute truths. Because I know him, and understand something about his background, I understand that what it is symptomatic of a psychiatric disorder he has, I suspect as a consequence of his having been beaten and raped by his mean drunk of a father, who is a crooked policeman. I feel sorry for my niece and their two kids, but I can't say I feel sorry for him. But I take his dittohead conservatism for what it is, and simply avoid conversation on anything other than trivialities. People of that sort, if you do not object to their views, assume that you agree with them. Ergo, they condition people to deceive them in systematic ways. Anyway, I know about the right, and the left tend to the same. I call it a symmetry of the margins. They marginalize themselves at both ends, and are irrelevant to policy.

 

[vista]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

Reverend I agree with your comments.

I really don't have a lot of hope for American democracy in its present form. I think the leaders of the US more and more come from an elite class of people (look at the presidential candidates) and understand what democracy is really all about less and less.

Yet I would comment that it isn't so much this elite class understand less of democracy. What is important to them is to impart the illusion of democracy on the rest-of-us.

And as Franks commented in his interview, the democracy thing is just a recent experiment that in the end - won't work.

 

[Reverend Blair]

They seem less likely to worry about even maintaining the illusion now though. The Patriot Act is a good example of that...it takes away rights, but was passed into law because the White House said it had to be. The alleged checks and balances voted for it because they were told that not to vote for it would be unAmerican.

The last presidential election is another example. There were so many questions and issues surrounding the election, George Bush was made president with less than 50% of the vote, and that appointment was made by a bunch of judges his father put in power.

Money is the other big thing. It's impossible to even realistically seek nomination without a huge war chest. That leaves candidates open to being influenced by campaign contributors.

There are many other examples, but those are the big ones.

 

[crash]

They seem less likely to worry about even maintaining the illusion now though. The Patriot Act is a good example of that...it takes away rights, but was passed into law because the White House said it had to be. The alleged checks and balances voted for it because they were told that not to vote for it would be unAmerican.

Firstly, the difference between the elimination of American democracy/destroying the constitution and passing a law that resitricts rights are two completely separate matters. The patriot act if deemed against the bill of rights can easily be struck down by a legal challenge.

On top of this, hindsight, and constituants opinions are 20/20. The democratic party is overwealmingly against the patriot act now and if Kerry becomes president he will no doubt, with his Congress partners do all he can to kill or modify it. This is the beauty of democracy.

This is why even if a drastic situation happens (and they have in the past all over the western world) and rights are temporarily restricted or completely suspended, the durability of democracy reigns supreme. Especially in a state with the checks and balances in place like the United States. Like I say, I am far more concerned about the state of Canadian democracy and its durability than the United States.

The last presidential election is another example. There were so many questions and issues surrounding the election, George Bush was made president with less than 50% of the vote, and that appointment was made by a bunch of judges his father put in power.

No doubt, for the second time in the history of the american electoral college the system has "failed". Still, lets not get too out of hand with proclaimations about how this all came about. Yes the decision in Florida is shady, but realistically in such a close case, legitimacy was going to be challenged. The riding system in Canada and the electoral college in the US exist for good reason. They are a way of weighing regional concerns in a somewhat fair way.

GWB got lucky that it went down the way it did, but what where the chances that his brother would be governor of the contraversial state? Furthermore, can we gaurentee the result would have been different had this not been the case?

Money is the other big thing. It's impossible to even realistically seek nomination without a huge war chest. That leaves candidates open to being influenced by campaign contributors.

There are many other examples, but those are the big ones.

Right, a phenomenon across the western world. Look at Paul Martin, he sent a nice cardboard flyer directly to every person in my province, truth be told maybe even country, above and beyond advertsing done by my local liberal candidate. Do you know how much that costs?

There's no easy answer, on whether we exclusively use taxpayer money to fund the campaign of the oftentimes already wealthy on their self serving ambitions.

This clearly helps the weaker parties who have no chance of getting funding, yet will it mean any significant improvement to Canadian democracy? Will results of the future be dramatically differerent as a result? I don't think so.

Or do we have no regulations? Clearly this is elitist and flies in the face of democracy.

I think the answer lies somewhere in between...

 

[Spock]

The last presidential election is another example. There were so many questions and issues surrounding the election, George Bush was made president with less than 50% of the vote,

So was Bill Clinton -- twice.

and that appointment was made by a bunch of judges his father put in power.

George H.W. Bush appointed two of the nine Supreme Court justices, only one of whom voted to end the recounts.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

So was Bill Clinton -- twice.

Not sure where you get your facts, but Bill had more than half the vote both times he ran. Or are you counting the people who never showed up to vote?

George H.W. Bush appointed two of the nine Supreme Court justices, only one of whom voted to end the recounts.

How many were appointed by Reagan when Big George was VP?

 

[vista]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

The neo-cons have a large grounding in Machiavelli and here is how the PATRIOT Act plays out to democracy.

With the fear factor the government can exploit it for acceptance for restrictions of civil rights and to provide public support for their political agenda.

And the darkest Machiavellian aspect: The population hopes these restrictions will bring more personal security.

Ahhh... the illusion of democracy. Are we dupes or what?

Here is some of the neo-con thinking as artfully written in an essay by Congressman Ron Paul...

Influential neo-conservative, Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute

July 10, 2003 - “It’s true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.” In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington? The question Ledeen doesn’t answer is: “Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?”

Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: “Lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.”

