Okay, you've changed the subject. The German comment was that we were
"damaging democracy," the implied assumption of that comment being that
there was something to damage.
Short answer to your question, we have always called ourselves a
"Republic" and not a Democracy. Democracy is what we as a Republic
practice not what we are. Just as the EU is composed of Welfare States
and not Democracies and yet practice democracy to some extent. We all
in the west practice it enough to fit into Francis Fukuyama's definition
of "Liberal democracy."
We began here in the United States as a collection of states and so
states rights are never far from view. No one here is proposing that we
get rid of state governments and have just one centralized government.
As background, we began our "United States" mistrusting a strong
centralized government and many (most?) of us still do. Although if you
look at a map of how we voted you will see that the largest cities,
being used to the necessity of large bureaucracies to manage their
complicated needs favor the EU type centralized government and
welfare-state socialistic laws and regulations; whereas the outlying
smaller cities and towns tend to let people do more things for
themselves. These people and I count myself as one of them tend to
resent centralized government interference. We favor more state's rights
and less government interference.
Our voting system, using the electoral college is one of the means we
have for protecting the rights of smaller states to exist without being
overruled by the larger ones. I'm seeing a future when smaller towns
and cities are going to wish that had a similar right to prevent their
being overruled by the larger cities.
You assume that it is absurd NOT to allow the majority to over-rule
states rights, but we feel the large more populous cities and states
breathing down our necks and would be appalled at the idea of abandoning
our Republic for a Democracy and so risk (as I believe Plato argued)
some crowd pleaser making an empire or dictatorship of us.
Our system requires a peaceful transference of power every eight years
(or four if a standing president is defeated in an election). I read
recently in which the reviewer describes one of the causes of Germany's
20th century ills as their having no experience in transferring power
peacefully.
We've made it difficult to change our constitution or Bill of Rights in
order to prevent some current majority from easily changing laws to suit
current fads and opinions.
What you seem to be assuming is a standard of democratic government that
we need a defense for not adhering to. I certainly don't assume that.
Francis Fukuyama has used the term "Liberal Democracy" to encompass any
of the mostly western states who have a variety of governmental forms
all of which practice more or less modern economic practices which
require considerable freedom to achieve the maximum amount of success.
The idea of a centralized government dictating to its citizens has been
curtailed in these governments to a considerable degree thanks to
lessons taught them by German systems of government.
One of the reasons for Trump's success is his argument that our
government needs to place fewer restrictions upon our corporations and
businesses in order for them to be willing to do their work here rather
than outsourcing it to foreign nations. One of the methods he proposes
for doing this is lowering taxes, which an administration which believes
in smaller government is willing to do because it has fewer ambitions
regarding the dictation to and administration of its citizens. A large
Welfare-state type government will need more tax money in order to
manage the needs of its people. Thus, here in the United States the
Democratic Party, favoring the welfare state to a large extent, also
favors higher taxes. The Republican party on the other hand has
traditionally favored smaller government and so needs (or ought to need)
less money from taxes.
Are any Germans criticizing the rioting some of our malcontents are
engaging in over here? The reasons they give for these riots is a
hatred of the person elected. We didn't vote their way and so they
riot. What are we teaching our children that they think this is
acceptable? Maybe we need to lay this off on Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi
and Martin Luther King. Demonstrations and or riots seem to be a modern
addendum to our Liberal-Democratic forms of government.
Lawrence
On 11/10/2016 12:00 AM, Donal McEvoy (Redacted sender donalmcevoyuk for
DMARC) wrote:
>How can America be damaging democracy if we just held a democratic election and are willing to abide by the results?>
Some questions.
What is the current best defence for the electoral college system as being "democratic" as opposed to judging the election by who got the most votes from individual voters?
