The Myth of Democracy

[Tristan Scott]

We're not really a democracy. The majority opinion about scientific issues are quite irrelevant to science as they're opinion on economics are irrelevant to our economy and so on. A democracy was determined to be an unworkable system 3,000 years ago and again in the 19th century when our country was founded. That is why the founding fathers chose a to make us a republic.

How exactly was it discovered to be unworkable?

A pure democracy is unworkable because instead of a tyranny imposed by a despot you have a tyranny imposed by the majority, not to mention the fact that the majority is not qualified or informed enough on issues to govern. The US Constitution was designed in such a way that we elect people who can focus on the issues required in order to govern, and we protect the rights of individuals with a list of restrictions on government in the form of the Bill of Rights.

What happened in history is that the rich didn't like democracy, still don't, and killed it.

The rich in this country are crushing democracy, making a mockery of democracy, undermining democracy, creating propaganda about democracy.

This is confusing, untermensche, you say they killed it and then you say they are crushing, undermining and making a mockery of it, which implies that it is not dead at all. In a democratic Republic there is still an obligation of the electorate-that obligation is to be informed enough to decide who would best represent your interests as well as the interests of the country as a whole. If you can see through the propaganda of the rich why can't others? Why do others keep electing these Bozos to represent them. It's easy to blame the rich, but in reality all they are doing is using their influence to protect their own interests. If people allow themselves to be influenced where does the fault really lie?

 

[NobleSavage]

How exactly was it discovered to be unworkable?

A pure democracy is unworkable because instead of a tyranny imposed by a despot you have a tyranny imposed by the majority, not to mention the fact that the majority is not qualified or informed enough on issues to govern. The US Constitution was designed in such a way that we elect people who can focus on the issues required in order to govern, and we protect the rights of individuals with a list of restrictions on government in the form of the Bill of Rights.

What happened in history is that the rich didn't like democracy, still don't, and killed it.

The rich in this country are crushing democracy, making a mockery of democracy, undermining democracy, creating propaganda about democracy.

This is confusing, untermensche, you say they killed it and then you say they are crushing, undermining and making a mockery of it, which implies that it is not dead at all. In a democratic Republic there is still an obligation of the electorate-that obligation is to be informed enough to decide who would best represent your interests as well as the interests of the country as a whole. If you can see through the propaganda of the rich why can't others? Why do others keep electing these Bozos to represent them. It's easy to blame the rich, but in reality all they are doing is using their influence to protect their own interests. If people allow themselves to be influenced where does the fault really lie?

No one ever claimed the US is a direct democracy. This has nothing to do with the point of the OP.

 

[NobleSavage]

I maintain my original position - that public opinion mostly controls the US.

According to a new CNN/ORC poll, 73 percent favor “military air strikes conducted by the United States and its Western European and Arab allies against the ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria,” while only 24 percent oppose this action.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2014/09/29/obama-has-public-support-for-bombing-syria-for-now/

So we are back to war again.

 

[NobleSavage]

A few observations:

The famous political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville more or less said that public opinion controls America. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm Is this still true today? I'd say for the most part. We pull out of wars when the public gets sick of it. Gay marriage has mostly won. Marijuana is become legal in some states. Minimum wage hikes generally go through. We have a large safety net (not as good as some countries) but ours is significant. The public is becoming aware of "income inequality" and I figure something half-ass will be done. The war on drugs is losing support and I expect the laws to change. My biggest complaint is civil liberties, but most Americans seem to chose safety over freedom (at least when they are pumped full of fear).

I generally support the political theory of Pluralism.

Every once in a while we have a "critical" election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election

I would dispute some of your claims. Democrats won Congress on a promise to end the Iraq War and did nothing of the sort. Obama promised to pull out of Iraq in 16 months, but actually withdrew out troops when the Iraqi's said we couldn't stay. Now he's sending them back in again. He promised to get out of Afghanistan in 2014 but now he says we're going to keep 10,000 troops there. Public opinion did prevent him from bombing Syria a year ago but now he's bombing Syria.

Gay marriage has won mostly where it has been imposed by the courts. It hasn't been voted in very often.

Marijuana laws have been repealed before and then re-instated. The value of medical marijuana may help the battle this time out, but still, very few states have legalized it, and we have yet to see how long those laws will last.. Here in Florida even medical marijuana failed in the recent election. I'll grant, however, that even the failure of marijuana laws at least represents an expression of public opinion.

