Reply #30: it's a red herring because.............

[ulTRAX]

Confrontationclaws wrote: "It's not a red herring. Why do you assume that once your "reforms" of the Constitution are in place, that the changes that would be enacted in your new democracy would be "progressive?" You refer to the "red herring" of democratic mob rule, but why is it a red herring??"

It's a red herring because this is one of the historic strawmen used by those who refuse to see our systems faults. That and the old saying we're a republic not a democracy. They SOUND like arguments but it's only a lame attempt to defend and validate the system we have without actually looking any deeper. Americans are blind to the fact that the world is FULL of alternative models that prove it's possible to protect minority rights and still have majority rule. We in the US are deluded thinking our Constitution is a model for the rest of the world. Some 66% of Americans believe that.

Confrontationclaws wrote: "The Bill of Rights wouldn't serve as a shield against abuse in a "true" democracy, because, even though in your system a super majority of sorts might be required to amend, a simple majority could (would?) elect members of the executive and legislative branches that promise to ignore it."................. "Bottom line--in your system, the majority would CONTROL the manner and degree to which the rights of the minority are protected. Which means they really wouldn't be "rights" at all would they?"

And why can't that happen now? In fact under our system those representatives (house and senate) can represent a MINORITY of the population... as can the President. This is your idea of protection? A minority President and Senate can pack the federal judiciary. Any of this sinking in? As for the current system providing some magic bullet to protect rights... we have a 9th amendment which is a radical statement of human rights and it's being universally ignored. Strict constructionists like Scalia dismiss it as irrelevant.

The current system is the worst of both worlds. It allows minority rule and blocks common sense democratic reforms. Under our system there is no civic equality, citizens can't vote their conscience and get some representation, up to 50% of citizens are routinely denied representation in voting for losers in winner take all elections... the two parties have a stranglehold on the system yet they are not responsive to the public. My god... you're defending this? BTW... I would not rush to making the amendment process more flexible without laying a new ideological foundation in liberal democracy. I see this as a 50 year process best started in the states. Some ideas here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860

Confrontationclaws wrote: "I believe it was Andrew Jackson who noted the fact that the Supreme Court's army is rather puny. The Bill of Rights only limits the government (and private citizens by one amendment) because the "government" obeys the Supreme Court. (I suppose a lot of DUers aren't old enough to remember the suspense that existed in the time between the Supreme Court's ruling on the Nixon tapes and Nixon's response. Just what would have happened if he had refused? Even Nixon knew better...I'm not so sure the present crop of fascists would be so deferential.)"

Maybe the REAL issue here is that the office of the President is too powerful. But you've already taken basic reforms off the table. But I agree that a respect for law is powerful cement holding the system together. Unfortunately in the US we're stuck having more respect for bad law than good principles.

At some point Democrats and Progressives have to have some commitment to democratic principles because the cost of anti-democratic government is too high and may be the basis for our imperial pathology and inability to provide Americans will basics like health care.

The currents of anti-democratic rule are unpredictable, insidious, and make a mockery of self governance. Clarence Thomas was approved by senators representing a MINORITY of the US population. In 2000... he becomes a key vote in preventing the Florida recount. Bush is repudiated by the voters yet imposed upon the nation by an anti-democratic star chamber called the EC. Bush is able to abuse the powers of his office to sweep in a GOP Senate... and further solidified power in 2004. US and world history was changed for the worst and who's responsible? Your system has but the illusion of accountability but in reality it strips from the People the ability to learn from their own mistakes. Combine that with how unresponsive the 2 party system is and it's no wonder why most Americans, unlike most in the other advanced democracies, don't take self-government seriously. And one further note... that if the citizens are blocked from governing their own nation... you can be certain something will fill that vacuum. In the US it's special interests.