Is it not questionable, and even absurd, that the Presidential candidate with 'most votes from the voters' loses because these are not translated into a majority in terms of the electoral college? How is this now defensible (it may have been defensible in 1776 of course when individual voters might not even know who the candidates were, never mind much about them - and so entrusted their 'vote' to a representative to cast for them in an electoral college - but does this make it more than an anachronism?)? Quite clearly it means that the votes of individual citizens are not of equal weight in deciding the outcome - how is that "democratic"? (To be clear, the fact the individual's vote has some weight is somewhat democratic - but the absence of 'equal weight' to each vote is surely somewhat, and perhaps seriously, undemocratic.)
Clinton appears likely to have won the 'popular vote' yet the loser of the 'popular vote' becomes President? Explain and defend this in terms of what a "democratic election" for President should be achieving?
The defence has to be better than "'the present arrangement' suits my party" or that "both parties can be (unfairly) advantaged by the present arrangement".
This is not a left/right issue, it seems to me, but an issue about the character of democracy that cuts across left and right allegiance.
Trump made much of rigged systems. He's been quiet so far about the most blatant rigging of all in the system.
D
L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Sent:* Wednesday, 9 November 2016, 18:22
*Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: A German View of the American Election
Some interesting comments although I'm not sure what is meant here by
"damaging democracy." How can America be damaging democracy if we just
held a democratic election and are willing to abide by the results? I
can't help but suspect that what is meant by this term is the
Welfare-statism that is under attack in Europe by those who don't agree
with the non-democratic decisions being made in Brussels.
Then too I think that Bush's attacks were against extremists in an
already destabilized Middle East. He may have been naive in thinking he
could stabilize the region, but it seemed reasonable at the time to take
some sort of action to discourage attacks against the West. Of course
there were many at the time who supported the "stabilization" of Saddam
Hussein. Many politicians on the other hand couldn't do that with a
straight face.
As to the weakening of the U.S. and Western Europe, there are many who
blame EU-type policies (policies which Obama also subscribed to) for
that, especially the practice of experimental regulations not designed
to protect the livelihoods of ordinary citizens. Mistrust of these
"democratic" policies gave rise to Brexit and during the political
discussions yesterday I heard a British reporter who was covering the
U.S. election say he saw a relationship between Brexit and Trump. The
dissatisfaction with Welfare (Democratic?) policies gave rise to
policies and people who would oppose them.
I haven't been interested in politics in recent years but I have to
admit that I found what happened yesterday very interesting. Some of the
German comments seem naive. Trump is a president not an emperor or a
dictator. If he takes actions that are unlawful he can be impeached.
If his political acumen turns out to be deficient, he can be removed
from office in four years. But the sorts of things he spoke of, such as
lowering corporate income tax (we apparently have the highest such tax
in the world) so that corporations will be willing to keep their
activities (and consequent jobs) here in the U.S. are policies many
blue-collar workers appreciate. Trump also excoriated the Bush and
Clinton wars saying he wouldn't be engaging in that sort of thing. In
fact some see an implied Isolationism. And in view of this, I would
think the reverse would be a more legitimate fear, that is, that a war
would start, say by Russia, that would threaten some EU nations and
rather than step in as the U.S. has been willing to do in the past,
Trump keeps his hands in his pockets and says, "good luck over there."
Lawrence
On 11/9/2016 12:29 AM, epostboxx@xxxxxxxx <mailto:epostboxx@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The following commentary appeared on Monday (i.e., BEFORE the election) on the English website of Germany’s leading newsmagazine. I offer it as a prime example of German thinking about the state of democracy in America.
>
> (NOTE: I myself an NOT German, and my view is not quite so dark — but I feel the article gives a good account of many Germans’ fear of populism in the U.S. — and in the democratic process in general — and indicates well from where that fear arises.)
>
> America’s Election Is Damaging Democracy - SPIEGEL ONLINE November 07, 2016 11:06 PM
>
> "There used to be an American sense of comfort in transformation, in change, in the pendulum's eternal swing. It was an American certainty: Even if the present is dreary and gray, there would still be the future, and the future would be bright.