Minimum wage laws typically raise the minimum only to what employers are already paying. Social security and medicare are popular because people have become dependent upon them. Obamacare was not popular but it still passed.

I don't think most Americans supported the Patriot Act or the NDAA. They simply didn't know what was in them. These acts have virtually obliterated the Bill of Rights. How much of that have you heard in the mainstream media? Nada. They just don't cover that.

WRT Gay marriage: The courts are part of our system. Anyhow, 55% of Americans support it.

WRT Marijuana. Yes it's legal status has changed in the past. But it changed with public opinion the same with prohibition. The decriminalization of marijuana is making great strides. The main sticking point is getting the Federal Government to unclassified it as a schedule 1 drug.

WRT Obamacare. The majority of people wanted something done with health care. We got something, if it will stay in it's current form will largely be determined by public opinion. %60 want it repealed, but most people who have bought insurance through the plan like it. I figure the AHA will be tweaked continually.

 

[Tristan Scott]

A pure democracy is unworkable because instead of a tyranny imposed by a despot you have a tyranny imposed by the majority, not to mention the fact that the majority is not qualified or informed enough on issues to govern. The US Constitution was designed in such a way that we elect people who can focus on the issues required in order to govern, and we protect the rights of individuals with a list of restrictions on government in the form of the Bill of Rights.

What happened in history is that the rich didn't like democracy, still don't, and killed it.

The rich in this country are crushing democracy, making a mockery of democracy, undermining democracy, creating propaganda about democracy.

This is confusing, untermensche, you say they killed it and then you say they are crushing, undermining and making a mockery of it, which implies that it is not dead at all. In a democratic Republic there is still an obligation of the electorate-that obligation is to be informed enough to decide who would best represent your interests as well as the interests of the country as a whole. If you can see through the propaganda of the rich why can't others? Why do others keep electing these Bozos to represent them. It's easy to blame the rich, but in reality all they are doing is using their influence to protect their own interests. If people allow themselves to be influenced where does the fault really lie?

No one ever claimed the US is a direct democracy. This has nothing to do with the point of the OP.

I never claimed anyone did-however, our form of government is at the root of the question posed in the op:

Is our system still representing the will of the American people or does it merely serve the special interests and yield to popular desires only when absolutely necessary? What does the empirical evidence lead us to believe?

Special interests are given voice in our form of government, just as individuals are, and if individuals succumb to the influence they exert is this always a bad thing?

 

[ksen]

So who is right? Is our system still representing the will of the American people or does it merely serve the special interests and yield to popular desires only when absolutely necessary? What does the empirical evidence lead us to believe?

The empirical evidence says the latter is true.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310

Abstract:

Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.

A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

 

[untermensche]

How exactly was it discovered to be unworkable?

A pure democracy is unworkable because instead of a tyranny imposed by a despot you have a tyranny imposed by the majority, not to mention the fact that the majority is not qualified or informed enough on issues to govern. The US Constitution was designed in such a way that we elect people who can focus on the issues required in order to govern, and we protect the rights of individuals with a list of restrictions on government in the form of the Bill of Rights.

This talk of a tyranny of the majority is simply rhetoric invented by the rich to maintain their position of near absolute control over the agenda of the government. No such tyranny has ever existed.

The only tyrannies that have ever actually existed is the tyranny that still exists. The tyranny of a small minority.

What happened in history is that the rich didn't like democracy, still don't, and killed it.

The rich in this country are crushing democracy, making a mockery of democracy, undermining democracy, creating propaganda about democracy.

This is confusing

Democracy existed in Greece and to an extent in Rome. Then it didn't exist for centuries until the US moved away from monarchy towards democracy.

Democracy was crushed by the power of elites in Greece and Rome, and it is being crushed by the power of elites in the US.

What is so confusing?

If you can see through the propaganda of the rich why can't others?

Do you mean the 2/3rds who don't even bother to vote because they know the game is rigged and none of the candidates represent them?

It's easy to blame the rich, but in reality all they are doing is using their influence to protect their own interests.

It is easy to blame the rich for foreign wars in oil producing regions, for the destruction of the economy by the banks, for the crumbling infrastructure because resources are put elsewhere, for the rising cost of education because resources are put elsewhere, for the destruction of the environment because resources are not put towards the development alternative energy sources, and on and on. They know nothing but exploitation to exhaustion, and anyone with eyes can see it.

The world will not survive long unless the desires of the rich are replaced with reason.

