Why our Democracy is Wrong

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
krogoth's picture
krogoth
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 576
Why our Democracy is Wrong

I am probably going to get a lot of flack for this, but here goes-

First off I am not supporting socialism, communism, a dictatorship, a monarachy or any other radical change, but I don't necessarily agree democracy works as well. I really don't know what is perfect for us, maybe nothing is.

Our democracy is wrong. Always has been and will be for the foreseeable future. Why? Because even if we had someone elected president that truly wanted to make an impact on history, with unbelievable change, this simply can be reversed when the next president takes office. Also, I think if any candidate is elected, radical change means that they won't be in office for long.

Are the term limits too short? This is a double sided coin. If we have a bad president, we want them out. If we have a good president, they can only have 4 years to make change, and at the max 8 if re-elected.

Does the president matter? These days, I don't know. It seems that all highly elected officials or corporate exec's keep screwing the pup.

In a Democracy, especially in the coming election in just a few short days, we have a choice, but the choice is decided on wealth. You cannot be in politics at a high level without being usually wealthy. I think this is a fundamental flaw in a Democracy. I know Obama is not all that wealthy, but he as sure raised a lot of campaign contributions, which means he possibly has a lot of promises to keep. 

Another flaw is the fact of the election itself. It is relatively close right now, and so have the past few elections. That means half the country is content with the vote they make, and half the country is not. Only a landslide election means almost the whole country is content with the choice.

Can anything really be reversed with such singular power? Well, no because it's not singular power, it is a collection of rich people elected, and rich companies and individuals making them make decisions.

The reason I think people like Ron Paul didn't make it is because he told too much truth in the beginning. That means you need to tow the line, or lie to get into office, then you can maybe do what is in your heart, if you have one. If Ron Paul would have just played the stupid but common game of telling the sheep what they wanted to hear, he would have had a better chance of getting elected, then once elected start radical change. Of course, the media would have ripped him to shreds and labeled him a liar if he took this path. Or maybe a scandal would erupt of some sort to discredit him.

I challenge all of you to tell me why you think this system works or does not, and why.

 

I will leave you with this

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

and to the Republic- (whoa Republic? I thought we were a Democracy?)

 

Here is a quick snippet of Republic-

Republics can be led by a head of state that has many of the characteristics of a monarch: not only do some republics install a president for life, and invest such president with powers beyond what is usual in a representative democracy, examples such as the post-1970 Syrian Arab Republic show that such a presidency can apparently be made hereditary. Historians disagree when the Roman Republic turned into Imperial Rome: the reason is that the first Emperors were given their head of state powers gradually in a government system that in appearance did not originally much differ from the Roman Republic.

 If even our pledge of allegiance is wrong, what is right?

 

 

 

krogoth's picture
krogoth
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 576
This is the ONLY way Elections should be decided

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzyT9-9lUyE

 

 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
today's words of wisdom....

"The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more."
- H. W. Prentis

ccpetersmd's picture
ccpetersmd
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Posts: 799
A Republic, if you can keep it...

krogoth wrote:

I am probably going to get a lot of flack for this, but here goes-

First off I am not supporting socialism, communism, a dictatorship, a monarachy or any other radical change, but I don't necessarily agree democracy works as well. I really don't know what is perfect for us, maybe nothing is.

Our democracy is wrong. Always has been and will be for the foreseeable future. Why? Because even if we had someone elected president that truly wanted to make an impact on history, with unbelievable change, this simply can be reversed when the next president takes office. Also, I think if any candidate is elected, radical change means that they won't be in office for long.

Are the term limits too short? This is a double sided coin. If we have a bad president, we want them out. If we have a good president, they can only have 4 years to make change, and at the max 8 if re-elected.

Does the president matter? These days, I don't know. It seems that all highly elected officials or corporate exec's keep screwing the pup.

In a Democracy, especially in the coming election in just a few short days, we have a choice, but the choice is decided on wealth. You cannot be in politics at a high level without being usually wealthy. I think this is a fundamental flaw in a Democracy. I know Obama is not all that wealthy, but he as sure raised a lot of campaign contributions, which means he possibly has a lot of promises to keep. 

Another flaw is the fact of the election itself. It is relatively close right now, and so have the past few elections. That means half the country is content with the vote they make, and half the country is not. Only a landslide election means almost the whole country is content with the choice.

Can anything really be reversed with such singular power? Well, no because it's not singular power, it is a collection of rich people elected, and rich companies and individuals making them make decisions.

The reason I think people like Ron Paul didn't make it is because he told too much truth in the beginning. That means you need to tow the line, or lie to get into office, then you can maybe do what is in your heart, if you have one. If Ron Paul would have just played the stupid but common game of telling the sheep what they wanted to hear, he would have had a better chance of getting elected, then once elected start radical change. Of course, the media would have ripped him to shreds and labeled him a liar if he took this path. Or maybe a scandal would erupt of some sort to discredit him.

I challenge all of you to tell me why you think this system works or does not, and why.

I will leave you with this

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

and to the Republic- (whoa Republic? I thought we were a Democracy?)

