Erosion of Democracy in America

[Concerned]

A number of months ago, before the arrival of my third baby (ya, since he has been born you can bet there hasn't been much time for posting !) ....

I commented in certain strings that I felt under the Bush Administration it seemed to me that democracy had been on a down-hill slide in America and that the events leading up to 911 and Iraq were sorely affected by a power hungry government.

I have recently come across a book by Miller, "Cruel and Unusual" who is an expert in this debate and who outlines many interesting facts and opinion in his book.

In particular his criticism of the press, its biases, and lack of responsibility to the American public is excellent.

Has anybody read it ?

[jbg]

I live here and it still looks, acts and feels like a democracy.

[mcqueen625]

A number of months ago, before the arrival of my third baby (ya, since he has been born you can bet there hasn't been much time for posting !) ....

I commented in certain strings that I felt under the Bush Administration it seemed to me that democracy had been on a down-hill slide in America and that the events leading up to 911 and Iraq were sorely affected by a power hungry government.

I have recently come across a book by Miller, "Cruel and Unusual" who is an expert in this debate and who outlines many interesting facts and opinion in his book.

In particular his criticism of the press, its biases, and lack of responsibility to the American public is excellent.

Has anybody read it ?

I would think you should be looking at the same thing happening on the Canadian side of the border. Under first Chretian and then Martin our freedoms were quickly deteriorating, even though both of these leaders were definitely anti-American. Under a Liberal government they were willing to allow the appointed, unaccountable Supreme Court looneytoon judges to have the last word on everything in this country, and both Chretien and Martin said so publically. I don't know about you, but if these clowns are going to be making decisions that affects the way we live our lives as Canadians, then I want those people to be elected to office so that they can not only be held responsible for their decisions, but we the people can fire their asses. Canada a democracy? What fairytale have you been reading?

[Figleaf]

A number of months ago, before the arrival of my third baby (ya, since he has been born you can bet there hasn't been much time for posting !) ....

I commented in certain strings that I felt under the Bush Administration it seemed to me that democracy had been on a down-hill slide in America and that the events leading up to 911 and Iraq were sorely affected by a power hungry government.

I have recently come across a book by Miller, "Cruel and Unusual" who is an expert in this debate and who outlines many interesting facts and opinion in his book.

In particular his criticism of the press, its biases, and lack of responsibility to the American public is excellent.

Has anybody read it ?

I would think you should be looking at the same thing happening on the Canadian side of the border. Under first Chretian and then Martin our freedoms were quickly deteriorating, even though both of these leaders were definitely anti-American. Under a Liberal government they were willing to allow the appointed, unaccountable Supreme Court looneytoon judges to have the last word on everything in this country, and both Chretien and Martin said so publically. I don't know about you, but if these clowns are going to be making decisions that affects the way we live our lives as Canadians, then I want those people to be elected to office so that they can not only be held responsible for their decisions, but we the people can fire their asses. Canada a democracy? What fairytale have you been reading?

If having judges hold a final say on interpreting the law is a problem, then it is a problem virtually every mature democracy has instituted, including the United States.

So, what do you think would be better? Putin's Russia?

[jbg]

I don't know about you, but if these clowns are going to be making decisions that affects the way we live our lives as Canadians, then I want those people to be elected to office so that they can not only be held responsible for their decisions, but we the people can fire their asses. Canada a democracy? What fairytale have you been reading?

At the risk of being accused of spamming, I will repeat what I've said over and over on boards on both sides of the US/Canada Border; it is a privilege to be born in and a citizen of the advanced, English-speaking democracies. Are any of them perfect? Hardly. All have blemishes in dealing with minorities and native populations.

But have any governments in history given better-distributed prosperity, relative safety and relative freedom, as well as the ability to participate in government?

I don't think so.

[Borg]

I live here and it still looks, acts and feels like a democracy.

Seems to me that you have said it all.

No western democracy is perfect, but I cannot disagree with your one liner.

Borg

[Borg]

A number of months ago, before the arrival of my third baby (ya, since he has been born you can bet there hasn't been much time for posting !) ....

