For years, when I bumped into an old friend or acquaintance I hadn't seen in a while and they asked

[Atticus]

"How are you doing?", I'd reply "I liked it better when we lived in a democracy". And, some would immediately, with a grin, characterize that as "Still obsessed with that political crap, eh?"

My attitude seems even more appropriate today.

A clear majority selected Al Gore and Hillary Clinton to lead us. It didn't matter.

A clear majority wants assault rifles and large magazines outlawed. It doesn't matter.

A clear majority now wants women to retain the right to terminate an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy. It doesn't matter.

I liked it better when we lived in a democracy.

[Pacifist Patriot]

1. Preach

And I'm stealing your line. Totally using it the next time someone asks!

[multigraincracker]

2. Here ya go....

At least we still have the best government money can buy.

[Freddie]

3. Minority rule will be the end of this country

I don’t know how, and probably not in my lifetime, but continued minority rule will eventually lead to violence. It won’t be pretty.

[Dave says]

14. I know you mean more extensively,

Last edited Tue May 3, 2022, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)

But we already live in a nation with our fill of political violence.

For me, that realization came in 2014 when Ferguson, a tiny little town by St. Louis, Missouri, rolled out the militarized police to suppress (what started as) peaceful protests after the murder of Michael Brown. I was there, then, and watched it unfold.

Why did the police have such gear? Minority rule. A small enclave of whites led city government, and that government ruled over its people of color. When a white policeman shot Michael and they left his body in the hot sun for hours, unrest grew.

In almost no time, right wing provocateurs appeared, breaking windows and rallying the peaceful protestors to join them in their violence. (Doubt me on the provocateurs? One of them, Cassandra Fairbanks, went on to the national stage afterward.)

No matter, the white leaders decided to protect their privilege with tear gas, armored personnel carriers, and rubber bullets.

Is this what’s ahead for us across the country? 400 or so families ruled over El Salvador in the seventies and eighties with disappearances, death squads, and brutal oppression. We’re not even close to that, but the slippery slope is greased by money and greed. Lots of it.

For the two or three of you who haven’t seen this before:

“ The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
— Frank Zappa


On edit: Corrected use of wrong word. Used "bereft" when I meant the opposite. Thank you kind person who pointed it out.

[FoxNewsSucks]

16. Same thing happened to the native Americans in North Dakota

Protesting the pipeline, they were treated as badly or even worse. It just didn't get much news coverage because of the remote location

[DENVERPOPS]

29. Goo one Dave

I have always liked the one by some frenchman? who back in the 1700's? said something like:

"Democracy is great, until some group figures out that they can vote themselves money........"

[Dave says]

35. Some more goo: Late, mature capitalism requires authoritarianism and oppression to maintain

Here goes another journey into over-simplification (on my part):

This was once the land of opportunity. You could pass through Ellis Island, open a sausage shop on a corner in Manhattan, and provide a nice life for yourself and your family. But in late-stage capitalism, one or two giant corporations have already put sausage shops on every corner. There's no opportunity left for the little guy. Instead, he or she has only his or her labor to sell and from an asymmetric bargaining position (resulting in low wages as a greater part of the value the laborer creates is appropriated by the corporation). Government, in this situation, is tasked with maintaining this imbalance via every means necessary.

(There are incredible exceptions to this, but most grow out of affluent, educated circumstances, a distinct advantage over the everyday Joe or Jill in today's world.)

Beside maintaining the status quo for the already advantaged, government functions as a siphon of cash from the many to be redirecting to the powerful. War, for example, makes a lot of money for very few. Every bomb burst or bullet fired must be replaced so it becomes a perpetual source of funds for the few giant corporations that make them. Thus war, large and small, is always taking place.

Now the difficulty for the many is we have two votes in America: first, there is the dollar vote, followed by the democratic vote. For a candidate to run, especially at a whole-state (eg. senator) or national level, much money is needed. The candidate will not accrue enough campaign funds if he or she espouses positions and policies that impinge too greatly on those sausage and war-making corporations' stranglehold on their markets. Simply, the apple does not fall far from the tree of capital. What the rest of us get to vote for are candidates who do not stray far from their corporate masters. Nothing that threatens the position of the already-advantaged gets enacted. And here we are. We are seemingly just not allowed to have good things.

How many times have you observed something the majority of Americans want that somehow our politicians cannot enact for us? Meanwhile the propaganda machines of the powerful work to dull our consciousness of what we really value so that we fall in line behind the status quo.

