Has democracy ended in the U.S.?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(07-03-2018, 02:02 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Reagan had some issues, to be sure (Iran-Contra, trickle-down, changing FCC rules, etc.). But he also had some good points. He was enormously inspirational for a lot of people at certain times ("surly bonds" speech, "tear down this wall" speech, etc.). He was what he was: a good actor and, thereby, a good motivator.

Arming the Afghan rebels was the right decisions at that time and combined with increased military posturing on our part (stealth tech, the successful "Star Wars" hoax, etc.), helped hasten the breakup of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, the following admins didn't follow-up with Afghanistan afterwards.

.......I mainly am against him for being the first administration to bring "trade deals" into the lexicon.  Sure, there were some good points, but his administration was the beginning of the dismantling of the middle/working class in earnest.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-03-2018, 02:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They don't want an open border, at least not the vast majority, or even a majority. That is a false narrative crafted by the right-wing in order to paint the left in a more damaging light. It relies on the false dichotomy that you either want the type of border security the right is proposing or you want open borders, when the reality is that there are many ways to secure our borders without relying on the tactics favored by the current administration.

Or it could be that Dill accidentally typed "do want" instead of "don't want."

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2018, 02:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Or it could be that Dill accidentally typed "do want" instead of "don't want."

This is what I get for not actually reading the post he was responding to.

[Millhouse]

(07-03-2018, 02:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They don't want an open border, at least not the vast majority, or even a majority. That is a false narrative crafted by the right-wing in order to paint the left in a more damaging light. It relies on the false dichotomy that you either want the type of border security the right is proposing or you want open borders, when the reality is that there are many ways to secure our borders without relying on the tactics favored by the current administration.

Must've had a typo there by leaving 'not' out of that sentence.

To be a little fair on this point, there were quite a few 'open border' protesters out in full force last weekend that the media covered. Many had signs up saying 'Open Borders, No Walls" , or signs saying that a person cant be illegal for crossing a border, or the like.

Now granted this was a small percentage of the left, the media sometimes doesnt make that distinction. Kind of like how some posters in here don't make the distinction between those on the fringe right who are racist neo-nutjobs and the rest of the right.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-03-2018, 02:37 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Must've had a typo there by leaving 'not' out of that sentence.

To be a little fair on this point, there were quite a few 'open border' protesters out in full force last weekend that the media covered. Many had signs up saying 'Open Borders, No Walls" , or signs saying that a person cant be illegal for crossing a border, or the like.

Now granted this was a small percentage of the left, the media sometimes doesnt make that distinction. Kind of like how some posters in here don't make the distinction between those on the fringe right who are racist neo-nutjobs and the rest of the right.

More of an omission than a typo.  Or perhaps Dill is an agent provocateur, and therefore Matt's post was spot on.  Dill could very well belong to that birch tree society thing.

[GMDino]

(07-03-2018, 02:37 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Must've had a typo there by leaving 'not' out of that sentence.

To be a little fair on this point, there were quite a few 'open border' protesters out in full force last weekend that the media covered. Many had signs up saying 'Open Borders, No Walls" , or signs saying that a person cant be illegal for crossing a border, or the like.

Now granted this was a small percentage of the left, the media sometimes doesnt make that distinction. Kind of like how some posters in here don't make the distinction between those on the fringe right who are racist neo-nutjobs and the rest of the right.

Well, to be fair that's because one of them is the POTUS.   *
































* the   indicated that the response was a joke.  Something not to be take so seriously it results in needing to sit on pillows for week due to the pain in your backside.

[Dill]

(07-03-2018, 01:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I could get this thread extremely sidetracked on this topic. I will only make a couple of points to this, though.

First, even without universal suffrage, the country would be classified as a democracy. Even if eligibility for voting disqualifies chunks of the population, the hallmark of a democracy is an electoral process where the results are free and fair. However, democracy is not an all or none situation, and so the more inclusive your suffrage is, the more democratic the society is.

Second, I think you may be misunderstanding the intentions of the founders. This part gets a bit more complicated, but they did certainly look for safeguards against the rabble unseating the more wealthy folks. At the same time, though, there was populist streaks among them that aimed to prevent any sort of elite class from forming. Jefferson, for instance, had on more than on occasion called for measures to prevent automatic inheritance of property.

Anyway, the long and short for both of our posts is that democracy comes in many different flavors, but it is still democracy.

Thanks for responding. Not such a bad side-track, really. Certainly not on a thread about the life of democracy in the U.S. I

I took myself to be supporting your point that the distinction between "republic" and "democracy" is specious, especially as currently deployed.  I consider Athens under Pericles a "democracy" even though only 10-15% of its inhabitants were enfranchised and 50% were slaves. It is a matter of describing the operative principle of a form of government. So I have no doubt our "republic" as founded was a democracy and continues to be.
I was commenting, too, on the oddity of current populists supporting the republic/democracy distinction, which hardly favors either their leader or their politics.

I don't see a "misunderstanding" of Founders' intentions in my post, which refers to "many or most," not all, regarding the issue of suffrage. And the "safeguards" you mention are not separable from those intentions, nor an aberration nor surprising for mostly educated property holders. (What was the proportion of college-educated among the Founders, as opposed to the population at large, even just restricting ourselves to white males? Exceptions, like Franklin, were self-educated to a very high standard.)  The best political thinkers among them certainly sought to BALANCE the "rights of property" with with rights of persons (i.e., those who owned only their own person, no real property), rather than giving one or the other the upper hand. But I think  I am safe in saying that, for most of them, education separated leadership from "rabble." In this sense, they were certainly more "elitist" than most present Americans. 

So, speaking of "complication," I would say, for example, that "populism" is not what Madison is about when he writes that no just system of government can exclude men without property. In probably his clearest statement on the subject, his belated "note" to the 1821 speech on suffrage, he argues without enthusiasm, simply conceding to necessity. This kind of thinking did not really satisfy anti-federalists, who still sensed (probably rightly) an "aristocratic" habit of mind in the insistence on a separate and powerful body of government representing "property."

I don't recall that Jefferson ever supported universal suffrage, if that included women and blacks. But he certainly was more populist than Madison or that "anti-leveler" Adams, but even he could only envision a nation in which all free white men could vote, regardless of property--so long as they were literate. But his most populist ideas were resisted by other Founders, both at the state and federal level (thinking here of his calls for state-sponsored education, as well as the inheritance policy to which you refer).  I would say that, at best, most Founders were "populist" in the sense they thought the country and its politics should belong to (almost) all white men, not some rich or otherwise special class, but even that populism is not the blank check it has come to be. At worst, many still wanted their "elite" meritocratic class to retain more power, but understood the degree to which they could or could not buck the tide. We both tolerate nuance so I'm not sure we disagree about this.

[Dill]

(07-03-2018, 02:03 PM)Millhouse Wrote: How can the vast majority of Democrats want an open border, yet not be leftist? You lost me there. 

Regardless I was just using rightist and leftist as broad example about homers on both sides blindy defending/supporting whatever misguided stuff they may believe in. Which was in reference to Bels point on the division happening right now.

I responded to your post because I don't see any real factual support for your examples of "both sides" blinding defending supporting misguided stuff.

I have heard Trump claim that Democrats want open borders. Can you quote some Democrats who call for an "open border"?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/us/politics/fast-check-donald-trump-democrats-open-borders.html

If you cannot, then it is not an example of one side "blindly" defending anything. It is an example of blindly accepting Trump's definition of reality and "leftists." Trump lies daily and constantly. You cannot take what he says Democrats say as prima facie evidence, and then claim Trump's words as an example of how "utopian" Democrats blindly follow whatever.

While the "left" agrees with the scientific community on climate change, there is nothing especially "leftist" about that, and such agreement is not confined to the left, though disagreement is now a majority view on the right.

"Both sides" are probably equally guilty of things like sexual misconduct or campaign corruption, but "both sides" are not equally, blindly defending/supporting "misguided stuff" in the sense of disputing or ignoring the historical record or denying current accounts of, say, the Russian intrusion into our election or accepting claims that millions of illegals gave Hillary the popular vote.  Both sides just aren't doing that. Claiming they are just continues the disconnect from reality.

