What is the whole point of democracy?

Surely it is to give an equal advantage to all people by making their votes count in an election which will produce a government which represents best the will of the people.

When I look at the world today, I see one major power, which advocates the democratic cause, but which itself does not adhere to the democratic principle. That power is, the United States of America.

It appears to be ruled by an unelected oligarchy of corporate executives in a parody of a democracy, which none the less consistently fails to attract a large proportion of the American voting population. The only reason I can see why so many Americans do not bother to vote, is because they see through the charade of their electoral system and do not believe in it.

This troubles me. The fact that the dominant political power in the world today is not democratic is a grave danger to the rest of us.

Defenders of America do not seem able to counter this argument, so they take refuse in avoiding it. Rather than face up to the fact that they are ruled by an unrepresentative power elite, they seek instead to bury their heads in military pride and patriotism, choosing to wave the flag rather than question what is done in the name of that flag. Or seek to place the blame else where and will talk about the 'left' and the 'right', the UN and the EU.

The fact still remains though, that the government of the United States is undertaken by much the same people as it was under several previous administrations, and that there are really only two political parties in American politics, and between them they fail to represent the people of their nation.

President Eisenhower, as he left office, warned the people of America about the dangers of letting the 'military industrial complex' run the nation. Now, whether you agree or disagree with Eisenhowers political convictions, you cannot deny his experience. In his life time he was the most successful soldier, and he rose to the utmost pinnacle of political power. So no matter what you think of him, you have to take his words seriously.
He warned the Americans about the rise of the 'military industrial complex', and the Americans ignored him.

And today, America is ruled by a government which has many proven ties to both the military and the biggest corporations in America. Which was funded by corporate money in its election campaign, and yet did not achieve a majority vote, nor anything like it.

When I read what Americans write about their nation I get the distinct impression that they do not care about democracy. They like riding on the coat tails of the 'Industrial military complex' because it provides them with a feeling of security and lots of nice shiny toys. In many ways, I don't think Americans even deserve democracy, because they will do nothing to preserve it, preferring to live in their star spangled, soap bubble world where they can buy cheap goods, own a gun and wave their flag without ever having to ask any difficult questions about who really pays for all their advantages.

Please clarify if you want to debate the very general question of "what is the whole point of democracy?" or if you want to get specific about the idea of democracy in the US.

My confusion lies in the fact that your whole post seems to work off of the idea that the US is a democracy, which it is not. It will be hard for many of us to debate "what is the whole point of democracy?" as it relates to the US because it would merely be hypotheticals. Does that make any sense?

Please help us understand what it is you want us to debate.

Those who claim we are ruled by the "power elite" are the same ones who claim we have no consumer choice. The claim is that Americans are so stupid that their vote is determined by corporate purchases of airtime, and that Americans are so stupid that their purchases are totally determined by advertising. The crime of the last century is we have evolved away from a republic, where individual rights were respected, into a democracy, where tyranny of the majority rules.

Whose claim? You mean that scarecrow-ish guy you have tucked under your arm, or someone who has actually participated in this debate?

LOL



Nor do you seem able to support it.

Is this just an anti-american rant, or is there something specific you would like to talk about?

--cheers

The US is a representative republic. The people elect representatives who are then supposed to represent them in the government.

The whole concept of America is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It not not that everyone is the same or that everyone has the same things, or even that everyone is Happy.

This country provides the best example of allowing the pursuit of those ideals. It does not hand you the best of everything. It allows YOU (well, American) to strive for personal betterment.

When the US says that it strives for "democracy" what it really means is true representative government. The world is too big for a true democracy to work. Plus there are many pitfalls associated with "majority rules all" mentality.

The US (sometimes) wants to spread representative government and personal freedom.

The widely spread claim that we are controlled by a corporate elite. If we were truly controlled by a corporate elite there would be no capital gains tax and a lot less regulations in some areas, and somewhat paradoxically, more in others.

The controlled by the corporate argument elite argument is simply an attempt by socialists to equate the free market with government control of resources. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one forces me to purchase a product, or stick in a certain career path. I was under pressure at the point of threats of penalties, fines and potential prison time to mail someone a check yesterday.

We have a democracy, one where the voters are too socialist for my tastes, one where the voters are not socialist enough for the tastes of others. I do not attempt to pretend our state is too socialist for any reason other than the fact most Americans are more socialist than I am, and they vote that way. Socialists are the ones who claim control by the corporate elite simply because elections fail to turn out as they wish.

The fact is our welfare state is unconstitutional and that the demand for socialist programs was never great enough for its supporters to amend the Constitution but instead they had to bastardize the Constitution to get social welfare programs passed. We are actually more democratic today, in terms of majority rule, than ever before. I long for the days our forefathers knew when we were a republic. When 1/3rd of your income was not stolen, when 43% of the price of that 6 pack was not taxes, when 30% of your mortgage payment was not taxes.. Ok, I am ranting now. We are a democracy and my tolitarian fellow citizens sure enjoy spending my money.

