The Myth of American "Democracy"

[lenahan]

Politicians always talk about democracy, about how "un-democratic" the electoral college, and about how, based on the popular vote, Bush is an illegitimate president. Now, let me say it clearly,

AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY

The US is a republic. We elect representatives who represent our interests in Congress. When we vote for president, those who represent your state tally up those votes, and put there electoral vote toward the candidate, who, hopefully, got the most of the popular vote (it doesn't really mean anything). They could, however, vote for whomever they choose.
If we were a "democracy," we, the people, would vote on every law that would effect us. However, nobody wants that. They're too lazy, and the Founders knew that. They were afraid of this thing called "democracy," because in a democracy, people will vote for those who will give them the most money from the public coffers, and give them a free ride. When that happens. we will spend so much and not take in anything (the won't collect taxes, because no one wants that, and the politicians are doing what the people want to get elected). Finally, we'd collapse. This is what happens to most democracies, which last, on average, 200 years, and then, collapse.
The sad truth of the US is that so many people believe we are a democracy, from those educated intellectuals, those on capital hill, to the gov't school history teachers, to the homeless guy to the 3 yr old who listens to their lib parents. America is not a democracy, and we were never meant to be. We were meant to be a republic that will last for thousands of years, not a democracy that lasts 200. We were to be a beacon of hope to every race, religion or creed, to the poor and rich alike, to the poor, huddled masses to the current citizens as a nation of free men and women, free to make their own way, free to make their own mistakes and successes, free to do what ever you can do, free to create your own American dream, your on dream, under a small, benevolent, yet powerful republican government. A government whose job is to govern as little as possible, and protect us from the enemies of this nation, and whose job it is also to protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Corvair]

Lenahan, are you really only 15 years old? Whether you are or not, you are much more on the ball than the average man on the street.

This republic, though, is not going to last thousands of years if we can't enforce our laws, to wit, border security.

[lenahan]

Originally Posted by Corvair

Lenahan, are you really only 15 years old? Whether you are or not, you are much more on the ball than the average man on the street.

This republic, though, is not going to last thousands of years if we can't enforce our laws, to wit, border security.

first of all, I am 15, and thanks for the compliment, and i agree with you. The republic can not last for a thousand years if we don't enforce our laws, but if we did, we'd have a better chance of it for sure.

[DavidYeah]

I don't think conservatives hate democracy because of this "200 year" rule that apparently exists for democracies; I've never heard of that. I think it's because it's really a foreign concept to them-- the very notion that the poor and lower class and maybe even the middle class should have a say in society is repugnant to conservatives. It should be the rich land owners that should be running everything-- a nice top-down, hierarchical society, instead of this democratic notion of government by the people, each and every one of them.

Conservatives would be comfortable with the pre-democratic reform days of America. Conservatives lost ground in their battle for hierarchy when landowners lost the exclusive right to vote. They lost more ground when women and blacks were allowed to vote. I'd argue they lost massive amounts of ground once the modern internet was developed, since the free nature of the internet allows for the massive development of ideas that is not under the control of the rich, the elite, and the message manufacturers of right wing think tanks. People are allowed to freely express their hopes for America's future, as we push further away from the early conservative days of our country and developi a more robust republic that is more responsive to the democratic elements of our society.


The wisdom of the framers of the constitution was that they did not create a democracy right off the bat. American culture at that time would IMMEDIATELY reject it as foreign and bizarre. Another stroke of brilliance was to create a resilient yet responsive document to base our government on. The notion of amendments has proven to be a terrific tool for democratic reform, which has allowed for more democratic power throughout the ages as the times require it.

I'd say the next step of democratic reform is to push the massively expensive health care system that cripples our society by putting profit before health, and create an institution that is responsive to somewhat democratic controls under the house/senate instead of the whims of CEOs and corporate board rooms.

The current private system costs far too much and provides far too little, and creates offshoot problems like how taxpayers end up paying the bill of the poor uninsured since hospitals are required to treat everyone in need, but someone has to foot the bill, and it ends up being taxpayers. The private system has also lowered our average lifespan, and is simply unjust. A cheaper universal healthcare system would cost a fraction of the price of the private healthcare dollar, since we would no longer be paying CEOs seven figure salaries and there would be no dividends to issue. Probably 3-5% of every dollar would go into processing claims, as opposed to 30-40% of every dollar being lost to profit motives of the private sector.