>
> "But there was more than that -- this age-old American attitude that anyone can take charge of their destiny at any time. If you don't like your job, you just quit. If you don't like the East Coast, you move out west. You thought George W. Bush was the worst president since 1945? No worries -- there are term limits, after all, and a Barack Obama can always come along.
>
> "Such was the thinking of millions of people in the United States -- even among political scientists and historians. It was perhaps a childish view -- the idea that opportunity would always be there because lasting failure and destruction was something that could only happen elsewhere. A Germany that triggered and lost World War II is incapable of that kind of thinking. But for an America that has long been pleased with itself, optimism about life was the default setting.
>
> "The fear, though, is new. Fear of social decline, of all things foreign and even of progress.
>
> "So, too, are the errors, and there have been far too many of them.
>
> "How, for example, could the Democratic Party have allowed itself to arrive at this level of dependency on the Clintons -- how could it have slumped into such dynastic thinking? Everyone in the party knows that Hillary Clinton was strong in her campaign against Obama eight years ago -- and they know that she is no longer strong today. Instead, she's frozen, someone who has been around for what feels like an eternity. She still doesn't grasp her 2008 defeat and this time wants to prevail in her aspiration. It is reckless for a party to push through a weak candidate purely out of principle. And how sad it is that few are still speaking of this wonderful goal, of finally -- after 43 men -- shattering possibly the last remaining glass ceiling by electing the first female president. There is no more passion or lightness in the Clinton camp -- just panic, fear that the most absurd opponent seen in the past 100 years cannot be defeated.
>
> "How could the entire country have allowed the democracy for which it stands to fall into this degree of decline? Years ago, two ranting men emerged at the margins of society with a format called "talk radio": Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Americans have always been addicted to entertainment and that helped allow these two stars to enter the mainstream. And little by little, mainstream society began resembling them. Hateful. Self-righteous. Intolerant. Frightened. Loud. And disdainful of all that seemed too distant: education, ideas, industriousness. The US became a dysfunctional country that was no longer capable of debate, barely capable of making or sticking to decisions and one that had lost that which had once been its source of strength -- and it found nothing new to replace it, at least nothing novel and good. Were this a company, the diagnosis would be as follows: management has abandoned the core brand and botched the restructuring process; bankruptcy is around the corner.
>
> "The entire American democracy has also become an endless show, because CNN and other broadcasters are thirsty for breaking news every hour to ensure good ratings and advertising. Even lies pay off and are thus desired -- the result being that, after 18 months of campaigning, 50 percent of those eligible to vote, 100 million people, still do not know today where Trump and Clinton stand on policy. Instead, people scream "Lock Her Up" and "Build the Wall" as soon as Trump takes the stage. Good politicians don't play along with such nonsense.
>
> "And no, it's hardly worth saying anything more about the man. How could the Republicans ever have elevated a candidate like Trump to their throne, one so self-absorbed, so misogynistic, so racist and so unqualified? At the very least, the Republican Party has earned its own downfall.
>
> "On Tuesday, voting will finally be complete, but there will be no solace -- only, we can hope, the lesser of two evils. Things won't automatically return to normal. Indeed, the American pendulum theory was always naïve because history never starts over from scratch. The 2000 election, decided by the Supreme Court, gave us George W. Bush who, after Sept. 11, attacked Afghanistan and later Iraq, leading to the destabilization of the Middle East, the fall of Libya, Iraq and Syria, to Islamic State, to Turkish and Egyptian dictatorships, to the refugee crisis, Brexit, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, Frauke Petry and Trump, to the weakening of America and Europe. To the weakening of the West and liberal democracy.
>
> "The relationship between these events is not causal, of course. But elections and political action have consequences, as we in Germany well know. And the same could happen in America -- it could commit one irreversible error too many."
>
> Chris Bruce,
> on a very clear and
> cold morning, in
> Kiel, Germany------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13373 - Release Date: 11/08/16
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13380 - Release Date: 11/09/16
