American democracy

The subject of "democracy" appears to be quite a contentious topic lately. Some people are noticeably worried that democracy in the United States is under threat and could be done away with if the Trumpists get their way. There are concerns that some people are actively trying to undermine faith in democracy, and those of us who never had that much faith in democracy to begin with are also being attacked, presumably due to our lack of faith.

Then there are those who say that America was never really a true democracy, but a republic and a representative (indirect) democracy. It's seen as a good thing - a hedge against mob rule or a tyranny of the majority, which can be a potential hazard in a democratic society. It's part of the reason why we have an Electoral College and why the voters aren't allowed to directly elect Supreme Court justices or other federal judgeships.

Of course, there may have been sensible, practical reasons for including such barriers. However, in doing so, does this mean that the statement that the U.S. is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is inaccurate? Is it just so much bunkum for the masses, or does it actually have meaning?

Is democracy characterized simply by the process of people going to the polls and casting ballots? They also cast ballots in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, which are commonly viewed as anti-democratic, yet they still had voting on a superficial level. It may have been rigged, but how could anyone among the common people be able to know this or be able to prove it? If you lived in a rigged democracy, how would you know?

In our political culture, I notice somewhat conflicting ideas get tossed about, such as when people say "we the people are the government" implying that when the government does something bad, it's our fault, as we the people voted them in. But then there are other times when the government is presented as something separate and distinct from the common citizen.

This is especially true in matters of law enforcement, military, national security, and other sensitive areas which deal with direct control over the apparatus of the state. If there's some state secret that only a privileged few in the government are allowed to know, then it's rather difficult for "the people" to lead the nation when they're denied information. How does that notion fit in to common perceptions of "democracy"? Open communication and reliable information are vital to a healthy democracy, but how can we really be "democratic" when our government maintains a culture of hyper-secrecy and a wanton lack of transparency?

There are also the ways and means of democracy which might be called into question, such as registration requirements, voter ID, not enough polling places, long lines, etc. The role of mass media in conveying information to the voters which can be easily used to manipulate and manufacture public opinion, which can also taint elections. The role of social media and "troll farms" has also been called into question as having an undue influence over the flow of information and open communication, which can also influence voters. Very often, one might hear people question the intelligence and gullibility of the voting public, with some people even cynically referring to the voters as "sheeple."

But if too many people are really that gullible and easily led, what does that say about "democracy" as an effective form of government? Is it just like Churchill said, the worst form of government except for all the other forms of government? Is this as good as it gets?

Are there ways of expanding democracy and giving the people more direct control? For example, the Supreme Court has been under fire lately. Was it a good idea to make such important government posts to be unelected? In some state and local jurisdictions, they do elect the judges.

In my state, the people get to elect various other state posts, such as secretary of state, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, corporation commission members, and even state mine inspector. Why don't we get to do that at the federal level? Why can't we elect the FCC members directly, or the Federal Reserve, for that matter? What about the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, CIA Director, etc.? Why don't we get to elect them, just we elect our county sheriff?

As it is, we have many people in high government posts, with their hands directly controlling the apparatus of the state, who are unelected and largely unaccountable to the people. Theoretically, there's supposedly some measure of oversight from elected officials, along with a system of checks and balances. And the fact that many of these important governmental posts are unelected can be seen as yet another buffer and a check against direct control by the people, since "the people" can be seen as unpredictable - fears of mob rule, which is a valid fear in these times.

I do realize that democracy has been viewed as a cornerstone in our society and considered one of the greater virtues of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Undermining faith in democracy is perceived by some as a dangerous and possibly grave threat to the American political system and the very fabric of democracy itself.

When I look at the overall narrative and the opinions of others on this topic, I tend to see most people looking at this more on a superficial and formalist level, without wanting to dig much into the details or the nuts and bolts of how things actually operate in this country and what it looks like from street level.

I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone, but this is more of a plea for understanding. For those out there reading this, in your opinion, just what in the heck is going on in America these days? What are your thoughts on our history, where we've been, how we got to this point, and where do we go from here?

Just for those who like to speculate: In 100-200 years, how will historians look back on this era?

Stevicus said:

The subject of "democracy" appears to be quite a contentious topic lately. Some people are noticeably worried that democracy in the United States is under threat and could be done away with if the Trumpists get their way. There are concerns that some people are actively trying to undermine faith in democracy, and those of us who never had that much faith in democracy to begin with are also being attacked, presumably due to our lack of faith.

Then there are those who say that America was never really a true democracy, but a republic and a representative (indirect) democracy. It's seen as a good thing - a hedge against mob rule or a tyranny of the majority, which can be a potential hazard in a democratic society. It's part of the reason why we have an Electoral College and why the voters aren't allowed to directly elect Supreme Court justices or other federal judgeships.

