• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will the United States survive as a Democracy, or is it lost already?

I see it more as what happens when everything deemed 'important' becomes a new federal power. Instead of uniting the states, and by extension their residents (we the sheeple), this ever growing federal government mission creep has perhaps finally reached critical mass.

When 535 congress critters have decided that their power extends to placing future generations into massive debt then folks eventually realize that they have no power whatsoever to stop the madness. What democracy is there in having the ability to vote for (or against) at most 3 of our 535 congress critters who enjoy a re-election rate of over 90%?

We are now being told that a major 'blue wave' of change is when up to 30 of these oligarch funded (and controlled?) 'representatives of the people' are transferred (transformed?) from the party for a bigger federal government to the party for a huge federal government. The reality, of course, is that 30 seats in congress 'flipping' is a less than a 6% change among the congressional herd of 535 DC elites.

The frustration of having an ever more powerful governing body ('our' congress critters) that has an almost perfectly inverse relationship between their polling approval (about 11%) and their re-election rate (over 90%) is completely understandable. Democracy may not be dying, in the sense that we may still vote every couple of years, but the connection between the will of the people and what goes on in DC is clearly getting weaker as the power vested in them is getting ever stronger.
 
Last edited:
It all depends if the needed correction comes from the voters. If the voters continue to back people who threaten basic rights and democracy, then you end up with a Germany 1932 situation.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
Kal'Stang said:
I wouldn't have to say that "nonsense" if people would stop acting like we're a pure democracy. Ex: Complaining about the Electoral College and Hillary not winning even though she got the majority of the popular vote.
Click to expand...

Well I guess you must have really flipped your lid when Trump complained about the electoral college in 2012 right?
 
ashurbanipal said:
The problem is, when the sky really is falling, there are plenty of people who take this attitude. Often, very dark times start out looking only a little bad. There were a great many people who thought Hitler was no big deal, even after he had marched on Poland, Belgium, and France, for example.

There were plenty of people working in the finance industry who were quite optimistic come New Year's Day 1930. All the hubbub about a depression was just hyperbole, in their minds. And there were headlines in major newspapers for the next three years that things were going to get better shortly, and that things weren't actually so bad, so nothing to worry about.

Very often, our worst fears are not realized. But occasionally, they are. I agree we should be slow to think the worst has come. But I've been watching things gradually unravel my entire life, since I was a teenager. And I've studied history. I think we may well be in a very risky time--not that the worst is now inevitable. But the risks are greater than many appreciate, and there's no sign of political sanity on the horizon that I can see.
Click to expand...

Had the OP been less partisan, and instead of laying all the blame for her current "crisis" on the results of the most recent election and anyone who supports this current Administration, I might have given her a more sympathetic ear.

But to my mind the OP is more reflective of the mental state of those who "wailed to the sky" the day after the election, marched in Washington with "pink ***** hats" threatening to burn down the White House and assassinate the President, made every effort to negate the outcome of an election they did not agree with personally.

More reflective of the growing threat of Antifas mobs who burn buildings, and attack anyone who they chose to label a Nazi.

More reflective of all those on the Left who label this current government and anyone who supports it "alt-right" (in other words, a Nazi, fascist, racist, sexist, etc.) in order to make them "Folk Devils" deserving of any kind of attack.

More reflective of an MSM blitz of 24/7 negative "news reporting" (read propaganda campaign) coupled with late night TV political commentary meant to decrease faith in said government.

More reflective of such antipathy to a duly elected President that people openly and covertly declared the establishment of a "resistance to overthrow" that duly elected government "by any mean necessary." Rewarding and praising leakers, and 5th columnists actively working to undermine the current government from within.

More reflective of a socialist-globalist demand for the effective elimination of our national sovereignty by advocating open borders and mass migrations to "sweep away the old power structures and open the way for a socialist world paradise."

IMO the real threat to America are the very people who declaim that the only way to make the USA "return to it's original ideals" is by destroying or perverting those ideals to suit their own agendas.