(There are exceptions - our government does some good things for many people. These are allowed as long as capital is not threatened.)

[mountain grammy]

46. Good post. Pretty much sums it up.

[Jakes Progress]

20. A flaw built into the constitution to placate slavers.

There is no logical reason why a vote for senator in Wyoming should count so much more than a vote for senator in California. But selfish, immoral slavers demanded their way or they would kill the chance at a constitution. We have been more or less letting them win for over 200 years.

[Freddie]

25. And we can't get rid of it because...minority rules

[Evolve Dammit]

4. nailed it Atticus. Thanks

[kairos12]

5. I always get the "we don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic line."

I respond to that saying that is dogshit without a dis-stink-tion. Emphasis on stink.

[niyad]

8. I always ask them to explain the difference.

[AllTooEasy]

40. You both need a civics lesson. We live in a "Constitutional Republic"

Democracy - Majority opinion rules. No legislative branch/representatives. Majority Votes directly create laws. No constitutional protections either. If the majority votes for slavery, then slavery is legal until the majority votes differently. We do NOT live in a pure Democracy.

Republic - Voters select representatives for their geographic areas (districts/states/etc.), demographics (gender/religion/occupation/etc.), or however they want to divide themselves. Laws are created by the majority opinion of representatives, which may not reflect the majority opinion of the complete voting populous (see Pure Democracy). Prime Example: The Electoral College. No constitutional protections either. If the majority of the voting populous is anti-slavery, but the majority of the representatives/districts are pro-slavery, then slavery is legal. Also, the political party with the majority of representatives could vote to criminalize all opposition parties, decertify "undesirable" elections, etc. Ex: North Korea and China. The US is NOT a pure Republic.

Constitutional Republic - See Republic and add Constitutional Protections, which are "interpreted" by the Judiciary. If pro-slavery judges interpret slavery as a constitutional right, then a majority anti-slavery voting populous and a majority anti-slavery legislature just have to deal with pro-slavery districts implementing slavery...until the anti-slavery representatives can gain enough legislative votes to explicitly amend the constitution favorably to their opinion, or favorably replaces pro-slavery judges/justices that die, retire, or are impeached. The US is a Constitutional Republic (in theory).

I'm sick of hearing folks from both sides of the political aisle scream "The US isn't a Democracy!" or "Our Democracy is lie!" when Judicial Oversight doesn't go their way. If you paid enough attention in your high school civics class, you would know that we've always been "kind of a Democracy", but not really. I expect this type of ignorance from conservatives. All liberals should know better. McConnell sure did.

[niyad]

45. Thank you so very much for the civics lesson. You will notice, of course, that

nowhere in that post did I use either word.

[Septua]

49. Laws are created by the majority opinion of representatives

Voters select representatives for their geographic areas

..which are based on congressional districts which can sometimes be drawn to favor one party or the other?

"How to steal an election"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

[Ohioboy]

10. I always remind them of republics like North Korea and China

It usually shuts them up because most idiots spouting the "it's a republic" line don't know what they are talking about, and are unaware of how bad republics can get without democracy.

[Wounded Bear]

19. There is a reason all those commie states called themselves "Democratic People's Republics"...

Authoritarianism starts with words and labeling. Kind of like what Frank Luntz and the repubs have been doing for decades, by focus group testing all their favorite catch words and phrases.

Welcome to Gilead.

[AllTooEasy]

42. Correction "without Constitutional Protections". See Post 40

The US is a Constitutional Republic. All Republics, by definition, require some voting/Democracy, but not all Republics have our Constitutional Protections (ex. China, N. Korea).

For example: The US Constitution grants you freedom of religion. You can embrace any religion you want, embrace none of them, or even start your own with Yo Bad Self! If %99.99 of Americans want to strip you of your religious choice, the US Constitution says "F 'em".

Democracy (majority rule), atleast in this scenario, would say "you better make a another choice or else"

[Ohioboy]

47. Yes, you are correct. But let me explain the way I view democracy and the Constitution.

To me, our Constitution was designed to be a reflection of democracy.

This is because the Constitution itself can be amended through democracy. I think of it as if democracy and the Constitution form a check and balance system.


It is this aspect of democracy, spelled out in the Constitution itself, that I am thinking of when I say it is "democracy" that keeps our republic from going the way of N. Korea and China.

For example, we amended away slavery. The amendment was accomplished by representatives voting to abolish slavery. The representatives were in theory voting for their constituents. The original Constitutional protections weren't enough to protect against slavery and needed changed. The changes were made democratically.

