Democratic Government

1) A democratic government is marked by universal suffrage. It subjects itself to checks and balances (generally through a separation of powers between a judiciary; a legislature; and an executive) and is itself subject to the rule of law. Its legislative process is informed by a constitution of some kind. Most importantly, all exercise of power in a democracy is based upon the concept of honour.

2) Does this notion truly exist? Judge Billings Learned Hand answered this question best... ...I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it...

3) No. See above. To which I would add that social stability is the first and most important prerequisite for a democracy. The second is a stable and reasonably balanced economy.

My first answer may have been too wordy. Here's a more concise answer:

1) Lawyers, guns and money.

2) Yes and no.

3) No.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
1) A democratic government is marked by universal suffrage. It subjects itself to checks and balances (generally through a separation of powers between a judiciary; a legislature; and an executive) and is itself subject to the rule of law. Its legislative process is informed by a constitution of some kind. Most importantly, all exercise of power in a democracy is based upon the concept of honour.

2) Does this notion truly exist? Judge Billings Learned Hand answered this question best... ...I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it...

3) No. See above. To which I would add that social stability is the first and most important prerequisite for a democracy. The second is a stable and reasonably balanced economy.

Please can anyone here then let the American Adminstration know why they will not succeed in their continued meddling in other countries affairs. No matter what their intention is.

They don't care, Welly.

We really need to tell the people of the US because THEY, by in large, are responsible for the mess in Iraq. Support for the war was 80 odd percent. If people don't use their damm brains and keep being emotionally manipulated by the frigging media, then democracy, as anything good or constructive, is doomed in this country.

Lotta folks over here not workin' with a full deck, dumb as doorknobs. I didn't write the play but maybe through my words and actions, I may play a small part in seeing it is not a tragedy. Then again, maybe not.


BB

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
1)

[QUOTE] 2) Does this notion truly exist? Judge Billings Learned Hand answered this question best... ...I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it...

Hmm yes, and I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon our leaders - why do we look to one man (or woman)be they President or Prime Minister to make everything right for our entire country as if such a thing is achievable (it ain't) - is this longing to be led by some messiah figure a feature of Christian societies? Nope. It's the same everywhere (except maybe Switzerland?)- it always makes me laugh when people say things like 'once we get rid of Thatcher and Blair is in Downing street all will be well' or 'once we get rid of GWB and get Obama in the Whitehouse all will be well' - it's pure nonsense imo. Of course some are better than others (or less bad)but is it realistic to invest so much hope in one?

Sitting in one's armchair and expecting them to sort everything out because we got off our respective arses and voted for them - yes, one vote on a single day once every few years - this is possibly the only contribution to the democratic process many of us make - one vote once in 5 years. Then we moan from our armchairs that all is not well as the greedy lying egomaniacs we voted shaft us and our countries. Maybe we get what we deserve?

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

Maybe we get what we deserve?

We have absolutely no vision of what we deserve. That's half the problem. It's no wonder our leaders are less restrained than we would like - if we do not give them their direction then they will lead us where they will.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

Maybe we get what we deserve?

We have absolutely no vision of what we deserve. That's half the problem. It's no wonder our leaders are less restrained than we would like - if we do not give them their direction then they will lead us where they will.

Even if we tell them what our views are, they do not seem to hear.......

Maybe it is the power thing which corupts.

quote:

once we get rid of GWB and get Obama in the Whitehouse all will be well

It's not that we (I) think that all will be well if Obama is the next US president, but sometimes the most important thing to do is to stop the bleeding. You can sort things out at the hospital later, but when you're in the wilderness with a mortal wound, you need to stop the bleeding. I much prefer Obama to Hillary Clinton, but even her presidency would go a long way toward stopping the bleeding.

I read an article about the guys who created the animated show South Park. Yeah, they're hip, irreverent, and often very funny. But they both proudly said they hadn't voted ... ever. And that things under Gore wouldn't be much different than under Bush. That's idiotic. Yes, the corporate interests of the military-industrial complex tend to dominate many aspects of governmental policy, but anyone who thinks that the state of the world would be the same today if Gore had assumed his rightfully elected office (let's start right there, with the flagrant anointment of Bush by a politically motivated Supreme Court) is seriously deluded. There are differences between leaders, sometimes vast differences.

Having read Obama's book The Audacity of Hope, my feeling is that he is a leader cut from a different cloth, certainly not a "greedy, lying egomaniac," and very much the day to Bush's night.

All best,
Fred

The leaders of any democratic country are slaves to the electorate. If the electorate is spoiled and dummed down, there aint nothin the leaders can do. If someone has a knife and can cut your balls off, then you had better listen to them, right or wrong.

Rush Limbaugh has been running this country for the past eight years, he is the true spiritual leader of the American Right. Bush ? Just a suit who carries the water for whatever moneyed interest. No point in focusing on him cause he doesn't matter. He represents nothing. He will be gone, but those interests' will remain, as powerful as ever and acting through BOTH parties.

