Is Democracy on the Decline?

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

This is how it has always been in America, the citizens in the US have no power but the voting power. Just because the citizens in your opinion have a worthless vote, not really much has changed since the day our country began. If it has always been this way then there is actually no decline of democracy, democracy has remained pretty much the same.

 

The only thing that has changed in my opinion is the country has less of a well informed electorate, unintellectual constituencies, and representatives getting away duping their voters.

 

What we have today, bears very little resemblence to what the founding fathers had in mind. Our representatives then were part time. They didn't maintain a residence in the captial. (wherever it happened to be.) It wasn't their only job either, most had business, or farms, or plantations. No, the government we have today, is nothing at all like what we had originally.

 

Governing is one thing but Democracy itself is another. Was never claiming that the government hasn't changed over the years, but democracy in our country hasn't declined at all really. We still elect representatives like we always have. If anything Democracy has expanded since the birth of the nation since long before my time women and African Americans use to not be able to vote at all.

 

Bearing very little resemblance to what the founding fathers had in mind is just simply not the point. there is no real decline of "Democracy" itself. So I don't really understand why one would think it to be at a decline in America just because one would think the founding fathers had something different in mind.

 

We don't have democracy any more, I would call it "corporatacracy". The corporations make the important decisions, who gets to run, what legislation gets passed, etc. If you think differently, please take a look at where the campaign donations come from, and where they go to. If a candidate gets elected, he is beholden to his contributors, else, next election cycle, they will back someone else that will be more 'agreeable' to their postitions on various topics. The citizens still get the illusion of some kind of 'choice' with their vote, but, its a rather hollow victory, as WE don't get to choose who runs. Please notice that the republicans put Romney up against Obama, when they had FAR better candidates to field...... WE didn't pick him, someone else did.

 

 

@HeyYou

 

This is how it has always been in America, the citizens in the US have no power but the voting power. Just because the citizens in your opinion have a worthless vote, not really much has changed since the day our country began. If it has always been this way then there is actually no decline of democracy, democracy has remained pretty much the same.

 

The only thing that has changed in my opinion is the country has less of a well informed electorate, unintellectual constituencies, and representatives getting away duping their voters.

 

Just imagine if you had a better educated country...

 

This argument keeps coming up in these types of debates so let me spill out for you: If you have a population that is literate, taught the basics of science, math, and history, and has access to all the information it could want about current events, then it is educated. It's meaningless to insist they really aren't, that until they join you in a vigorous discussion of Cicero that they're just half-witted slobs. People who think this way must not know very many ordinary people, must be status-insecure, or must still be young and dumb enough to believe that they're smarter than everyone else. The current American level of education is sufficient to prevent an autocracy from coming about. It's hair-splitting to say that westerners are apathetic or aren’t educated, compare them to the rest of the world, anything but democracy is a no-go.

 

Americans, by and large, are (to use a colloquialism) too fat, dumb, and happy, to really educate themselves about issues on their own. They let the mouthpieces of their various political parties spoon-feed them what they are supposed to think. It actually works pretty well. At least, for the various parties.... doesn't work worth a damn for the citizens.

 

Americans, individually, can be very 'educated', eloquent, and well-informed. Collectively though, we got nuthin' on a box o' rocks. To prove that point, notice that we keep electing the same people back into the same office, when we are well aware that they screwed us in the past...... and that has been going on for decades.

Edited September 21, 2013 by HeyYou

[JimboUK]

It's all well and good complaining that people keep electing the same parties to office but when there's little difference between the parties what are people supposed to do? If someone was sick of the war, human rights abuses, overspending and general fiscal incompetence of the Bush era they would have voted for Obama and then got exactly the same. Democracy is worthless if you don't have a real choice and picking a cheek of the same corporate arse isn't a choice. We have the same issue here, the main parties are so alike that it matters little who wins.

[Lisnpuppy]

edit: removed as non-relevant

[spz2]

I am the sort of person who likes to look at the big picture before making a decision . Not that i mean by that that details are not important , ofc they are , details like freedom of expression and other we take for granted which we wouldn't have in a dictatorship or not to the extent we have today . Yet i am, like i mentioned, a fascist , i believe its benefits outweigh the deficits. I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution and i do not believe it does enough for humans to weed out the un-intelligent , the current sexual selection process that shapes humanity is too weak of a process to weed out inefficient genes from the population .Before the industrialization of the world, nature would just do it for humans as it did for other animals, now we must take the role of nature , this missing part of the underlying workings not just of humans but of ALL creatures will soon make itself felt. Populations of animals raised in zoos will not be able to survive with their genes in the wild because the high quality lifestyle does nothing but ruin their gene pool in a matter of generations, this has been tried. All humans are entitled to a high quality of life but , not all should be allowed to breed , simple as that .

