Is Democracy on the Decline?

[spz2]

FIrst of all i have to say , very well written stuff here and nicely put together to make some points. Well you say "democracy" but the word is usually synonymous with "capitalism" the money side of it , that deals with the greens , the chi ching, the $$$, the dolla dolla bills , ok ok enough....... :D . Democracy covers the social aspects of the system only , you forget about the awesome power of money and this is what it's all about . Democracy at least in the western world is just a marketing name , to appeal to the public , you can call it any name you like as long as you can stick to its rules and the intended product to be sold is capitalism . There are variations in democracies as you mentioned but "capitalism" is never far behind it. No other system on Earth makes so much cash as capitalism , period , in fact it makes so much cash that the poor , the lower classes are better off ($financial wise$ ) in this system than those in other systems middle classes , because the rich's "honey" is in such great quantity that "it drips" to the lower classes. As Churchil said that if you hold down the rich you also hold down the poor. So yeah , democracy is the "mean" and capitalism is the "end" . It's a means to an end. Democracy / liberty of people , eventually will translate into liberty of money , you let money loose to do its business, this is the sought of thing that democracy has to offer don't ever forget that . People get liberty which is chaos that in turn creates pain often times and you get ..... money , what else , the main component of the package.

 

Just to get an idea about how powerful capitalism is , just before ww2 America was struck by the infamous and brutal economic crisis The Great Depression and while fighting on two major fronts , The Pacific and The Western European front it managed to get out that crisis . Not only did they pull the resources to crush the enemy on two fronts they also supplied its allies with loads of munition, food and machinery. After the war America was the world's greatest economic and military superpower and has remained so ever since. All triggered by some war expenditure. For me it's not worth it , it's like striking a deal with the Devil , you get the $ which you think will make you happy and for it , paradoxically the Devil takes away your happiness and general well-being. "Democracy" not only tolerates stupidity it creates it , i am for fascism as the only alternative to democracy , i find it , oddly, a much more hospitable system .

Democracy is also a VERY wasteful system , from an evolutionary perspective the human race is 3 mil yrs old , that's 6 zeros ! , evolution would get pretty pissed at us if we'd waste our natural resources in let's say 1000 years, though it is friendly towards us for now .

Sorry if kept it longer that needed , i tried to cover all the issues i thought are worth pondering, and english is also not my native language .

Edited September 20, 2013 by spz2

[Lisnpuppy]

Democracy in the US may be closely associated with Capitalism but democracy in the world is not. Democracy and a government that controls economic issues can live hand in hand (look at some of the Scandinavian countries.) It really is the current brand of lassiez-faire capitalism that impedes democracy in the US. I don't personally think its democracy (or republic-ism) that needs to change but capitalist economies. The issue went to the horrid side when we decided to give companies (or any economic entity) a say in politics and policy. I still maintain that "the people" can rectify this should they chose if they once again become involved in the process.

 

As for democracy and environment issues well.... Again it is not democracy but lassiez-faire economics that allow that. When a business is set up for the sole purpose of making income and has not controls then bad things will happen. You become beholden on the stockholders of your company to make money at any cost.

 

Being able to retrieve an economy through war is not longer effective. The reason it worked after WWI and the WWII is because the US was able to become a manufacturing giant. The cost of doing business even if we would bring all manufacturing back is to out of pace and add American labor cost and it is a nightmare scenario. Though I would love to see many more manufacturing jobs come back to the US it wouldn't be enough. Also many things are now automated that were not in the early parts of the 1900. The service industry became the norm of the day for job and those are not things that will pull one out of a recession.

[spz2]

I knew someone would use the Scandinavia example to prove that democracy and capitalism are not the same :smile: . Ok , touche , but they are not entirely free , they complain a lot , about immigration and other issues they dislike while they are ignored by their "democratic" governments . Scandinavia , especially Sweden has a long history of anti - america anti-capitalism , it's their way of being, part of their culture , this played a role in the exclusion of capitalism for sure . But not everyone is the same, people from other countries are not so opiniated about politics cuz they are dumbasses , like i said, short term thinking, getting the money is what "works" for them .

Edited September 20, 2013 by spz2

[MajKrAzAm]

For some insights into why the crisis of capitalism lead to managerialism (i.e. large scale democracies managed by a pseudo-democratic managerial elite) instead of fascist or socialist societies, see James Burnham's The Managerial Revolution.

[Lisnpuppy]

I knew someone would use the Scandinavia example to prove that democracy and capitalism are not the same :smile: . Ok , touche , but they are not entirely free , they complain a lot , about immigration and other issues they dislike while they are ignored by their "democratic" governments . Scandinavia , especially Sweden has a long history of anti - america anti-capitalism , it's their way of being, part of their culture , this played a role in the exclusion of capitalism for sure . But not everyone is the same, people from other countries are not so opiniated about politics cuz they are dumbasses , like i said, short term thinking, getting the money is what "works" for them .

Then that still isn't an issue with "democracy" it still is an issue with 1) capitalism 2) as you say, people being dumbasses.

 

Last I checked the standard of living, educational systems and "happiness" in those Scandinavian countries is above most. Of course they complain...that is central to the democratic process (lol) and yes, they aren't totally free. But who is? Even if you have a government that does what the "majority" wishes you still have those that do not get what they wish. Does that mean they aren't free or don't have access to democracy.

