Are Americans getting the democracy they deserve?

[sdbest]

Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America, said that “in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.”

By most indicators, the United States governments--at all levels--are either the worst or at the bottom of the heap compared to other western democracies. It's difficult to argue at this stage--given the two party lock on elections, gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and campaign finance practices--that the U.S. is even much of a democracy.

Assuming de Tocqueville's observation is valid, what is wrong with American citizens that they keep getting, by their own admissions, such truly awful governments?

[Dagda]

A two party system is never a democracy as everyones veiws across America can't possibly being tottaly represented.

[Derek Wolff]

The people have the ability to vote for another party, they just choose not to exercise it. The people of America get what they deserve, they do not exercise they're democracy and beliefs instead they conform to become part of the herd in two parties.

I believe it has to do with preception that the majority is moving without them, and by themselves they have no strength to make a difference. The modern media so easily moves and munipulates the majority by making it simply look like they are being left behind. Its no longer really a democracy, its an odd twist of cultural bending and Government ordering.

[Tim]

I hate to say it, but I think Americans are getting the democracy they deserve, particularly with regard to the "two-party lock on the system" that you describe. People can complain all they want about the system, but ultimately they turn out and cast a vote to maintain it. The only reason that the parties are so influential is the fact that people keep joining them and supporting them at the polls. We voted for our government, and it is up to us to hold it accountable through voting.

[Tim]

Quote by: Derek Wolff The people have the ability to vote for another party, they just choose not to exercise it. The people of America get what they deserve, they do not exercise they're democracy and beliefs instead they conform to become part of the herd in two parties. I believe it has to do with preception that the majority is moving without them, and by themselves they have no strength to make a difference. The modern media so easily moves and munipulates the majority by making it simply look like they are being left behind. Its no longer really a democracy, its an odd twist of cultural bending and Government ordering.

I wonder why it is that people take the modern media so seriously. At this point, politics seems more like entertainment than anything else. People get involved pick a candidate, and it gives them a thrill for a few months or more.

[Derek Wolff]

I wonder why it is that people take the modern media so seriously. At this point, politics seems more like entertainment than anything else. People get involved pick a candidate, and it gives them a thrill for a few months or more.

Seems that way anymore.

[ren]

The U.S. may have had some semblence of a democracy when Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that, but that was a different context, yet we had the same basic Constitution. Jefferson said the Constitution should be revised every fifty years or so, he at least recognized that what they created was a prototype, and contextual. He had no way of foreseeing the changes that have occurred from a horse and buggy technology, with small farmers and craftsmen. Only in recent years did that prototype finally get upgraded so that the Bill of Rights was expanded so that human beings got to include all races and women.

I think the whole concept of democracy itself has transformed from those first prototype days. Remember, those Founders were themselves an elite who were excited by the notions of the revolution of the individual, but they were barely out of feudalism, and much of the very structure of feudalism was in their thinking, because it was still part of how they lived life. Just look at how they determined what an individual was at that time.

In the next century following the Revolution, we had the emergence of what came to be called communism, but communism is only another experiment in democracy, an attempt to describe a form of bottom up, participatory democracy. Bottom up democracy was not on the minds of the Founding Fathers.

But if this is still a democracy, now, how do we speak to our President when he makes policy? The Presidency is the one office that reflects us all. How do we speak so that if the majority of us want to remove the US from the Middle East this sense of a democratic "we" will be heard, listened to, and responded to? If there is no voice except to choose someone who doesn't listen, where is this a democracy if we can only do that but for a moment, once every four years?

It seems to me if we are going to be blamed for whatever this is, there must be some way we can act. We have an ever unifyingly powerful President, a Congress that continues to give it more power, and the President's control of a federal judiciary is beginning to do things that contradict our very Bill of Rights.

We have a wonderful Bill of Rights. But it's like a Ferrari in a garage, in a jungle of authoritarian based institutions -- corporate and government -- and most Americans are the employees of these institutions, not the directors. You open the garage door to drive out in your Bill of Rights Ferrari and there aren't any roads.