And democracy is for helping everyone , non-discrimination, at least in theory BUT in practice it creates social structures of inequality just like old fashion fascism did . Democracy leads to population booms and it puts more emphasis on quantity over quality , it only works in theory .

Edited September 21, 2013 by spz2

[TRoaches]

Regarding the question of education of the public, or lack thereof, I have to agree to an extent with MajKrAzAm. If your position is that the public is uneducated, lazy, and apathetic then there are really only two possibilities as to how you perceive yourself: You either believe that you are more educated, more motivated, and less apathetic than the majority, or you are consider yourself to be just as uneducated, lazy, and apathetic as the rest. If the former is true then it doesn't make much sense to express offence at the notion when someone else points it out. If the latter is true then it doesn't make much sense to complain about an uneducated, lazy, apathetic public.

 

The notion of blaming our problems on a lack of education troubles me, because the line between education and indoctrination is very thin and very subjective. There is very little objective truth to be found when studying fields like history, politics, or sociology. The same events can be described in drastically differing terms depending on the motives and preconceptions of the observer. If one states that the public needs to be more educated about these topics then the logical follow-up question would be "Educated in what way, according to which version of the truth, authored by which source?". In the fictional dystopian societies envisioned by authors like Orwell, Huxley, or Bradbury the public was extremely educated in a certain sense of the word, to the point that nearly everyone possessed the same level of knowledge and was equally competent with regard to their duties as citizens. In those novels they had achieved the goal of no child being left behind. The problem was that there was no diversity of thought, and this was the direct result of everyone possessing the same level of knowledge and being equally competent with regard to their duties as citizens. History and politics were treated as objective truths that only a fool would question.

 

If your solution to the ills of democracy is to better educate the public then it implies that the people who currently disagree with your vision of how our society should operate are in disagreement with you because they lack knowledge that you possess. In many instances this may be true, but it could just as easily be said that you disagree with them because you lack information that they possess, making you the uneducated one. The old argument of teaching evolution vs creationism in school is a fine example. People who advocated creationism are viewed by many as being backwards and ignorant, but the fact is that evolution is itself a theory that is based on a great many assumptions and is, in the end, entirely theoretical. To argue that it should be taught as an objective scientific fact is just as flawed as any creation theory. One could even argue that teaching evolution as an objective scientific fact is more damaging to a child's understanding of the principles of science than creationism is because it implies that science is a dogmatic collection of truths rather than a method used to question dogma and explain the unexplained.

 

If there is a problem with education and its effect on political thought it is not that people are being taught the wrong information or are not learning enough; it is that people are being taught that the purpose of education to learn facts instead of learning how to learn. A student who memorizes the most facts will usually be viewed as a "good student", while a student who questions the teacher's assertions will be viewed as a disruptive troublemaker. This same attitude is seen in politics, where a candidate or voter who strays too far from the center is viewed similarly as a disruptive troublemaker and a candidate or voter who maintains the party line (either party) is viewed more positively.

[colourwheel]

This is why education is so bad in America because student can get by just satisfying a courses metrics without fully understanding what is needed to be learned. If you look at modern colleges today a majority of courses are actually being monitored by an assistant teacher as the students are expected to teach themselves using computer guides in math, science, etc....

 

When I ask people randomly If they are for or against "Obamacare", 15 out of 31 people who I have asked personally claim to be against the law when they have never taken the time to actually read over it. Ironic when we live in an age where almost anything is as easy to research just by googling on the web on an Ipad or smart phone. Even as lengthy as the law is you would think people who are so strongly against something would actually take the time to research it themselves and read over it.

 

Almost half the populous in my area believe the earth is no more than 10 thousand years old when it has been proven from carbon testing of fossils that have been found over the years that the earth is over 4 billion years old.

 

Americas Democracy has not really declined. Despite how one might think our government might or might not be corrupt. The only thing that has really changed is how uninformed our electorate has become. The people still hold the power to vote and votes do matter. Just in this age it is easier to dupe voters to support one candidate over another. This is just one reason why education is paramount to a country in a democratic nation and why education might actually be the root to why we have such a dysfunctional government when almost a 3rd of our current congress probably does not even understand or have even read over the constitution let alone the bill or rights...

