Do You Think the US is really a Democracy??

[Grasshopper]

Do You Think the US is really a Democracy??

Given light of the last election....


Yes or No?

I do not. I think what we currently have is a bureaucratic oligarchy.

The system is incredibly broke.

[Jasonik]

The system is a 'Constitutional Republic' which means 'representative democracy.' Since in contemporary politics [campaign donor = constituent] this limits the average person. But in the sense of a republic it's fine that way. True Democracy or 'mob rule' is a really scary thing IMO and very undesirable.

[SobaViolence]

read Jean Jacques Rousseau.

at the very superficial, the United States of America is an indirect democracy.

wether they actually practice democracy is up to question. i don't think so. money is the only thing anyone in the US truly believes in. at least, only the Americans with power.

so the US is an indirect, greed capitalist democracy.

(there are 3 kinds of capitalist: social, pure and greed)

[D_Raay]

The only part of the American system which is borrowed from "democracy" is the popular election of government officials. Except for this, the Founders strongly emphasized the republican aspects of the American system. A republic places the responsibility for sound government and decision-making on the people's elected representatives rather than allowing the fluctuating and superficial emotions of the people to override law and order or the rights of minorities. The classical example of government functioning on republican principles and prevailing over "pure democracy" would be the case of a sheriff protecting a prisoner against a lynch mob.

[Grasshopper]

yes, thank you intelligent posters. I think the problem is that the usage of the word democracy by our politicians and our president is a misrepresentation, as well as what we all learn in high school and college.

I mean, even in terms of 'constitutional republic' -- we are all kidding ourselves. The population of the united states itself is too large for this framework to work.


Let's keep discussing...

[Funkaloyd]

The only part of the American system which is borrowed from "democracy" is the popular election of government officials.

Even that's largely different. The electoral college ensures that some people's votes are worth more than others.

[Blighty]

You've only got to look at the current presidential election to know that the United States is not a democracy. There are many candidates running but only two get any real media coverage and therefore any voice in this or any election. If the power was in the hands of the people would it really be a case of two multi-millionaire blueblood cousins running against each other with no hope of any other candidate getting into the Whitehouse?

[paulk]

You've only got to look at the current presidential election to know that the United States is not a democracy. There are many candidates running but only two get any real media coverage and therefore any voice in this or any election. If the power was in the hands of the people would it really be a case of two multi-millionaire blueblood cousins running against each other with no hope of any other candidate getting into the Whitehouse?

Word. We got some mad oligarchy shit going on up in here.

[yeahwho]

Word. We got some mad oligarchy shit going on up in here.

Larry McMurtry has found some, A fellow Texan's view of Da Dubbwa,

Texans are not in lockstep loyalty to Bush or the Bushes, however. Larry McMurtry, the great writer ("Lonesome Dove") and spokesman for his state says Bush is not a real cowboy or a real Texan. "I don't like him at all, and I think his is the worst presidency of my lifetime," McMurtry says. He calls Bush a "Yankee patrician" who only masquerades as a Texan -- a "pure impostor" who is "a Yankee oligarch" with "a dictatorial temperament."

[Funkaloyd]

Blightly, do you remember when you said that Kerry wouldn't be running against Bush, as that would be too candid for the system (both being Bonesmen)? Well I was right, we've convinced them that we're stupid :P

[yeahwho]

Blightly, do you remember when you said that Kerry wouldn't be running against Bush, as that would be too candid for the system (both being Bonesmen)? Well I was right, we've convinced them that we're stupid :P

Yep. Bevare.

[Space]

i think it is more of a republic than a democracy, and i dont not feel like we will really live in a free country when we only have two PRIMARY PARTY canidates to vote as long as we are united by 50 states.

[Blighty]

Blightly, do you remember when you said that Kerry wouldn't be running against Bush, as that would be too candid for the system (both being Bonesmen)? Well I was right, we've convinced them that we're stupid :P

Yep. That regularly pops into my head. I was very wrong. There's little attention being paid to the Skull And Bones connection. People don't care. Or certainly the media is paying little attention. This is a Vietnam election not a Skull And Bones election.

[Uru-Nitro]

money is the only thing anyone in the US truly believes in. at least, only the Americans with power.

[ChrisLove]

Essentially the issue of leadership of a country creates what is known as a principal-agent problem. We have discussed this before but basically the problem you have is to ensure that the goals of the president/leader are the same as the goals of the society they represent. Democracy as a basic premise is about as close as anyone has got to achieving that although it is actually quite a long way off.


The principal agent problem is often found in large corperations were shareholders seek to ensure that the CEOs goals match there own this has been achieved effectively with large performance based salaries (tournament models) and share option schemes (and other things) In the political world , the CEO is the president and the shareholders are the electorate...

To resolve the principal agent problem it is essential to ensure that the leader;

-Can not profit from any decision they make that does not benefit the country - ie his financial rewards must be tied into the performance of the country and his influence on the welfare of every citizen, equally weighted.This mirrors the approach taken by big business.