[Lonestarblue]

6. My last hopes for the country are pinned on the election this Fall.

If Democrats can hold on to the House and add a net gain of at least two Senators (three would be great), the country has a chance of surviving because they can pass fair voting laws, make abortion legal again, raise the Medicare age, add DC and Puerto Rico as states, and consider expanding the SC. If Republicans take both chambers, absolutely nothing will get done except to hold hearings to impeach Biden and Harris. Without changes to votings laws and gerrymandering, Republicans will take the White House and Congress in 2024–Texas has already shown how to throw out thousands of mail ballots. And that will be the end of US democracy because fair elections will become a thing of the past. I wish I could be more optimistic, but we have the power elite, the Supreme Court, and the Republican Party all determined to overturn democratic rule.

[FoxNewsSucks]

17. I've seen no reason to be optimistic

What you described is exactly what has been happening, and what will happen.

And it seems too many elected democrats are OK with that. 2 senators, in particular

[Farmer-Rick]

7. This is how oligarchs rule you

They control your very basic necessities of life like food, (notice the huge price increase in food?) Water (They pollute it then try to charge you for the stuff they haven't tainted.) shelter (Have you seen a drop in rental prices? Me neither.) and sex.

Forcing birth and many children onto people who never wanted them is the ultimate control by the oligarchs, especially the Waltons, Kochs, Catholics and Putin. They all want a surplus population in hunger and poverty to control. This is their ultimate goal, their ultimate fantasy. For others to suffer so that they can manipulate them.

F*CK the little mysoginists on the Dancing Supremes. We are going to get women their abortions, birth control and health care anyway. Little pieces of crappy crap who crawled out of their septic sewers of religion to force their rediculus ideas onto us.

So exactly why didn't the Dems even attempt to increase the number of justices so that this would not happen?

[Tree Lady]

9. The founders set it up this way

To make it more fair to the smaller states not realizing in the future how many people there would be and the minority would end up ruling the vast majority.

[RicROC]

12. in addition to your point,

The Founders only had 13 states to consider and they were relatively the same size in population.

I keep repeating my thought, both our present US Senate and SCOTUS are obsolete in a representative democracy. While I do feel it is important to have representatives voted into office by the entire state, I think they should be folded into the US House of Representative.

SCOTUS should be expanded with term limits and my idea, at the end of every Judicial session, one Justice retires and a new Justice is appointed for the next session. ( or even better, expand to 21 justices and at the end of each session, two retire and 2 new ones are appointed, hence creating 10 year term limits)

[Tree Lady]

32. Absolutely agree but with the way

It is set up now and us not having enough senators that will vote to change it unlikely to ever happen.

[Rabrrrrrr]

36. and we need to go back to the first days, when one Rep represented 35,000 or so people.

We need a House with minimum 12,000 members.

Unwieldy? Perhaps; but it'll be impossible for any one person or group to take absolute control, and will make reps truly beholden to only their small constituency so that, so long as the people in their district like them, they get voted for again without needing to kowtow to the powers that be to get campaign funding or other bullshit.

And back in their districts, their constituents actually have a chance to get to know them, and the reps will actually have better understanding of the needs of their district because it'll be so much smaller.

[RicROC]

38. yes, and no cap to the # of Representatives...

as opposed to the sacred 435 number, which then need to be apportioned to the states.

[Rabrrrrrr]

43. Damn right!

Increase the number of reps every time a state's population rolls over another 35,000 people. Or, well, not every time - that could get out of control - but at least every 10 years with the census. After I typed that I was thinking every two years when new ones are elected, but I also realized that would mean redrawing the districts almost constantly and that would get insane. "When I was elected two months ago, you people voted for me! But since then, more people have been born, and now you are no longer in my district! You are in a new district! And you must now elect someone else! I am sorry, but Rabrrrrrr designed an insane system!"

[Jon King]

11. Roe v Wade is only the starting point for right wingers.

These religious and authoritarian types only get bolder. Many think they are opening a can of worms with independent voters, they will see it the opposite, that the country is with them.

Birth control, religion in schools, prison for political opponents on made up charges, even more restrictions on voting rights for those who oppose them.

Swing voters better wake up, not only is climate change going to destroy the futures of their kids and grand kids, but their kids are heading for a Taliban type oppressive America if they do not get their heads out of their tails and stop voting for 'moderate' Repugs.

[Cosmocat]

13. Y E P

People really have no idea what they are signing up for.

[hamsterjill]

15. Our challenge

Is to make it matter!