The old Democratic party that looked after the working poor,the disenfranchised, the union member, gone. Kucinich has said some things that make sense, so has Nader, neither stands any chance of sitting in the White House. Beyond that, all I see are corporations in three piece suits.

Only a major trauma on the scale of the Great Depression could possibly bring people to their senses. Radical change comes only when the wolf is at the electorates door.


BB

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
[QUOTE]

[QUOTE] Having read Obama's book The Audacity of Hope, my feeling is that he is a leader cut from a different cloth, certainly not a "greedy, lying egomaniac," and very much the day to Bush's night.

Fred,
It is often said that Obama lacks experience - that may be a good thing. I agree with your feeling and share your hopes - I agree he would be much better than Clinton IF he is allowed to be. The military/industrial/religious/corporate complex may not let him - can we expect another assassination if he is elected? In reality one man can do so little. I feel it will take a great many good men to sort out America - hopefully Obama will be the catalyst for the change that America needs - for all our sakes.

In deifying our leaders and investing so much hope in them are we not giving up our own responsibilities?

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brother:

Kucinich has said some things that make sense, so has Nader, neither stands any chance of sitting in the White House. Beyond that, all I see are corporations in three piece suits

I'm a fan of Kucinich, and agree with most of what Nader has to say, but you're right ... they'll never get to the White House. But not all the others are corporate suits. I urge you to check out Obama. Admittedly not quite as progressive as Kucinich, he's cut from the old school Democratic cloth; a good man and not beholden to corporate interests. I really think he's our best realistic shot at substantive change for the better.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
[QUOTE]

[QUOTE] Having read Obama's book The Audacity of Hope, my feeling is that he is a leader cut from a different cloth, certainly not a "greedy, lying egomaniac," and very much the day to Bush's night.

Fred,
It is often said that Obama lacks experience - that may be a good thing. I agree with your feeling and share your hopes - I agree he would be much better than Clinton IF he is allowed to be. The military/industrial/religious/corporate complex may not let him - can we expect another assassination if he is elected? In reality one man can do so little. I feel it will take a great many good men to sort out America - hopefully Obama will be the catalyst for the change that America needs - for all our sakes.

Regarding Obama's lack of experience, you may have read what I've written in other similar threads ... on the one hand, a very famous American president had even less federal experience than Obama: Abraham Lincoln. On the other hand, the person with the most federal experience right now is Dick Cheney ... 'nuff said.

I do think assassination is a very real fear ... we haven't had someone as charismatic and progressive as Obama since the days of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

But somehow I feel that the rest of the world is so beyond tired of the BushCo mess, that someone like Obama would be such a breath of fresh air that the world community would rally around him with good will in the hopes that the "good America" can return to form ... we are all so hungry for that.

All best,
Fred

Given who the Democrats put against the incumbent at the last election, where is the faith coming from that they'll actually choose Obama over a "safer" choice?

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Given who the Democrats put against the incumbent at the last election, where is the faith coming from that they'll actually choose Obama over a "safer" choice?

The trouble with the Democrats is that of the rest of the electorate, dummed down and frankly with the Dems in particular an unfortunate streak of idealism that blinds them from political reality.

In order to stand a chance of winning the White House, they need to look South and West for their candidates, otherwise, same thing happens, the Republicans win every state in the South and West ( and their rapidly growing numbers) the Democrats take the east and west coast and the mid west is split with the advantage to the Republicans. Also, Southerners are better politicians.

When Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights act of 1965 he is supposed to have said; " I just lost the South, for my party, for the next generation"

At any rate, whoever wins will be smart to pick Richardson ( Governor of New Mexico, and no, I'm not a fan) to help balance the ticket geographically.

I'm sure Obama is a decent enough man, too bad he is not from Georgia or Arizona.


BB

Obama is a special case in which, in a real sense, all other bets are off ... the conventional wisdom that he wouldn't be as "safe" a choice as a mainstream establishment Democrat like Clinton or Edwards, or that only a Southerner can be elected.

As a black American with the best real chance thus far to be elected, as a relative outsider to Washington with little to no baggage, with tons of charisma, and with a genuine drive to achieve a true bipartisan coalition, Obama has forced everyone to abandon much of the conventional wisdom of the past. It's a new ball game.

All best,
Fred

So, from the posts of the US-based Forum members on this thread, a tiny consensus seems to be implied that Hillary Clinton deosn't stand a chance against Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
So, from the posts of the US-based Forum members on this thread, a tiny consensus seems to be implied that Hillary Clinton deosn't stand a chance against Obama.

No, only that she pales in comparison, in every sense.

It's still a long road, though ... plenty of time for shit to happen.

All best,
Fred

The very small state of San Marino (29251 people) has TWO heads of state at the same time. They only is in office for half a year before some two else is elected. An average citizen has thus quite a good chance of becoming head of state during his/her(?) lifetime.

A good democracy maybe?

JohanR