-Political Candidates should not be allowed to receive donations to run their campaigns ( I beleve), donations to political parties buy political power and seperate the goals of the leader (agent) from the goals of the electorate (principal).

- A large range of potential leaders must be available offering different styles and approaches. A two party system is simply not good enough to create real choice, competition breeds innovation and differentiation the two party system breeds clones.


Clearly most politcal systems do not fair well against these criteria, the US failing particulalry badly with regards to the tendancy for the president to be bought. Signs that Bush is actng in the interest of the profit of himself, his family and the businesses who backed him seem to come out of every decision he makes.

I would suggest the following ideas to help with the problem.

1) The job of president should pay an unbelieveable salary, like many many millions of dollars a year (I dont know what it pays now), this salary hould be linked to a number of performance targets, like unemployment, personal approval rating, economic growth and stuff. This should help to bring the financial goals of the president in line with soceity and make it much harder to buy the president because any decision taken to benefit a particular business over society would carry a large personal cost to the president which would have to be outweighed by the bribe/donation being offered by the company.

2) Political parties should be given a set budget paid for by the taxpayer with which to campaign for elections. Perhaps the budget would be condtional on achieveing a certain percentage of the vote in order to avoid fraud. This should reduce the reliance of parties on bribes and open the political competition up to more candidates. Care would have to be taken to avoid abuse of the system.

I cant think of anymore of the top of my head, I would invite additons from others.

[D_Raay]

Larry McMurtry has found some, A fellow Texan's view of Da Dubbwa,

Texans are not in lockstep loyalty to Bush or the Bushes, however. Larry McMurtry, the great writer ("Lonesome Dove") and spokesman for his state says Bush is not a real cowboy or a real Texan. "I don't like him at all, and I think his is the worst presidency of my lifetime," McMurtry says. He calls Bush a "Yankee patrician" who only masquerades as a Texan -- a "pure impostor" who is "a Yankee oligarch" with "a dictatorial temperament."
Rather ironic that "Lonesome Dove" is Dubbya's favorite book.

[Ace42]

1) The job of president should pay an unbelieveable salary, like many many millions of dollars a year (I dont know what it pays now), this salary hould be linked to a number of performance targets, like unemployment, personal approval rating, economic growth and stuff. This should help to bring the financial goals of the president in line with soceity and make it much harder to buy the president because any decision taken to benefit a particular business over society would carry a large personal cost to the president which would have to be outweighed by the bribe/donation being offered by the company.


Shurely this would cost an insane amount, and a preisident whose term benefits from positive coincidental factors will end up being incredibly rich, whereas an outstanding president who happens to have bad luck might well be short-changed? Furthermore, the over-rich tend to have a cavilier "fuck it, I'll be rich enough" attitude as it is. And also, a lot of policies have long lasting rammifications, large payments will not take into account the long-term results of what could be ostensibly short-term policies.

[ChrisLove]

Shurely this would cost an insane amount, and a preisident whose term benefits from positive coincidental factors will end up being incredibly rich, whereas an outstanding president who happens to have bad luck might well be short-changed? Furthermore, the over-rich tend to have a cavilier "fuck it, I'll be rich enough" attitude as it is. And also, a lot of policies have long lasting rammifications, large payments will not take into account the long-term results of what could be ostensibly short-term policies.

Maybe the cost would be substantial, but to have a positive influence it does not nessecarily have to be that big. If a 'unit' of political influence cost 100 million dollars now and then my performance target idea raises the cost of a unit of political influence to 150 million dollars (for example) then it is likely to reduce the amount of political influence sold (through supply and demand).

In the case of a polluting industry, say it costs a certain amount to bribe the president to pretend that global warming is not going on, now if you raise the cost of that bribe (and by bribe I include political donations) substantially, then it might become cheaper for the firm to actaully produce less pollution rather than the bribe, maybe....(thats just an example of how it might work)

I would deem it conceivable that at some level such a scheme could have social benefits in excess of the cost of paying the wage.

In terms of coincidental factors and luck, you are right that this is a problem as it is in the corperate principal agent issue I mentioned earlier, here is a journal article about it, I think you will need an athens account to read it but the abstract about covers it .

http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/qjecon/v116y2001i3p901-932.html

Nonetheless I am sure some sort of performance targets could be modified to cover the president against uncontrollable factors, and maybe it doesnt matter anyway.

I have no answer to the issue of long term policies other than to have the rewards tied to long term goals that continue after the presidency or to have the performance targets based on how the pres approaches long term goals - on a short term basis.

I havnt thought it all through yet, and its entirely academic anyway because it involes taking power away from the president and giving it to whoever decides what the long term goals should be, I am trying to apply an approach simular to that taken with regards to monetary policy, ie take the important decisions away from elected officials who do not have the publics interests at heart.

[Ace42]

It is certainly an interesting work in progress. Just be careful, political ideologies can get you into a lot of hot water - look at Marx and Engels.

[SobaViolence]

the over-rich tend to have a cavilier "fuck it, I'll be rich enough" attitude as it is.

dude...the only thing someone with money wants is more money. Especially the ultra-rich. And quickly. And with little cost to them.