So yes, America was not founded as a democracy, and thank god, because we would have been back under King George like the conservatives of that era would have liked once Americans at large rejected the new system. To say that there hasn't been massive reform that has made us MORE democratic is being disingenuous, however.

[lenahan]

Originally Posted by DavidYeah

I don't think conservatives hate democracy because of this "200 year" rule that apparently exists for democracies; I've never heard of that. I think it's because it's really a foreign concept to them-- the very notion that the poor and lower class and maybe even the middle class should have a say in society is repugnant to conservatives. It should be the rich land owners that should be running everything-- a nice top-down, hierarchical society, instead of this democratic notion of government by the people, each and every one of them.

Conservatives would be comfortable with the pre-democratic reform days of America. Conservatives lost ground in their battle for hierarchy when landowners lost the exclusive right to vote. They lost more ground when women and blacks were allowed to vote. I'd argue they lost massive amounts of ground once the modern internet was developed, since the free nature of the internet allows for the massive development of ideas that is not under the control of the rich, the elite, and the message manufacturers of right wing think tanks. People are allowed to freely express their hopes for America's future, as we push further away from the early conservative days of our country and developi a more robust republic that is more responsive to the democratic elements of our society.


The wisdom of the framers of the constitution was that they did not create a democracy right off the bat. American culture at that time would IMMEDIATELY reject it as foreign and bizarre. Another stroke of brilliance was to create a resilient yet responsive document to base our government on. The notion of amendments has proven to be a terrific tool for democratic reform, which has allowed for more democratic power throughout the ages as the times require it.

I'd say the next step of democratic reform is to push the massively expensive health care system that cripples our society by putting profit before health, and create an institution that is responsive to somewhat democratic controls under the house/senate instead of the whims of CEOs and corporate board rooms.

The current private system costs far too much and provides far too little, and creates offshoot problems like how taxpayers end up paying the bill of the poor uninsured since hospitals are required to treat everyone in need, but someone has to foot the bill, and it ends up being taxpayers. The private system has also lowered our average lifespan, and is simply unjust. A cheaper universal healthcare system would cost a fraction of the price of the private healthcare dollar, since we would no longer be paying CEOs seven figure salaries and there would be no dividends to issue. Probably 3-5% of every dollar would go into processing claims, as opposed to 30-40% of every dollar being lost to profit motives of the private sector.

So yes, America was not founded as a democracy, and thank god, because we would have been back under King George like the conservatives of that era would have liked once Americans at large rejected the new system. To say that there hasn't been massive reform that has made us MORE democratic is being disingenuous, however.

you didn't understand a thing i said. The founders founded this country as a republic, not a democracy. it was never their plan to gradually introduce democracy. WE ARE AND WERE MEANT TO BE A REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!

And FYI: the republican controlled congress of reconstruction gave Black people the right to vote after the civil war, and no (Southern) republican senator signed the Southern manifesto (1956), and only 2 to 3 (southern ) republicans in the house signed it.


and the health care industry: yes, it's screwed up, but giving control of it to the government will make it worse. And socialized medicine is terrible. Castro, for instance, went to Spain for treatment, not his own country. And the HMOs are in business to make money. that is what it has come to. but the government will just make it worse, while giving bad doctors immunity from liability. just watch.

And, what? the internet and free ideas? the dems have always have control over the news media, blogs, PBS, etc.... Stay away from the loony left websites (including media matters)

[Corvair]

Originally Posted by DavidYeah

...the very notion that the poor and lower class and maybe even the middle class should have a say in society is repugnant to conservatives. It should be the rich land owners that should be running everything-- a nice top-down, hierarchical society, instead of this democratic notion of government by the people, each and every one of them...

Whether one is conservative or not has nothing whatsoever to do with his social status. I am lower middle class - at best - but I am quite conservative, as are many of my friends, though none of them would fit the definition of "rich land owner" either. Your use of the word in the quote above is completely inappropriate, as it is throughout your piece.

I would also take issue with what you say about the American health care system. What we have is state-of-the-art. I don't know what you mean when you say it offers too little. It offers everything that is available anywhere in the world, and the vast majority of people have access to it. The government should have no place in health care. They haven't demonstrated any particular skill in running anything else with any efficiency.

