Unrepresentative Democracy

[dreissig]

The 1960's saw the political parties break away from their constituencies, resulting in social unrest. Timothy Leary advised young people to tune in, turn on, drop out. This time around, don't count on anything as benign as that happening.
http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_495.html

Kerry may have the support of labor unions but he does not represent working people. How could he? He's never worked a day in his life. He may pick up endorsements from Leftist groups, but he voted for war and the Patriot Act. His voting record disqualifies him from claiming solidarity with people yearning for peace and justice.

If the Democrats choose Kerry, we run the same risk Democrats ran in 1968. Big trouble follows when representative democracies fail in the one thing they've got to accomplish - represent the people. If there's no more choice between the 2004 candidates than there was between Humphrey and Nixon, look for the return of big time social unrest.

Like domestic tranquillity? Don't nominate Kerry.

[eileen_d]

1. I'm sorry your preferred candidate hasn't won a primary yet.

:hug:

[dreissig]

2. A Taunt?

If you're being sarcastic, isn't that a taunt?

[eileen_d]

6. I dunno... Isn't this a threat?

"Like domestic tranquillity? Don't nominate Kerry."

[salinen]

3. Silver spoon kids

didn't go to Vietnam. I'm not a Kerryfile, but you are slightly fundamental.

[dreissig]

4. Kerry's Three Month Tour

A healthy, able-bodied John Kerry boarded the plane back to the United States after only three months in Vietnam.

[dumpster_baby]

5. only 3 months in Nam for Kerry?

[salinen]

7. Dump

great handle man.

[dreissig]

8. Kerry's Three Month Tour

Kerry's tour in Vietnam is being offered as evidence that he paid his egalitarian dues the same as anyone else. But the fact that he spent only three months there tends to weaken that claim. His next duty assignment blows away the pretense even more: Kerry becomes an admiral's aide in New York City.

Kerry, Bush and Gore, members of America's upper class, dealt with their military "obligation" in ways unavailable to the rest of us. Kerry also voted to send America's poor and working class to die in combat against Iraq's poor and working class.

The point here is that if representative democracies aren't representative there's a strong chance that all hell will break loose. This may happen regardless of the outcome of the November election. Bush hasn't made any pretense of seeking a return to egalitarianism; Kerry the "Democrat" has. One shucks, the other doesn't. That may not be enough of a difference to prevent a maelstrom.

[nancyharris]

9. Before the convention

Tens of millions of Democratic Voters will cast their choice for our party’s nominee. That person may not be your choice (and I seriously doubt it will be my choice) but to claim that it will not be “representative of the people” is quite simply a damned lie.

[dreissig]

10. Popular Will

In 1968, We the People were offered a choice between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon. Only a diehard small-d democrat would believe these alternatives represented the popular will. I'd argue that there are limits to any given political system. In the case of representative democracy, the tolerances are exceeded when the democracy is no longer representative.

Because there is so much patriotic fervor these days, Americans are refusing to remember 1968. Our self-confidence has been eroded by physical attacks in which our citizens have been killed. But political science describes limits just as any other science does. Take a turn too fast and a truck will tip over. Ideology cannot prevent political systems from exceeding their specs.

The gauges are up in the red zone. Like domestic tranquillity? Don't nominate Kerry.

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. There would have been one clear nominee in 1968

...but those in power KNEW he was a threat to their power structure, so they had him murdered. Just as they did his brother 5 years earlier :(

Now the best candidate since RFK is threatening the corrupt power structure, and they are assassinating him as well. Not physically of course (far too messy these days)but if they get away with it, the result is the same. (Be careful out there, Howard!! :scared: )

[nancyharris]

12. Ridiculous!

Are you implying that your fellow Democrats are somehow being forced to vote for Senator Kerry? There are lots of names on the ballot. They vote in secret. They can place their mark for anyone they choose.

You can argue that Kerry is not the best choice for the Democratic Party (I wholeheartedly agree with you there). But it is pure 100% prime bullshit to claim that person who ultimately wins the party’s nomination is not representative of the majority of the Democratic Party.

[dreissig]

13. Iowa Was Not Secret

Iowa was not secret and it distorted the New Hampshire result, giving Kerry the appearance of a front-runner. I distrust both results, and I don't think they represent voters' true preferences.

[nancyharris]

14. Well then…

<’ I distrust both results”>

If you do not think that free and open primaries and caucuses are the most representative way for our Party to select a nominee, then what method do you propose?