The Death Of Democracy?

[PoetPhilosopher]

During the Cold War, the military created the myth of the ten-foot Russian to get increases in defense spending. I never fell for that. I've always been confident that Russia's leaders were as dumb as ours.

 

[sealchan]

Yeah, we are in uncharted territory and a new era. my impression is that the U.S. intelligence community is already concerned that Russia is going to interfere in the 2020 Elections, so we'll have to wait and see what happens. The world's governments are basically just learning to "play with their new toys" at this point.

They may interfere but who is responsible when people lap up conspiracy theory like it was proven fact?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Something called elections which the US still has. No one has shown any election rigging.

Nope ... nothing to see ... no gerrymandering here ... no voter suppression here ... just move along whistling the tune of Trump's useful idiots.

 

[Laika]

They may interfere but who is responsible when people lap up conspiracy theory like it was proven fact?

Ordinarily I would say it is us. But it is more ambiguous and complicated than that. When we believe the lies of others we effectively make ourselves their prisoners and slaves. Where it gets tricky is that, although slaves visibly depend on their masters, masters also come to depend on their slaves as their "tools" to achieve objectives they cannot achieve themselves. Masters need to lie and slaves need to believe the lies to preserve that bond. That dependence can be interpreted not simply as the loss of freedom, but also the loss of individuality and responsibility on both parties.

Whatever can be said of who is responsible, the truth remains the only path to freedom and worthy of those who are free. That at least is a constant.

 

[Nakosis]

While true, after the first gerrymander, that effectively means you need super majorities to change things.

I see that if the voters wanted to change things they could. Unless there is enough corrupting influences in place that it doesn't really matter who gets elected. IOW who ever gets into office will be corrupted by the political system.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Democracy has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, but when you have two sheep and a wolf voting for dinner and yet they still select mutton, then there's a serious problem.
Democracy is only as effective as the electorate is informed, but when far too many people are easily deceived and manipulated into voting against their own interests, it's a **** show.

I think this is the heart of the problem. Our population is mostly misinformed, and when when they attempt to remedy that they are curtailed into confusion by munipulative parties.

 

[halbhh]

The United States is certainly going through some tough times at the moment and it is stretching the definition of what a “democracy” is (at least more than usual). This is true for many democratic governments around the world as they try to ride the storm of popular anger and institutional corruption.

What, therefore, would you regard as the point in which a democracy can be said to be fully “dead”? Where do you draw the line between a democracy and a corrupt authoritarian regime? Or would you argue that a hard, solid line between democracy and dictatorship doesn’t actually exist and its something more fluid?

Thoughts and comments welcome.

I'd only fear that if dramatic lines like these are crossed:

A) Free Speech (actual speech, with words) is effectively curtailed in a very massive way for millions (not just for dozens).

B) Some part of the U.S. Constitution about key things like 2-term limit for Presidents or the division of powers is clearly and totally set aside.

C) People are put in prison in large numbers, at least tens of thousands, for doing non-violent acts that are normal American freedoms we are accustomed to, such as freedom of assembly or freedom to criticize political leaders.

 

[Heyo]

joe1776 said: "During the cold war ..."
There is no question who currently has the smarter leader.

 

[LuisDantas]

Regarding the OP: it is all a function of how politically and ethically aware and responsible the people tend to be.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Democracy is as alive now as it's always been.
Perhaps even more so.

I'm going to pick just a small argument with you about this, if you don't mind.

Certainly, democracy is still alive -- in the US, in Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Israel -- and a heck of a lot of other places.

My nitpick has to do with "information," and how we get it and use it. Since democracy is "about us," it is then, I think, up to "us" to inform ourselves as fully as possible about the issues, before we go to the polls and exercise our democratic right to choose those who will represent us for some limited term. I'm not entirely certain, but when I was growing up, everybody I knew read the newspaper, and a lot of them read more than one. When I was a kid in Ottawa, I delivered the Ottawa Citizen (editorially leftish) to a lot of people who also had the Ottawa Journal (editorially rightish) also on their doorstep. I've read multiple papers, with different viewpoints, for my whole life. I've read one quite right-wing paper just about every day since its inception -- even though I have a somewhat more liberal bias.

What I try NOT to pay attention to now, though, is social media. I have a very strong feeling that too many people are gleaning a tremendous amount of mis- and dis-information online, and that (as newspaper readership declines) this is the only source of "what they know."

My point is, if you are essentially ill-informed, your vote is more than likely to be ill-cast.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's not really about democracy.
But it speaks to a problem inherent in democracy, ie,
the voters often want to curtail the rights of some.

And that is certainly true! That, in my view, is one constitutions are partly for. The U.S. Constitution contains a Bill of Rights, as does Canada's. I think, in fact, that Canada's is stronger. Certainly, using it, our courts have been a force in preventing LGBTetc., religious and other discrimination.

There is (isn't there always) an exception. One province, Quebec, has recently adopted a law that bans the use of religious garb and symbols by workers employed by the province (including all government workers, teachers, etc.). In order to do that, since it explicitly violates our Charter of Rights, Quebec had to invoke a "notwithstanding" clause, which allows it to override a Charter right. The trick is that this must be renewed every 5 years, giving the electorate a chance to correct an obvious wrong. Of course, the electorate may choose not to do that, in which case the wrong will be continued -- but at least the law means that they have to make that explicit choice, and THINK ABOUT IT, every five years.

 

[Wandering Monk]

During the Cold War, the military created the myth of the ten-foot Russian to get increases in defense spending. I never fell for that. I've always been confident that Russia's leaders were as dumb as ours.