The problem with all this doom saying is that our system was designed to prevent just what people who want to change it are claiming it has turned into.

This Administration will last 2 to 6 more years, and can be changed by the simple process of voting. Both for the Executive branch and every 2 to 4 years for Congress.

It is those who refuse to be patient, refuse to be rational and address issues rather than declaiming "cults of personality" who are to blame for any problems they cry about.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
I see it more as what happens when everything deemed 'important' becomes a new federal power. Instead of uniting the states, and by extension their residents (we the sheeple), this ever growing federal government mission creep has perhaps finally reached critical mass.

When 535 congress critters have decided that their power extends to placing future generations into massive debt then folks eventually realize that they have no power whatsoever to stop the madness. What democracy is there in having the ability to vote for (or against) at most 3 of our 535 congress critters who enjoy a re-election rate of over 90%?

We are now being told that a major 'blue wave' of change is when up to 30 of these oligarch funded (and controlled?) 'representatives of the people' are transferred (transformed?) from the party for a bigger federal government to the party for a huge federal government. The reality, of course, is that 30 seats in congress 'flipping' is a less than a 6% change among the congressional herd of 535 DC elites.

The frustration of having an ever more powerful governing body ('our' congress critters) that has an almost perfectly inverse relationship between their polling approval (about 11%) and their re-election rate (over 90%) is completely understandable. Democracy may not be dying, in the sense that we may still vote every couple of years, but the connection between the will of the people and what goes on in DC is clearly getting weaker as the power vested in them is getting ever stronger.
Click to expand...

The only fly in your "congress is too powerful" ointment is that the Congress has been throwing its Legislative responsibilities over the wall to the Executive for at least three, maybe four decades now to the point where it is simply an appendage to the Executive which is where we are right now.
 
Felis Leo said:
Speaking as a Conservative, I see much of what you are seeing, except in photo-negative reverse. But I am not going to nitpick you to death, point out what I see are inaccuracies, or get into a dispute as to why I think you are ultimately wrong in your particular views.

I will say this: It is easy to think our country is doomed and to feel a knotted sense of dread in your stomach if you are on the internet, social media and arguing on forums like this day in and day out and being fed an unending river of miserable bilge by every doomsayer on your Twitter, Facebook and Youtube feeds. When most people go outside, when you spend time with your neighbors, when we actually deal with our daily lives in our community...things are fine. The Republic has endured worse things over two hundred years. It endured us having genuinely terrible Presidents while we were in the midst of existential crises like the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. It will endure Trump and the insane overwrought backlash against Trump.

Here is my thought to you: Stop and smell the roses. Take the time to take your spouse or significant other out on a date, or if you do not have a significant other, go out with some friends. Have a bite to eat. Have some fun. Take in some culture. Maybe make a meal and watch an old movie. Perhaps read a book. Spend an evening not consumed with checking the most recent updates on your feed. I do it regularly. My wife and I are happier for it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the response. You're absolutely right, I'm too involved in the day-to-day drama. But I've been involved politically since the 2004 presidential election. I was so terrified that George W. Bush would win a second term that I volunteered to work on the Kerry campaign. As it turned out, the guy they said wouldn't win a second term, won. As a result we saw what happened with the crash of our economy. I just finished volunteering in my state primary for a candidate for Congress. I'm happy to say that she won and will be on the ticket in Nov. Things are different now than the way things were with G.W. Bush. There's a lot more at stake than there was even back then in bad times.

Good advice, thank you. I'll try
 
jnug said:
The only fly in your "congress is too powerful" ointment is that the Congress has been throwing its Legislative responsibilities over the wall to the Executive for at least three, maybe four decades now to the point where it is simply an appendage to the Executive which is where we are right now.
Click to expand...

That is basically a distinction with out a difference. That congress largely ignores its constitutional role in limiting executive power (the checks and balances idea) just amplifies the power that the federal government has taken from the states/people. It's not like the POTUS alone can pass laws or fund their enforcement. Heck, even the SCOTUS (combined with other federal courts) has given itself the power to make and/or amend laws on a national level.

