The US Is NOT A Democracy!

[Pachipro]

This point got a little off topic in its original thread under "America Should Get Out Of Japan" So I Thought I would continue it over here as I think it deserves its own thread for debate. Here is what we have so far:

Unfortunately the U.S. is a democracy and if you are a U.S. citizen BUSH is your president.

Contrary to what most people think the US is NOT a democracy. It is a Representative Republic as the forefathers wanted. A goverment by the people for the people. Unfortunately most people don't realize that today. In the Pledge of Alligence is the line "And to the Republic for which it stands..." How many times have you heard a politician refer to the US as a Republic? Almost never. And it is scary.

On the other hand a democracy is just mob rule. Is that what we are exporting to other countries? Mob rule?

And do not forget the first lines of the United States of America's Consitiution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America."

What does that tell you? That we the American people are the governement, and elect people by the people to help ensure to keep the governement (the American people) in order and running. Yet instead we have let our power as the governement go to the elected officials instead and have become their slave, rather than them doing what we say. Isn't it ironic? In crude terms I want the government to be my ***** like it was, not the other way around. The buracracy has got to stop, or at least be lessened. Anyway kudos to you Pachipro for pointing out that we are indeed a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC not a democracy, as you pointed out mob rule never works (like with Rome). There is to the reason why we are a republic, but I think that civics lesson if for another time.

Doc

Here's another problem, Bush has also kept the white house isolated. My Political Science professor has pointed out that he doesn't read newspapers, books, and it doesnt' seem like he seeks outside sources on pretty much everything (that would explain why he ignored those economists on the issue of tax cuts ). It also seems that he's only oppointing people that would appeal to his conservative base. So, there goes the diversity. And he appoints people he knows, (i.e. the head of FEMA, Harriet Miers, etc.). To me, those people are nothing but cronies. Yeah, I know this is a bit off topic

Unlike most administrations, it is said that this administration knows the answer to everything before it is even asked. Hell they don't even have any meetings to discuss issues! You see the Bush administration has had an agenda since day one, and they have been following through this agenda despite national and international protest. I think you have to keep in mind that Bush really is not pulling all the strings here. It is a few higher ups in the administration running the show. We need to start focusing our attention on the administration as a whole rather than just the President. I think only then will you get to bottom of all of this.

Doc

 

[Pachipro]

I am a little rusty on this so I may be a little off base in some areas.

The US was formed as a Representative Republic for the sole purpose that we would not see what is currently happening today and that is rule by the few and wealthy over the masses as had happened in Europe.

In a Representative Republic a fellow from your district/neighborhood would campaign or be selected to represent a districts intention in Washington. When he went to Washington he would vote according to his districts wishes regarding the current government. It could be the barber, the livery stable owner, a farmer or the hardware store owner. Back then, something like 85% of the population was self-employed. Representing your district was a temporary job. Not a lifetime one! And most people took their turn doing their 'duty' in Washington. There really was no need to be wealthy. Just be literate and have your districts true intention at heart and if you campaigned well and made your case you would be (s)elected.

That's why the electoral college was created so that the more populous and wealthy states wouldn't have mob rule over the smaller states with less people. Each state would have a certain number of "representatives' during a presidential election that would go to Washington to cast their vote for their state so that all states would be represented equally. That is why some people ***** today that because Al Gore got more votes than Bush and that the election was stolen from him by Bush. But they are totally ignorant of the US government and civics as any school kid in my day knew that it wasn't the total number of votes that elects a President, but the total number of Electoral Votes he received from the states. A president being elected only by the popular vote would represent mob rule and not a true republic.

Where it began I do not know, but today whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you cannot, and will not, be elected unless you are wealthy or have the backing of wealthy people in your district/town/city/state in order to pay for the newspaper, TV, and radio advertising that is required today. And if they are backing and financing you, you will have to do their bidding and not your districts. Somehow it has turned from the politicians working for us to us working for them. And they couldn't give a damn about you or me. Heck, they recently voted themselves another $30,000 raise to $180,000/year!. It was supposed to be we, the people, who voted on giving them a raise. When did this change? When you were too busy watching sports and reading the sports pages and being in debt up to your eyeballs that's when!

Plus they have full retirement benefits after just one term (I think), full medical care, and they do not pay one penny into social security. Also, they DO NOT have to live by the very rules they themselves pass. For example they pass a rule saying that it is illegal to smoke in public buildings, but they themselves can smoke in their own offices! Check it out if you don't believe me. They are completely exempt from any laws they pass.

