“You know, we don’t live in a democracy because a democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner. OK? It’s not just majority rule. It’s a constitutional republic. The founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition of what a civil society is supposed to look like. What’s happened, Alex, …
Well voting for people who hold the actual power but are under no obligations to help or even respect their constituents in any way… certainly doesn’t sound like a democracy to me.
“Democracy” is what politicians say when they want people to feel like they are empowered or live in a better condition than they do. Both the left and right use it this way.
I think of democracy like this. All citizens vote on an issue, and if over 50% approve, then we have a new policy. Only in very few and limited cases is this possible. With good reason.
What the founders mostly feared is that “the masses” are subject to temporary strong passions and can be manipulated, leading to sudden drastic policy shifts, maybe not particularly well thought out. At the same time, with majority rule, it’s very possible to restrict and eliminate the rights of minority groups – they essentially have no voice.
They thought they found a good solution, the problem is it requires all parties to make good faith efforts to support and uphold the purpose and structure of the (federal) republic, and to keep in mind who the citizens are, to advocate for the minority as well as the majority, as both groups have “inalienable rights” which must be considered in all matters.
Well voting for people who hold the actual power but are under no obligations to help or even respect their constituents in any way… certainly doesn’t sound like a democracy to me.
“Democracy” is what politicians say when they want people to feel like they are empowered or live in a better condition than they do. Both the left and right use it this way.
I think of democracy like this. All citizens vote on an issue, and if over 50% approve, then we have a new policy. Only in very few and limited cases is this possible. With good reason.
What the founders mostly feared is that “the masses” are subject to temporary strong passions and can be manipulated, leading to sudden drastic policy shifts, maybe not particularly well thought out. At the same time, with majority rule, it’s very possible to restrict and eliminate the rights of minority groups – they essentially have no voice.
They thought they found a good solution, the problem is it requires all parties to make good faith efforts to support and uphold the purpose and structure of the (federal) republic, and to keep in mind who the citizens are, to advocate for the minority as well as the majority, as both groups have “inalienable rights” which must be considered in all matters.