No longer a democracy, but a capitalistic society. Not in the sense that we, Americans, are consumeristic, but in the sense that the government itself has become capitalistic. No longer is the goverment run for the people, by the people, and of the people, but for the money, of the company, and for the business.
Discuss.
–Tim
We are the children of the Eighties. We are not the first “lost generation” nor today’s lost generation; in fact, we think we know just where we stand - or are discovering it as we speak.
That would especially be true if someone like Forbes, Perot, or Trump becomes pres. They just want to buy the office. Also, you might say the Repubs have been buying or renting the office for a long time now (when they have it).
I don’t know any other way it can work, Homer. In order to get votes, you have to get millions of people to not only know your name, but to have some idea of what you stand for. The attention of millions of people comes at a high price. After all, they would rather be watching football or news or Ally McBeal. In order to interrupt their TV entertainment, or their radio entertainment, or their magazine entertainment, or their internet entertainment, with YOUR message you must outbid all the other politicians, as well as the retailers for this slice of their attention. And of course, there can be only so much of a slice for sale - people won’t watch TV that is nothing but ads.
Most people also will not voluntarily inform themselves about the political candidates, and even if they did they would have to do it through some medium that cost money - and was to some extent exclusionary (or perhaps you’d have everyone campaign on usenet, that would be a real hoot. Kibo for president!)
If its not a democracy, its because most people don’t care about democracy. But if its the way most people want it…thats kind of democratic isn’t it?
Yeah but why do we need politicians or representatives, anyway? It’s getting to the point where it would be feasible for people to govern themselves. We have a worldwide information network that everyone in the US has access to. Even if you don’t own your own computer, in most states you can go to a library and use one there.
Why can’t we rule ourselves? We could have a forum of lawyers who would type up the laws to be voted upon, they would be posted on a website with a secure server, and we would use our SSN to vote for the issues, laws, and statutes that we to be decided upon.
No reps, no President, no congress, we would be a self governing country. It’s feasible. Yeah, it’d be radical change, a revolution even, but it could work.
Tear me apart.
–Tim
We are the children of the Eighties. We are not the first “lost generation” nor today’s lost generation; in fact, we think we know just where we stand - or are discovering it as we speak.
I don’t think we can be a true democracy anymore, because not anyone that wants to become president can. I mean, my dad could run for president, but all the other candidates have very, very large amounts of capital, and can get their message across much more easily. So while everyone can run for president, not everyone has a fair chance at winning.
SanibelMan - My Homepage
“All right. Have it your own way. Road to hell paved with unbought stuffed dogs. Not my fault.”
It would help in this debate to get your terms straight. (for your help, we debated what democracies and republics were a couple months back; you can look up the thread if you promise the search engine a nice bribe )
A Democracy is simply a state (nation, country, governmental unit with borders, insert your own word here) in which the governing power is either directly or indirectly in the hands of the populace through the mechanism of voting. Here, we use both direct democratic methods (California is a classic example with its ballot measures) and indirect methods (voting for representatives who legislate for us, and executives who execute for us, and who appoint judges who judge us (when they aren’t directly elected as they are here in Ohio)). Thus, regardless of the main focus of the governing, if the people select the governors, it’s a Democracy.
A Republic is a government where the wellspring of governmental power is the people themselves. Contrast a monarchy, or a theocracy. England, for example, is a democratic monarchy; it is not truly a republic. By the same token, the People’s Republic of China is not truly democratic (no real choice in ‘elections’), but clearly republican because anyone can join the Communist party and the people are the basis of the government’s power.
During the late 1800’s, the government of America spent a lot of its effort greasing the skids for the corporations (trusts and the like); the period of 1912 to 1929 is filled with much the same. Last I checked, I still get to go to the voting booth and pull levers.
As for the idea that a ‘common man’ can’t become President today: that is nothing new. Never in the history of the country has a ‘common’ man become the president. All Presidents have been mean of means, even old Abe Lincoln. Indeed, one of the more interesting things to research about Presidents is the way they are interconnected. There are more of them who are related (often by marriage) to former Presidents than you probably know.
England is no such thing. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, though “democratic monarchy” is, I suppose, a fair description. Not only is it “not truly” a republic, it is not even remotely a republic by any stretch of the imagination.
I’m not sure what this thread is actually about (other than answering Homer’s homework question), but if it’s about the importance of money in the political process, there are three possible ways of dealing with it:
(1) State fuding of political parties: each party gets a certain amount of taxpayers’ money to fund their campaign. This wouldn’t necessarily work in the US, for example in primary elections. I think they do this in Italy (OK, so it’s not a great model of political stability and probity).
(2) Limit campaign expenditure. Say that a candidate in an election can’t spend more than a certain amount promoting his candidacy in any one campaign. The amount would vary so you could spend more in a Presidential election campaign than in a primary, more if you were running for the Senate than if you were running for Mayor, and so on.
(3) Party political broadcasts: Free TV slots of about 10 mins each provided to the main parties in an election. IIRC, each of the parties (including the whacko ones) got about four of these during the 1997 general election here.
The USA became an EMPIRE in 1936-that was when FDR took control of the third (Judicial) branch of government. Since that time, we have had WARs by presidential fiat (like Vietnam and the Gulf conflict)-Congress was not even consulted. And our presidency bears most of the trappings of late-imperial Ropme (Praetorian Guard, corrupt senate(look no farther than the always-drunken Ted Kennedy!)Clintons last inagueration was a coronation in reality!
TomH, the issue of whether England is a ‘constitutional’ monarchy is silly; all countries have a constitution. England’s just happens to prescribe a democratic method of selecting the advisors to the king. That makes it, in my book, a democratic monarchy; the people who actually govern are elected by the people.
As to the issue of a republic, I believe I mentioned it isn’t one. Of course, given the fact the monarchs have essentially yielded all power to the advisors, the technical fact that the crown remains the wellspring of legal authority is a tired effort to cling to a romantic past. Within the next 50 years, the monarchy will lose its legal status, completing the evolution from a country lead by a family head to a country run by its people.
DHYoungEsq, When I wrote “England is no such thing”, I meant England is no such thing. The UK is. I was probably being unnecessarily arch, though.
“Constitutional monarchy” (as opposed to “absolute monarchy”) is the way that our system is usually described over here, though I agreed that “democratic monarchy” is a fair description. As I said, that wasn’t really the point I was getting at.
I still think, though, that to describe the UK as “not truly a republic” is unnecessarily mealy-mouthed. It’s like saying that Bill Clinton is “not truly a Republican” The UK is not a republic by any stretch of the imagination and to suggest that that is the case is not “a tired effort to cling to a romantic past” at all.
This goes beyond the “technical fact that the Crown is the wellspring of legal authority”. In fact it isn’t, it is the Crown in Parliament which is sovereign, a different proposition entirely. The Crown has no authority to legislate without the consent of Parliament.
There are, however, a number of areas where the monarch does exercise significant political authority, in secret and without any popular mandate. What about, for example, the decision to appoint Home as Prime Minister when Macmillan resigned? What about the formation of the National Government in 1936? What about decisions to dissolve Parliament? The fact that the Royal Assent has not been withheld for a few hundred years does not mean that we have ceased to be a monarchy. This is typically the argument trotted out by pro-monarchists: “she doesn’t have any real power anyway”. Yes, she does.
As for your prediction, I think 50 years is too short a time-scale. It’s taken 90 years to get round to restricting the rights of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. I doubt that we’ll abolish the monarchy in my lifetime.
)