Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JNathanK

(185 posts)
4. Its a bit confusing. They never actually explain what they mean by that.
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 03:23 AM
Jul 2012

I sort of wonder if they're just regurgitating whatever meme they hear on talk radio without understanding the full implications of what they say.

That's technically the type of democracy they would have had in England at the time, the roman type where the noble class holds elections with everyone else excluded. In the post, I made the mistake of looking at it from the perspective of the modern English parliament, but there was no representation for commoners in the 1700's. So when he speaks of democracy, its in a more archaic sense of the term. He talks about replacing the mixed style government with one where all people of all stripes have equal representation, which is basically what the modern understanding of democracy is.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What's with all the democ...»Reply #4