There are (now?) only two federal constitutional powers needed to accomplish nearly anything - the power to regulate commerce (the exchange of goods/services) and the power to tax (everything that the federal government does is funded by taxation).

The creation of PPACA shows this to an extreme - not only can the federal government decide which actuarial risk factors (aka pre-existing conditions) may or must not be considered in any 'private' medical care insurance 'plan' it can mandate that each and every taxpayer or 'large' employer spend their after tax income on a specific 'private' good/service (or pay an additional tax). Where, exactly, in our constitution was the federal power over all medical care insurance granted?
 
Kal'Stang said:
The United States is not a Democracy. It's a Republic. I wish people would learn the difference.

What is the Difference Between a Republic and a Democracy?
Click to expand...

No matter how many times I refer to the US as a 'democracy', it's inevitable that someone that thinks they're so knowledgeable rushes to correct my reference to the U.S. as a 'democracy' instead of the term 'democratic republic' --which is the correct term. I know what a republic is and I know what a democracy is. Let me correct you this time. Using the term 'democracy' to describe the US is correct. Using the term 'democratic republic' is correct also. Now, if you choose to be absolutely correct, you would describe the US as a "Constitutional federation republic with a liberal democracy under a presidential system". Essentially, the US is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy and not a Republic alone, it is a Democratic Republic and for the sake of shortening the term, I'll continue to describe our form of government as a Democracy.
 
Nap said:
It would seem to me that having the primary governing body as localized as possible ensures more freedom and gives more power to the people to govern themselves. IMO the federal government should largely defer to the states and only intrude when a state infringes on the rights of it's people. The idea that a governing body of people a 1,000 miles away will know what is best for the people of a particular area just seems ludicrous to me. This country is far too large to believe that top down government will be effective, especially given the vast cultural diversity in this country. For instance, the values of the people in California and that of Mississippi are vastly different with California largely secular and Mississippi dead center in the bible belt, of course people in Mississippi (and other states that don't share the same culture) are going to resent people in states like California as they will feel like they have no power in governing their own lives. You largely see this among the so called "Fly over" states in regards to New York and California, to them they represent oppression and rather than fellow countrymen (and women) they see them as the enemy. Simply look at the snide comments and jokes in threads about those states and you can see the animosity held towards them. If we were to remove the potential for the federal government to impose on the states we can ease the tension and the wedge between us would dissipate. If we continue to try and use the federal government to enforce the policies we like on everyone regardless if they agree, the gap will continue to grow and inevitably a house divided will not stand.
Click to expand...
I agree and I would argue that even the states should defer to the counties. That would make local elections actually mean something.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Grokmaster said:
Well, since it NEVER WAS a "Democracy", probably not.


The United States is a Constitutional Representative Republic...thankfully.

A DEMOCRACY is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner....


If we can successfully beat back the leftist/globalists...we have a good chance to hang in there for a good , long while.
Click to expand...

What? You claim that a democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner? That's not right at all. If a democracy is functioning as it's supposed to according to our Constitution then everyone has a voice in elections, people decide who is president based on a majority of the popular vote. But that's not how it works. The lines between the 3 branches of government have been blurred, obscured and changed by many things, money being the #1 factor. Now, big corporations and special interests have successfully manipulated our elections by buying politicians in order to push their agenda. A populist president will say whatever it is people want to hear him say regardless of what his actual intentions are. Big oil companies, massively rich pharmaceutical companies and anti-regulation gun lobbyists like the NRA are actually the ones deciding who will become our representatives in Washington. There are approximately 12,000 well-paid lobbyists representing special interest groups in Washington. How can the average American man or woman expect to be fairly represented in government when the only voices heard in Washington are the voices of special interests that only have their own specific agenda, rather than the majority, as their focus?