I heard it said once that when politicians are afraid of the people you have freedom and liberty. When the people are afraid of the politicians you have tyranny.

Sadly, most people in the US today are afraid of the politicians and most believe the politicians have the power when in fact they don't because they think this country is a democracy when the fact is it is a Representative Republic. The people have the power and still do only they are too ignorant to know it and do something about it. A very sad state of affairs indeed. Americans are just sitting by while the middle class is systematically being dismantled and their jobs and factories being sent overseas. Soon it will be a country of the "haves" and "have nots" with no middle class at all. Just what the founding fathers didn't want, but the ignorant American people let happen.

Is that what you want and are being taught? To be ruled by the wealthy few? Seems that way by listening to most people and reading some of these posts.

 

[Mandylion]

Also, they DO NOT have to live by the very rules they themselves pass. For example they pass a rule saying that it is illegal to smoke in public buildings, but they themselves can smoke in their own offices! Check it out if you don't believe me. They are completely exempt from any laws they pass.

This confuses me - do you have any examples or suggestions where I should look for more information? There is a difference from being above the law and finding loopholes to get around the laws.

 

[MeAndroo]

Unfortunately, in the world today, it seems that might still makes right. The federal government is so big, and so involved in everyday life that the idea of openly rebelling is nearly akin to committing virtual suicide in every aspect of life, save for perhaps your actual life itself. The government cannot be sued, unless it approves the suit. It can, and will, take money from you in any way, shape or form, regardless of your financial standing. It will engage in pork barrell politics, further sending itself into debt, if only because the people who run it are out for themselves, as nearly any person in that position would be.

A major blow to the ideals of some of the forefathers was how much the federal government has encroached upon states' rights. There have been cases of the government withholding, or threatening to withhold, infrastructure funds unless a state passed certain legislation. Ironically, if the country as a whole voted as a democracy, this would be perfectly acceptable.

The day I found out about the electoral college was the day I lost faith in the election process. Living in a non-swing state (CA), my vote on a national scale means nothing but possible fodder for conspiracy theorists who spout rhetoric claiming a president "stole" an election because he didn't win the popular vote. I can't say I want every person to have equal say, because I understand the need for some kind of balance mechanism to defend smaller states. I just can't put my faith in something that seems like it's 75% pre-determined.

 

[Sensuikan San]

Where it began I do not know, but today whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you cannot, and will not, be elected unless you are wealthy or have the backing of wealthy people in your district/town/city/state in order to pay for the newspaper, TV, and radio advertising that is required today. And if they are backing and financing you, you will have to do their bidding and not your districts. Somehow it has turned from the politicians working for us to us working for them. And they couldn't give a damn about you or me. Heck, they recently voted themselves another $30,000 raise to $180,000/year!. It was supposed to be we, the people, who voted on giving them a raise. When did this change? When you were too busy watching sports and reading the sports pages and being in debt up to your eyeballs that's when!

Plus they have full retirement benefits after just one term (I think), full medical care, and they do not pay one penny into social security. Also, they DO NOT have to live by the very rules they themselves pass. For example they pass a rule saying that it is illegal to smoke in public buildings, but they themselves can smoke in their own offices! Check it out if you don't believe me. They are completely exempt from any laws they pass.

Curious ... and hilarious! We have precisely the same situation up here in Canada! Right down to the detail of smoking in the office! (In our case - it is a high court judge!)

I heard it said once that when politicians are afraid of the people you have freedom and liberty. When the people are afraid of the politicians you have tyranny.

Sadly, most people in the US today are afraid of the politicians and most believe the politicians have the power when in fact they don't because they think this country is a democracy when the fact is it is a Representative Republic. The people have the power and still do only they are too ignorant to know it and do something about it. A very sad state of affairs indeed. Americans are just sitting by while the middle class is systematically being dismantled and their jobs and factories being sent overseas. Soon it will be a country of the "haves" and "have nots" with no middle class at all. Just what the founding fathers didn't want, but the ignorant American people let happen.

Agreed ... but of course - if this gets carried to extremes - as it may well do ... and the people do eventually get totally pee'd off with professional politicians ... you can get ........ well, just ask (the late) Monsieur Robespierre ... ! (I fear to mention the "R" word !)

Perhaps something upon which our 'masters' in Washington, Ottawa, London, Paris, Berlin ..... Tokyo ..... wherever ... should ponder ...? :flame:

ジョン

 

[bossel]

Unfortunately the U.S. is a democracy and if you are a U.S. citizen BUSH is your president.