 

Democracy isn't getting your way. It is having the ability to equally participate in government. It doesn't mean you like what happens all the time. It doesn't mean that you don't complain. It means you have a say in government. One can argue that money or education or whatever can make your voice louder....and it would be true. But all that comes back to what "The People" will tolerate at the base level. If "The People" are not participating, are not actively learning about how government works, about the issues, doing their own digging about candidates...then no they will no longer have much of a voice.

 

Thomas Jefferson said this:

"If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions."

 

That is what it all comes down to in my opinion. Most people I know have more interest and knowledge about reality tv than what is happening around them. They have no idea how the most simplified version of the systems work (can I get some Schoolhouse Rock?) Nor do they care. They are apathetic. Is democracy dying...in the heart of it..yes. Because we have chosen not to safeguard it.

[sukeban]

@MajKrAzAm

 

I agree with much of what you say, principally with regard to the emotional appeal of democracy for many living or brought up in the West. Since the early 1950s, political scientists have known that the commitment that many have to democracy is often paper thin, more of a default conformation to a social norm than any sort of reasoned or studied commitment to its tenets. And I think that's fine, to a degree. We should be open-minded about reforming and improving our institutions, perhaps by borrowing elements from other, more effective models, including--perhaps--autocracy. When contrasted with our present form of government, the theoretical benefits of autocracy are obvious: quick, decisive leadership in solving difficult issues, a sense of national unity replacing petty partisan bickering, and the ability to circumvent and upend deleterious social relationships, such as predatory elites shielding their fortunes with an increasingly unjust and corrupted legal system. Absent these, our democracy continues to alienate and discourage, spinning off its potential supporters like blood cells in a centrifuge.

 

As is, the US is dancing on the knife's edge. I would guarantee that if a Hillary or Chris Christie is elected in 2016, and that they, along with Congress, continue with the same gridlock and BS policies that we've been using since the early 1980s, that a credible Far Right movement will arise before the end of the decade. You already have this with a certain segment of the Tea Party (perhaps 10% US population), but if economic conditions continue to stagnate their appeal will most certainly grow to encompass the majority of the conservative base (25% US population). By then, with the WWII and Korean War generations almost entirely passed away, the decisive generational cohort will be the Millennials, and, speaking as one, I don't really know how deep our commitment to democracy really is, especially given an American economy that has been in decline since before many of us were even in high school. Much ink has been spilled about how Millennials are supposed to be the "saviors" of the United States, the ones that finally figure out how to solve all of the enormous problems accumulated by previous generations, but increasingly I wonder if we'll instead be the ones to "put Bessie out to pasture" and embark on a new project entirely.

 

Personally, I'd prefer something like a more liberal version of Singapore, with a scientific cadre in control of core national policy (economy, infrastructure, education), yet subject to plebiscite if public opposition is overwhelming. Perhaps have an elected (on a long-term basis) leader to arbitrate the priorities of the cadres and to listen to public opinion (like the Chinese petition to the Emperor), but whose role is more national cheerleader/trusted relative than chief policy architect. Combine with full complement of human rights and many (but likely not all) civil rights, along with a generous system of social welfare, and I think you would have a pretty efficient system of government. In my estimation, the internet and improved general education would make the idea of representatives and a Congress (already the weakest link in our government) both obsolete and redundant.

Edited September 20, 2013 by sukeban

[JediMasterChief2]

In my opinion, I feel the representative form of democracy is easily suspectible to corruption. I feel an Athenian-style direct democracy, including the requirement by law to participate in votes, combined with limitations on those who can easily influnce the masses (organizations, coperations, the wealthy, the famous), would be less suspectible to corruption. Direct democracy alone would be just as bad as a representative democracy, because people would just be influnced too easily by those who have methods to communicate and manipulate the masses (advertising, most notably). Yes, it is indeed mob rule, but, which is the lesser of the two evils nowadays, being controlled by the minority or by the majority (assuming that majority isn't being manipulated by a minority)? Also, political parties should be abolished.They only divide people and create a group mentality amongt the members of that party. In fact, any group formed for solely political purposes shouldn't be allowed, and those formed for other purposes should not get involved as a group (but are welcomed as individuals). In politics, each should be his/her own, with their own ideas. The only group there should be is every citizen living in the country, all united to work towards a common goal, but, yet, each is still an individual. Personally, here in the states, I believe the states should either all form one country (a country with no states, I mean) or divide and become 50 or so smaller countries. Anything in between creates a group mentality, therefore, destroying the individual thought process.

 

Maybe it is because my Asperger's Syndrome gives me a unique political view that is so different from the rest, that my ideas for government are so, what you people would call "out there", But, I have never conformed to mass culture to a degree that I lose everything that makes me unique. This is my first post in the debates forum because normally I get upset just by reading them (for those of you are familier with AS, or even have it themselves, it is easy to to emotional about certain things).

[HeyYou]

I agree with most of your points there austen1000. Our current government is bought and sold on a pretty much daily basis by those with the money. Now we have super-pacs, and anonymous donations to political advertising, so, the more money you have, the more people you can reach with your message, and currently, there is no requirement to state where the money is coming from. (FCC case pending on that little bit.)

 

Citizens United was one of the worst decisions to come out of the supreme court in quite some time. They basically legalized buying influence. Our representatives aren't doing 'the will of the people' any more, they are doing the will of the corporate masters. The folks that decide, with their money, who gets elected.

 

I will beleive 'corporations are people too' about the time Texas executes one.

[colourwheel]

 

 

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.

Edited September 20, 2013 by colourwheel

[MajKrAzAm]

@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.