Here is a quick snippet of Republic-

Republics can be led by a head of state that has many of the characteristics of a monarch: not only do some republics install a president for life, and invest such president with powers beyond what is usual in a representative democracy, examples such as the post-1970 Syrian Arab Republic show that such a presidency can apparently be made hereditary. Historians disagree when the Roman Republic turned into Imperial Rome: the reason is that the first Emperors were given their head of state powers gradually in a government system that in appearance did not originally much differ from the Roman Republic.

If even our pledge of allegiance is wrong, what is right?

Krogoth,

The Pledge is (or, was) correct. as we were designed to be a Republic. The definition of a Republic that I find most useful is that it is a form of political organization in which the people are the supreme source of power over government, and not one in which government is the primary source of power. Democracy is the political mechanism by which people vote, but a Republic is the political organization through which a state is governed.

America rejected the idea that any one person (president, king, dictator, etc.) or group of people (congress, parliament) held soverign power over the people in their sphere of influence. Instead, America was founded upon the idea that theindividual was sovereign (granted, this initially only applied to white men). America was also based upon the idea that the individual states were also secondarily sovereign, based upon the consent of the individuals residing in each state. America as a country was therefore designed to be subject to the sovereignty of the people first, and the states second. I like to view this dynamic as another example of checks and balances, as each entity involved (the people, the states and the nation) have competing interests, and the competition was intended to disperse power and influence from any form of central control.

The problem seems to be not with the design, but with its implementation, especially in the past century. With the gradual rise of America on the world stage, power has become increasing concentrated at the federal level, and particularly within the executive branch. With centralization of power, undue influence can be brought to bear by special interest groups, wealthy individuals and corporations, the banking establishment, etc. This is the problem with which we are confronted today, as you note above.

In an ideal world, in which everyone is moral and responsible, no government would be necessary. I am, philosophically, an anarchist, in fact. But, in the real world, I don't believe this is practical. People seem to have a natural tendency to subjugate their fellows. The best government is one which prevents this to the greatest degree, without itself becoming an instrument of subjugation. America was designed to do exactly this, to protect the sovereign rights of Americans from the self-serving interests of other Americans (tyranny of the majority), corporations, foreign powers, and from the government itself.

In my opinion, we need not design a new system of government, but restore our Republic to its original design and function.

txgirl69's picture
txgirl69
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 21 2009
Posts: 96
Re: A Republic...

X2 ccpetersmd, well said!

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Damnthematrix wrote:"The

Damnthematrix wrote:

"The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more."
- H. W. Prentis

This is a true statement.  I am surprised more people don't think about it.  Look, the truth is that we have massively screwed up.  We started off with an excellent beginning.  All the right concepts were formulated into the US Constitution.  The spirit of that document makes it the top government design document ever created by man.  And, it worked great as long as we stuck to it.  But, as the founders feared and openly stated - we could not do it.  Greed, laziness, liberalism, stupidity, and a host of other issues have drawn us off track and we allowed it - we as in we the people of the US.  We elected the politicians.  We elected them some more.  We allowed them to do what they have done.  Both repubs and dems - both guilty to the bone.  If if you sit yourself down and take a hard look at the numbers we are in very serious trouble.  On Damnthematrix's list quoted above we are currently in the dependency stage.  There is an enormous amount of information that backs this up.  The US started out at the beginning of his list.  The next step is bondage.  We are on our way.  Mark Levin calls it a soft tyranny.  That is a good word for it.  While Europe moved to socialism (dependency) after WW2 we were trying to keep ourselves together and on the right road here.  Post WW2 we had an explosion of manufacturing activity.  Great wealth was created in America.  Talk to people who were alive back then and they will tell you the 50's and 60's were the top - people worked hard - people had decent lives - people were happy.  Sure there were problems, there always is.  But, we had good paying jobs.  We had a society that rewarded hard work, saving, honesty, self sufficiency, and community.  That is basically all considered crap now.  It is all about getting the fast buck and dependency now.  How far we have fallen...

No_Fiat's picture
No_Fiat
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 20 2011
Posts: 104
Damnthematrix wrote: "The

Damnthematrix wrote:

"The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more."
- H. W. Prentis

You hit the nail right on the head.  Our democracy is not as it was intended to be. It probably goes something such as this saying "Democracy is like two wolf's and a chicken deciding what they are going to have for dinner".

jturbo68's picture
jturbo68
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 4 2009
Posts: 193
No_Fiat wrote: Damnthematrix

No_Fiat wrote:

Damnthematrix wrote:

"The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more."
- H. W. Prentis

You hit the nail right on the head.  Our democracy is not as it was intended to be. It probably goes something such as this saying "Democracy is like two wolf's and a chicken deciding what they are going to have for dinner".

I wonder sometimes if the form of government is as important as we make it out to be.

Seems like all empires to date follow the same path that we are on.

Greenfield, lots of opportunities and resources to exploit.

Growth and Bloat

Overshoot and Decline.

It is easy to provide lots of trickle down services to the average guy during the 1st half of the trip, this is how I see the 50s and 60s in america.  Life is a lot harder on the last half of the curve.  The difference this time is that the ride is global in nature.

My expectation is that Democracy and the Constitution are easier to hold as ideals during the good times.  Well see how much attention to them we pay during the descent.

Personally, the solution I see for a just and sustainable humanity is localism.  Dont know that we will go there until the energy available for empire building is pretty small.

John

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments