Democracy in America

[rwoy]

Are we ready to say that democracy has failed in America?

Is it time for a serious re-evaluation of our political process perhaps to a model more closely resembling the British?

[Free Palestine]

Yes.  But if we're going to model our system on any country, it should not be the UK.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yes.  But if we're going to model our system on any country, it should not be the UK.

A parliamentary system would be a dramatic improvement over the status quo.

[Free Palestine]

Yes.  But if we're going to model our system on any country, it should not be the UK.

A parliamentary system would be a dramatic improvement over the status quo.

Parliamentary systems are so mundane, though.  I want a political system that's more...unique.

For one thing, I'm interested in the idea of a collective head of state.

[Foucaulf]

This is the reverse of the "America is not a democracy, it's a republic" argument. It is equally as confusing. The US operates under representative democracy, and "democracy" does not just fail for every elected body in the nation. And since when was parliamentary democracy not democratic?

You have to be specific with the problem. The representatives on the federal level are in a brawl that distracts them from everything but the talking point issues. Either some need to step up and call for the representatives to be more representative of their constituents, or the representatives need to actually be influenced by debate - like average people.

For one thing, I'm interested in the idea of a collective head of state.

Collective heads of state so far represent more the fragility of their country than as an alternate way to exercise the executive power. In an executive as complex as America's, there will be great confusion over who directs whom unless there are codified rules.

[Free Palestine]

Collective heads of state so far represent more the fragility of their country than as an alternate way to exercise the executive power. In an executive as complex as America's, there will be great confusion over who directs whom unless there are codified rules.

I'd actually favor dissolving the U.S. into something resembling the European Union, anyways.

[rwoy]

Personally I think that most people with some degree of intelligence (not just those who only hear fun slogans) would agree that the current structure of the Government of the United States of America is broken.  The method in which its leadership is selected is broken.  It really is time for a reorganization.

I'll readily admit that I have no idea the best system to replace it.  But it is well past time for someone to stand up and say it.

[© tweed]

Personally I think that most people with some degree of intelligence (not just those who only hear fun slogans) would agree that the current structure of the Government of the United States of America is broken.  The method in which its leadership is selected is broken.  It really is time for a reorganization.

I'll readily admit that I have no idea the best system to replace it.  But it is well past time for someone to stand up and say it.

only is broken if you think it was a broken idea to begin with.

[Roemerista]

The problem is that democracy in America has become far too democratic.

[© tweed]

The problem is that democracy in America has become far too democratic.

keep going, man.  develop the idea.

[angus]

Are we ready to say that democracy has failed in America?

Failed to do what?

Failed to protect the wealthy land-owing class and their posessions?  maybe.

Failed to allow the most diverse population on earth to peacefully co-exist?  probably not.

Failed to allow the economic expansion of the US from a murky, swampy backwater to the world's economic powerhouse in a period of about 150 years?  definitely not.

I guess it depends upon what goal you expect from democracy.  Some of George Washington's goals have not been met.  Particularly, his desire that we stay out of foreign entanglements.  But then, most neoconservatives and most neoliberals believe that our economic growth depends upon exporting our particular brand of democracy throughout the world.  That may or may not be true, but when we cheer the Arab Spring and the proliferation of Wal-Marts in Shanghai and Latin America, it is not enitirely clear whether we have failed Washington and the Founders, or whether we have simply provided a logical conclusion to their experiment in democracy.

You need to be more specific in your question.

[Хahar 🤔]

George Washington's desire to stay out of foreign entanglements was nothing more than an attempt to save face for his own failed foreign policy.

[Torie]

It has a $$$$$$ problem. The Torie plan declared unconstitutional by the Supremes is rather acutely needed to be enacted into law.

[Link]

Failed to allow the economic expansion of the US from a murky, swampy backwater to the world's economic powerhouse in a period of about 150 years?  definitely not.

China is going to go from a murky Communist backwater to an economy larger than ours in a fraction of that time.  Do you think we should adopt their system?

[© tweed]

Failed to allow the economic expansion of the US from a murky, swampy backwater to the world's economic powerhouse in a period of about 150 years?  definitely not.