Edited September 21, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

This is why education is so bad in America because student can get by just satisfying a courses metrics without fully understanding what is needed to be learned.......Almost half the populous in my area believe the earth is no more than 10 thousand years old when it has been proven from carbon testing of fossils that have been found over the years that the earth is over 4 billion years old.

In a way you are illustrating my point with this statement. Radiometric dating has not "proven" that the earth is any particular age. It is a theoretical method of estimating the age of some materials. By stating that radiometric dating proves that the earth is over 4 billion years old you taking a theoretical scientific estimation of the age of the earth based on the best available information and describing it as an absolute truth, in contrast to the absolute falseness of some other belief about the same topic. If you were a student and the question on the test were "how old is the earth?" the only truly correct answer would be "nobody really knows, but the most rigorously tested and reviewed theories estimate its age to be 4+ billion years". Unfortunately, simply stating "the earth is over 4 billion years old" would probably be counted as correct despite such an answer being a strong indication that you lack understanding of the basic principles of science. The question itself, if worded as above, would also demonstrate the same lack of understanding on the part of the author of the test.

 

You point to the statistic of almost half of the population in your area believing that the earth is 10k years old as an example of an area where they need to be educated to correct what you view as a misconception. This illustrates the problem with viewing education as something that can be quantified objectively, with some people being "more educated" and others being "less educated". Any subject of education that is not based entirely in math or pure logic can be inadvertently twisted by the educator in subtle ways that go beyond true vs false. The educator may not intend to mislead the student, but their lack of intention does not mean that they are not doing so. In your example, you learned at some point from some source that the earth is 4B+ years old. This may well be true, but it has not been proven to be true, any more so than the 10k claim, though most (or all) scientists would consider it to be better supported by observation than the 10k claim. The source from which you learned the age of the earth may not have actually stated the theoretical age as a fact and you simply misunderstood what they meant, or they may have lazily handed you a fact to memorize and rewarded you for doing so.

 

This is why a more educated population is not the answer to better government. A more educated population could very well be educated in all of the wrong ways about what the issues are, and what the possible solutions to those issues may be. Instead of a better educated society I would like to see a society that is more comfortable with questioning the claims made by those in power, the claims made by those who recorded the history that led to our present, and the options that we are presented with regarding how to solve the issues that we face. A person who does any of those things is typically marginalized and ignored, and the marginalization of minority opinions is perhaps democracy's most negative trait.

 

ETA: Did the 16 people who told you that they supported the ACA read the bill?

Edited September 21, 2013 by TRoaches

[spz2]

"but the fact is that evolution is itself a theory that is based on a great many assumptions and is, in the end, entirely theoretical. To argue that it should be taught as an objective scientific fact is just as flawed as any creation theory. One could even argue that teaching evolution as an objective scientific fact is more damaging to a child's understanding of the principles of science than creationism is because it implies that science is a dogmatic collection of truths rather than a method used to question dogma and explain the unexplained. " TRoaches

 

 

Sorry i haven't figured it out how to properly quote .

You would be marked illegible for breeding in a state ruled by my policies . Not that i am not for diversity , because i am for it , what i am not for however, is stupidity . See , i disagree with Linspuppy on a fundamental level that don't mean i do not think of her as higly intelligent . I use common sense to come to the conclusion that dictatorship is better than democracy , how ? well if i'm smarter than most people then i should know better than most people , ain't it ? Duh .... ! GO back readin ur f*#@in bible , "you" is what's wrong with democracy , and you cannot be banished from this planet unless you banish democracy from this planet.

Edited September 21, 2013 by spz2

[Aonghus]

A variation of this debate has been going on for as long as I can remember. Each new generation arises and naturally rebels against the generation that came before. "We're not going to make the same mistakes as our parents!" Becomes the rallying cry, and things do change, often for the better. The problem boils down to attempts to re-invent the wheel. Without a firm, dispassionate knowledge of history, it is impossible to know what mistakes were made before and therefore avoid making them again. It has been said that history repeats itself, first as a tragedy, then as a farce.

 

SPZ2, you make an impassioned argument for a benevolent dictatorship based on his thinking on the subject. (just a note, time will teach you you're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are. A lesson I learned at great personal cost,) At the same time, he totally ignores the fact that such a system has never worked for long throughout recorded history.