What about the effects of lying on one’s own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake.

Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or cancelled.

 

 

[venomous1]

Hate to burst the bubble but American is not a Democracy....It is a republic... e.g. (Republic of China) Your government can wipe out the Constitution at its own convenience.

 

[American Voice]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

The Constitution is our government, as a matter of fact. All politics is local, and all power emanates from the people. What you suggest is preposterous and absurd. I am average, typical, middle-of-the-road, bourgeois, etc., etc., etc., and no political party has ever seared its brand into my tookus. Wipe out the Constitution? Who, and with what army? Over my dead body.

 

[Spock]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

So was Bill Clinton -- twice.

Not sure where you get your facts, but Bill had more than half the vote both times he ran. Or are you counting the people who never showed up to vote?

In 1992, William Jefferson Clinton won with less than 43% of the popular vote. In 1996, he garnered 49%.

George H.W. Bush appointed two of the nine Supreme Court justices, only one of whom voted to end the recounts.

How many were appointed by Reagan when Big George was VP?

Three, but that's entirely irrelevent. They were appointed by Ronald Reagan, not George H.W. Bush.

 

[Spock]

Hate to burst the bubble but American is not a Democracy....It is a republic... e.g. (Republic of China) Your government can wipe out the Constitution at its own convenience.

1. The Republic of China (Taiwan, not to be confused with the Communist People's Republic of China) is a democracy.
2. The United States could be best described as a republic with heavily democratic traditions. It is certainly more democratic than Canada.
3. No, it can't. Canada's government, on the other hand, can.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I once again ask where you get your facts, Spock. Are you counting all the spoiled ballots and people who did not show up in Clinton's case, but refusing to do the same thing in Harper's case?

At any rate, Clinton got more votes than his opponents in both elections. Bush got fewer votes than Gore.

It is NOT irrelevant that Reagan appointed 3 of the Supreme Court Justices that appointed Bush. All had strong connections to the Republican Party and they ruled in favour of the Republican candidate. All were appointed while Bush Sr. was in the White House and presumably had some influence. How can that possibly be irrelevant? Oh yeah, it can't.

 

[Spock]

I once again ask where you get your facts, Spock. Are you counting all the spoiled ballots and people who did not show up in Clinton's case, but refusing to do the same thing in Harper's case?.

...are you stupid? 43% of people who voted in 1992, 49% who voted in 1996, voted for Clinton. What is unclear about that?

At any rate, Clinton got more votes than his opponents in both elections. Bush got fewer votes than Gore.

Correct, but not the point.

It is NOT irrelevant that Reagan appointed 3 of the Supreme Court Justices that appointed Bush.

Nobody "appointed" Bush. The Supreme Court voted to end the recounts in Florida, which in most counties had no legitimate basis (only Palm Beach county used the infamous "Butterfly ballots", which were approved by a Democrat, yet there were recounts in three other counties as well, as heavily Democratic ones).

All had strong connections to the Republican Party and they ruled in favour of the Republican candidate.

And Clinton's appointees, along with a Bush and a Ford appointee, voted against him. They voted down party lines; get over it.

All were appointed while Bush Sr. was in the White House and presumably had some influence. How can that possibly be irrelevant? Oh yeah, it can't

The recounts outside of Palm Beach county had absolutely no legitimate basis whatsoever. It's unfortunate that the liberal justices voted the party line rather than doing their jobs, but that's life.

 

[American Voice]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

The 2000 presidential election was Al Gore's to lose, and he found a way to do so. It never should have been that close. He didn't even carry his own home state of Tennessee, for Christ's sake! As for Florida, something on the order of five thousand invalid overseas absentee ballots registered in Tallahassee were counted, and the Gore legal team didn't have the nerve to challenge them. One supposes that at least 75% of them were votes for Bush. To have rejected those invalid ballots would have reversed the outcome in Florida, but Gore didn't have the balls. He didn't deserve to be President. Bush is president by default.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I'll give you that, Voice. I first became disgusted with Gore during the presidential debates. He and Bush were dressed like twins and Al kept mumbling that he agreed with his opponent. The strategy of acting like a Republican is not a good one for a Democrat.

There were far more irregularities in Florida than just the recounting of butterfly ballots though. It wasn't a Democrat who had black people purged from the voters lists, it was people working for Jeb Bush.

I will not just "get over" Supreme court justices voting along party lines to determine who will be president either, Spock. That is not a democratic way to do things and it is not the way things should have been handled in 2000.

The fact that a country that bills itself as the worlds leading democracy has a president who lost the election is ridiculous.

 

[American Voice]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

Well, Blair, you have to recognize that the world's most populous democratic state is actually India, who had a multinational federated state, united by a common currency, centered on the cult (constitution) of Benares five thousand years ago. Have you ever read the Mahabharatha?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Can't say that I have, AV. India does not go around calling itself the greatest democracy ever, though. They are also not, at present, an imperialist state outside of their immediate sphere of influence.

 

[American Voice]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

Although they did connive with Beijing to remove Tibet from the map of the world. But that's a matter local to them, and inside baseball. I never felt worked up about it. What got me nervous was Russian and Chinese tanks three miles away from a collision on the road to Dushanbe. Had Gen. Gromov not been resolute about maintaining the territorial integrity of the--what do they call it--the Commonwealth of Independent States, we might be sitting in the middle of a lot of very sterile farmland, from the fallout. It comes down with the rain.