Contrary to what most people think the US is NOT a democracy. It is a Representative Republic as the forefathers wanted. A goverment by the people for the people. Unfortunately most people don't realize that today. In the Pledge of Alligence is the line "And to the Republic for which it stands..." How many times have you heard a politician refer to the US as a Republic? Almost never. And it is scary.

Ach, nah, not really scary. For, you see, the USA is a democracy. It obviously depends on your definition of democracy & republic, but if you use the common definition you can only come to that conclusion. I take it that M-W uses common definitions:

republic:
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

democracy:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

The US was formed as a Representative Republic for the sole purpose that we would not see what is currently happening today and that is rule by the few and wealthy over the masses as had happened in Europe.

BTW, what makes you think that it weren't the wealthy who ruled the US in the 19th century? Do you have any statistics on the house of representatives or the electoral college?

the electoral college was created so that the more populous and wealthy states wouldn't have mob rule over the smaller states with less people.

Hmm? I've heard that this is a bit different:
"We show that this system is biased toward populous states, giving a citizen of California roughly four times more power than one of Montana in the choice of the US president."

 

[Pachipro]

Ach, nah, not really scary. For, you see, the USA is a democracy. It obviously depends on your definition of democracy & republic, but if you use the common definition you can only come to that conclusion.

I said I was rusty, but I didn't think I was that rusty. My dear bossel, maybe I am misunderstanding your reply here, but contrary to what you have said, and which many mistakingly believe, I quote here from the first paragraph of David Barton's article on Republic V. Democracy which can be found on this link at Wallbuilders:

We have grown accustomed to hearing that we are a democracy; such was never the intent. The form of government entrusted to us by our Founders was a republic, not a democracy. Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to. In fact, the Founders made clear that we were not, and were never to become, a democracy.....

Even John Quincy Adams is quoted in this article as saying that of all the forms of government a democracy is the most unstable. Noah Webster even says that a pure democracy is the most tyrannical government on earth.

For those that may not have the time to click on the link I quote:

A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A republic differs in that the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation. A democracy is the rule by majority feeling (what the Founders described as a "mobocracy"); a republic is rule by law. If the source of law for a democracy is the popular feeling of the people, then what is the source of law for the American republic? According to Founder Noah Webster:

[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.

That last part by Noah Webster is a little scary to me. Anyway, something or someone, is severely wrong when our own president, is saying something to the effect that we are exporting "democracy" throughout the world and no one is calling him to task for his blunder. On the other hand, maybe he does want democracy and not a representative republic in other countries like Iraq so there will always be strife. I don't know.

Even Wikipedia says

In a broad definition, a republic is a state whose political organization rests on the principle that the citizens or electorate constitute the ultimate root of legitimacy and sovereignty. Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the 'rule of law' as part of the requirements for a Republic.....Republics are often associated with democracy, which seems natural if one acknowledges the meaning of the expression from which the word "republic" derives (see: res publica). This association between "republic" and "democracy" is however far from a general understanding, even if acknowledging that there are several forms of democracy.....Republicanism was the founding ideology of the United States of America and remains the core of American political values. See Republicanism in the U.S.

"Electorate" above would refer to the Electoral College that elects the President and not the popular vote as in a true democracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pachipro
The US was formed as a Representative Republic for the sole purpose that we would not see what is currently happening today and that is rule by the few and wealthy over the masses as had happened in Europe.

BTW, what makes you think that it weren't the wealthy who ruled the US in the 19th century? Do you have any statistics on the house of representatives or the electoral college?

Not off hand I don't. But in the 18th century, if I remember correctly, the people were represented by both wealthy and common people. That began to change in the 19th century when the wealthy elite began to have more and more influence and control on up to the present day when they currently control or influence all of Washington. Today, I think over 98% of our "representatives" in Washington are among the weathliest people in the US.

I, or someone like me, may very well make a great politician representing the common man, but in todays political climate it is impossible as I do not have the amount of cash that would be required to run a successful campaign. Nor do I desire to. And even if I were charismatic enough and had the backing of the wealthy, I would still have to do their bidding in Washington and not my own or the people I were to represent.

Things will only get worse in this country unless they allow third party candidates to fully participate in the election process which sadly they can't in today's environment. If you are not a Republican or Democrat you don't stand a chance. Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. They just have different ideas on how to reach the same ends. Even if a Democrat were to win the next election and become president, I believe we still will never leave Iraq as the special interest groups of big oil and business, and defense contractors will not allow it. The same fate that befell President Kennedy will befall them if they do it on their own.