I have always been a proponent of limiting their access to Congress and putting a limit on campaign contributions allowed by special interest groups.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You gotta quit that nonsense.
Of course it's a republic. But the two are not mutually exclusive, and seeing as how NO NATION HAS EVER been a PURE democracy, it is accepted as common knowledge that when the term "democracy" is used, it typically refers to representative democracy, which in our case, functions in a constitutional republic.
Click to expand...

Then why so much blathering over the popular vote? Then why is the loser, Hillary Clinton, pushing to eliminate the Electoral college?

Its not nonsense, so long as people fail to make the distinction or refuse to accept the results of elections, they warrant an education.
 
HumblePi said:
What? You claim that a democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner? That's not right at all. If a democracy is functioning as it's supposed to according to our Constitution then everyone has a voice in elections, people decide who is president based on a majority of the popular vote. But that's not how it works. The lines between the 3 branches of government have been blurred, obscured and changed by many things, money being the #1 factor. Now, big corporations and special interests have successfully manipulated our elections by buying politicians in order to push their agenda. A populist president will say whatever it is people want to hear him say regardless of what his actual intentions are. Big oil companies, massively rich pharmaceutical companies and anti-regulation gun lobbyists like the NRA are actually the ones deciding who will become our representatives in Washington. There are approximately 12,000 well-paid lobbyists representing special interest groups in Washington. How can the average American man or woman expect to be fairly represented in government when the only voices heard in Washington are the voices of special interests that only have their own specific agenda, rather than the majority, as their focus?

I have always been a proponent of limiting their access to Congress and putting a limit on campaign contributions allowed by special interest groups.
Click to expand...

His analogy is correct for a pure Democracy where majority rules.

President has never been decided by the majority of the popular vote nor intended to be.

Money in politics is a contributing factor, but the #1 cause for the blurring of the 3 branches is the legislative branch abdicating their responsibility to the executive branch and judges that rule based on what the law should be rather than what is stated. The most recent example is that of taking the country into wars, before if a President wanted to initiate war it needed to be approved by Congress and yet now we are bombing at least 7 different countries (only one of which that was voted on by congress) another factor is unelected bureaucrats within different agencies are the ones making regulations rather than being voted on by the "legislative" branch which is their primary job. When you have a legislative branch that can't be bothered to do their job, of course the lines are going to get blurred.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I wouldn't have to say that "nonsense" if people would stop acting like we're a pure democracy. Ex: Complaining about the Electoral College and Hillary not winning even though she got the majority of the popular vote.
Click to expand...

But it is inaccurate to say that we're "not a democracy".
Of course we're not a pure democracy, because no nation is.

Some naive people are expecting us to work like a pure democracy, but it's no different than the people who think that "free speech" means "speech without consequences or responsibilities" or free speech on a privately owned platform.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
---Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980)

Most of the people running around crowing about how "the United States is not a democracy" seem to be inoculating against any backlash that might occur if we wind up in a forced march toward some extreme form of authoritarianism, such as a theocracy.
I'm not saying that you're one of those people, but I am saying that anti-intellectualism first took root in on our ways of thinking because it was fostered by an evangelical religion, a form of fundamentalism that breeds a kind of dual illiteracy comprised of those who cannot read, and those who can read but choose not to.

We are indeed a constitutional republic but we are one which elects its leadership democratically, and that's enough to allow us to also say that we're a democracy.
It is incumbent on people to gain an understanding of just what role democracy plays in our republic, and what roles it cannot play.
But I suggest that it may be dangerous to run around saying that we're not a democracy.

Many hostile foreign adversaries would love to see America forget that it has the power to determine its own leadership.
Equally true is the suggestion that many internal adversaries would love it even more.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Then why so much blathering over the popular vote? Then why is the loser, Hillary Clinton, pushing to eliminate the Electoral college?

Its not nonsense, so long as people fail to make the distinction or refuse to accept the results of elections, they warrant an education.
Click to expand...