[Tim]

Quote by: ren It seems to me if we are going to be blamed for whatever this is, there must be some way we can act. We have an ever unifyingly powerful President, a Congress that continues to give it more power, and the President's control of a federal judiciary is beginning to do things that contradict our very Bill of Rights.

We can still vote.

[ren]

Quote by: Tim We can still vote.

I think I touched on that, Tim, though perhaps it's worth a little more development.

Our voice directly to the president is a momentary blip in time, once every four years. The Nation voted democrats into Congress in 2006; many of us thought that was a message about Iraq and this Presidencies many power grabbing policies challenging the very basis of the checks and balances of our system, since Bush came into office (actually it goes back a ways, and that in itself is a complex discussion involving the Unitary Executive Theory Cheney brought into office with Bush).

What did the President hear from the "People" in 2006? He's still blissfully spending his "political capital" as he called it from the thin margin, even questionable victory of 2004. Where's our voice after that? We vote, a momentary blip in time in a voting booth.

People are dying every day for whom we as a nation are responsible, our own troops and those others there, many just "collateral damage" a word that simply objectifies human beings who are murdered by war. I personally feel the angst of my sense of responsibility for what this nation does in the world, but where's my voice? Where's the supposed voice of the majority who have turned against these policies? Is that "democracy"? Is that all you expect? Is that what is meant by "we get the government we deserve"?

So I'm asking, how is that democracy?

[Tim]

Quote by: ren I think I touched on that, Tim, though perhaps it's worth a little more development. Our voice directly to the president is a momentary blip in time, once every four years. The Nation voted democrats into Congress in 2006; many of us thought that was a message about Iraq and this Presidencies many power grabbing policies challenging the very basis of the checks and balances of our system, since Bush came into office (actually it goes back a ways, and that in itself is a complex discussion involving the Unitary Executive Theory Cheney brought into office with Bush). What did the President hear from the "People" in 2006? He's still blissfully spending his "political capital" as he called it from the thin margin, even questionable victory of 2004. Where's our voice after that? We vote, a momentary blip in time in a voting booth. People are dying every day for whom we as a nation are responsible, our own troops and those others there, many just "collateral damage" a word that simply objectifies human beings who are murdered by war. I personally feel the angst of my sense of responsibility for what this nation does in the world, but where's my voice? Where's the supposed voice of the majority who have turned against these policies? So I'm asking, how is that democracy?

It's democratic in the sense that these are the people we voted for. That being said, the mainstream choices for candidates leave alot to be desired. Ideally, I would prefer to see more diversity among candidates in terms of background and ideology. I agree with you about the presidential aspect of it. the executive has far more power than I feel it should, and Congress really seems unwilling to make strong steps against that. The problem for you and I, I believe, is that we don't have candidates that represent our voice. I do believe that the system is too difficult to enter and not accesible enough to third parties or less affluent candidates. In that sense I agree, it is undemocratic.

[ren]

Quote by: Tim It's democratic in the sense that these are the people we voted for. That being said, the mainstream choices for candidates leave alot to be desired. Ideally, I would prefer to see more diversity among candidates in terms of background and ideology. I agree with you about the presidential aspect of it. the executive has far more power than I feel it should, and Congress really seems unwilling to make strong steps against that. The problem for you and I, I believe, is that we don't have candidates that represent our voice. I do believe that the system is too difficult to enter and not accesible enough to third parties or less affluent candidates. In that sense I agree, it is undemocratic.

In the lead post the following statement was attributed to de Tocqueville:

“in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.”

So we have individual rights and the implication of personal responsibility set up by our Bill of Rights and the Constitution. But how does "people's" responsibility fit that? And we have what's called a Republic. I've been in some knock down drag outs over the years with those who emphasize the Republic aspect of our government, not the democratic aspect. Was perhaps de Tocqueville wrong about democracy? Are the people then, perhaps, not getting the government we deserve simply because we are not a democracy? Are we perhaps getting a government we don't even want, sold to us with a kind of illusion?

In a presidential system, critics of such systems identify the following three disadvangages as a potential threat to democracy:

• Tendency towards authoritarianism — some political scientists say that presidentialism is not constitutionally stable. According to some political scientists, such as Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in every country it has been attempted.
  
• Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this creates undesirable gridlock, and that it reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other.
  
• Impediments to leadership change — it is claimed that the difficulty in removing an unsuitable president from office before his or her term has expired represents a significant problem.

I think I could make a good case for each of those being present right now, and I'd suggest -- including the points you raised -- we are in the middle of a dire constitutional crisis.

As Chalmers Johnson quipped when Nancy Pelosi said Impeachment is off the table, "Then the Republic is off the table."

[Kakumei]

We as Americans are selling ourselves short, with our silly Obama, Hillary, and Mccain as the canidates going on right now. Notice this, we picked the people most least likely to help our weakening economy, people that wanna stop a war that is not really killing much of our people (looking back on the world wars and veitnam and stuff) and giving people the same freedom we have. Sadly we have weak canidates this election...

[grandpa]

Quote by: Kakumei We as Americans are selling ourselves short, with our silly Obama, Hillary, and Mccain as the canidates going on right now. Notice this, we picked the people most least likely to help our weakening economy, people that wanna stop a war that is not really killing much of our people (looking back on the world wars and veitnam and stuff) and giving people the same freedom we have.

That's one of the most hopelessly naive things I've read in a while. A lot of naive people seem to flood in here.

That aside, your argument makes no sense. Because the war hasn't killed X amount of Americans (I say "X amount" because I obviously don't know what your arbitrary criteria is), it is okay? Keep in mind, many have actually died. And, because of the Iraq War, a war with Iran is palpable. Furthermore, there is no guarantee the candidates will end the war anyway -- especially McCain.

The idea that we're in Iraq to "save" them is simply pompous. In fact, there are plenty of Americans who
know (not feel) that Muslims are enemies of White, Judeo-Christian civilization. Are such Americans -- the ones who are ultimately spearheading US militarism -- really going to save the foreigners they ultimately despise? In fact, most of the problems in the Middle East were exacerbated by foreign domination and influence.

Grandpa h.

[Tim]

Quote by: ren In the lead post the following statement was attributed to de Tocqueville: So we have individual rights and the implication of personal responsibility set up by our Bill of Rights and the Constitution. But how does "people's" responsibility fit that? And we have what's called a Republic. I've been in some knock down drag outs over the years with those who emphasize the Republic aspect of our government, not the democratic aspect. Was perhaps de Tocqueville wrong about democracy? Are the people then, perhaps, not getting the government we deserve simply because we are not a democracy? Are we perhaps getting a government we don't even want, sold to us with a kind of illusion?

If it is an illusion, then we fell for it. It it was sold to us, we bought it. We live in a society with remarkably free information. We can go online to a website such as Opensecrets.org--Money in politics data and find out where donation money is coming from. We can examine the claims made by politicians and the policies they enact and see if it adds up. If we were duped, I contend that it's our own fault, and that we must now reap what we have sown.

In a presidential system, critics of such systems identify the following three disadvangages as a potential threat to democracy: Tendency towards authoritarianism — some political scientists say that presidentialism is not constitutionally stable. According to some political scientists, such as Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in every country it has been attempted. Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this creates undesirable gridlock, and that it reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other. Impediments to leadership change — it is claimed that the difficulty in removing an unsuitable president from office before his or her term has expired represents a significant problem. I think I could make a good case for each of those being present right now, and I'd suggest -- including the points you raised -- we are in the middle of a dire constitutional crisis. As Chalmers Johnson quipped when Nancy Pelosi said Impeachment is off the table, "Then the Republic is off the table."

That's an interesting list right there. I've never really pictured America without a president. However, I don't know if I believe that you can blame what is happening in America solely on the president. After all, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, and Congress approved the war in Iraq/keeps giving it money. I would agree that actions such as signing statements are definitely an abuse of power. I certainly agree that the role of the president has increased too much over the past 100 years or so.

