Is Democracy on the Decline?

[sukeban]

As a public service announcement, I've got to say that this thread has gone so far off of its intended rails!

 

As the OP of this thread, I'd like to request that we focus a lot less on individual American issues even less on America as a whole. There are far more democracies out there in the world and there are issues far more problematic for the entire concept of democracy to sort out than universal healthcare. Under no circumstances do I want this thread to become another "Politics in America" thread; rather it's intended to be more macro-oriented and theoretical than the usual Democrat versus Republican trench warfare (in fact, someone please create an omnibus thread for precisely this purpose!).

 

This thread is intended to debate the issues that are seemingly insoluble to democratic resolution (income disparity, weakening meritocracy, problems with representation, corruption, etc.) as well as potential modifications that we might be able to make to our political systems to ensure that these issues are able to be dealt with. Some here favor our current system and are optimistic, others are more skeptical and favor adopting elements from autocratic or technocratic systems, and still others favor decreased federal control and decentralization. All of these issues are valid and should be debated as a subject apart from the usual political theatrics.

 

@Harbringe

 

You raise a vitally important issue in your post, which is that our political system (with a critical assist from our economic system, as in your video) is on the verge of discrediting our entire social contract in the eyes of the poor and middle classes. Americans (and most people everywhere) are willing to tolerate unequal grades of de facto citizenship if their lots are improved as a result of this toleration, but when downward economic and social mobility rule the day, this toleration abruptly ends. Americans have always known that the elite "count more" in terms of political representation, but these days we've got some seriously "Dred Scott on the T Virus" issues going on in terms the disparity of representation between the rich and the poor. What's worse, the American socioeconomic classes are quickly hardening into solid castes, with the poor almost entirely locked in at the bottom and the middle classes moving steadily backwards. But, of course, nothing changes at the top, save for the zeroes at the end of (Swiss Seychelles) bank account balance.

 

Even mainstream political pundits are beginning to sense this, the impending de-legitimization of the political process. You'll hear things like "losing faith in our Congress" or "obstructionism undermining our democracy" but it is naively assumed that some sort of short-term, cosmetic compromise will manage to make this entire question of "legitimacy" once again disappear. But there is news, which is that most Americans do not trust and do not believe in our political system any longer. It is my sincere belief that if a leader were charismatic enough (seriously, I'm watching Ted Cruz) fascism could probably be accomplished in an afternoon in this country, for the simple fact that there is really no one left to fight for the existing system. Americans (and likely Europeans) desire democracy more out of brand loyalty and inertia than out of conviction; if you presented them with a choice between stagnation under democracy and relative progress under an autocracy, I've no doubt as to which choice they would end up making. It would be the American Meiji Restoration.

Edited September 27, 2013 by sukeban

[Harbringe]

Credit which is really issuance of debt , is also one of the oldest forms of social control , why do you think in the 19th century they had to begin to come up with laws outlawing debt slavery . If you think the manner in which the issuance of that debt (Credit) has changed over the last 30+ had nothing to do with the situation we as people now find our selves in , and that this was not a concentrated effort by those who's interest it was in , Well there's no point continuing and its not a matter of conspiracy . Just the cofluence of interests that exists between government and business . As you call them the gormless career politicians and their paymasters.

 

As for Syria we cant know if their (public) outcry would of stopped a military intervention in Syria , both the US and France (with logistical help from Britain) were still gearing up for strikes in Syria and it was only an off hand remark by Secretary Kerry on Syria giving up its Chemical Weapons that enabled Putin an opening to jump on and arrange such an outcome that has seemingly put the leash back on the dogs of war , at least temporarilly. Which is an irony of ironies in that we owe the maintaining of peace to a former KGB officer of the Soviet Era , Putin. As for public outcry and what that is indicative of its arguable as to what it represents . Lets see 10+ years of military adventurism by the west in which we know many of the reasons given were fabrications , a cost to our societies that is bankrupting us and for the first time since the Cuban Missile Crises , a lining up in opposition of major powers in the world (Russia , China , Iran) that could have had very serious consequences . Worst case scenario WW3 . Not sure if the sudden public opposition to such a war is indicative of an emerging intelligence on their part or more a sense of exasperation (Oh what not another war yet again) or a sense of self preservation . (Wow this really is serious and could get me kiled).

 

And to the whole gormless career politicians and the apathy of choice it engenders . You or I may not vote for such because of our apathy but that doesn't explain the intelligence quotient of the 10's of millions who do . I mean why wouldn't these career politicians do exactly what they've been doing when its the electorate that put them there in the first place and in many cases just keeps re electing them over and over . Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity , not intelligence.