Of course, there may have been sensible, practical reasons for including such barriers. However, in doing so, does this mean that the statement that the U.S. is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is inaccurate? Is it just so much bunkum for the masses, or does it actually have meaning?

Is democracy characterized simply by the process of people going to the polls and casting ballots? They also cast ballots in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, which are commonly viewed as anti-democratic, yet they still had voting on a superficial level. It may have been rigged, but how could anyone among the common people be able to know this or be able to prove it? If you lived in a rigged democracy, how would you know?

In our political culture, I notice somewhat conflicting ideas get tossed about, such as when people say "we the people are the government" implying that when the government does something bad, it's our fault, as we the people voted them in. But then there are other times when the government is presented as something separate and distinct from the common citizen.

This is especially true in matters of law enforcement, military, national security, and other sensitive areas which deal with direct control over the apparatus of the state. If there's some state secret that only a privileged few in the government are allowed to know, then it's rather difficult for "the people" to lead the nation when they're denied information. How does that notion fit in to common perceptions of "democracy"? Open communication and reliable information are vital to a healthy democracy, but how can we really be "democratic" when our government maintains a culture of hyper-secrecy and a wanton lack of transparency?

There are also the ways and means of democracy which might be called into question, such as registration requirements, voter ID, not enough polling places, long lines, etc. The role of mass media in conveying information to the voters which can be easily used to manipulate and manufacture public opinion, which can also taint elections. The role of social media and "troll farms" has also been called into question as having an undue influence over the flow of information and open communication, which can also influence voters. Very often, one might hear people question the intelligence and gullibility of the voting public, with some people even cynically referring to the voters as "sheeple."

But if too many people are really that gullible and easily led, what does that say about "democracy" as an effective form of government? Is it just like Churchill said, the worst form of government except for all the other forms of government? Is this as good as it gets?

Are there ways of expanding democracy and giving the people more direct control? For example, the Supreme Court has been under fire lately. Was it a good idea to make such important government posts to be unelected? In some state and local jurisdictions, they do elect the judges.

In my state, the people get to elect various other state posts, such as secretary of state, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, corporation commission members, and even state mine inspector. Why don't we get to do that at the federal level? Why can't we elect the FCC members directly, or the Federal Reserve, for that matter? What about the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, CIA Director, etc.? Why don't we get to elect them, just we elect our county sheriff?

As it is, we have many people in high government posts, with their hands directly controlling the apparatus of the state, who are unelected and largely unaccountable to the people. Theoretically, there's supposedly some measure of oversight from elected officials, along with a system of checks and balances. And the fact that many of these important governmental posts are unelected can be seen as yet another buffer and a check against direct control by the people, since "the people" can be seen as unpredictable - fears of mob rule, which is a valid fear in these times.

I do realize that democracy has been viewed as a cornerstone in our society and considered one of the greater virtues of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Undermining faith in democracy is perceived by some as a dangerous and possibly grave threat to the American political system and the very fabric of democracy itself.

When I look at the overall narrative and the opinions of others on this topic, I tend to see most people looking at this more on a superficial and formalist level, without wanting to dig much into the details or the nuts and bolts of how things actually operate in this country and what it looks like from street level.

I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone, but this is more of a plea for understanding. For those out there reading this, in your opinion, just what in the heck is going on in America these days? What are your thoughts on our history, where we've been, how we got to this point, and where do we go from here?

Just for those who like to speculate: In 100-200 years, how will historians look back on this era?

Click to expand...

Im not American so can't really comment in detailbut i do have a view for what its worth. I have been dismayed by events in America over the last few years. There is an old saying over this side of the water "when America sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold". I'm waiting for the chills and fevers to start...

BTW, did you take politics in college? The OP is a very well written, concise and knowledgeable piece

Democracy is still a new idea in the world. Well, not democracy as an idea, but as an actual functioning political system. So we're still learning.

Here are some things we've learned, or are trying to learn ...

1. limits must be put in place to keep the majority from oppressing and abusing the minority.
2. Everyone effected by the outcome of an election must have the right to vote on it.
3. Voters need to be both ethical and informed or democracy will devolve into an exercise in manipulation.
4. With rights come responsibilities. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to vote for the well-being of society as a whole, not just for the sake of our own.
5. Democracy cannot work unless the participants are willing to recognize and abide by the outcome of a free and fair election.
6. The set of options being offered to vote on are as important as the right to vote on them, is.

Add more as you think appropriate.

ChristineM said:

Im not American so can't really comment in detailbut i do have a view for what its worth. I have been dismayed by events in America over the last few years. There is an old saying over this side of the water "when America sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold". I'm waiting for the chills and fevers to start...