China is going to go from a murky Communist backwater to an economy larger than ours in a fraction of that time.  Do you think we should adopt their system?

Stalin too o/c

[Gustaf]

Failed to allow the economic expansion of the US from a murky, swampy backwater to the world's economic powerhouse in a period of about 150 years?  definitely not.

China is going to go from a murky Communist backwater to an economy larger than ours in a fraction of that time.  Do you think we should adopt their system?

Stalin too o/c

lol

lol!

[© tweed]

what is it you are disputing, Sir?

[Gustaf]

what is it you are disputing, Sir?

Link was making a pretty dumb point since a) China's economic growth is based on abandoning much of their Communist system and b) the heavy regulations they still have combined with the political system is likely to prevent them from reaching the same economic level as the West. Anyone with even vague familiarity with conditional convergence would know this.

Your point, vauge as it was, seemed even worse. The Soviet Union never had a working economic system. They certainly never "went from a murky communist backwater to an economy larger than the US" which is what your post seemed to imply.

[© tweed]

not sure where larger than the US came in.  they went from largely agrarian pre-capitalist to controlling half of Europe within two generations.  Stalinism was the standard for industrialization and human development (including women's liberation, literacy, etc) within a generation for much of the World in the post-War.  whether this is "working" is open to a larger and perhaps semantic discussion.

[The Mikado]

Thought this was going to be a thread about Alexis de Tocqueville.  Was ready to write about that, not about this.

[Gustaf]

not sure where larger than the US came in.  they went from largely agrarian pre-capitalist to controlling half of Europe within two generations.  Stalinism was the standard for industrialization and human development (including women's liberation, literacy, etc) within a generation for much of the World in the post-War.  whether this is "working" is open to a larger and perhaps semantic discussion.

Yeah...see, electrifying a medieaval country will be beneficial regardless of how much else you fck up. That's what conditional convergence is all about. It would obviously have gone a lot faster and a lot better under capitalism than under Stalinism (as, indeed, it did elsewhere in Europe).

They also had starvation during long periods of Soviet rule, but I guess mundane things like feeding the working class pales in importance when compared to Che Guevara t-shirts and other such pinnacles of human achievement?

[© tweed]

big difference between mere electrification and winning a World War.  but I get the gist of your argument, and hate to point out-- if you do your oppo research, somewhere on this forum, I've declared Stalin 'my least favorite figure in all of history'.  I believe I put Reagan second, and probably some player on the 1998-2000 Yankees third.

nor do I own a Che t-shirt, but I do own two Lenin t-shirts, and still wear them occasionally, specifically when attending a class of my viscerally anti-Communist, bleeding heart liberal professor on Monday/Wednesday.

[Gustaf]

big difference between mere electrification and winning a World War.  but I get the gist of your argument, and hate to point out-- if you do your oppo research, somewhere on this forum, I've declared Stalin 'my least favorite figure in all of history'.  I believe I put Reagan second, and probably some player on the 1998-2000 Yankees third.

nor do I own a Che t-shirt, but I do own two Lenin t-shirts, and still wear them occasionally, specifically when attending a class of my viscerally anti-Communist, bleeding heart liberal professor on Monday/Wednesday.

Oh, I forgot - you do Trotsky right? It's hard to keep up with all those different phases.

I'm not sure what winning WWII has to do with it. Winning a war is very different from running a good society. In fact, I'd argue that at least some of the qualities that goes into winning wars are anti-thetical to those that go into creating a good society.

Anyway, if you don't like Stalin I'm not sure where you're going with this whole argument. I just find it strange when supposed left-wingers support the USSR. It was, after all, the worse for the people the left is supposed to favour.

[opebo]

You see, readers, the prolific Gustaf is a 'true believer' in capitalism.  That's all.  There's no point discussing it with him, he's irrational, like most such proponents.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Thought this was going to be a thread about Alexis de Tocqueville.  Was ready to write about that, not about this.

Same here, actually. I was thinking of putting him in the context of that sort of political travel writer; Cobbett would certainly have been mentioned.