I commented in certain strings that I felt under the Bush Administration it seemed to me that democracy had been on a down-hill slide in America and that the events leading up to 911 and Iraq were sorely affected by a power hungry government.

I have recently come across a book by Miller, "Cruel and Unusual" who is an expert in this debate and who outlines many interesting facts and opinion in his book.

In particular his criticism of the press, its biases, and lack of responsibility to the American public is excellent.

Has anybody read it ?

I would think you should be looking at the same thing happening on the Canadian side of the border. Under first Chretian and then Martin our freedoms were quickly deteriorating, even though both of these leaders were definitely anti-American. Under a Liberal government they were willing to allow the appointed, unaccountable Supreme Court looneytoon judges to have the last word on everything in this country, and both Chretien and Martin said so publically. I don't know about you, but if these clowns are going to be making decisions that affects the way we live our lives as Canadians, then I want those people to be elected to office so that they can not only be held responsible for their decisions, but we the people can fire their asses. Canada a democracy? What fairytale have you been reading?

If having judges hold a final say on interpreting the law is a problem, then it is a problem virtually every mature democracy has instituted, including the United States.

So, what do you think would be better? Putin's Russia?

It seems to me - uneducated as I may be - that your statement on face value is 100% on the mark.

However, I want my legislators to MAKE the laws and the judges to INTERPRET them.

There has been a little bit of law MAKING by the judges. In my books this is not on.

As for interpretation, there was an interview with a few of the surviving founding fathers of the Canuck constitution. They have been very quiet - but the one thing I noticed was their disappointment in how they failed to see how the judges could twist some of the meanings.

I believe it was a Western Standard mag article. Interesting reading. Those interviewed would have made some serious changes if they had realized how the constitution was to be interpreted by judges. Several made pointed comments as to the "spirit" of the constitution as interpreted by Liberal appointed (their words not mine) judges was not what they - the founders - had intended.

I am sure some will disparrage the magazine, but it was quite an eye opener to me.

Borg

[jbg]

However, I want my legislators to MAKE the laws and the judges to INTERPRET them.

There has been a little bit of law MAKING by the judges. In my books this is not on.

Fortunately or unfortunately, common law, at the root of Canada's and the US's legal systems, is "judge made" law. In some cases, the legislatures codify or modify common law, but our respective systems do depend on a fair amount of judicial creativity. The judiciary normally uses its powers, at least in the US, with restraint, because of the very real institutional risk that no one will obey the Court.

President Andrew Jackson famously said, when the US Army was ordered to allow the Cherokee Indians to retain some land wanted by settlers "the (Supreme) Court has made its ruling; let it enforce it". This caused damage to the Court's prestige that took a long time to heal.

[lost&outofcontrol]

*warning, rant ahead.

You cannot erode what doesn't exist. We vote in elections every 4 years to decide who will rules us and while we do get to decide who. The “who” is always the very same every elections, limiting us to a very small portion of ideological spectrum. Though questions are left unasked the major political parties must protect their interest leading trivial differences between parties and the acceptance of the status quo.

The real business of state is done behind the scenes were decisions are reach before any formal vote goes through parliament. We must abolish parliamentarism and turn it into a working body, executive and legislative at the same time were all elected representatives are subject to recall.

[Michael Hardner]

The real business of state is done behind the scenes were decisions are reach before any formal vote goes through parliament.

I agree. Most of what government does today relates to the delivery of services. The complexities that are involved in that business are poorly served by a top-heavy political machine run by the governing party. I would say that most of what government does should be overeseen by all-party committees acting much as a board of governors does in the private sector.

The House of Commons should only debate high level policy direction. These are issues that most Canadians can get involved in, as they are easier to understand and more interesting too.

[yam]

Im all for the government being monitored - over-seered. However, not in the same way as a board of directors in the private sphere would/does.

[lost&outofcontrol]

The real business of state is done behind the scenes were decisions are reach before any formal vote goes through parliament.