[Millhouse]

(07-03-2018, 03:06 PM)Dill Wrote: I responded to your post because I don't see any real factual support for your examples of "both sides" blinding defending supporting misguided stuff.

I have heard Trump claim that Democrats want open borders. Can you quote some Democrats who call for an "open border"?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/us/politics/fast-check-donald-trump-democrats-open-borders.html

If you cannot, then it is not an example of one side "blindly" defending anything. It is an example of blindly accepting Trump's definition of reality and "leftists."  Trump lies daily and constantly. You cannot take what he says Democrats say as prima facie evidence,  and then claim they are "utopian" or blindly following whatever without checking what they actually say.

While the "left" agrees with the scientific community on climate change, there is nothing especially "leftist" about that, and such agreement is not confined to the left, though disagreement is now a majority view on the right.

"Both sides" are probably equally guilty of things like sexual misconduct or campaign corruption, but "both sides" are not equally, blindly defending/supporting "misguided stuff" in the sense of disputing or ignoring the historical record or denying current accounts of, say, the Russian intrusion into our election or accepting claims that millions of illegals gave Hillary the popular vote.  Both sides just aren't doing that. Claiming they are just continues the disconnect from reality.

You are taking what I said way too serious.

[Dill]

(07-03-2018, 01:50 PM)Wyche Wrote: I dunno about that man.....William McKinley selling out every single working man, woman, and child to the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Morgan is probably the lowest point for the office of president to date.

Decent manners, though! And a loyal husband.

[Dill]

(07-03-2018, 03:17 PM)Millhouse Wrote: You are taking what I said way too serious.

Sorry, Mill. I have nothing against you personally. You generally make thoughtful contributions to threads which I appreciate, whether I agree or not. My comments are aimed at the comparison.

 

(07-03-2018, 03:17 PM)Millhouse Wrote:
   Must've had a typo there by leaving 'not' out of that sentence.

   To be a little fair on this point, there were quite a few 'open border' protesters out in full force last weekend that the media covered. Many had signs up saying 'Open Borders, No Walls" , or signs saying that a person cant be illegal for crossing a border, or the like.

   Now granted this was a small percentage of the left, the media sometimes doesnt make that distinction. Kind of like how some posters in here don't make the distinction between those on the fringe right who are racist neo-nutjobs and the rest of the right.

Yes, and I appreciate the charitable reading.

I don't doubt you saw "open border" posters, but I am guessing there were real leftists among the protestors too, as there are not among the party leadership. The best way to determine what Democrat policies are, though, is to look at their policies, voting record, and the statements of party leaders.

[Dill]

(07-03-2018, 01:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I could argue several different presidents that were worse in official action than Trump. Andrew Johnson springs to mind, immediately. But public behavior? I think Trump trumps them all.

In terms of blood and treasure, Johnson and Bush II would, at this point, be "worse."

But we need to give Trump a chance, see how this Korea thing plays out, or Iran.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Gotta love a poll where the three choices are...

"Yes"
"No, but only because I am winning right now."
"Not right now, but probably yes."

No choice of "No" or "Calm down, Chicken Little"... Doesn't make it seem like an absurd thread at all.

[Dill]

(07-05-2018, 10:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:  "Calm down, Chicken Little"

I believe some said that right after Trump was elected.

[fredtoast]

(07-05-2018, 10:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Gotta love a poll where the three choices are...

"Yes"
"No, but only because I am winning right now."
"Not right now, but probably yes."

No choice of "No" or "Calm down, Chicken Little"... Doesn't make it seem like an absurd thread at all.

Limited voting choices = more proof democracy is dead

[Bengalzona]

(07-06-2018, 01:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Limited voting choices = more proof democracy is dead

I'm trying to modify the website so that the next poll I give only has one option.

Some of you will really, really like it!

The rest of you... well.... you'll probably feel right at home since that is how our current government is.

The WalMart of governments.

[Dill]

(07-06-2018, 04:19 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'm trying to modify the website so that the next poll I give only has one option.

Some of you will really, really like it!

The rest of you... well.... you'll probably feel right at home since that is how our current government is.

The WalMart of governments.

LOL That would be a great essay title.