I agree. Their nuclear stockpile was never as large as had been portrayed.

The Military-Industrial Complex buys politicians.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm going to pick just a small argument with you about this, if you don't mind.

Certainly, democracy is still alive -- in the US, in Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Israel -- and a heck of a lot of other places.

My nitpick has to do with "information," and how we get it and use it. Since democracy is "about us," it is then, I think, up to "us" to inform ourselves as fully as possible about the issues, before we go to the polls and exercise our democratic right to choose those who will represent us for some limited term. I'm not entirely certain, but when I was growing up, everybody I knew read the newspaper, and a lot of them read more than one. When I was a kid in Ottawa, I delivered the Ottawa Citizen (editorially leftish) to a lot of people who also had the Ottawa Journal (editorially rightish) also on their doorstep. I've read multiple papers, with different viewpoints, for my whole life. I've read one quite right-wing paper just about every day since its inception -- even though I have a somewhat more liberal bias.

What I try NOT to pay attention to now, though, is social media. I have a very strong feeling that too many people are gleaning a tremendous amount of mis- and dis-information online, and that (as newspaper readership declines) this is the only source of "what they know."

My point is, if you are essentially ill-informed, your vote is more than likely to be ill-cast.

The universe of information has changed.
In days of yore, we had newspapers, radio & TV, but it was extremely limited.
Nowadays we have far more, but much of it is bogus. Are we more or less
informed? Hard to say. But I prefer the current greater diversity.

Back in the day, voters who read your newspapers opposed gay rights &
other things we consider progressive. Correlation or causation?

 

[Revoltingest]

And that is certainly true! That, in my view, is one constitutions are partly for. The U.S. Constitution contains a Bill of Rights, as does Canada's. I think, in fact, that Canada's is stronger. Certainly, using it, our courts have been a force in preventing LGBTetc., religious and other discrimination.

Ours played a role in legalizing gay marriage.

There is (isn't there always) an exception. One province, Quebec, has recently adopted a law that bans the use of religious garb and symbols by workers employed by the province (including all government workers, teachers, etc.). In order to do that, since it explicitly violates our Charter of Rights, Quebec had to invoke a "notwithstanding" clause, which allows it to override a Charter right. The trick is that this must be renewed every 5 years, giving the electorate a chance to correct an obvious wrong. Of course, the electorate may choose not to do that, in which case the wrong will be continued -- but at least the law means that they have to make that explicit choice, and THINK ABOUT IT, every five years.

Never trust anyone who speaks French.

 

[Stevicus]

The United States is certainly going through some tough times at the moment and it is stretching the definition of what a “democracy” is (at least more than usual). This is true for many democratic governments around the world as they try to ride the storm of popular anger and institutional corruption.

What, therefore, would you regard as the point in which a democracy can be said to be fully “dead”? Where do you draw the line between a democracy and a corrupt authoritarian regime? Or would you argue that a hard, solid line between democracy and dictatorship doesn’t actually exist and its something more fluid?

Thoughts and comments welcome.

I think when people really are living under an authoritarian regime, they pretty much know it.

If you see pictures of the Supreme Leader plastered all over the place, you might be living under a dictatorship.

If you don't hear any criticism of the Supreme Leader from anybody (and those who do criticize the leader seem to mysteriously vanish without trace) you might be living under a dictatorship.

 

[Milton Platt]

The United States is certainly going through some tough times at the moment and it is stretching the definition of what a “democracy” is (at least more than usual). This is true for many democratic governments around the world as they try to ride the storm of popular anger and institutional corruption.

What, therefore, would you regard as the point in which a democracy can be said to be fully “dead”? Where do you draw the line between a democracy and a corrupt authoritarian regime? Or would you argue that a hard, solid line between democracy and dictatorship doesn’t actually exist and its something more fluid?

Thoughts and comments welcome.

When officials are not elected in a democratic process, there is no democracy...until then, there is...for better or worse.

 

[Milton Platt]

If it's not too far out there, I consider Democracy dieing like when it happened in the fictional movie Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. Palpatine deceived everyone, and was met with thunderous applause from a mostly uneducated audience.

Too close to home......

 

[PureX]

Studies have shown that democracy is already dead in the U.S., and has been for several decades. The political system does not reflect the will of the people, ever, anymore, unless the will of the people happens to align with the will of the oligarchs that now have complete control of government. The only democracy left in the U.S. is the fantasy democracy that most of us still imagine that we're living in.

Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

 

[Heyo]

The universe of information has changed.
In days of yore, we had newspapers, radio & TV, but it was extremely limited.
Nowadays we have far more, but much of it is bogus. Are we more or less
informed? Hard to say. But I prefer the current greater diversity.

Back in the day, voters who read your newspapers opposed gay rights &
other things we consider progressive. Correlation or causation?

In the days of yore we had media that tried to inform the public. Today mainstream media is owned by just a few very big corporations and that shows in their "reporting". But we have indipendent online media. I also like it better now but there was a phase when the new media wasn't trustworthy yet and the old media no more.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the days of yore we had media that tried to inform the public.

They also tried to hide info from us.
And we didn't have easy access to alternative
sources, eg, Wikileaks, Drudge Report.

Today mainstream media is owned by just a few very big corporations and that shows in their "reporting". But we have indipendent online media. I also like it better now but there was a phase when the new media wasn't trustworthy yet and the old media no more.

The new media still aren't so trustworthy
that we need not vet info using other sources.