August 18, 2013
-
When democracy fails
The U.S. is one of the world’s oldest continuing democracies in the sense that it has a basically democratically elected representative government. Its spectacular successes have made it the model for the world but there are other historic instances where democracy has failed to protect the rights of those governed and has failed.
The most spectacular such failure was in Germany in the early 1930′s. Adolph Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany in a democratic election where the NSDAP (NAZI) party swept into power. It was solidly supported by the vast majority of German people even as it removed basic rights from segments of the population – all minorities and political dissidents – and led the world into the worst war mankind has ever seen.
What constraints, if any, should be placed on Democratic Governments?
Comments (15)
Good question – considering that RIGHT NOW the USA is faced with EXACTLY the Nazi paradigm you cite. My answer (after this next, brief, rant) is that Democracy is a latter realization that political power ultimately resides in and derives from: THE PEOPLE. The People make the Government. The Pharoah is not the source of the government. The King is not the source of the government. Caesar is not the source of the government. WE, THE PEOPLE are.
John Kerry’s recent statement rankles me, that “it is not easy for government to RULE the people when they have totally free information” (that’s a paraphrase). GOVERNMENT DOES NOT RULE, it serves to do the EXPRESS WILL of the people.
So, having said all that, I am almost there now. REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES is important, as are all the checks and balances WITHIN the government. The problem we are faced with right now in the USA is that ALL THREE BRANCHES of government are not responsive to the will of THE PEOPLE.
That means your question is MOOT, as stated. And that’s a damn wicked problem….
The answer to all this is the PLEBISCITE.
However there would seem to be a need for a Constitutional Provision for such a vote.
A PLEBISCITE would be a VOTE of the whole people, called by THE PEOPLE. (a red button on their computers?) to RE-FORM the government. Cast out the old, form a new administration. or establish a new Amendment. Obviously there would be problems setting that up etc, but that’s another discussion…. CALL A PLEBISCITE!!!!!
P.S. NAZI = National Socialization….that’s where the N.A.Z.I. comes from, in German. Really quite a lot what we have on our hands right now, wouldn’t you say?
@mortimerZilch - You’re right -almost. The official name of the NAZI party was the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. The NAZI part came from the first two words. It was always much more fascist then socialist – fascist, in that it was a collaboration of German “Big Money”that did not like the post WW1 german government with a well-controlled group of war vets and street mobs acting in the name of the people. Post war Germany so so desperate that they voted for Hitler (who was also backed by most of the Army) as an alternative to communism.
Plebiscites are the typical tool used by a rabble-rousing strong man to legitimize his takeover. As a rule of thumb, the person organizing the plebiscite always makes sure he will get a strong majority. Napoleon is the most notorious ruler to use this form of “democracy”. Plebiscites are ALL-WAYS organized by an organized minority hoping for legitimacy.
OR, … The People whose government is trampling their liberty and is unresponsive to redress of grievances, AND who’d rather not die in the street protesting their HITLER-ian totalitarian government, aka, AMERIKA now.
by the way, which FEMA camp are you located nearest to?
>What constraints, if any, should be placed on Democratic Governments?
- The three part checks and balances of the US system was efficient, until 9/11. Since then, The “State Secrets Privilege Act” has been used to insulate the US government from accountability for “our protection” no less. Congress is overpaid and more interested in continuity of career than reform and accountability. The Supreme Court offers decisions which are far off the general opinion of the people. The system is (was) a great one, but has been taken over by corrupt leaders.
@mortimerZilch - You seem to be representative of a small number of Americans who are dissatisfied by how their culture and history seems to have grown in a direction they do not like. This is not a new American phenomenon -in the mid-nineteenth century there was a political movement violently opposed to the changes brought about be the immigration of Irish and other “undesirable” groups. This “Now-Nothing Party”was popular for a time but never achieved any real national political power. The very exclusionary immigration policies begun in the 1920′s were another not-very-successful attempt to keep America just as it was in the imagination of “nativists”.
A question:Would you like a return to the America of Ronald Reagan? Much higher tax rates, corruption in government (Several hundred indictments of his employees), the Cold War? – which he took credit for ending but was really an implosion brought about by the slow-motion collapse of a very inept government (I was there for part of that)
@templestream - I agree. Democracy does not work unless it is accompanied by a strong value system favoring individual equality and liberty. It must have built-in checks and balances and a vigilant electorate.
the problem is that NOW we don’t have a functional democracy, and are strapped at how to fix it.
The USA has other problems that are related, economical ones, i.e. oil dependence, lack of production, and a geo-political militarism that large sections of the world flat out reject.
as Templestream points out the problem with regard to Democracy is related to the response to the attack on 9/11/2001. We went totalitarian. Military muscle flex.
Communism in Russia did that too. It doesn’t work. It’s not working here. (Good thing that Pope John-Paul II went to Poland and told them they have a DUTY to create their own government in the face of immoral Russian occupation. THAT’s what brought down the Iron Curtain.)
Over here, it’s not so simple. Our beloved military will just slaughter massive protests, like what the Egyptian military is doing now, and China’s did in Tiananmen Square. That’s why I suggest -somehow – getting a plebiscite going to throw out everybody and start over.