 

Compounding the problem is an attempt by some individuals to put their own particular "spin" on historic events. On another board I frequent, there is a long-running, and often contentious debate on the merits of the AGW theory. Those of us who are old enough to remember the 70s point out that the great fear of the time was that man's pollution was bringing on the next ice age, and the only possible way to save the planet was to totally abandon fossil fuels (which were all going to be depleted by the year 2000 in any case.) On mentioning that fact, I have generally encountered denial that such a theory was ever held, or if it was it was, it was a fringe theory that never gain widespread scientific acceptance. Yet I have clear memories of the constant drumbeat of warning throughout my years in grade school that we had to reduce pollution, lest the glaciers return.

 

All this is in way of saying that any historical sources other than primary are at best suspect, and at worst attempts to propagandize.

 

Just prior to WWI, then president Wilson said, "We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks." It was a statement totally in keeping with the newest political theory on the scene. Facism would be the wave of the future, with all the happy workers lead by a benevolent and magnanimous elite. It took less than forty years for Germany to demonstrate just how wrong that thinking was.

 

In the early part of the 20th century, the idea of eugenics was quite popular. President Roosevelt (Teddy) and H.G. Wells were great proponents of the movement. Margaret Sanger founded the organization that would become Planned Parenthood in an attempt to control the growing population of immigrants and minorities in the country that was less harsh than euthanasia. (A fact that she unabashedly acknowledged in an interview shortly before her death.) Again, before the middle of the century, the true horror that lay behind taking the theory to its logical conclusion became apparent.

 

Lacking a knowledge of the past, there is no way to know what wonderful theories led to the horrors of the mid 20th century. A lack of critical thinking and reasoning skills robs one of the ability to see that no matter how wonderful a theory may sound, the unintended consequences can be horrific. Lack of knowledge of philosophy robs one of the ability to discern the difference between good and evil. Wilson may have been right, and the majority of a countries citizens may lack the intellectual fortitude to benefit from advanced education (after all, by definition, half of the population is below average in intelligence.) Given where governance by elites, with no input from the masses, has historically lead us, I am leery of any system that proposes such a system of governance, no matter what method is used to select those who are the elite.

 

The western system of democratic republics has been around for quite a while, and may, someday, cease to be a viable alternative. My sense is that day has not yet arrived, and will not arrive for some time to come.

[sukeban]

@TRoaches

 

An aspect of this debate that has largely gone unaddressed is that there is a finite limit to how much knowledge a given human may possess, while at the same time the cumulative knowledge of mankind continues to expand, complicating the idea that each individual citizen really is in a position to register an informed opinion on any given subject. The democratic ideal of citizen-scholars was fine in the 18th century and before, when a single aristocrat could possess a working knowledge of much of the world's body of knowledge, but that has ceased to be the case--especially with the introduction of the mass franchise--for a LONG time now. Modern government requires a specialist's knowledge and most voters are not specialists, making their opinion on issues largely dubious if effective government is truly the desired result.

 

Ignoring the issue of corruption, the second largest flaw in our democracy is precisely this, that unqualified citizens are able to impact policy in areas that they, to be frank, have no business making an impact on. In response to MajKrAzAm's contention, most people should recognize that they are both smarter than other people (in certain areas) and profoundly ignorant (in other areas), and that deferring to specialists in those fields that you do not adequately understand is typically the wisest course of action. This is why having citizens and their "representatives" lecturing specialists on how to do their jobs largely confounds effective government rather than contributing to it. Take healthcare for an example. It would seem a trivial thing to devise a system of healthcare delivery superior to both our current design AND what Obama has prescribed, yet economists and policy specialists are almost entirely drowned out by the cacophony of emotional--and largely uninformed--voices advocating one suboptimal policy after another, leading us nowhere. Taking these sorts of decisions off the table for public debate would lead to much improved policy outcomes, even if less "democracy."

 

I agree with you, of course, about the perils of unexamined deference to authority, but I would disagree with you that the classic democratic "marketplace of ideas" represents a superior model going forward. The gap between the specialized knowledge of citizens and that of the actual specialists will only continue to grow, rendering the opinion "on the street" over esoteric or technical issues ever less useful or relevant in terms of developing effective public policy. Without this sort of Mandarin class, I fear that our politics will continue to focus on the short-term and emotional rather than on the long-term and the substantive. Democracy--as we should all know by now--does not promote long-term, strategic planning, and that without that our country will, in all likelihood, continue its decline.

Edited September 21, 2013 by sukeban