[xyzer]

Before commenting everyone should read or reread the Constitution of the USA! It is an experiment in represntative government and democratic participation virtually un matched elsewhere. There is written in protection of the rights of US citizens written into this founding document. They cannot be erased or changed without the participation of the people through their legislators. The concept and its execution is subject to human interpretation and execution! Thus this superlative form of governance is subjected to the frailties of the human beings elected to run it and conduct its business. We may not always agree with the policies executed but they are done in a representative system. e.g. The Bush policy of invading Iraq was done with the consent of those legislators we elected! Tim makes the point.

We don't have any Mugabes or Saddams here making their nations decisions at the point of a gun or sword? Our leaders act under the protective framework of the laws.Thus don't criticise the systemor the nation, criticize the elected .representatives?

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer Before commenting everyone should read or reread the Constitution of the USA! It is an experiment in represntative government and democratic participation virtually un matched elsewhere.

It's an experiment gone wrong, though. Sure, I don't read the Constitution every night before I go to bed, but I know enough about the "Republic" to see it doesn't work well enough. And the Constitution is only a document. When we elect a bunch of elite twits, we shouldn't expect them to adhere to it.

Grandpa h.

[ren]

Quote by: Tim If it is an illusion, then we fell for it. It it was sold to us, we bought it. We live in a society with remarkably free information. We can go online to a website such as Opensecrets.org--Money in politics data and find out where donation money is coming from. We can examine the claims made by politicians and the policies they enact and see if it adds up. If we were duped, I contend that it's our own fault, and that we must now reap what we have sown.

No question about it, remarkably free information.

But what good is raw information? What good is it without a narrative to make a story of it, to make a story of the world in your mind that makes sense? How do you go about connecting donation money to anything at all? Will the Main Stream Stenographers do it for you?

Information is free to access, unless it's decided it should be kept secret, like the energy meetings our Vice President has while ignoring the people with their hair on fire running around because of legitimate threats from al Qaeda. What was said in those meetings? Congress's Government Accountability Office tried to find out and got turned away. Hmmm.

What do you do when the donation money cancels out the legitimacy of all candidates, for instance? Write one in? Pick a candidate like Nader? No, then the "bad guy" gets elected, whoever that might be.

That's an interesting list right there. I've never really pictured America without a president. However, I don't know if I believe that you can blame what is happening in America solely on the president. After all, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, and Congress approved the war in Iraq/keeps giving it money. I would agree that actions such as signing statements are definitely an abuse of power. I certainly agree that the role of the president has increased too much over the past 100 years or so.

Yes, I think it's an interesting list.

If you haven't pictured the US without a president, simply rethink the notion that the US was an early prototype experiment, coming out of a feudal mind set that had leadership options like monarchies, emperors, and a bit of a threat from theocratic influences throughout the world. Is it possible that a better structural concept might be either available or worth creating after more than 200 years? Jefferson thought such notions possible, even then. A parliamentary system has much to offer a nation that's grown to this size. Iraq's is a pretty modern parliamentary system, with its structure of state-like provinces and the potential for regional governates. With our huge geographical area, breaking our massive federal bureaucracy into regions might make some sense. Just a thought.

Why do you use the word blame?

The presidency seeks power because of the nature of the massive bureaucratic system Congress has created for it to direct. Like any corporatation, the system gets out of hand and it needs to strip away complexity, or the costs exceed the margin of profit. Government doesn't have a profit, it has taxes. I don't think it's too hard to see how that works and why we have a cry for smaller government and privatization. The same pressures come to bear on a bureaucracy, whether it's a corporate bureaucracy or a governmental one. Bureaucracies become ever more complex, and the complexity creates expenses.

I'm raising a deep structural issue here, and the list of issues I have in mind does not "blame" the presidency, any more than it does Congress.

I wish to call your attention to the following sentence in the "Separation of Powers" criticism:

Critics argue that this creates undesirable gridlock, and that it reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other.