 

[Tristan Scott]

This talk of a tyranny of the majority is simply rhetoric invented by the rich to maintain their position of near absolute control over the agenda of the government.

You mean like Plato, James Madison and Alexis de Tocqueville?

No such tyranny has ever existed.

So when the voters in North Carolina, California, Utah and other states voted to ban Gay Marriage, that doesn't count? School segregation? Slavery? These had majority support as well.

The world will not survive long unless the desires of the rich are replaced with reason.

The world will be just fine, in fact if humanity wipes itself out the world would be much for the better.

 

[4321lynx]

Let us not get too enamored with Greek Democracy.

Only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens. The percentage of the population that actually participated in the government was 10 to 20% of the total number of inhabitants, but this varied from the fifth to the fourth century BC.[12] This excluded a majority of the population:slaves, freed slaves, children, women and metics (foreigners resident in Athens).[15] The women had limited rights and privileges and were barely considered citizens. They had restricted movement in public and were very segregated from the men.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

Though, on reflection, perhaps one should disenfranchise individuals who don't vote, disenfranchise them automatically without appeal, temporarily or permanently, depending on circumstances.

 

[4321lynx]

The world will be just fine, in fact if humanity wipes itself out the world would be much for the better.

Yes. Look at the resurgence of nature in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl.

The Exclusion Zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power station is reportedly a haven for wildlife.[47][48] As humans were evacuated from the area 25 years ago, existing animal populations multiplied and rare species not seen for centuries have returned or have been reintroduced, for example lynx, wild boar, wolf, Eurasian brown bear, European bison, Przewalski's horse, and eagle owls.[47][48] Birds even nest inside the cracked concrete sarcophagus shielding the shattered remains of Reactor 4.[49] In 2007 the Ukrainian government designated the Exclusion Zone as a wildlife sanctuary,[50][51] and at 488.7 km2 it is one of the largest wildlife sanctuaries in Europe.[4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect...ter#Studies_on_wildlife_in_the_Exclusion_Zone


Of course that would clash with the largely anthropocentric spirit of the majority of posters on this forum.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If 2/3 of eligible voters in a democracy can choose not to vote, what more proof is there that we live in a democracy?

 

[4321lynx]

If 2/3 of eligible voters in a democracy can choose not to vote, what more proof is there that we live in a democracy?

I think a "loosely managed individual anarchy" is a more accurate description.

 

[untermensche]

You mean like Plato, James Madison and Alexis de Tocqueville?

Plato supported dictatorship, that is true. Madison owned slaves so he probably didn't believe in democracy too much either. And de Tocqueville didn't see much of a tyranny of the majority in his day. What he saw mostly is what we still see, a tyranny of the minority.

So when the voters in North Carolina, California, Utah and other states voted to ban Gay Marriage, that doesn't count?

There are things, like civil rights, that have no business being subject to popular vote.

I support democracy and the Bill of Rights and a legal system that protects civil rights. And the tyranny of the minority is driving us over the cliff. Any change in direction would be an improvement.

School segregation?

This was not instituted by popular vote.

Slavery?

This was a system forced upon the majority by a very strong and determined minority.

The world will be just fine, in fact if humanity wipes itself out the world would be much for the better.

Your pessimistic nihilism is where kowtowing to minority power leads one.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Madison owned slaves so he probably didn't believe in democracy too much either.

Seriously?

What he saw mostly is what we still see, a tyranny of the minority.

You keep speaking of tyranny of the minority as if it is some profound thing, something you have just discovered. Tyranny of the minority is by far the most common of tyrannies, and it is an extreme understatement to claim that it was the most common type in any age. Having said that a tyranny of the majority is and has been a pitfall of democracy, and as we know when we read Madison's Federalist 10, this was the impetus for the Bill of Rights in the first place: The need for a stronger central government and for the protection of the individual were the principle reasons for replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.

I don't disagree with what you are saying about the balance of power being put in the hands of a relatively few people. What I am saying is 1. They are being allowed to garner this power by the majority of people who are either uninformed, misinformed or for whatever reason apathetic, and 2. that the solution needs to be made within the framework of the Bill of Rights.

Your pessimistic nihilism is where kowtowing to minority power leads one.

Pessimistic nihilism is redundant. It's like saying "your pessimistic pessimism". Of course you are assuming I'm being pessimistic here, when if you would simply read the line of the thread you would know that I was only countering your pessimistic statement that rich people were destroying the world with an optimistic note.