Dems need to get on it today!!! We have a vocal minority controlling this country and that needs to stop.

[aggiesal]

18. Packing the court doesn't sound so bad now ...

The Democratic presidential candidate has won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections yet the last 17 Supreme Court Justices confirmed, only 4 have been nominated by Democratic Presidents.
Talk about packing the court.

[czarjak]

21. Rigging the Court?

[Atticus]

22. BALANCING the Court to represent the people. nt

[aggiesal]

23. No, McTurtle has been packing the court n/t

[gab13by13]

26. The Federalist Society has been packing the court

backed by dark money from American oligarchs. Mitch McConnell is a pump handle for the billionaires.

Thom Hartmann said there were 4 billionaires when Reagan was president and now there are 400 because we stopped taxing the rich.
The only way to keep democracy is to tax the rich.

[malthaussen]

24. I'm thinking that States are obsolete.

Although this is a thorny question, replete with "what-ifs," like the much-mooted Filibuster question.

Our peculiar Federal/State structure makes for strange and inconsistent laws. And it always provides an opportunity for a minority to enact (or overturn) legislation that the vast majority of people in the country don't want.

-- Mal

[CaptainTruth]

27. Millions of people in the streets can make it matter.

IMHO that clear majority has become too complacent, too compliant. We just accept these things without exercising our right to protest on a massive scale.

If it matters to us, we need to stand up for it, literally.

[FailureToCommunicate]

28. "We can have democracy in this country, or...

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

-- JUSTICE LOUIS BRANDEIS

[Septua]

30. Minority Rule...semi-tangent

If you remember, Lindsey Graham said:

"If Republicans don't challenge and change the US election system, there will never be another Republican president elected again."

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1325991277364588551%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fus-republican-president-mail-in-voting-lindsey-graham-warns-2020-11

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-republican-president-mail-in-voting-lindsey-graham-warns-2020-11

The Republican Party can't win when the voting majority is allowed to vote.

[Martin68]

31. I still have hope that we can restore that democracy, but I couldn't say for sure at this point.

[MadameButterfly]

33. what you want is majority rule

When democracy is really over, it will be much much worse. And if we don't do something about it, that is coming.

[jaxexpat]

34. Democracy has been trashed to allow myopic blowhards and their bankrollers the field.

How else can we have the stupid rule for a time? Apparently, it's necessary in order to remind the general public what happens when they can't be bothered to care once every couple of years.

Still, it bites.

[Joinfortmill]

37. I'd like to live in a democracy. Not sure I have yet.

[FakeNoose]

39. Pretty soon we're ALL going to be saying that

Even the Repukes!

[Demovictory9]

41. a clear majority want the voting process to be easy

[PatrickforB]

44. Forgot one, Atticus!

A clear majority want Medicare for all Americans. It doesn't matter.

And, let's not forget...

A clear majority want the government to be able to negotiate drug prices down. It doesn't matter.

[progressoid]

48. We lived in a democracy?

I suppose that depends on who you ask.

[mahina]

50. The heart of your point contains the common ground that can save us.

The right feels that our government is corrupt. Well meaning, hard working civil servants keep the wheels on this bus but them aside, campaign finance is legal corruption with its intended effect.

We have an historic opportunity. I dont care what the polls say. The baddies have overplayed their hand. They clearly lied in confirmations going back to Clarence Thomas.

The trumpist v nontrumpist schism, failure to accept climate reality, known history of serving for billionaires' tax cuts alone, topped off with their open war on women is in my view going to give us an opportunity to strengthen our majorities and build enough power to moot Manchin/Sinema.

Give to Fair Fight, Tim Ryan, Rev Warnock (he may not need it but he's see it's used for us to win) and Beto.

Hold fast, dig deep, and bust out your calendar to volunteer.

[mahina]

51. The heart of your point contains the common ground that can save us.

The right feels that our government is corrupt. Well meaning, hard working civil servants keep the wheels on this bus but them aside, campaign finance is legal corruption with its intended effect.

We have an historic opportunity. I dont care what the polls say. The baddies have overplayed their hand. They clearly lied in confirmations going back to Clarence Thomas.

The trumpist v nontrumpist schism, failure to accept climate reality, known history of serving for billionaires' tax cuts alone, topped off with their open war on women is in my view going to give us an opportunity to strengthen our majorities and build enough power to moot Manchin/Sinema.

Give to Fair Fight, Tim Ryan, Rev Warnock (he may not need it but he's see it's used for us to win) and Beto.

Hold fast, dig deep, and bust out your calendar to volunteer.