 

[Pachipro]

This confuses me - do you have any examples or suggestions where I should look for more information? There is a difference from being above the law and finding loopholes to get around the laws.

No I don't. But I dont think it would be hard to find. I have heard countless pundits on CNN, FOX, ABC, etc use the term that our representatives pass laws that even they themselves, in Washington, are not required to follow.

Take for example the law for the disabled in that all public buildings are required to have wheelchair ramps and easy access. MAybe they do today, but in Washington, for the longest time after this law was passed, they didn't have easy access and were not required to. A few years ago, here in Tennessee a disabled person was arrested because he failed to make a court appearance. His excuse was that since he was disabled and was in a wheelchair he could not access the building to the court room some few floors above. This caused an outrage among the "ignorant" public when they were informed by the press that government buildings were exempt from the very laws they pass. They have since made access easy in this building.

These are just a few examples and I'm sure there are more. I just can't recall them. And as I stated above, although smoking is banned in all public buildings by congressional law in the US, here in Tennessee, and I'm sure in Washington and other states, they (government people) are allowed to smoke in their buildings and offices and even during sessions, even today!

It sure gives meaning to the saying, "Do as I say, not as I do!?

 

[Pachipro]

It will engage in pork barrell politics, further sending itself into debt, if only because the people who run it are out for themselves, as nearly any person in that position would be.

Very true as the first order of business for any elected politician is to start a campaign of getting re-elected and that means pork barrel politics.

A major blow to the ideals of some of the forefathers was how much the federal government has encroached upon states' rights. There have been cases of the government withholding, or threatening to withhold, infrastructure funds unless a state passed certain legislation.

Very true. The federal government has stated that any state that does not abide by the speed limit laws or the seat belt laws would be withheld federal road building and bridge repairing funds. This was a big blow to some western states like Montana and Arizona who wanted no speed limits on their hundreds of miles of interstates in the middle of nowhere. Very sad to those that have high performance cars.

Ironically, if the country as a whole voted as a democracy, this would be perfectly acceptable.

Not in all cases.

 

[Mandylion]

No I don't. But I dont think it would be hard to find. I have heard countless pundits on CNN, FOX, ABC, etc use the term that our representatives pass laws that even they themselves, in Washington, are not required to follow.

This caused an outrage among the "ignorant" public when they were informed by the press that government buildings were exempt from the very laws they pass.

First - most pundits on TV are worth about as far as you can throw them, that said

What you describe is very different from being above the law - ie passing a law and then openly flaunting them. What you are describing are either loopholes or failures to comply- as far as I can tell without seeing the text of the laws in question. I agree it is dirty and bad form, and while functionally it is the same as being exempt from the laws they pass, legally it is very, very different.

Great discussion so far - but lets try and swing this in a new direction. We all seem to agree that they system has some huge problems that need to be addressed.

What would you do to fix the Republic?
(sorry to cop out and not get my own views up now - gotta run to class, I will contribute later)

 

[bossel]

I said I was rusty, but I didn't think I was that rusty. My dear bossel, maybe I am misunderstanding your reply here, but contrary to what you have said, and which many mistakingly believe, I quote here from the first paragraph of David Barton's article on Republic V. Democracy which can be found on this link at Wallbuilders:

I didn't say that there are no philosophers or ideologists who have their very own definition of republic, but the common definition is simply "a country without a king or queen, usually governed by elected representatives of the people and a president" (this time from the Cambridge AL Dictionary, Concise Oxford Dictionary has a similar one). Being a republic does not preclude being a democracy.

Noah Webster even says that a pure democracy is the most tyrannical government on earth.

Pure democracy? Where does it exist?
AFAIK, Switzerland comes closest among the developed countries to being a "pure" democracy. Don't see that much more tyranny there than in the USA or Germany.

Even Wikipedia says
"Electorate" above would refer to the Electoral College that elects the President and not the popular vote as in a true democracy.

Going from pure to true?
Do I have to quote M-W again? OK, sorry for the repetition:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation"

But in the 18th century, if I remember correctly, the people were represented by both wealthy and common people.

Democracy (republicanism, if you like) was rather new in the 18th century, not too many elections back then. But even then, Washington et al. were not really the average citizen, I think (but don't know too much about that).

Anyway, sh*t (wealthy or not, why is this word on the index?) floats on top, that's very common in politics.

Things will only get worse in this country unless they allow third party candidates to fully participate in the election process which sadly they can't in today's environment.

Better do away with parties altogether.

If you are not a Republican or Democrat you don't stand a chance. Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. They just have different ideas on how to reach the same ends.

Yep, that's politics.