View Full Version : What's Gone Wrong With Democracy?
Democracy was the most successful political idea of the 20th century. Why has it run into trouble, and what can be done to revive it?
http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21596796-democracy-was-most-successful-political-idea-20th-century-why-has-it-run-trouble-and-what-can-be-do
And so it goes...
Richard
Peregrino
03-30-2014, 20:38
Dead link.
Dead link.
I just tried it and it opened for me. :confused:
Richard
Trapper John
03-31-2014, 06:22
Actually I found the article to be rather sophomoric. I tend to read quickly through most stuff to see if there is anything worth studying a little deeper. This piece struck me as a waste of time. In the first place, most of our Founders feared democracy as akin to mob rule. They were precisely correct in that assessment and the recent examples of attempted and fledgling democracies is testament.
The uniqueness of the US is that it is a democratically elected constitutional republic - not a democracy. I used to view the Economist as a rather scholarly and thoughtful publication. Well, not any more. Now I am suspicious that it too has become just another pseudo-intellectual rag that is a messenger of misinformation to promote a progressive agenda. The ideological undercurrents are obvious. And the sad thing is that this opinion piece will reinforce the meme among the unthinking sheeple.
Shit- I am going to devolve into a rant!
Trapper John <out>
PS: Richard - great post! I do love a good piece of HUMINT and this piece tells me a lot about the state of thought (pseudo-intellectual), messaging style, and tactics we are up against.
craigepo
03-31-2014, 11:32
I can save the author some time.
In order to have a perpetual democracy, citizens must understand that, with rights, come responsibilities. Picture this as a continuum. On one end, too many responsibilities without the necessary rights becomes tyranny or despotism. On the other end, all rights without any responsibilities leads to anarchy and economic collapse.
When a populace fails to understand this, but still has the ability to vote in the democratic society, the result inevitably skews toward the anarchy and economic collapse side of things. People vote to make their own lives easier and push off responsibilities to the "rich folks". The history of Argentina is a hell of a case study.
The end.
Trapper John
03-31-2014, 12:04
I can save the author some time.
In order to have a perpetual democracy, citizens must understand that, with rights, come responsibilities. Picture this as a continuum. On one end, too many responsibilities without the necessary rights becomes tyranny or despotism. On the other end, all rights without any responsibilities leads to anarchy and economic collapse.
When a populace fails to understand this, but still has the ability to vote in the democratic society, the result inevitably skews toward the anarchy and economic collapse side of things. People vote to make their own lives easier and push off responsibilities to the "rich folks". The history of Argentina is a hell of a case study.
The end.
:D
...this is all good democracy talk, but at the core, I just want to know why my unemployment check is late again.
Take a look at Egypt.
Did they want a democracy or did the "hopeful" majority say "We only need 50.01%. We win, they lose."?
The majority immediately started writing out the minority's rights - which caused the next bit of turmoil.
Majority rule can be a bitch for the minority...
Actually I found the article to be rather sophomoric. I tend to read quickly through most stuff to see if there is anything worth studying a little deeper. This piece struck me as a waste of time. In the first place, most of our Founders feared democracy as akin to mob rule. They were precisely correct in that assessment and the recent examples of attempted and fledgling democracies is testament.
The uniqueness of the US is that it is a democratically elected constitutional republic - not a democracy. I used to view the Economist as a rather scholarly and thoughtful publication. Well, not any more. Now I am suspicious that it too has become just another pseudo-intellectual rag that is a messenger of misinformation to promote a progressive agenda. The ideological undercurrents are obvious. And the sad thing is that this opinion piece will reinforce the meme among the unthinking sheeple.
Shit- I am going to devolve into a rant!
Trapper John <out>
PS: Richard - great post! I do love a good piece of HUMINT and this piece tells me a lot about the state of thought (pseudo-intellectual), messaging style, and tactics we are up against.
Some rants are worth hearing now and again.
The uniqueness of the US is that it is a democratically elected constitutional republic -
Democratically constituted federal republic, TJ, is what we teach our students. ;)
Richard
Democratically constituted federal republic, TJ, is what we teach our students. ;)
Richard
A federal republic can also be a constitutional republic (as in the US). They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Trapper John
03-31-2014, 15:25
A federal republic can also be a constitutional republic (as in the US). They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Thanks Bro! I was going to say... but you know how Richard is...:p
A federal republic can also be a constitutional republic (as in the US). They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Thanks Bro! I was going to say... but you know how Richard is...:p
They don't - but they can...
A republic can exist without a constitution
A republic can exist without being federalist in structure
A constitution can exist without being democratically ratified
The USA, on the other hand, is democratically constituted [having a constitution which lays out its governing principles and structures, and which was ratified (agreed to) democratically by its original member states], and has a republican (representative) form of government with a federalist structure which allocates the sharing of power between the national, and state (and local) governments.
As we teach in high school civics, the USA is not just a 'constitutional republic' or a 'federal republic', but a democratically constituted federal republic - an important distinction among world governments and in World History.
Richard
Great easy on a very touchy topic.