BTW, did you take politics in college? The OP is a very well written, concise and knowledgeable piece

Click to expand...

I took a lot of different things in college, including a lot of history and political science. But I always had a keen interest in politics from a very young age, growing up in a time of a lot of political activism, Nixon - that sort of thing.

PureX said:

Democracy is still a new idea in the world. Well, not democracy as an idea, but as an actual functioning political system. So we're still learning.

Here are some things we've learned, or are trying to learn ...

1. limits must be put in place to keep the majority from oppressing and abusing the minority.
2. Everyone effected by the outcome of an election must have the right to vote on it.
3. Voters need to be both ethical and informed or democracy will devolve into an exercise in manipulation.
4. With rights come responsibilities. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to vote for the well-being of society as a whole, not just for the sake of our own.
5. Democracy cannot work unless the participants are willing to recognize and abide by the outcome of a free and fair election.
6. The set of options being offered to vote on are as important as the right to vote on them, is.

Add more as you think appropriate.

Click to expand...

I think democracy works extremely with small populations, but when it starts turning into millions of people, a representative republic seems to be a more effective by way of managing so many people.

Yet your right. It means more rules, more regulation, and essentially more trouble as it gets more difficult to reign in that lust people have for power and and control over others while insulating themselves.

Stevicus said:

Why don't we get to do that at the federal level? Why can't we elect the FCC members directly, or the Federal Reserve, for that matter? What about the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, CIA Director, etc.? Why don't we get to elect them, just we elect our county sheriff?

Click to expand...

It would require an 'informed' public. The three branches of government that make up the Republic are equal, at least in theory. We elect our representatives in Congress which make the laws, appoint the federal judges, etc. But like anything else is open to abuse which is where we are now, like a stampede of those who feel the country has not worked for 'them'. Or the politicians who throw out general procedure simply because they have the power to do it. This is how the current Supreme Court became stacked so tilted toward one political extreme. The knowledge required for critiquing the positions you mention does not exist among the average voting persons.

"Democracy" has come to mean representative democracy.
Nothing is ever perfect, so that doesn't invalidate the term.
We have democracy.
Those who believe otherwise should sit out elections in protest.

It's starting to look like a violent revolution will be the only way to protect democracy (and the planet). The liberal world order is collapsing and with it any pretense that freedom, civil rights, and democratic participation matter. Rentiers, shareholders and other parasites own everything, and they will burn the world to the ground before they give that up.

Stevicus said:

Then there are those who say that America was never really a true democracy, but a republic and a representative (indirect) democracy.

Click to expand...

Look at Trump/Biden elections. It is not a democracy, but loveless fight.

pearl said:

It would require an 'informed' public. The three branches of government that make up the Republic are equal, at least in theory. We elect our representatives in Congress which make the laws, appoint the federal judges, etc. But like anything else is open to abuse which is where we are now, like a stampede of those who feel the country has not worked for 'them'. Or the politicians who throw out general procedure simply because they have the power to do it. This is how the current Supreme Court became stacked so tilted toward one political extreme. The knowledge required for critiquing the positions you mention does not exist among the average voting persons.

Click to expand...

That's a commonly held view, that the people, on the whole, just aren't smart enough to elect some positions. But how does that make them smart enough to elect anybody at all, in whatever position? There was once a time in history when peasants were considered nothing more than cattle and needed the guidance and leadership from their betters, presumably someone of noble birth who was chosen by God. Thankfully, we've slowly moved away from beliefs like that, but sometimes I wonder, are the people truly smart enough and intelligent enough to be able to govern themselves?

Stevicus said:

That's a commonly held view, that the people, on the whole, just aren't smart enough to elect some positions. But how does that make them smart enough to elect anybody at all, in whatever position?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we have experienced those in power appointing people as the head of this or that who didn't meet any standard requirements for the position. It's not even a question of being smart enough but informed of one's background as it does or does not relate to the job being appointed to. To take democracy seriously one must be willing to take the time to be informed, it does not come without effort.

ChristineM said:

Im not American so can't really comment in detailbut i do have a view for what its worth. I have been dismayed by events in America over the last few years. There is an old saying over this side of the water "when America sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold". I'm waiting for the chills and fevers to start...

Click to expand...

Part from the pandemic and the poor Trump response, and the recent bought of inflation, there isn't any discernible difference for Americans getting up in the morning and going to work. Watching the news is always changing, and more news on Trump and his corruption is how I understand the changes going on, and how I predict the future. I do plan to sell one of my houses and consolidate my investments before the 2024 election. Unless it is a landslide one way or the other I predict a huge political upheaval that may include violence.

I am expecting serious problems economically if there is chaos and violence.