Does our system truly maximize individual ability to pursue those ideals? In a sense one can always pursue them, even in a totalitarian state, but that's obviously meaningless. For such pursuit to have meaning, there must be some concept of ensuring that everyone can step up to the same starting line; what happens then is up to them, but the result should not be foreordained by accidents of birth. Several other countries - e.g. Australia, Norway, to name two I've visited - support the pursuit of happiness in a stronger way than the US does even though they don't share your faith in a laissez-faire utopia. We don't live up to "all men are created equal" very well.



...practically all of which are still present with representative democracy.



Yeah, sometimes...when it benefits those guiding US policy, but not necessarily when it benefits the average American and almost never on mere principle.

Platypus:


Yeah, keep on dreaming.



It is one step removed, creating a bit of a buffer. I agree with you if you would say that Americans have a particular "knack" for making a representative republic work (which I know is exactly NOT what you're saying).



Tell that to Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ray Crock, Henry Ford, John D Rockafeller and countless others who rose from being at the bottom of the heap to the top through the opportunities afforded them by this country.

Bill Gates III was born to wealth. So, it should go without saying, was John D Rockefeller. Henry Ford was not born rich, but not born poor either. Ditto for Ray Kroc. The only one on your list who's really a valid example is Buffett.

In any case, it's nice that you've heard of people who've gone from rags to riches. Your observation is pure selection effect, though. It's news when a poor person achieves great wealth precisely because it's so exceptional, just like it's more newsworthy when a man bites a dog than vice versa. How many other people did you never hear of, who were born poor and stayed poor despite what might have been great talent and effort, because the opportunities they had access to never worked out for reasons beyond their control? Don't give me that "you make your own luck" garbage either. I was born poor myself, and I'm not poor now. Most of the reason has to do with hard work and a talent for certain kinds of work, but I don't deny that luck played a part too. I know plenty of people who are just as capable, just as deserving, whose random collection of opportunities and contacts just didn't turn out as well as mine did. You have to be prepared for the opportunity when it comes, but the plain fact is that for too many people it never does. Opportunity can never be completely equal, but it's nowhere near as equal as it should be.

Rockerfeller..Rags to Riches
Gates, while born affluent, was not born the richest man in America by any stretch, and his family did not contribute to making his business successful.
Henry Ford's parents were farmers, although successful ones Henry Ford
Ray Kroc's father struggled to support his family Ray Kroc
Warren Buffett's father was actually a Congressman Warren Buffett

The example I am making is that it was not the status of their birth that lead to their great success. It was American principles and the freedom of the capatalist economy.

Those successes are in no way attributable to our economic system. Sometimes people succeed despite the obstacles that are put in their path, but that doesn't mean it's right to put those obstacles there for them and not for others. Being born rich isn't the only "accident of birth" that can have a profound effect on the opportunities one gets. Why don't you try addressing my points about selection bias, or the role of luck in making stories like these happen, instead of relying on mere repetition?

Edited to add the following:

Unfortunately, data on economic mobility is not that easy to come by, and international comparisons even less so. Much of what's out there is unbelievably biased, full of nasty little statistical tricks like comparing an individuals' change in income over time to an all-ages national average instead of within their age-cohort. Nonetheless, I was able to find one good overview, which had this to say:



The comparisons were to Germany in one case, Sweden in another, and all three Scandinavian countries in a third. Those are all pretty leftist countries by our standards, and yet they seem to support the "American Dream" as well as we do - plus free education, medicine, etc. Clearly, "American principles and the freedom of the capatalist (sic) economy" are not the only way to support people's pursuit of happiness.

Luck does not break along any lines. What's there to debate about being lucky?

I would not say the people I mentioned were lucky. They worked hard and succeeded.


You refute your own argument. "Most of the reason has to do with hard work..." not luck.

From your earlier post:


Then your last post:


So each started in the same place, some succeeded, some did not. THAT IS EQUALITY. Equality of opportunity is what is promised, NOT equality of results. Do you know anyone who has worked hard and remains completely destitute or on government assistance. I bet the answer is no.

Not everyone is going to have equal results, but personal traits (hard working, honesty, etc) go alot farther towards whether someone succeeds than the place they start out in.

I do, in both Canada and the United States.

Not really. Let's say that we divide ten people into two groups of five, and administer a difficult test that, if passed, allows entry to some wonderful opportunity. The members of the first group get once chance each. One passes and eventually becomes famous, and people like you hold them up as an example of how well the system works; the other four languish in relative poverty and obscurity. Meanwhile, every member of the second group gets to take the test three times, counting only their best score. Four of them pass, and go on to become wealthy; only one fails and is forgotten. Everyone started in the same place, everyone had at least one chance, but is that EQUALITY? Of course not. The people in the second group have clearly been given an unfair advantage.