Is Democracy the problem or the people behind it? I also look at countries going through these revolutions or whatever they are, I think too that in order to have a democracy work the country's citizens must understand it. Yes with democracy, come responsibilities, which most of these countries and unfortunately Americans don't understand.
What I see in many countries wanting democracy, you have people that think or want too much without the responsibilities or without the necessary rights do end up becoming tyrannies. On the other side, you have thinkers with all the rights without any responsibilities and leads to chaos.
Can we do down the list of which is which in these countries with these mini LIC and meltdowns.
...this is all good democracy talk, but at the core, I just want to know why my unemployment check is late again.
lol En punto, Bro. :D
Peregrino
03-31-2014, 18:29
Actually I found the article to be rather sophomoric. I tend to read quickly through most stuff to see if there is anything worth studying a little deeper. This piece struck me as a waste of time. In the first place, most of our Founders feared democracy as akin to mob rule. They were precisely correct in that assessment and the recent examples of attempted and fledgling democracies is testament.
The uniqueness of the US is that it is a democratically elected constitutional republic - not a democracy. I used to view the Economist as a rather scholarly and thoughtful publication. Well, not any more. Now I am suspicious that it too has become just another pseudo-intellectual rag that is a messenger of misinformation to promote a progressive agenda. The ideological undercurrents are obvious. And the sad thing is that this opinion piece will reinforce the meme among the unthinking sheeple.
Shit- I am going to devolve into a rant!
Trapper John <out>
PS: Richard - great post! I do love a good piece of HUMINT and this piece tells me a lot about the state of thought (pseudo-intellectual), messaging style, and tactics we are up against.
Damn - the world as we know must be coming to an end! I agree with Trapper John. With points to Craigepo for a quality addendum. Finally got it to open on my computer. MOO - The American experiment is in serious trouble. Too many takers, not enough makers.
Robert A. Heinlein > Quotes > Quotable Quote
“The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’
‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
I believe the last election cycle conclusively demonstrated that we've passed the tipping point. What we're experiencing now is the gradual acceleration as we slide down the slippery slope.
Trapper John
03-31-2014, 19:40
Peregrino- Damn - the world as we know must be coming to an end! I agree with Trapper John.
Don't worry, two concentric circles will always coincide twice, Bro. And the world will still revolve on its axis. Looking forward to the next time. :D
Thanks Richard, and as usual, I stand corrected. ;) Once a teacher, always a teacher Huh?
I believe the last election cycle conclusively demonstrated that we've passed the tipping point. What we're experiencing now is the gradual acceleration as we slide down the slippery slope.
Come on Peregrino there are no cooking of books going now.
The Reaper
03-31-2014, 21:43
We need to also fix the economy so that more people are working and less on the dole.
I don't think the economy is the largest problem with people not working.
Some, maybe, but not those for whom taking is a multigenerational way of life with a built-in excuse.
And the lib solutions, Obamacare, increasing the minimum wage, environmental Nazis, anti-business regulations, excessive taxation, more government benefits, etc., are going to make the problem worse, not better.
TR
GratefulCitizen
03-31-2014, 21:43
Peregrino-
Don't worry, two concentric circles will always coincide twice, Bro. And the world will still revolve on its axis. Looking forward to the next time. :D
Concentric circles do not coincide twice.
Two intersecting circles coincide twice (unless it's a tangential intersection, then they only intersect once).
Technically, there can be intersecting concentric circles, but they would be identical circles superimposed and would coincide everywhere.
This all assumes coplanar circles.
In the case of non-coplanar circles, two circles of the same radius with a common center would coincide twice.
Not sure that non-coplanar circles would be considered "concentric" as this normally implies "coaxial" as well (non-coplanar circles cannot be coaxial).
:D
(Oh, BTW, the world's axis precesses, so it's not quite revolving on its axis.)
:D
ddoering
04-01-2014, 03:31
Maybe, maybe not. Remember, Romney did well in the polls after that first debate. So I think conservatism is still very viable. The problems are that the safety net was not designed in a sustainable fashion, and the government also robbed the Social Security fund. We need to also fix the economy so that more people are working and less on the dole.
If someone had focused on job creation we would have more makers and less takers. I guess that would have eaten into his base......
Trapper John
04-01-2014, 06:24
Concentric circles do not coincide twice.
Two intersecting circles coincide twice (unless it's a tangential intersection, then they only intersect once).
Technically, there can be intersecting concentric circles, but they would be identical circles superimposed and would coincide everywhere.
This all assumes coplanar circles.
In the case of non-coplanar circles, two circles of the same radius with a common center would coincide twice.
Not sure that non-coplanar circles would be considered "concentric" as this normally implies "coaxial" as well (non-coplanar circles cannot be coaxial).
:D
(Oh, BTW, the world's axis precesses, so it's not quite revolving on its axis.)
:D
You are correct and I stand corrected..... again. :D
Streck-Fu
04-01-2014, 07:21
In my opinion, two amendments to the Constitution enabled this; the 14th and 17th.
