3 ms·
No, direct democracy is a tyranny of the majority. What we need is to return to our idealogical roots of our actual governmental system: constitutional republic
by arca_vorago 11y ago
No, direct democracy is a tyranny of the majority. What we need is to return to our idealogical roots of our actual governmental system: constitutional republic, or, in better words, constitutional representative democratic republic.
The power of true American exceptionalism lies in the fact that individualism and individual sovereignty is our foundational principle.
As Christopher Hitchens said: "The American Revolution, the one that says, build your public on individual rights, not group rights, have a bill of rights that inscribes these and makes theme legible to everybody, separate the church from the state, separate the executive from the judicial, and the political branch. Do all these things; It doesn't sound like much but it's really a very revolutionary idea. There is hardly a country in the world that wouldn't benefit from adopting those principles. I think that gives the United States a really good claim to be a revolutionary country as well as of course, paradoxically a very conservative one."
"Of course, objectively as well as subjectively, the American revolution is now the only revolution with a fighting chance of survival and success: the idea that you could create a multicultural democracy over a vast expanse of the earth's surface that could possibly be emulated by other people."
What I think is that in allowing the separation of powers and checks and balances functions to erode, particularly giving power to the executive under the banner of war, we have strayed from the fundamental principles of our Constitution, and a return to this model is where the true future of America lies. Of course I don't like saying "a return to" because our history has been filled with issues in this regard, so I want to avoid giving any pretence of a panacea of the past, but the beauty of our system was supposed to be that it would continually, if gradually and slowly, be improved. I no longer thing we are improving in a constitutional sense, and supranational global governance is all but openly accepted on the hill. Borderline treasonous if you ask me.
In an oath the Constitution, one swears to protect and defend it from enemies foreign and domestic. I tell you now, with full conviction, that our Constitution has more numerous and more engrained and powerful domestic enemies than foreign ones.(or domestic enemies backed by foreign ones) The thing is though, our true foreign enemies, the ones who are actually a constitutional threat, don't wear a thwab... they wear business suits and ties.
In my many years of trying to understand the larger geopolitical chessboard since I got out of the military, my conclusion is that all roads of corruption in America lead to DC and to Wallstreet, but that most roads of corruption from there lead to the City of London and to the various hidden vestiges of European monarchy and oligarchy, including the papacy. (and this is giving you the sanitised version so as not to explode your head with conspiracy theory.)
Until this is understood, we will be unable to truly defend our country and it's constitution.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoYou have a great response and it deserves a clarification of what I mean by direct democracy. For the most part, the system set up by our founding fathers is a good one, for the most part. There is simply too much to governance that should be left to common folk to sort out. However, it is clear that the average citizen is completely powerless to have any effect on the system. The system is run by representatives who are owned by special interests. We are often given the choice between a red Lego and a blue Lego with no discernible difference between them once they get to Washington and spend half their time fundraising for the next election. That is why we should have direct democracy: not as the foundation for policy, but a citizen check on the tendency for concentrated power to corrupt. We should have the right to publicly challenge resolutions by referendum to keep congress from controlling all they see fit with no real consequence. Voting for representatives is not enough to hold them accountable. It is no different from exchanging one dirty diaper for another.
- arca_vorago 11y agoThank you for the clarification, I think I understand your position, so let me attempt to restate it and add to my previous response. You are saying that because congress isn't properly accountable for their current actions, and that we should have a more direct democracy, with the ability to challenge proposed legislation by referendum as one potential vehicle for that? I think I could potentially get behind that, but I would want to hear more about proposition for nation wide referendum systems, especially since some states already have such a thing, but not all, to implement it nation-wide would require a constitutional amendment. One alternative idea I would propose is an increase in the amount of representatives. Give them smaller districts and they would be more accountable and less able to use the two party system as a manipulatory vehicle. Issues abound back at the hill for such a thing, but I think it might be a good start. Gerrymandering has to be controlled and eliminated as well. Campaign finance reform is a must as well. Overall I think I understand a bit better, I would just urge caution that in trying to fix broken parts of the system that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak. As long as propositions conform with the constitution, I'm ok with it. I will admit though, with the corruption as pervasive as it is now, a constitutional convention scares the hell out of me, as it could too easily be hijacked into something horrible.