[DavidYeah]

you didn't understand a thing i said. The founders founded this country as a republic, not a democracy. it was never their plan to gradually introduce democracy. WE ARE AND WERE MEANT TO BE A REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!

But they did create perfect tools to develop a more robust democracy that honestly reflected the people's needs instead of the needs of the already rich. If it was an unintended consequence of their actions, it sure has yet to be ruled unconstitutional, and it has been amazing for our prosperity as a nation; it's too bad conservatism is again gripping our nation and trying to turn back the clock.

...

The Democratic party in the era of civil rights was problematic for black rights-- the Democrats were the conservative party of that era that perceived blacks as a threat to the culture, and a threat to the prosperity of their children in the future; quite similar to the current conservative movement in regards to Mexican immigration. They held onto this view for as long as they could, filibustering civil rights legislation. The damage done by civil rights era Democrats coupled with generations of prior oppression lead us to the high levels of poverty to this day.

Republicans at the time were the progressives-- they were still the party of Lincoln. It was only after Lyndon Johnson signed civil rights legislation into law that the racists of the Democratic party bolted, and eventually started signing onto the Republican party, which Nixon took full advantage of this with his southern strategy.

And the HMOs are in business to make money. that is what it has come to. but the government will just make it worse, while giving bad doctors immunity from liability. just watch.

Yes, they are in the business to make money. That is the flaw of the HMO design. If they are in it for cash, then they necessarily aren't in it for keeping people healthy.

The truth is, we have the best healthcare that you can afford. But 40+ million people have no access to this healthcare, so I ask you what is the point?

And the notion that universal healthcare would somehow give doctors immunity for hurting patients.. that's the exact opposite of everything that has been said in the past about liberal/progressive ideals. Liberals and progressives care about good services, and any doctor that messes up too bad is going to be sued by a public accountability lawyer. Your conservative movement calls for tort reform to make sure incompetent doctors don't get put out of business for messing up too bad. Your theory has zero basis and in fact the exact opposite is true.

--

Democrats don't have control of the news media. I know there's a popular myth out there saying they do, but one look at the site you mentioned later, mediamatters.org (an excellent source that I've relied on for a couple of years now) shows that conservative misinformation is being thrown around daily by the corporate news sites that are so useless in their ability to inform people about issues that matter to them that they might as well go back up Ted Turner's #######. If these news outlets are so left wing, why do they have a daily business roundup instead of a daily labor round up? Not one second is devoted to labor issues.

Democrats have zero control over blogs. At least not the institutionalized Democratic party, that is. You're looking at what happens on blogs from a conservative perspective, and I understand that it probably looks like Democrat elites telling blogs what to do; that'is generally the conservative model. This is the exact opposite. It is the democratic body that is marching in a direction, and politicians are scrambling over themselves to get in front of that parade in hopes of being the candidate that will put a face to the movement.

But you're right, conservatives aren't as successful on the internet, save for a few outlets like Michelle Malkin and Drudge and the archives of Rush Limpaugh. Cons can't handle the democratic chaos of the internet, and it looks like a crazy mess since they don't have a major leader and father figure to march behind out here. Where will you get your talking points?? The internet, especially in it's 2.0 iteration, is the birth of the death of the conservative movement.

But still, you can get on any website and express your ideas, or make your own relatively cheaply, and that is pure informal democracy in action- hopefully the politicians can keep up with us, and good luck to you cons out there.

And mediamatters-- I know how you'd want to keep away from there. They only have archives of thousands of conservative lies from the past few years. It can be quite intimidating to see your media leaders taken down on a daily basis. I also recommend ThinkProgress.org and ScienceBlogs.com

[DavidYeah]

Corvair:

Okay, so maybe I use "conservative" in a way you are unfamilar with. I'll try to explain my point of view.

I define a conservative as someone who believes society should be shaped as a sort of hierarchy. The quintessential conservative government is a kingship with a system of lords underneath him, all the way down to the lower peons. The modern conservative movement reflects this in their admiration of the corporation-- where the CEO is essentially a king, and the corporate structure itself is based on the needs of HIS boss, the stockholders, down to the workers. The basic structure is there. If corporations were republics like America, the common workers would be hiring and firing, managers and the CEO would come from elections, and the created wealth would go into the bank accounts of workers, management, and executives.