Your efforts to pigeonhole me as a retrograde Luddite are not fair. I DO NOT LIKE the loss of traditional civic morality that has occurred in the USA, true. When the government makes into LAW that which is EVIL, the people suffer. That’s been a big part of the problem. When NUCLEAR BOMBS become good things, then all else is insane. When WOMEN are permitted to kill the life inside them, then all else is permissible, even striking every reference to the Ultimate Lawgiver from civic affairs. The Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization has been trashed in favor of hedonism, and wrong headed concepts of personal liberty. And so, we cannot heal ourselves until these errors are no longer enshrined in LAW.
@mortimerZilch - ”Your efforts to pigeonhole me as a retrograde Luddite are not fair”… well then, why do you write like a retrograde luddite? The USA has always had a changing interpretation of basic values – necessary to cope with changing conditions. Contrary to your belief, the US was not founded by fundamentalist Christians – most of the most active were Unitarian or Deist – they all seemed to have “wrong-headed concepts of personal liberty”
Laws in the US are made by democratically elected representatives – and always have been. They are subject to a fairly conservative Supreme Court review and always have been – ever since John Marshall promulgated the concept of judicial review and the passage of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.
As a very large developed nation – the most powerful in the whole world – we can no longer afford to act like we are a nineteenth century semi-rural culture. We are a multi-cultural society and those with your apparent mindset are a ever-decreasing minority – live with it.
Oh man, you are really losing it now! Nowhere did I say the USA was started by Fundamentalist Christians. That’s either a lie, or a dummy oversight, you pick which. What I said was that Western Civilization (of which the USA is a part) is founded, built, and constructed upon values that were explicitly Judeo-Christian… i.e., the Ten Commandments, and inalienable rights of the individual which derive from The Creator. To characterize that as Fundamentalist Christian deserves an apology. This is the fruit of the age of Reason…reason applied to the obvious good tenets of Faith. We fought for that. What we have gotten to now is a Supreme Court that MAKES LAWS, instead of adjudicating on the question of a law’s Constitutionality. Case in point: Roe vs. Wade and the OUTLANDISH sudden legalization of abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.
That is NOT DEMOCRACY! It is oligarchy at work, and that’s what we run into with the LEGISLATIVE branch of the government also, where think-tanks represent the interests of the VESTED, which are elitist, rich, and status quo. Now we are seeing the EXECUTIVE branch coming up with extra-legal decisions, appointments, regulations all in support of the oligarchy’s OIL addicted empire. And that includes Contraceptive/ABORTION policy as a genocidal tool aimed at blacks, and poor, and third world. Not only is this divergence far from the Judeo-Christian tenets of basic Western Civilization in general, it is also contrary to right reason, and in fact is based on a military hegemony gained by nuclear weaponry. The USA has forfeited its right to exist, not only its mandate to govern. The End is Near.
@mortimerZilch - LOL Did you actually ever read the 10 Commandments? As they are written out in Deuteronomy 5, the first four are of little or no current meaning – especially as they seem to indicate that there were/are “Other Gods”, which I don’t believe is current Christian theocratic thinking. The last six are simply a re-statement of almost universal cultural mores; but this is a digression. Those Creator-derived Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”
Roe vs Wade is consistent with these ideals if you accept the biblical definition of life (First Breath of life – you have to be breathing to be alive according to the Bible) but fortunately the Bible does not and never has had the power of law in the USA – if it had that would be a sort of Sharia law which, as I understand it, you object to. Of the estimated five million abortions in the US on the average year, over 80% are spontaneous – apparently God does not object to abortion, so why should you?
On the whole, however, I think most of your political views are well stated and and that you have a point regarding the loss of true democracy in America – hopefully it is only temporary – maybe we will return to a democratic majority
I think I’ll step in here and try to end this discussion – which seems to be devolving into theological name-calling.
Mortimer and Tychecat seem to be almost on the same page – both are unhappy with the current state of American politics though they may disagree with how to “correct” them. It seems clear that a democracy must have an underlying moral code demanding (as I have stated above) individual liberty and equality as well as a respect for democratically evolved laws.
step out a second, and let me have the last word…or are you a biased moderator? Tychecat, your argumentation is fragmented…a little of this…a little of that, smorgasbord. And not much of it very clear. “gods” is a concept that carries over from Biblical times perfectly well to the present: gods then being inanimate, as now, whether they be turbo Porches, or private jets. But Roe vs Wade does NOT carry over, and your attempt to pin Biblical concepts of life on “first breath” allusion is very shallow compared to the REAL Biblical concept of life as originating in the womb. In fact, your attempt to validate abortion from the Bible is utterly mendacious, and you should drop forthwith any further attempts to do so. Having said all that, another idea you throw helter-skelter on your plate is very important: the concept of Sharia law, and/or Christian versions of the same. Now – dear moderator – THERE’S AN IDEA WORTH DISCUSSING! To which I would like to say: Truth is not a relgious concept. Religious concepts MAY be truthful. But to say ABORTION SHOULD BE BANNED is not a religious statement, it is a TRUE statement.
I think term limits would go along way toward eliminating the abuses we’ve seen in recent years.
@thereluctantsinger - I tend to disagree about term limits. While it does open the legislature to “new blood “, it at the same time both denies a competent, dedicated elected public servant the job he/she is really good at, while enabling cynical legislators the opportunity to pass legislation that they will not have to take long-term responsibility for. I think it is better to allow democratic elections to vote for any qualified candidate and keep him/her in office as long as they do what they were elected to do.