I agree. Most of what government does today relates to the delivery of services. The complexities that are involved in that business are poorly served by a top-heavy political machine run by the governing party. I would say that most of what government does should be overeseen by all-party committees acting much as a board of governors does in the private sector.

The House of Commons should only debate high level policy direction. These are issues that most Canadians can get involved in, as they are easier to understand and more interesting too.

Won't this lead to further "erosion of democracy"?

[yam]

I see why your asking that because it runs parallel with the 'policing' of democracy. However, if we think of the monitoring as a protection from the erosoin of democracy we can then think of the monitors as fulfilling the role of the security guards for democracy. Today our governments canada/Uk/US lack accountability to its people. The 'security guards' could make sure they are accountable.

[Michael Hardner]

Won't this lead to further "erosion of democracy"?

I don't think so. The fact is, government business is far too complex for the average voter to follow. It would be better for democracy if more people were engaged in the process. This could be achieved by focussing political discussion on the highest level issues, rather than the nuts-and-bolts of service delivery - they are two separate things.

[yam]

However, it is the nuts and bolts that finances the democracy/government and are far from two seperate things. Im not sure what you are driving at when you seperate the two. I agree that the economics of any given country is complex especially when dependent upon the international arena (stocks & shares). However, it is the core to any democracies existence and should be made accountable - somehow - to the citizens of any particualr nation. Something better than having to wade through the financial times - put it that way.

[lost&outofcontrol]

I don't think so. The fact is, government business is far too complex for the average voter to follow. It would be better for democracy if more people were engaged in the process. This could be achieved by focussing political discussion on the highest level issues, rather than the nuts-and-bolts of service delivery - they are two separate things.

From my perspective, government business is far too complex because government official are left accountable and we are inevitably left out of the decision making process. If we as citizens were more involved by our politicians in the decisions by leaving themselves subject to recall and turning parliament into a working body, executive and legislative at the same time this would force our elected officials to be completely transparent in their decisions which I might add would be taken physically and mentally in parliament instead of being done behind closed doors. One you reduce the role of government official to that of simply carrying out our instructions as responsible, revocable and modestly paid "foremen and accountants" then and only then will we have true democracy.

[Michael Hardner]

However, it is the nuts and bolts that finances the democracy/government and are far from two seperate things. Im not sure what you are driving at when you seperate the two. I agree that the economics of any given country is complex especially when dependent upon the international arena (stocks & shares). However, it is the core to any democracies existence and should be made accountable - somehow - to the citizens of any particualr nation. Something better than having to wade through the financial times - put it that way.

The postal system, for example, was moved into a crown corporation and seems to be running better as a result. I think that there are probably many services that would benefit from that kind of move.

[Michael Hardner]

From my perspective, government business is far too complex because government official are left accountable and we are inevitably left out of the decision making process. If we as citizens were more involved by our politicians in the decisions by leaving themselves subject to recall and turning parliament into a working body, executive and legislative at the same time this would force our elected officials to be completely transparent in their decisions which I might add would be taken physically and mentally in parliament instead of being done behind closed doors. One you reduce the role of government official to that of simply carrying out our instructions as responsible, revocable and modestly paid "foremen and accountants" then and only then will we have true democracy.

Decisions will always be made behind closed doors, but you're right there could be more done to align our services towards the consumers that use them. In private industry, individuals vote every time they buy a product but in our democracy they vote once every few years, and that vote is supposed to express how the voter feels about a large complex bundle of issues.

[bradco]

A number of months ago, before the arrival of my third baby (ya, since he has been born you can bet there hasn't been much time for posting !) ....

I commented in certain strings that I felt under the Bush Administration it seemed to me that democracy had been on a down-hill slide in America and that the events leading up to 911 and Iraq were sorely affected by a power hungry government.

I have recently come across a book by Miller, "Cruel and Unusual" who is an expert in this debate and who outlines many interesting facts and opinion in his book.

In particular his criticism of the press, its biases, and lack of responsibility to the American public is excellent.

Has anybody read it ?