There is also the development of a moneyed elites over long periods of time. Common conservatives such as yourself look to the elites as the beacon of American prosperity, and seek to emulate them. Also involved in this admiration of the rich by the common folks is the hate of the poor and the lower class. They are considered lazy since they didn't create the massive wealth that the elites have. They are somehow "different" from a hard working conservative in any class. They are welfare queens and hippies and they admire things other than the creation of wealth, like the environment and fine art and love. The dregs of society. They shouldn't have any influence over society, and if folks like you would have had their say during the development of this country, that would be true. We would still be run by rich land owners. This is happening again in a way, as massive tax cuts in corporate profits and lowered taxes on the wealthy are creating a disparity of wealth accumulation.. what percentage of American wealth is owned by the rich now? 90% held by the richest 1%? It's something like that.

Basically, conservatism is a sort of collective psychology that reflects the above principles.

The exact opposite happens in democratic styled societies. In those, the leaders are picked by the common people, and as such should reflect the interests of the people if they want to keep their elected job. We don't have and never will have direct democracy, but society is advanced enough to emulate direct democracy by influencing our elected officials to do what we want.

Conservatives always try to structure society as top-down. Thus, we have supply side voodoo economics that think the best way to create prosperity is to give irresponsible tax breaks to the rich and the corporations. Progressives believe that you have to get money to the common people, so they have spending cash that will create demand for products and services and thus more business and innovation. They seek to raise the minimum wage in order to force companies to do what's best for the American economy, not what's best for their own bottom line. Bottom-up is the best way to create a civilization.

Another examples of conservative hierarchy is religion-- from God to the Pope to the bishops and priests to the common folks-- it is top down hierarchy.

[DavidYeah]

The government should have no place in health care. They haven't demonstrated any particular skill in running anything else with any efficiency.

The veterans healthcare program is premium quality. Medicare for the elderly is great, save for the asinine conservative "Medicare Plan D" plan for medicine.... this plan disallows the government to negotiate for lower costing drugs through bulk purchases. Did you read that correctly? Republicans in congess, the senate, and the white house intentionally designed a healthcare plan that would cost more than it should. It's like the good ol' days of buying hammers on the public dole for $200 each.

This is the hallmark of modern conservative government, attempting to trash the amazing civilization that America has been. Their preachers like Llimbaugh talk about how inefficient government is and that the liberals are to blame. Then conservatives get into government and make Plan D, and they go and privatize FEMA so that it responds not to emergencies but to profit incentives, then they tell us that these services can't function for the people.

What conservatives should do is prove once and for all that corporations can better handle the critical needs of society. They should let the liberals and progressives run government plans, and then compete against it with corporate entities, and then see which goes has better costs per dollar. Conservatives are so certain their corporations can do every essential service better than public institutions, but they have to actually get at the controls of those public institutions and drive them into the dirt in order to prove that it's true.

That's like me taking over this bulletin board, then claiming that nobody wants to see anti clinton sites, then intentionally taking down the main page and pointing to the fact that nobody comes to the web page anymore as proof of my theory.

[Herb Schaffler]

"I'd say the next step of democratic reform is to push the massively expensive health care system that cripples our society by putting profit before health, and create an institution that is responsive to somewhat democratic controls under the house/senate instead of the whims of CEOs and corporate board rooms."

Socialized medicine is not the answer to our health care problems. We don't want to bring the long waiting lists, the high taxes, and the chronic 10% unemployment rates here. There are problems with our system, but they have been caused by government intervention in the free medical marketplace.

True, our system costs more than countries with socialized medicine, but the quality of our medical system is better. We have much better research and development which has allowed for the creation of more medicines and medical devices than other countries. Countries with socialized medicine control their costs through rationing, which is what causes the long waiting lists. Under socialized medicine, taxpayers pay the bills of everybody, not just the poor and elderly.

It is a myth that our system has lowered our lifespans. We have a large murder rate in this country which lowers our average. We also have a large black population which has a lower life expectancy. We also have poor diets with all our fast food. Our medical system has nothing to do with a lower lifespan.

Countries with socialized medicine are losing their doctors because of not enough profits. I don't know where you get that our doctors make a 30 to 40% profit. Because of cost controls from Medicare, Medicaid, HMO's, doctors in America are having to see more patients within a day's time to try to make up for losses. It has resulted in less time available to spend with each patient. The situation is even worse in countries with socialized medicine with patients not receiving good personalized care because patients aren't the customer, the government is.