The 14th was passed during the reconstruction and completed what started with the Civil War, the usurpation of state power by the federal government. Now the federal government is able to dictate authority to the states.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The 17th Am. completely removed the voice of the state governments at the federal level and completely destroyed a key element of protection. This brought us closer to a democracy than a republic. Now a simple majority of people had far more influence over federal power. The states could no longer protect themselves legislatively from a federal government that was rapidly expanding powers and catered to those that could keep them in power, the people. The states lose and , ultimately, the people lose...
These are the mechanisms that have enabled the erosion our system of government. Simply, we got too much democracy in our republic.
Trapper John
04-01-2014, 08:47
Streck-Fu -
Not so sure I would agree with you on the 14th. IMO, no state should be able to abridge the liberties and protections afforded by the Constitution. In its absence there is entirely too much lee-way for State abuse of those rights as we have seen from history.
However, as to 17th - absolutely agree. :lifter
You are correct, IMO, the combination of the two effectively denudes State's of many of the rights "reserved for the States" and pushes us into a democracy as opposed to a republic.
Probably the single most important act necessary to correct our course would be repeal of the 17th A. That should be followed by repeal of the 16th A IMO.
Streck-Fu
04-01-2014, 10:22
Streck-Fu -
Not so sure I would agree with you on the 14th. IMO, no state should be able to abridge the liberties and protections afforded by the Constitution. In its absence there is entirely too much lee-way for State abuse of those rights as we have seen from history.
I agree with your sentiment but the 14th removes the individual state governments from the position prominence in managing the affairs of the citizens in the state. The federal government now dictates to the states.
Do not forget that the Bill of Rights only exist to appease the Anti-Federalist that feared a strong central government. The Federalists tried to make the case that the federal government could not exercise powers not defined to it in the Constitution. The Ant-Federalists (correctly) feared that the new government could easily expand powers and turn into a tyranny. They wanted to define the most important liberties that the government must not be permitted to violate.
The 14th was passed during the reconstruction and completed what started with the Civil War, the usurpation of state power by the federal government.
Wasn't that issue "started" with the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of the US Constitution (by the states themselves) which granted much broader powers to the federal government over the states than the AofC had done? :confused:
And what of the 1819 McCulloch vs Maryland decision based upon Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 18 (the "necessary and proper" clause) of the Constitution?
And as far as the 14th Amendment goes:
Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Clause 1 Sec 1 declared that blacks were citizens and created national citizenship independent of state citizenship, a firm renunciation of the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision.
Clause 2 Sec 1 means that rights which come with US citizenship may not be abridged by the states.
Clause 3 Sec 1 means that the law must not be arbitrary and must be conducted with fairness, and has brought more SCOTUS cases than any other.
Clause 4 Sec 1 is mostly concerned with discriminatory laws of a state against any group and was originally designed to eliminate discrimination because of race or color. This clause was the basis for most of the 1954 Brown v Board of Ed decision which ruled that segregation deprives citizens of equal opportunities.
Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 5 provided the constitutional authority under which the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's were passed to outlaw continuing racial discrimination of US citizens under the banner of states' rights by a number of states in areas such as employment, schooling, access to public facilities, housing, etc.
So, I'm curious, what would you - with the perceived benefit of hindsight - have done differently, if anything, and why or why not? :confused:
Richard
Actually I found the article to be rather sophomoric.
TJ - after a third reading of the essay, I disagree - and await a response to this essay from Professor Fukuyama.
Richard
Trapper John
04-05-2014, 12:17
TJ - after a third reading of the essay, I disagree - and await a response to this essay from Professor Fukuyama.
Richard
At your suggestion, I read Fukuyama's essay (attached). Very thoughtful and insightful, IMO. However, upon rereading "What's Wrong with Democracy", my initial impression did not change much. Perhaps a little harsh in saying it was sophomoric, but pretty much stating the obvious, IMO, concluding with:
But if democracy is to remain as successful in the 21st century as it was in the 20th, it must be both assiduously nurtured when it is young—and carefully maintained when it is mature. Well, Duh :D
Borrowing from Fukuyama, I think the dynamic between materialistic determinism and ideology are the major drivers of geopolitics today. It would appear that the three major conflicts are and will continue to be arising from (i) theocracy (Islam), (ii) statism/neofascism (Putin's Russia), and (iii) autocracy (China).
IMO the US, under progressive liberalism, is moving towards autocracy i.e. centralized government planning with a privileged political elite ruling class similar to China and the necessary suppression of personal liberties. I would even predict a China/US/EU alliance if things continue on their present course, the ultimate conflict will arise with the Russia/Iran alliance.
It is interesting and note worthy that successful advancement of democratic institutions seemed to be preceded by catastrophic failures - fascism in Japan/Germany as a result of WWII, economic driven collapse of Maoism in China, social collapse of apartheid in South Africa to name a few.
If the US is to go down the autocratic path as it appears to be, can we conclude that it will take a catastrophic event to enable us to reverse course? IMO, that answer is yes. I question whether this course is even reversible in the first place.
I would like to read Fukuyama's response too!