I would think you should be looking at the same thing happening on the Canadian side of the border. Under first Chretian and then Martin our freedoms were quickly deteriorating, even though both of these leaders were definitely anti-American. Under a Liberal government they were willing to allow the appointed, unaccountable Supreme Court looneytoon judges to have the last word on everything in this country, and both Chretien and Martin said so publically. I don't know about you, but if these clowns are going to be making decisions that affects the way we live our lives as Canadians, then I want those people to be elected to office so that they can not only be held responsible for their decisions, but we the people can fire their asses. Canada a democracy? What fairytale have you been reading?

The final word on legislation is never fully given to the surpreme court "looneytoon" judges. Even if Chretien and Martin were willing to do so, if the majority of Canadian people fully disagreed with this practise, they could vote them out the next election.

Personally I don't like the idea of an elected surpreme court. It is not elected for a reason....it is not supposed to be political. An unelected court is what makes Canada (and other western countries) a democracy. A democracy is not simply majority rule. A democracy is majority rule with respect for minorities and an unelected court is what provides for that protection. That being said I do believe the current process of selecting members is broken on the grounds that they are appointments made (in both the US and Canada) on the grounds of someones politics. We need to find a new way of making these appointments but elections is not the answer.

[yam]

Are you advocating pure objectivity here?

I dont know how the political side that taints most things could be excluded. if it was then would it not be risking something of an authoritarian state?

Perhaps not though if the process was transparent. . . .accountable.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Another great indicator of the erosion of democracy in the U.S. is the widening gap between rich and poor. How can the most powerful people in your country defend the interest of the general populace when their interests are diametrically opposed?

link

And what does the Wealthy One Percent want? Answer: more wealth. Where will they get it? As with a tube of toothpaste, they're squeezing it from the bottom. Median paychecks have gone down by 5.9% during the current regime, but Americans in the bottom fifth have seen their incomes sliced by 20%

This week, Dupont, the chemical giant, slashed employee pension benefits by two-thirds. Furthermore, new Dupont workers won't get a guaranteed pension at all -- and no health care after retirement. It's part of Dupont's new "Die Young" program, I hear. Dupont is not in financial straits. Rather, the slash attack on its workers' pensions was aimed at adding a crucial three cents a share to company earnings, from $3.11 per share to $3.14.

When Reagan took power in 1980, the One Percent possessed 33% of America's wealth as measured by capital income. By 2006, the One Percent has swallowed over half of all America's assets, from sea to shining sea. One hundred fifty million Americans altogether own less than 3% of all private assets.

Whatever happened to "By the People, For the People"?

[Michael Hardner]

Another great indicator of the erosion of democracy in the U.S. is the widening gap between rich and poor. How can the most powerful people in your country defend the interest of the general populace when their interests are diametrically opposed?

You've hit on the current sleeping giant of politics, IMO. The Democrats don't have much more incentive than the Republicans to do anything about this, as they are connected to the same wealthy interests as the Republicans. ( See Hillary Clinton's ties to Walmart. )

A respectable third party could emerge with a platform that combines strong immigration reform, protectionism, and more money for the middle classes. That would be a big draw for voters across the political spectrum but they would need to snag the right kind of candidates from the other parties in order to draw interest.

[jbg]

A respectable third party could emerge with a platform that combines strong immigration reform, protectionism, and more money for the middle classes. That would be a big draw for voters across the political spectrum but they would need to snag the right kind of candidates from the other parties in order to draw interest.

For many reasons, that's a practical impossibility in our system. The last changeover of political parties was the implosion of the Whigs, replaced almost immediately by the Republicans. That occurred between the 1852 election and 1860. The constitutional structure of our country (nothing in the Constitution, but the way voting is held), and the way campaigns are financed, makes that almost impossible.

In fact, the biggest problem is the knife-edge balance between the parties, characterizing each election since 1992 (except 1996, an incumbent blow-away). This tends to drive policies towards the center for both parties, notwithstanding rhetoric to the contrary. If one of the mainstream parties drifts too much, as the Democrats did in 2004, it is punished.