That's what the US system is like. I'm the guy in the first group who had a good day when I took the test, but that doesn't mean the system is really fair. Poor people do have some opportunities to succeed, but those opportunities are fewer and more ephemeral than those offered to wealthier people. That's not truly equal opportunity; a few crumbs are not the same as owning a bakery.

begin edited section



That's what logicians call a false dilemma; hard work and luck are not mutually exclusive. Hard work alone would not have gotten me where I am today. Neither would luck. Both were essential to the process, as is almost always often the case. Bill Gates was lucky that Gary Kildall blew off the IBM folks, or else Microsoft would not have ended up with the MS-DOS contract. Luck alone would not have sufficed, but without it Microsoft would be - at best - a medium-sized company making compilers and interpreters.

The problem is that life usually only gives us so many chances. It invariably takes time or money or energy to jump on them, and those are all commodities more abundant if you're rich than if you're poor. It's easy to say people should keep their eyes open when you're not the one who's sleep-deprived from working two jobs, and it's easy to say people should take risks when you're not ithe one who's in danger of losing your home because of one bad choice. It's a little different when you're actually in that situation. People who've actually had to make that leap are rarely the ones to sneer at the idea of a safety net.'

end edited section



Pay up; I need look no further than my own mother for an example. She's disabled, having become unable to work right as her earning/savings potential should have been reaching its maximum, probably as a result of chemical exposure earlier in life. That's the kind of thing that happens to poor people, much more than to rich ones; if she had been born into better circumstances, that probably wouldn't have happened, and/or she'd have more financial reserves. So tell me, amlord, what "personal trait" do you think she lacked? How is it that your perfect system left such an intelligent, honest, hard-working person in such a state? Or is that just "collateral damage" you can accept because it's not your family...yet? It could be tomorrow, and that's the problem.

Jaime



The original question.

What is the point of democracy?

Or, What is democracy in the world today?,
or; Does the concept of democracy have any meaning/ value in the modern world?

The reason I went on to talk about America is because American democracy, or lack there of, depending on you view, effects far more than just the people of the USA. The power of the President of the USA extends far beyond America's borders, and if the people of the USA do not exert democratic power over their leader, then who does?

So, from my perspective, the general issue of democracy is tied up with specific issue of American democracy.

Amlord



Isn't that what democracy is for the majority of people? It sounds like your describing democracy as something which cannot be achieved.



Then why do American presidents talk of democracy?

Hugo



I don't think Americans are stupid, and I don't think that their votes are determined by advirtising either.

But looking at the turn out figures, a lot of Americans don't seem to want to vote any way, and those that do vote in the presidential elections, only really have the limited choice of a Democrat or a Republican. And so far, these have always been older white males who had a lot of money backing their campaign.

So where is the choice?

Its not the people of America I am questioning here, its their election system, which from my point of view seems to be undemocratic.

The fact is their are other choices of parties Libertarian,Natural Law, Green, Socialist, etc. Most Americans seem to be contented with the two main parties.

When did we lose democracy? The founding fathers were some of the richest Americans. The system wasn't fair in 1790 and it isn't really fair now. Passing McCain Feingold was a step in the right direction. I think our system is great.

While not necessarily representative of the majority of Americans, I actually do know people who don't realize there are parties outside of Republican, Democrat or Independent.

When considering why this might be, I think we see what Moif was perhaps getting at. Many people don't hear about the Libertarian party, Socialist party, etc. because the corporations aren't "buying" them. Without the funds to advertise and promote a position, the parties outside of Democrat or Republican get little to no attention from the American public.

Opinions on the state of affairs here in America are sure to differ, and I don't plan on getting too embroiled on this topic. However, while some will claim we are a "representative republic," the question becomes who is being represented? Is it the people or the corporations financing the campaigns?

I'm of the position that we have the best system of government money can buy... and I certainly don't view this as a positive.

Omigosh, Moif! This doesn't sound like a debate topic, it sounds like an invitation for me to give my "This is a Republic, not a Democracy!" speech? Do you really want to risk that?

Sure. The whole point of debate is to hear what the other parties say.

I can't promise I'll accept your arguement, but I will read it!

McCain/Feingold was a blatant attack on the 1st Amendment. It actually protects the two-party system.

McCain Feingold is a very bad piece of legislation, with good (I hope) intentions. It is a blatant 1ST Amendment attack and helps incumbants tremendously. I think it is certainly unconstitutional.

hugo



amlord



You both seem to look upon this new law with distrust... why?
I've never heard of it, so I looked it up and from what I read (reducing the influence of large moneyed groups?) it sounds like a good idea...

http://www.commoncause.org/mccainfeingold/

Making the World Safer for Incumbents

From the CATO institute.

Basically, it limits a candidate's abilities to use campaign ads in the last 60 days of an election.

[URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23472-2001Mar18?language=printerCourt Challenge Likely if McCain-Feingold Bill Passes [/URL]



Limited ads limits free speech and so is unconstitutional. The law does not limit the media, however, who are free to "endorse" any candidate they want.

Should becoming a represenative of the people be about who has more cash? They should put a cap on money used in a campaign. What about getting $20 (and a cookie) for voting? They should also let the 3rd parties into the debates. There is always lots of room for improvement.

We have a Campaign Finance Reform thread already in progress here. Perhaps those wishing to concentrate on this issue should continue this discussion there...