[colourwheel]

@sukeban

 

I apologize for derailing the topic so much It was never my "original" intent to do so.... If one thinks Democracy in itself is declining it's only because they wishes to believe so...

Edited September 27, 2013 by colourwheel

[Harbringe]

@ Sukeban

 

I wholeheartedly agree on the Fascism angle . When people think about Fascism they mostly think of Nazi Germany and some of Mussolini's Italy but most don't realize that Fascism is a misnomer and only exists as a word in our lexicon because Mussolini had chosen as his symbol the fasces , an ancient Roman implement of authority. What it actually is , is Corporatism , the merging of Government interests and Corporate interests into one interest . In the 1930's a group of American businessmen tried to co opt a cadre of American military officers into mounting a coop against the United States Government because they were upset at the economic reforms Roosevelt was implementing in response to the Great Depression .A depression those same businessmen had caused by their reckless actions in the financial markets (sound familiar anyone) . It only failed because one of those officers by the name Smedley Butler refused to betray his country and made the conspirator's intentions known to the government .

 

Now do I believe such a thing would happen again , maybe but not likely , but what is possible is that we yet again have some kind catalyzing event of a catastrophic nature , like another financial collapse , costly war , or whatever that further creates a condition of disparity and disenfranchisement within the US and much like what is happening in Greece with the rise of this Golden Dawn fascist ideaology , we could see a political opportunist or group of opportunists who jumps on this event and in a moment of cosmetic feel good solutions we could possibly see the whole political paradigm as it currently exists suddenly change for the worse.

 

Nope I honestly believe we are living in the most pivotal time in our history since the pre war years of WW2 and unlike that time we in this time have the capability to not only destroy our democracies but ourselves (humanity) should things go terribly awry.

[Nintii]

As a public service announcement, I've got to say that this thread has gone so far off of its intended rails!

 

As the OP of this thread, I'd like to request that we focus a lot less on individual American issues even less on America as a whole. There are far more democracies out there in the world and there are issues far more problematic for the entire concept of democracy to sort out than universal healthcare.

 

 

As I live in a nation that is a Democracy with a Constitution I wish it were not so.

Our nation has a history of oppression and injustice from both local and foreign overlords.

And when things were at a point where all could be set right for ALL, the dreaded curse

of Democracy reared it's ugly head.

 

Spurred on by a world that was drunk with the concept of Democracy our leaders

jumped onto the band wagon and chose to adopt this accursed worldly offspring.

Democracy might work in Europe and The States but that's it.

 

The supposed draw card in favour of Democracy might be the liberation from systems

like Dictatorships, warlords etc., to a place where the common man has a say in the running

of the nation.

But this new system of governance fails to notice the demographics or make up of the people

within that nation.

 

So in a nation where there are 65% of "A's", 20% of "B's", 15% of "C's" you are simply going

to get a nation that falls into the trap of a new "legal appointed oppressor" where the "A's"

dominate the rest.

So where is that any different from the previous system ?

Democracy doesn't work for everyone and so should be recognised as such.

 

I remember my father telling me that the best approach to this type of situation would be the

Swiss Canton system whereby all of the "smaller percenters" would still have a voice.

Each Canton has it's Constitution, Legislature, government and courts.

They would be responsible for Healthcare, welfare, law enforcement, public education and

taxation etc.

 

This is "True Democracy", where proportionate representation is taken into account, not the

mobocracy of the West.

[colourwheel]

Recently in America (a Democratic nation) Ted Cruz went on nation TV stating "“Any senator who votes yes on cloture tomorrow is voting to give Harry Reid the power to fully fund Obamacare. I will vote no on cloture tomorrow. That vote is the fight.” On Tuesday Ted cruz did his "fake" filibuster delaying the very bill he originally support that passed in congress that would indeed "defund" Obamacare.

 

After Cruz's pointless "fake" filibuster for over 21 hours the vote outcome came out 100 yeas against 0 nays which means Cruz Lied to his own supporters and voted for it, but for some reason He is still a hero to his base even when He voted for the very thing he advocated so strongly against....

 

Ted Cruz made million of dollars for his pointless political stunt when the whole things was just a big lie... Does the majority of the publc really know exactly what happened recently? Does the public realize that this very stunt almost has put the country to the brink of shutting down?

 

On Wednesdays I went to work for a few hours and at my desk I over heard a few people talking about people praising Cruz for what he did (granted these work colleagues are not as politically active or informed as I am) I told my closest colleague exactly my perspective and showed her some recent youtube vids showing Cruz the liar and backstabber he really is... after that she kind of changed her view on the whole Cruz "fake" filibuster fiasco...

