For all those condemning Citizens United vs. FEC as an end to democracy in America, let's go over a few things. Firstly, America is not a democracy. It is not, never was, nor ever was intended to be a democracy. And for very good reason. Democracy--dēmocratía ("power/rule by the people")--is a horrible system of government. It is maintained by violence, mob rule, and a pernicious envy--an envy that arises when one of its citizens rises too far above the others, an envy that drives that democracy to rip them down. The rights of the individual are always supplanted by "the will of the people". Consider the go-to historical example: Athens. It was not a mythical utopia of philosophers and scientists based on the rule of reason; rather, Athenian democracy was governed by terror, violence, and corruption. It made tyranny its modus operandi. The lives and happiness of its citizens were held hostage to the collected will of their neighbours. It forced the allied cities of the Delian League into political and economic submission and then massacred those cities that wished to withdraw. And in a wild frenzy, abandoned reason and law and summarily executed its ten leading generals--its only hope of victory against Sparta. Finally, in 404 BC, after a mere century, Athenian democracy imploded and eked out a meagre existence for the remainder of the millennium. Its legacy? Consider Socrates' pupil and intellectual heir. In Plato's Republic, his ideal state is ruled not by popular assembly or elected council, but by a king--democracy's antithesis. So ended the "great" experiment in democracy.
I write this not as a defence of dictatorship, oligarchy, or any other such form of government, but merely to illustrate that democracy is as capable of tyranny as they, perhaps capable of greater tyranny as dictatorship is the tyranny of one over many and democracy the tyranny of many over all.
Washington, Hamilton et al. knew this and feared it, and they lived to see those fears once again fulfilled in the blood, violence, and terror of the French Revolution. They were familiar with the excesses of democracy, and though they sought democracy's virtues, they created a political system specifically designed to shackle its vices. They held Rome as a model, not Athens. They created a republic. A republic, if I may borrow Cicero's definition, is a synthesis of three forms of government--dictatorship/monarchy, oligarchy/aristocracy, and democracy. They combined the virtues of each of these separate political systems, while mitigating their weaknesses (i.e. "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts"). Democracy, in particular, emerged most strongly in the legislative branch, in Congress. Knowing this, the founding fathers created that intricate system of checks and balances to control it. Democratic forces were to be balanced with those dictatorial and oligarchical, and Congress was to be checked by both the Presidency and Supreme Court. Democracy was everywhere hedged in and controlled. And rightly so. Washington, Hamilton et al. feared lest they create another Athens or presage the bloodbath of the French Revolution.
Enter 2010. Democracy will not repair our teetering political system. In addition to being extremely dangerous, more democracy will only exacerbate its problems. The misconception that America is a democracy has blinded us to the imbalance in our republic, has led us to believe that Congress has and ought to have the greater authority. And so, we have just stood by and watched and sometimes even praised Congress' steady accumulation of power. To what end? Special interests, run-away spending, pork, bribery, double-dealing... The list goes on. Yet these do not dominate the offices of the White House or the Supreme Court, but rather the halls of the Capitol. And tyranny? That is precisely what Citizens United vs. FEC addressed. Where does Congress get the notion that it can tell publishing houses what books they can publish, television studios what films they can produce, and American citizens what books they can read? It is one of those frightening "will of the people" justifications. And Athens and France have revealed the frightening road down which those have led.
It is time we put an end to this misconception about democracy. America is a republic. There is one office that can roll back Congressional overreach and curb democratic excess. And that office is the President's. It is time that he stepped up and embraced the authority of that office. He ought not to emulate the example of Athenian Democracy, but rather that of European enlightened absolutists, of Maria Theresa, Leopold II, and Frederick the Great. It is time to reform the process of government. Democracy will not achieve that, but some executive authority just might.
Follow Aindriu Colgan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AindriuCColgan
"A constitutionally limited federal republic with strong democratic traditions."
Of course, the Bill of Rights is just one of the limits imposed by our Constitution, another is that the fed's power is defined and deliniated in the Constitution so that they can only properly act within those topics and such things which are "necessary and proper" within the context of those topics. The states have their own powers, some distinct from the feds, some which they hold concurrently with the feds. The states are also specifically restricted from asserting certain powers. Thus we have seperate, somewhat overlapping spheres of authority that derive their legitimacy from different constintuencies. That is the federalism part of the equation. The strong democratic traditions refer, of course to our long history of electing the primary legislative bodies within our state and federal governement. This tradition has both expanded the electorate over the years to include almost all citizens 18 and over and also has lessened restricions on institutions, such as the US Senate being elected by popular vote and the requirement that electors actually cast their ballots for the candiate which received the most votes for president in their particular state.