Stevicus said:

That's a commonly held view, that the people, on the whole, just aren't smart enough to elect some positions. But how does that make them smart enough to elect anybody at all, in whatever position? There was once a time in history when peasants were considered nothing more than cattle and needed the guidance and leadership from their betters, presumably someone of noble birth who was chosen by God. Thankfully, we've slowly moved away from beliefs like that, but sometimes I wonder, are the people truly smart enough and intelligent enough to be able to govern themselves?

Click to expand...

This is a problem, whether citizens are well informed versus misinformed, and whether citizens can reason with some degree of reliability.

The disinformation is a huge problem in the USA, and I am highly critical of those who choose poor quality media sources. There are a number of conservative members on RF that refuse to answer my question of their media sources. If they are embarrassed to admit what they consume then they have an awareness the sources are unreliable, biased, and a bad influence on their thinking. Yet they don't care. This lack of concern is exactly why civilizations fail.

Arnold Toynbee wrote a massive work of 11 volumes called A Study of History. One part of this work examines the collapse of civilizations and his assessment is it is caused by citizens devolving in their concern and progress for their society. The Greeks collapsed because the citizens became complacent and took a less active and passionate roll in maintaining their culture.

In a way the USA might be saved by Trumpism/MAGAs as this has certainly riled up citizens to defend the policies that are taking away liberties and fair/secure elections. The MAGAs are very corrupt and very savvy in adjusting to the failures of Trump himself. They will certainly have some successes going forward. But the ethical advocates of democracy are also savvy and can see what the MAGAs are intending to do, and by exposing the corruption there is opportunity to counter the efforts.

What really needs to happen is ether a hitting bottom for MAGA states, or the conservative public feeling pressure to value ethics and character again. I'm not sure how that would happen since the ethical conservative leaders are being ousted by MAGA voters. There needs to be leadership by republicans, but that requires courage. It seems the MAGAs in the USA need to experience hitting bottom before they realize it is a set of bad policies. Of course they drag the rest of us down with them.

Don't forget that the only ones actually voted into office under the original Constitution were those in the House of Representatives.

Senators were not elected directly (they were selected by the state legislatures) and Presidents, as we know, were selected by the Electoral College (who were usually elected).

It took an amendment to the Constitution to allow for direct election of Senators. maybe we should have a similar amendment for Presidents?

pearl said:

Unfortunately, we have experienced those in power appointing people as the head of this or that who didn't meet any standard requirements for the position. It's not even a question of being smart enough but informed of one's background as it does or does not relate to the job being appointed to. To take democracy seriously one must be willing to take the time to be informed, it does not come without effort.

Click to expand...

And unfortunately, a lot of people aren't willing to make enough of an effort to get better informed.

Stevicus said:

in your opinion, just what in the heck is going on in America these days? What are your thoughts on our history, where we've been, how we got to this point, and where do we go from here?

Click to expand...

Part of what is going on is not just in the US but world-wide. We have countries which have become a lot more authoritarian over the past few years. That tendency is true in the US as well.

We used to joke about what happened in places like the USSR when someone was purged from the party because they were insufficiently loyal. Liz Cheney is the premiere example of that here today but we also have DiSantis in FL doing the same thing.

We have purges of politically incorrect books just like dictatorships control what is available for people to read etc - China being the premiere example. We had the Bible and the Diary of Anne Frank banned in a proposal in TX because some people might have their extremely thin skin touched by something they want to avoid.

We have tribal membership be more important than law, more important than honor, more important than ethics. Trump.

Stepping back and ignoring exact meanings, "democracy" means that certain principles are honored and over time implemented. One person, one vote is dead some places due to gerrymandering, voter roles purging etc.

Our history is replete with ideals from the Age of Enlightenment, Declaration of Independence through Lincoln and including Dr. Martin Luther King. We've always been an imperfect "work in progress".

The future? I'm a short term pessimist and a long term optimist. The "arc of the moral universe" is bending in the wrong direction currently but I am optimistic that will change.

Salam

Why is a republic type government needed in this age of technology?

Seems it's possible to have direct democracy. Seems no one wants it or cares for it though.

Those interested really should take the time to read de Tocqueville.

Revoltingest said:

"Democracy" has come to mean representative democracy.
Nothing is ever perfect, so that doesn't invalidate the term.
We have democracy.
Those who believe otherwise should sit out elections in protest.

Click to expand...

Those who think otherwise should sit out elections in deference to those who know better.

Link said:

Salam

Why is a republic type government needed in this age of technology?

Seems it's possible to have direct democracy. Seems no one wants it or cares for it though.

Click to expand...

It requires a LOT of work from everyone. Few people are capable of determining public policy intelligently: they simply have not done the background reading and research. One of the points of a representative democracy is that we hire people to do a lot of this for us.