 

America's democracy is just not informed enough where people look at only the highlights of politics without fully looking over the full stories...

 

I can only imagine this is how it is in other democratic nations as well.....

Edited September 27, 2013 by colourwheel

[Lisnpuppy]

Because I think some of you completely missed Suke's post I am going to make it a bit more noticeable here.

 

 

As a public service announcement, I've got to say that this thread has gone so far off of its intended rails!

 

As the OP of this thread, I'd like to request that we focus a lot less on individual American issues even less on America as a whole. There are far more democracies out there in the world and there are issues far more problematic for the entire concept of democracy to sort out than universal healthcare. Under no circumstances do I want this thread to become another "Politics in America" thread; rather it's intended to be more macro-oriented and theoretical than the usual Democrat versus Republican trench warfare (in fact, someone please create an omnibus thread for precisely this purpose!).

 

This thread is intended to debate the issues that are seemingly insoluble to democratic resolution (income disparity, weakening meritocracy, problems with representation, corruption, etc.) as well as potential modifications that we might be able to make to our political systems to ensure that these issues are able to be dealt with. Some here favor our current system and are optimistic, others are more skeptical and favor adopting elements from autocratic or technocratic systems, and still others favor decreased federal control and decentralization. All of these issues are valid and should be debated as a subject apart from the usual political theatrics.

 

As the OP of this thread Suke has the right to guide you all back to topic. So please read what she said a few times and keep it in mind as you post. Thank you.~LIsnpuppy

[MajKrAzAm]

@ Sukeban

 

I wholeheartedly agree on the Fascism angle . When people think about Fascism they mostly think of Nazi Germany and some of Mussolini's Italy but most don't realize that Fascism is a misnomer and only exists as a word in our lexicon because Mussolini had chosen as his symbol the fasces , an ancient Roman implement of authority. What it actually is , is Corporatism , the merging of Government interests and Corporate interests into one interest . In the 1930's a group of American businessmen tried to co opt a cadre of American military officers into mounting a coop against the United States Government because they were upset at the economic reforms Roosevelt was implementing in response to the Great Depression .A depression those same businessmen had caused by their reckless actions in the financial markets (sound familiar anyone) . It only failed because one of those officers by the name Smedley Butler refused to betray his country and made the conspirator's intentions known to the government .

 

Now do I believe such a thing would happen again , maybe but not likely , but what is possible is that we yet again have some kind catalyzing event of a catastrophic nature , like another financial collapse , costly war , or whatever that further creates a condition of disparity and disenfranchisement within the US and much like what is happening in Greece with the rise of this Golden Dawn fascist ideaology , we could see a political opportunist or group of opportunists who jumps on this event and in a moment of cosmetic feel good solutions we could possibly see the whole political paradigm as it currently exists suddenly change for the worse.

 

Nope I honestly believe we are living in the most pivotal time in our history since the pre war years of WW2 and unlike that time we in this time have the capability to not only destroy our democracies but ourselves (humanity) should things go terribly awry.

 

Mussolini's corporatism has nothing to do with corporations in the business sense. It's a vision of economic cooperation that integrates businesses, workers, and government into a single political organism -- instead of pitting each against the other like a tragedy of the commons writ large, which is pretty much what we have now.

Edited September 27, 2013 by MajKrAzAm

[Harbringe]

 

@ Sukeban

 

I wholeheartedly agree on the Fascism angle . When people think about Fascism they mostly think of Nazi Germany and some of Mussolini's Italy but most don't realize that Fascism is a misnomer and only exists as a word in our lexicon because Mussolini had chosen as his symbol the fasces , an ancient Roman implement of authority. What it actually is , is Corporatism , the merging of Government interests and Corporate interests into one interest . In the 1930's a group of American businessmen tried to co opt a cadre of American military officers into mounting a coop against the United States Government because they were upset at the economic reforms Roosevelt was implementing in response to the Great Depression .A depression those same businessmen had caused by their reckless actions in the financial markets (sound familiar anyone) . It only failed because one of those officers by the name Smedley Butler refused to betray his country and made the conspirator's intentions known to the government .

 

Now do I believe such a thing would happen again , maybe but not likely , but what is possible is that we yet again have some kind catalyzing event of a catastrophic nature , like another financial collapse , costly war , or whatever that further creates a condition of disparity and disenfranchisement within the US and much like what is happening in Greece with the rise of this Golden Dawn fascist ideaology , we could see a political opportunist or group of opportunists who jumps on this event and in a moment of cosmetic feel good solutions we could possibly see the whole political paradigm as it currently exists suddenly change for the worse.