Do you see how you are already doing that to yourself, taking it on, pointing fingers at one branch and another to give blame, and giving yourself blame because "we" did not get the right representative people into Congress who even bothered to read let alone seriously question the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq they passed blissfully unconstitutionally giving away their their mandate to modify the President's decision making powers in a requisite democratically representative way? The structure of the laws set out by the Constitution is supposed to control that illegal behavior? Well, Congress makes the laws, so it can change them, I guess. That's there too, isn't it? Next stop, the court system.

At this point I ask myself: How do I bring these curs to heel for this smear on my Constitution? How do I bring back the dead who died as a result? In what way are we responsible for such gross illegal behavior? So far the answer is what?

Something like:

xyzer wrote: Before commenting everyone should read or reread the Constitution of the USA! It is an experiment in represntative government and democratic participation virtually un matched elsewhere. There is written in protection of the rights of US citizens written into this founding document. They cannot be erased or changed without the participation of the people through their legislators. The concept and its execution is subject to human interpretation and execution! Thus this superlative form of governance is subjected to the frailties of the human beings elected to run it and conduct its business. We may not always agree with the policies executed but they are done in a representative system. e.g. The Bush policy of invading Iraq was done with the consent of those legislators we elected! Tim makes the point. We don't have any Mugabes or Saddams here making their nations decisions at the point of a gun or sword? Our leaders act under the protective framework of the laws.Thus don't criticise the systemor the nation, criticize the elected .representatives?

So, xyzer thinks I haven't read the Constitution? I can take it apart piece by piece, but I haven't read it? No, that's not what that statement is really saying. It's telling me, and anyone else who dares to question this "un matched" (but note, experimental) system and the current relevance of this antique document in this day and age needs to be put in a corral along with all the other "anti-American" protesters and questioners.

It's an "experiment" but we can't question it...

If you do, you're labeled an "America Hater."

How about the question I raised about the results of the 2006 election and the message to the President and our representatives in Congress? I don't see anyone addressing that. How about this point relevant to that:

As Chalmers Johnson quipped when Nancy Pelosi said Impeachment is off the table, "Then the Republic is off the table."

What precisely should make the president, our employee, like a CEO is an employee of the owners of a corporation, be concerned with what the people want? Congress isn't. The war goes on, the funding goes on.

Why this raising the haunting specter of extremes, like Saddam Hussein, or Mugabe? I'm supposed to go: Oh! I'm so grateful! I don't have to be told what to do by them, I have all these other benevolent authoritarians to choose from, bosses, the President, and so on?

I always liked this quote from Stan Goff:

“The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.” -- Steven Biko It’s much easier to exercise control over a population whenever they consent to their own domination. They sort of accept the official story, accept the official ideology and then we all just sort of go around and cooperate. That kind of control, where we internalize the control, is hegemony. Where when I come up and hold a gun on you and you do it out of naked fear, that’s coercion. And the idea is you’ve got sort of hegemony on one pole, exercising ruling class power and coercion on the other pole and as hegemony fails then coercion becomes the more prominent instrument.

Let's not disturb ourselves with such questions about an increasingly powerful Presidency, virtually unchecked now by an ever obsequious Congress, after all, we can go to the ballot box and choose another every so often. The choices will be from this elite duopoly this nation has spawned. A two party system we can't seem to shake.

I think we are deep in the middle of a Constitutional crisis, and only a few of us really want to look at it.

Yes, we have choices, so do rats in a maze as they make their ways to their reward.

[GHook93]

The primary system makes it so only the ones with the most money have a chance. The election system makes it so there are really only 2 choices. The Democratic Primary system has it so unelected super-delegates can over-ride the will of the people. A third choice is not only desirable, but necessary.

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 The primary system makes it so only the ones with the most money have a chance. The election system makes it so there are really only 2 choices.

Exactly! If we had more choices, we'd be less underneath a single totalitarian system. However, don't let the system fool you. There are always more than two choices. We have at least have 3 choices, with the third being "None of the Above."

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

Quote by: grandpa Exactly! If we had more choices, we'd be less underneath a single totalitarian system. However, don't let the system fool you. There are always more than two choices. We have at least have 3 choices, with the third being "None of the Above." Grandpa h.

That is a paradox, because even if you don't vote one of the 2 will be voted in!