The electoral college will remain unless or until a constitutional move is made to abolish it. Therefore I suggest it is safe and will remain so.
That said, we not only have the electoral college, with its recommended equalization between the large and small states, we also have gerrymandering and the enshrinement of unlimited dark soft money organized in a fashion no different than homages paid to the heads of an organized crime racket, and we have the enshrinement of a corporation as a person.

On that latter, it is important to understand the difference between "corporations are people" and "a corporation is a person", because the difference is huge. One recent ruling enshrined the latter and created a race of immortal super-persons who carry none of the responsibilities of flesh and blood individuals.

I suggest that we can pick any ONE of these but we cannot have ALL of them.
Of these, the electoral college is by far the most sensible.

Put together in a conjugal bed with gerrymandering, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC, we have distortions which cannot sustain an informed and empowered electorate. We will eventually have a banana republic with better strip malls.
 
Grokmaster said:
Well, since it NEVER WAS a "Democracy", probably not.


The United States is a Constitutional Representative Republic...thankfully.

A DEMOCRACY is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner....


If we can successfully beat back the leftist/globalists...we have a good chance to hang in there for a good , long while.
Click to expand...

I see, it's apparently all about the leftists, and a shrewd guess is that you'd be in favor of anything that would make it possible to legally curtail participation in this "representative republic" (which happens to be democratically elected) by anyone that you consider as being on "the Left", am I correct?
 
Grokmaster said:
Well, since it NEVER WAS a "Democracy", probably not.


The United States is a Constitutional Representative Republic...thankfully.
Click to expand...

According to the link posted here

Kal'Stang said:
The United States is not a Democracy. It's a Republic. I wish people would learn the difference.

What is the Difference Between a Republic and a Democracy?
Click to expand...

it's the same thing:

a constitutional democracy is a representative democracy in which the government's power is restricted by a constitution. In essence, this is a republic, so for practical purposes, the difference between a republic and a constitutional democracy is often largely one of semantics.
Click to expand...

Either way though, USA is NOT a democracy since majority clearly does NOT select a President.
 
HumblePi said:
Thank you for the response. You're absolutely right, I'm too involved in the day-to-day drama. But I've been involved politically since the 2004 presidential election. I was so terrified that George W. Bush would win a second term that I volunteered to work on the Kerry campaign. As it turned out, the guy they said wouldn't win a second term, won. As a result we saw what happened with the crash of our economy. I just finished volunteering in my state primary for a candidate for Congress. I'm happy to say that she won and will be on the ticket in Nov. Things are different now than the way things were with G.W. Bush. There's a lot more at stake than there was even back then in bad times.

Good advice, thank you. I'll try
Click to expand...

I bet you'd give anything to have Bush back now instead of where we are ;-)
 
HumblePi said:
If Faith in Democracy Ebbs, Danger Rises https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-faith-in-democracy-ebbs-danger-rises-1530535737

"In today’s divisive political climate, signs of a decline in confidence in democracy itself are starting to appear."


I believe that we're on a course that's going to completely destroy our democracy as we've known it. Our Constitution is becoming irrelevant. Our long respected institutions such as our federal courts and intelligence agencies are being stripped of their legitimacy and even made out to be 'the enemy'. Our Congress is unabashedly supporting a president that's obstructing justice on a daily basis. The law doesn't apply to everyone and only a select few are above the law. Senators seem to be okay with supporting an oligarch and authoritarian government in order to save their jobs. Other people are running our government and covering up the errors and bad judgments of the president. Our country is so deeply divided that some people are ready to go to war with their own people. I think we've already lost this country as a democratic republic, and if we haven't already, then we're pretty damned close to it.
Click to expand...

Trump is a symptom of what been happening in our political system for 20-30 years. Today we have polarization and ultra partisanship which applies to both parties. We have a 13 point rise in independents since 2006, those who opted to leave or desert both major parties to become the non-affiliated to where independents now make up 43% of the total electorate. One major party is forever moving further and further right, the other further and further left leaving middle America with no political party to call home. Both parties have through the years shed their moderates, leaving on the hard core, the no compromise or give and take hard liners.

