Posted on 03/03/2020 5:15:50 AM PST by Kaslin
There is occasionally good sense in just standing back and watching the grand spectacle known as democracy.
The presidential tryouts, known as the primaries, have been a strong prop of that reasoning. People who want, or say they want, to be president step on the stage and tell us why. They strut their stuff, for better or worse. They talk (almost interminably) about their challenging childhoods, the sacrifices their parents made on their behalf, the flash of inspiration that led them to the political trade. They lay out their strategic plans for the first 100 days after the inauguration.
And around we gather -- we the people of the United States, with iPhones for selfies, with cardboard signs, with hopes of pressing near enough to see, or even stick a hand in the direction of, the candidate.
And it works. That is the wondrous thing. Democracy of this sideshow sort -- in direct descent from the medicine wagons and step-right-up-there's of the carnival barkers -- works to sift out the sure losers (as distinguished from the less-sure ones) and splash the spotlight at last on the best-looking (from a success standpoint).
And from there, on to November...
A vast number of people in 2016 disliked the choices that democracy afforded us -- Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald John Trump. I stood among that throng. Eventually, most of us came down in one camp or the other. The point was, democracy, as opposed to royal succession, had put these choices before us. There was nothing to do but choose.
Here we go again. The filtering-out process is working its magic. Way back there, we -- or, rather, the professed and practicing Democrats -- lost Robert Francis O'Rourke, aka Beto. He performed; we examined his teeth, felt his fetlocks. Hmm, not so much here, we concluded. Off to the pasture, Beto. Similar situations unfolded with Sens. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, Julian Castro, Marianne Williamson and that nice Andrew Yang. Nice to have talked to you. Take care.
In the latest round of filtering, we bid farewell to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg and Tom Steyer. None made a large impact on the capital-D Democratic electorate. Each -- even Steyer, with his call for (presumably taxpayer-funded) reparations for slavery -- had his or her say. The fetlock check failed in each case. I myself lean less toward dismissing them from sight and more toward thanking them for presenting the range of possibilities, in personality and program, that modern politics seems to indicate.
So, now: Bernie, Biden, Liz and Mike. We are getting somewhere. What kind of, and how much, government do the Democrats wish to lay on us? The likelihood is less than many -- Republicans and independents included -- have lately feared. Bernie, the anti-capitalist warmonger, is wearing us out with his implied promises of taking our money and spending it more intelligently than those who earned it could possibly do.
The issue in this election -- so our massive and messy media suggests -- is how do we get a president who doesn't tweet and rant every day? I don't think, from following the Democratic campaign, that this is really the case. The real question may be: Who best respects the right of honest labor, with the right to enjoy the fruits of that labor? Is it the earner, or is it something called "society"?
Not many (if any) Democrats have framed the matter thus. Sure. This is the tryout phase. They're trying out the idea that government can do more for us than we can do for ourselves -- and starting to receive sour looks for it, to the dismay of many party leaders and contributors. This is a helpful, as well as marvelous, thing to see and know.
Joe Biden senses opportunity. He sees Sanders and the angry left beginning to falter. The need for a sweeter song about opportunity and maybe even patriotism and honor and personal responsibility comes to mind. Maybe anger and shouts and finger jabs don't do the job that needs doing.
Hooray for democracy! This is how -- theoretically -- we strain out bad stuff, like socialism, before it poisons the system. It's working; it's working!
In before the “we aren’t a democracy” comment.
WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY!
I am so sick of hearing this.
You sure did. :-)
So when things go well for them its hooray for democracy. We are a republic but that would just send them in w downward spiral of confusion and loathing
(spit).. Hillary WAS there because of royal succession.. It sure as hell wasn't because of her brains and good looks. And this is suppose to be a REPUBLIC..!!!
Hardly
Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice.
Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the three branches of government, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches for checks and balance. Lawmaking in Democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the majority by polls and/or voter referendums, which in turn is mob rule 50% plus 1 vote takes away anything from the minority. Here is one example; if 51% of the people dont pay taxes they can vote a tax increase on the 49% that do, which is mob rule.
Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.
Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly said that they had founded a republic in numerous quotes, and documents.
Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion", the word Democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution at all. Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with this quote, along with more warnings from others.
"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." John Adams
"But government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it." Henry David Thoreau
Our military training manuals use to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.
Below is what the Manual No. 2000-25 says in Section IX Lesson 9.
DEMOCRACY:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
REPUBLIC:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. His right hand man, Harry Lloyd Hopkins, the New Deal architect, who suggested many of F.D.R.'s policies said.
"We shall Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference". Harry Hopkins
Hooray for democracy! This is how — theoretically — we strain out bad stuff, like socialism, before it poisons the system.
***************
In practice our version of democracy is a popularity contest that is largely based on massive vote buying which leads to irresponsible government.
Our political system favors candidates who promise something for nothing, or rather making people feel like they are. Our democracy has devolved into a bidding war.
I see some are missing the point and slamming the “democracy” term instead of enjoying the article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.