 

Nope I honestly believe we are living in the most pivotal time in our history since the pre war years of WW2 and unlike that time we in this time have the capability to not only destroy our democracies but ourselves (humanity) should things go terribly awry.

 

Mussolini's corporatism has nothing to do with corporations in the business sense. It's a vision of economic cooperation that integrates businesses, workers, and government into a single political organism -- instead of pitting each against the other like a tragedy of the commons writ large, which is pretty much what we have now.

 

 

And what you dont think there are groups be they political or economic that dont share that vision of creating a singular political organism by which their interests would be met . It may not be in exactly the same form as Mussolini's corporatism , but the intent of what he envisioned and the elements of operation we are seeing in our modern democracies share a startling resemblance . What you see as a tradegy of the commons writ large , i see as a false dichotomy in the manufacture of a left /right paradigm.. Democrat/Republican .... Liberal/Conservative and what is really at play and has always been is the Power/Powerless paradigm and these other supposed paradigms are actually the vacuums into which power and powerless ebbs and flows . Think about what we have in place , a political process where in a candidate is by and large funded by Corporate interests even to the point of writing checks to competing sides. Who then go out campaigning on issue's that many times have been formulated in Corporate sponsored Political Action Committees or many of the corporate sponsored Think Tanks and win or loose will hold a gathering of partisans in some large building usually owned by a corporation , being commented on by political pundits being paid for by corporations in corporate owned news channels . And upon assuming office are beset by corporate paid lobbyists furthering the corporate interest . I dont know about you but to me that very much looks like a singular political organism at work. And its corporatists in nature though I would accede that it is not yet in the strict political delineation of Mussolini's corporatism.

 

Now to try and bring this back around to the OP's intent of this thread . Iv'e talked a lot about the corporate interest and how that can be influenced on to the political discourse of our democracies but that's not to say there are not other interests working singularly or in confluence , religious , foriegn (AIPAC anyone) that are also at play . I just see the Corporate interest as the most powerful . Now there is the idea of one man , one vote and it carries with it the idea that we are all equal in this but if I am a man of a billion dollars to spend and can simply buy the consequences your vote , candidate A , B , or C your vote simply doesn't matter and this is what the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United represents and its in the interests of wealth that it serves . If there is ever to be a redress in the sense of disenfranchisement that people feel , then it has to begin here .

 

But its more than just that , ask yourself what is the difference of something to be " of the people ' as in the US Constitution Preamble and to be of the citizen as in the power or privelege of citizenship . Well the former is of the commons or sovereign law and is inherent to all people and are legal concepts of law that have been handed down through the ages literally from as far back as Nebuchanezzar and the Sumerian Codex of Law. They include things like innocent until proven guilty , right to be tried before a judge or an assemblage of your peers , due process and on and on , its vast to say the least . Point is , its an inherent sovereign power of the people and can only be taken away by their consent. The latter of citizenship owes its existence to Romal Law and is commonly referred today as Civil law or British Admiralty law and basically deals with all other law that is not the purview of common law or the sovereign laws inherent to all people and is corporate in nature. So what is the difference and why should you be concerned . Well as was elucidated in the US Constitution , Government can only be granted of the people and is owing to the people for that granting , while citizenship can only be of Government and its the citizen who is owing to the Government for that granting.

 

So think carefully of the name chosen for this law that came out of the Supremme Court and its purposed effect . Citizens United in which a non living entity known as a Corporation is granted the rights of personhood. What this does is create another legal framework of law in which another body within the political stream can now compete against what had previously been the sole legal domain of the people . These people who pushed for this ruling have already started the conversation on the necessity of maintaining certain Amendments within the Constitution . How long before they take to looking at other things within it , like the first or second amendment or the sovereign power of people to grant government itself . Like Iv'e said what I worry about is some catalyzing event like a financial collapse/ costly war , whatever wherein the sense of disenfranchisement both politically and economically is so great (ie suffering) that people will be willing to latch onto any feel good solution and even give up the sovereign power to grant government itself , remember all they would need is your consent.

 

It (Citizens United) may be an annoyance and corrupting at how they can throw unlimited ammounts of money into the political process , but the legal framework that this ruling institutes (infancy) is just down right dangerous to the founding concepts of the Republic itself . It has got to go . Or in other terms dems fighting words , get your gun Annie.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Harbringe

[HeyYou]

With the current power structure in place, Citizens United will never be overturned. The people in power won't let it happen. The corporations like it too much, have unlimited money to spend to see that it isn't overturned, and the various congressional representatives like it, because it puts unlimited money into their campaign coffers. The ONLY way it is going to get tossed, is if Annie, and everyone else, does indeed get their gun.