2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: President Obama sends clear message to Bernie or Busters ... [View all]Blue Meany
(1,947 posts)I completely agree that Democracy is better than the alternatives. Indeed the biggest advantage to democracy may be that averts the need for violent revolution to achieve change. My question, though, is the extent to which we have a democracy when:
Policy positions favored by the vast majority of citizens are not undertaken.
Most electoral discourse is controlled by corporations and the 1% either through contributions or by control of the media.
The two-party system concentrates power and limits choices of candidates and platforms to those that are acceptable to elites.
The overarching economic model favored by most candidates in both parties--neloiberalism--generates wars and chaos abroad and unemployment and depressed wages at home. The trade deals and the war on terrorism are the flip sides of the same coin and neither one of them benefits the 99% in this country or anywhere else.
There is blatant--and apparently legal--voter suppression and indications of the election fraud that are either not investigated or not remedied when they are taken to court.
Popular movements for change such as the occupy movement, Black lives matter, and environmental movements are monitored, infiltrated, sabotaged, and repressed by government agencies, sometimes in collusion with corporations. (As an aside, I expect there to be renewed efforts to exert more control over the Internet, since it is internet media that has made it possible to mobilize many recent movements including Bernie Sanders' candidacy).
You tell me, is this what democracy looks like?