2 ms·

I didn't say that it was the only way to do it. What I said is that the US is currently more democratic than it ever has been. Obama, and later Trump, are the m

• meowface 7y ago
  In what way have past presidents been determined by elites more so than they have now? The US doesn't really seem any more or less democratic than it's been for the previous 100 years. I agree this is what democracy looks like, though. Demagogues like Trump (if one agrees that he's a demagogue; many surely disagree) are a likely eventual outcome of it, though they also have an advantage in almost every other system.
  • darawk 7y ago
    > In what way have past presidents been determined by elites more so than they have now? The US doesn't really seem any more or less democratic than it's been for the previous 100 years. The primary process has been dominated by elite party members basically since the inception of the country.
    • dragonwriter 7y ago
      > The primary process has been dominated by elite party members basically since the inception of the country. Having a “primary process” is a actually a very new, more democratic change; it hasn't existed since the inception of the country; historically, Presidential nominations conducted directly and exclusively by insiders; originally usually by the party’s Congressional caucus, later (starting mid-19th Century and into the latter third of the 20th) in party nominating conventions whose members were chosen exclusively (or, toward the end of the period, overwhelmingly predominantly) by insiders at the state parties. Primaries were introduced by some states in the late 19th Century but didn't become the norm until after 1968, as a response first within the Democratic Party to the controversy over the nomination of Eugene McCarthy by Democratic insiders, and just after that a reaction by the Republican Party to Democrats opening up their nominating process.
      • darawk 7y ago
        That is all entirely consistent with my point though.