We have become party first and always which you touch on in a round about way. You hit those Republicans in congress up for supporting Trump no matter what, but through eight years of Obama, the Democrats in congress supported him in the same identical fashion. In fact members of congress that are of the same political party of the president have become more part of the administration than part of the institution of congress.

We have elected those in Washington today that are Republicans and Democrats that have forgot how to be Americans. It's loyalty to party and president, not necessarily to the country, it is for the good of the party, not for the good of the nation. Trump is nothing more than a symptom of all of this that has risen up and now occupies the Oval Office.
 
Aberration said:
Democracy is self defeating. If we can’t maintain the restraints on it we are screwed.
Click to expand...

Well of course, which is why pure democracy auto self destructs.
I've been fond of saying that democracy in and of itself is like pure oxygen, it is uncommon in the natural world, and no mammal can survive on pure oxygen alone, and it's a vigorous accelerant to combustion.
Therefore, in almost any environment, it must be buffered by one or more inert gasses.

Likewise, just as with oxygen, democracy must also be "buffered" and the most common way to do that is to limit democracy to the election of representatives. In some environments one might find a referendum process in place to dispatch failed coalitions with a no confidence vote, or to address emergent issues which require focused attention, the latter being mostly in a local government setting.

And that's about as much democracy as is needed in a constitutional republic, because more than that and it gives rise to excessive populism, which can be corrosive and which can also give license to "manufacture of consent".
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Then why so much blathering over the popular vote? Then why is the loser, Hillary Clinton, pushing to eliminate the Electoral college?
Click to expand...

Because even in representative democracy, popular vote makes more sense for a President than Electoral College, which is
- way outdated (has not kept up with demographic changes) and
- does not work for its primary purpose (mistrust of people by founding fathers and them wanting to have one more layer that could be more reasonable and prevent a lunatic becoming a President)

Other countries that have representative democracies also have popular vote.
 
Slavister said:
Because even in representative democracy, popular vote makes more sense for a President than Electoral College, which is
- way outdated (has not kept up with demographic changes) and
- does not work for its primary purpose (mistrust of people by founding fathers and them wanting to have one more layer that could be more reasonable and prevent a lunatic becoming a President)
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The EC was fine before excessive gerrymandering polluted it.
I suggest that if left to its own, the EC is stable.
There are very many outside influences that are working on the EC in this generation which did not exist or barely existed a generation ago.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Not necessarily. The EC was fine before excessive gerrymandering polluted it.
I suggest that if left to its own, the EC is stable.
There are very many outside influences that are working on the EC in this generation which did not exist or barely existed a generation ago.
Click to expand...

For what purpose do you think we should have it?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Had the OP been less partisan, and instead of laying all the blame for her current "crisis" on the results of the most recent election and anyone who supports this current Administration, I might have given her a more sympathetic ear.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree. I don't think Trump is nearly as bad as some people make him out to be...any more than Obama was as bad as some on the right made him out to be. Some on the right thought that the world was--quite literally--coming to an end when Obama was elected. Some on the left now think that about Trump. Obama's worst critics were clearly wrong (the world did not, apparently, end). And it is quite likely that Trump will not bring the world to an end...though I do think he may be slightly more likely (no sarcasm or inverse hyperbole here--I do mean "slightly") to start a major conflict than other recent Presidents.

However, it seems to me that the article, and the OP, were at least as much about current public attitudes than anything. This isn't just about the various attitudes about Trump; he's merely a symptom of current unrest. To sum up in a single sentence what I think is going on is that we are seeing a failure of classical liberalism. The ideals that brought about the latter phases of European colonization, the industrial revolution, and the United States itself, are proving to be inadequate to the forces of history, and changes are coming. The last time something like this happened it was the end of the medieval world, and that was a fairly bloody affair. We're probably in for worse this time around...though it will likely take a couple centuries to fully play out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom