Since Democracy Isn't Working...
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Democracy hasn't failed. The people electing our representatives have. We have a nation of morons electing morons. Collectively, we deserve what we have.
Explain to me why that's democracy's fault. To use a computer term, GIGO...you and I apparently voted for the very failure you claim is present.
Explain to me why that's democracy's fault. To use a computer term, GIGO...you and I apparently voted for the very failure you claim is present.
Gee. Why isn't it working? Being a Republic and all, the rule of law is suppose to matter. But when you get a president that does whatever he wants, it quickly becomes a banana republic. This then filters down to the poor average American that says "hey, I can do whatever I want too".
If there was a perfect form of government we would have stumbled over it by now.
No fair! Just give us another huge chunk of land and resources up the wazoo, where all we've got to do is wrest it away from some indigenous people. Give me that and I'll show you a Democracy that works! 
Now, if you're talking about limited access to food, water, shelter and other nice stuff? Well...yeah, but nothing works then but for who has the bigger club.
In short, lot's of stuff, we play nice. Not much stuff, we get rough.
Now, if you're talking about limited access to food, water, shelter and other nice stuff? Well...yeah, but nothing works then but for who has the bigger club.
In short, lot's of stuff, we play nice. Not much stuff, we get rough.
Nope. It's doing exactly what we are telling it to do. That is not the system's fault. It didn't fail. We are failing.
WWJD is trying to assign blame to the system while not acknowledging it's the people "feeding" the system that are at fault.
If you feed ANY system horse manure, what would happen? The EXACT same thing we have now.
There is not a system of government anywhere that is foolproof. If the people lose their will to compromise for the common good, no matter what system you employ, failure will be present.
I have never understood how people cannot see this in the 14 years I've been posting here...this nation just does not take accountability for anything any more. "It can't be MY fault?"
Seems like a good reason to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It is hard to have an informed citizenry when news, political discussion, and journalism have been replaced for the most part with entertainment news. For the most part the citizens are fed manure, and in return they are just sharing it when they feed their ballots.
Then the citizenry needs to educate themselves to recognize this is happening.
It is 100% all ours' fault. We allow this to happen to us by sticking our heads in the sand because at some point we decided we wanted "easy" most of all.
Having a fair and equitable government is the hardest thing Man as a species has ever done, and always failed...the kill ratio so far imho is 100%, and every system failed from within. To use a phrase..."nobody said it was going to be easy".
OK, Marie probably didn't really say, "Let them eat cake", but the line was a common one used to explain the ignorant attitude of the ruling class for the starving poor. So "out of touch" as to imagine that if there was no bread there must be something else to eat instead.
We have a brilliant blue print for a democratic republic - The Constitution of the United States. If our government is failing, which it is, it's the fault of the United States Supreme Court. That Court has never seriously enforced the constitutional restraints intented to reign in the abusive powers of a centralized government.
I dont remember another administration that simply could not and would not work with Congress for this long. Essentially the entire 8 years Obama has been in office. In this regard, Democracy has broken down. I do not believe it is all on Obama by any stretch but he has done very little to come to the table to unclog this severe gridlock that exists.
This issue I do think can be fixed. Just dont know how.
This issue I do think can be fixed. Just dont know how.
If you think our so-called representatives are doing what WE tell them to do or doing what's in OUR best interests, then I'm glad to meet you, Mr. Koch. Because it probably is working that way for you.
Democracy isn't working precisely because that theory is no longer even remotely true in practice.
We get a little choice, it's true. We get to pick the bought-and-paid for representative of whichever oligarchs or corporate cabal we prefer.
Safe to assume you have a solution?
Havent the majority of US presidents been the product of the deepest pockets. At least that's what Jay Bulworth suggested...
Exactly.
Parser's complaint is a "stop me before I kill again" plea from a serial liberal-elector.
That's just it, wwjd. The voters do not have the strength to elect people who will not bow to the Koch's and the Soros' of the world.
Right now, this country - if it had the will to do so, could elect you or I to anything we ran for if it wanted to. If we are sick and tired of this, then we have the power to change it. Vote someone in who actually does what he promises...and if he doesn't, vote the next guy in that promises and comes through until you find the Real McCoys.
We just don't have the individual strength to do so.
I don't like the way this country's going, you know this to be true. I'm willing to compromise. You know I despise the religious slant the cons have gotten to along with the blanket blaming of all the social ills on historical democratic reforms, you know I despise the liberal hypocrisies of them claiming to be "men of the people" when all they serve is their own selfish interests (which btw is human nature...we all are guilty) just like those they accuse.
There must be middle ground somewhere.
I am willing to meet somewhere nearer the middle on taxes, social security, welfare, funding, the environment, social issues, etc if you are also willing to do so. We MUST compromise if anything is going to move us forward in anything. Which means you have to give, I have to give.
Am I the only one who sees this?
Right now, this country - if it had the will to do so, could elect you or I to anything we ran for if it wanted to. If we are sick and tired of this, then we have the power to change it. Vote someone in who actually does what he promises...and if he doesn't, vote the next guy in that promises and comes through until you find the Real McCoys.
We just don't have the individual strength to do so.
I don't like the way this country's going, you know this to be true. I'm willing to compromise. You know I despise the religious slant the cons have gotten to along with the blanket blaming of all the social ills on historical democratic reforms, you know I despise the liberal hypocrisies of them claiming to be "men of the people" when all they serve is their own selfish interests (which btw is human nature...we all are guilty) just like those they accuse.
There must be middle ground somewhere.
I am willing to meet somewhere nearer the middle on taxes, social security, welfare, funding, the environment, social issues, etc if you are also willing to do so. We MUST compromise if anything is going to move us forward in anything. Which means you have to give, I have to give.
Am I the only one who sees this?
There are lots of ways to fix the problem. But "solution" requires being able to implement those fixes. I'm running out of optimism on that front.
The person with the most money doesn't necessarily win. But it's hard to think of someone without a whole lot of money having much chance in our current scheme. So that's obviously one place needing a major fix.
The problem is that too few people even value democracy in the abstract these days. Whether you are talking about those who've got theirs, or those who regurgitate grade-school nonsense about being a republic, not a democracy, or simply the resigned and distracted - if you can't get people to think reviving our democracy is a good idea, how can you possibly get enough clout behind doing anything about it?
It took us a hundred years to reach step two towards universal healthcare. Politics of inches will carry us there. No need to slaughter millions watering fake trees.
It took a long time to get the ACA, but democracy delivered. It will take a long time to remove the corruption in politics, but we don't need to resort to a revolution to get there.
How do you overcome the first amendment issues with your plan? Do you think you could get an ammendment to do this passed? Would the voter be well served by arbitrarily cutting off one source of information? If cost is the thing, why not simply make political ads free? Either by forcing providers to give free air time or by the government paying for it?
It was the "slaughter millions watering fake trees" part that gave me trouble.
You seem to be assuming democracy can be resurrected once it's dead. Or maybe you assume that it isn't dead or gasping its last.
I've never seen a discussion of chaos theory being applied to democratic processes, but I fear that once that balanced pencil goes beyond merely wobbling and actually falls over, it won't get vertical again.
That was an allusion to the Jefferson quote about revolution being needed to water the tree of liberty.
Until they start just ignoring elections, I don't think democracy is dead no matter how sick it might be.
So what your saying is "Why not try something different and if that doesn't work. We can go back to what wasn't working before"
We may be at a crossroads where we have to decide which is more important: a free market in speech that allows concentrations of power to co-opt the knowledge base, or democracy.
I have always been among the staunchest 1st Amendment absolutists on this board. Go ahead and shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Go ahead and incite to riot. Go ahead and lie, slander and blackmail. Let the marketplace of ideas sort it out. The truth will come out.
But that's clearly wrong. We have a marketplace on steroids with the internet and all the apps and whatnot. That should act like carrying calculations to infinity in calculus to give you the maximum dispersion of the most accurate information. Has it done that?
Perhaps the question becomes do we have free speech for its own sake or do we have it - at least in part - for a purpose? If the latter, and if the purpose is in support of effective democratic governance, then we have a problem that needs fixing. Because we have free speech to the nth degree, but dismal democracy.
No.
What I was asking is exactly what I asked.
Instead of trying to be cute, what's your answer?
It has always interested me that voters don't seem to realize how fast they could change things, starting at the local level. And it interests me that in some way the ability to make a difference by voting is being hampered already. And I wonder which will happen first. Will the hardest hit areas get so fed up they start voting, or will that ability be gone by the time they wish they had it?
I sympathize with your impatience regarding the reminder that the government is a republic, and agree it's a much overused comment, but in this case it's actually relevant. The problem isn't the democracy part. The problem is the republic part....the people we choose to represent us.
Similarly, I agree with you -- and just about everybody else -- that there is too much money in politics and that it is, on the whole, a negative influence. My problem is that I've yet to see any suggestions for a fix that would be both realistic and constitutional.
The idea that everyone should be able to vote has ruined the republic. The people with nothing always vote for more regardless of what the consequences may be. The people with no education vote for all the wrong reasons. In order for a republic to work you should have people pass some sort of test and the person should own a home or serve in the military.
Please explain how owning a home or having served in the military makes one a better judge of what's good for the country, or which candidates are better.
I mean it's an interesting argument that some people from some walks of life might be better at those judgments. But which people and which walks of life?
For example, would you rather those who inherited their wealth to call the shots? Those who earned their wealth? Those who earned their way but aren't wealthy? Those on the dole?
Or how about those who dropped out of HS vs those with college degrees vs those who were home schooled?
Or how about those who have given birth and raised children vs those who haven't?
I can't speak for Best, but the argument along these lines is usually that only stakeholders should be trusted with the vote. Property owners are stakeholders in the same way a person who owns a share of stock is in a company. A military exception might be considered because that group puts their life on the line for the nation. I wonder if Best would think this wise when we have a fully mechanized drone force? So a firefighter, doctor or teacher who rents an apartment in New York city should have no say in the nation because they have yet to purchase a share in the corporation. Where a crack dealer in rural iowa with a shack should. IMO, Its a naive view with an inherent bias against city folks for arbitrary reasons.
Last edited:
First, its not a finished idea plus i'm not sure I agree with it myself.
Second, there could obviously be other stipulations involved.
That being said it is hard to get competent candidates when people are being buses in from the ghetto because they are promised a 15 dollars an hour minimum wage or more free money. Playing the saxophone, or stupid "yes we can" slogans shouldn't win elections.
I understand those were to democrat examples but the same goes for the republicans.
I just threw the idea out there to see what people thought.
Second, there could obviously be other stipulations involved.
That being said it is hard to get competent candidates when people are being buses in from the ghetto because they are promised a 15 dollars an hour minimum wage or more free money. Playing the saxophone, or stupid "yes we can" slogans shouldn't win elections.
I understand those were to democrat examples but the same goes for the republicans.
I just threw the idea out there to see what people thought.
Perhaps Democracy is not failing, maybe people are expecting more from the Federal government than it is able to deliver.