Republic: Rule of law, always representative, has an executive position which is not a monarch, can be an oligarchy or the oligarchy can be expanded to the point of being a polyarchy.
Semper fi
To be somewhat more specific, the last COMPLETED recount had Bush ahead, and the last recount which WOULD have shown Gore to be the winner of FL was stopped, and then the SCOTUS said that they could continue the count, but they waited until 10 pm on the night that Florida state law required the decision to be made by.
IMO, a invention of gridlock to prevent any one branch of gevernment or one Party for that matter from running roughshod over the other two or the citizenry.
It is a system that has worked for 200 years and continues to work today. Albeit quite often in a fashion that offends the sensibilities of the Mob.
This isn't the DEFINITION of the term 'democracy', it is the ETYMOLOGY of the term. Not even classical Athens - democracy's prototype - would meet such a definition, and they're the people who made up both the word and the idea in the first place.
~~
I'd also like to point out that the 'summary execution' means execution *without* trial. Given that there historical record contains a highly detailed account of the generals' two-day trial, including their defense (they blamed the weather) as well the motions, counter motions, procedural and constitutional wrangling, the verdict voted by the randomly-selected 500 man Athenian assemby (the assemby's duties included being the jury in criminal trials under Athenian law) and finally the verdict. By no stretch of the imagination could this lengthy process qualify as summary. Summary execution means nothing more complicaed than a lynch mob, a rope and a tree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arginusae#Trial_of_the_generals
If anything, what we need is an application of The Rule of Law, as the Founders saw its role to be. We are a nation of Laws, not of men. To put any one man above the rest goes counter to the tenets of our own Constitution.
If you want a king, elect one in your country.
Come to think of it....I don't recall once in all 8 years hearing George Bush whine abt how unfair the media was to him nor hear him attack his political opponents nor disrepect the Supremes on national tv. 2nd. I'm still looking for the individual American citizen who was directly harmed b the Patriot Act. Heard a lot of hypotheticals about impact to civil rights but have yet to see someone who was impacted.
What is your argument? What is your answer if I say it is no problem because I have not taken any of your assets. Are you just going to say, "Ok, Fine, sorry I asked?" I don't think so.
A government over, despite and at cost of the people as American "heritage"....
Even we, the children of the real Founding Fathers from the other side of the Atlantic know better than that!
But thank you for revealing how un-American the right wing really is.
Second, most political historians would agree that the presidency has gained the most power over the past hundred years, largely at the expense of Congress.
Third, if we did have an oligarchical or aristocratic system of selecting representatives, most of the corporate and special interest influences would remain, and only the people's electoral veto power would be eliminated. The elite would have no disincentive against catering to their fellow elites.
I don't think the blogger's beef is with democracy so much as with deliberative legislature. I think this piece argues for a kind of autocracy, where a leader is somehow endowed with the exclusive authority to create and enforce the law, free of the partisan and parochial horse-trading of a legislature comprising representatives of various competing interests.
Maybe we should just crown Ben Bernanke as King of the American Empire and get it over with...
Additionally, the founders weren't trying to prevent democracy OR monarchy. They recognized the benefits and downsides of BOTH of them, and so they created the two most important branches of our government. A legislature to bring the benefits of democracy, and an executive to bring the benefits of monarchy. They also recognized the weakness of man, and so created the judicial branch to counter both of those in case one man or one party should get to be too strong in either of those branches.
Overall the system worked fairly well, until we started getting parties in all THREE branches of government, and now it's going to collapse under its own weight.
Your historical analysis is rather strange, methinks. After pointing out the vices of Athenian democracy, you pass on to the Roman system. But what system? The early republic, the late republic, or the empire?
I'd love to believe that there were some vices in the Athenian system that were not replicated or even magnified in Rome, but I don't think that any serious historical analysis would support it.
From its inception, Rome was a military state bent on domination of its neighbors and it derived its entire reason for existence through its foreign wars. Are you arguing that this is the example America is or should be following?
The rest of the argument seems too disconnected to me. You are making some recommendations and assertions, but there is nothing of substance to support them. Too rhetorical, I'd say.