american empire

[Thorne]

The fact remains that there are certain situations in which an American president may, without the support of either elected body, make an executive decision.

While technically true, there could come a time when he would have to justify that decision. That's why they have the impeachment process. The problem with that is that party politics tends to override intelligence. They would rather keep their bad president, just because he belongs to their party, than put him on trial for his indiscretions and risk losing the presidency to the other party.

The biggest problem with any democracy is not necessarily the number of people involved, but the number of intelligent people involved. I don't think I would want to live in a true democracy where the majority of people are voting with their gut rather than their brain.

[Matin]

thank you to everyone who decided to weigh in on this one. ^.^ i find it's hard to get a good conversation going in my little burgh about, i guess i'd say, 'basic' politics.

you all are smart people; you know the definition of democracy; mob rule. the only societies i know of in history to ever have truly practised this was a series of native american societies on the southwest.

even those athenians had sub-classes who couldn't vote - a great deal like our founding fathers' 'democracy'.

"sure you can vote if you happen to be a white protestant male landowner!"

this country wasn't designed to function without a ruling class, so what to do as we hopefully advance to a point where a genuine effort is made to give all 300 million of us a legitimate stake in the leadership?

i don't mind so much an undereducated populace voting their guts instead of their minds. i think america suffers a great deal for our - and i'm as guilty as anyone at times - elitist thinking. do you want a democracy? then you have to accept the results of the vote.

and denuseri, you are right; what happened in '00 happened twice before, in the 1800's. i think the relevance is different today, however, due to the connectedness and access of the american people. yes, america has survived ruthless men and ugly politics before(abraham lincoln) but during more inherently uncertain times.

in today's america it seems to me that our fearless leaders are very much afraid of letting the populace get a chance to stop and smell the roses. there is a constant rush from war to war keeping the patriotic fervor up, and a nonstop barrage of fear mongery in the media to keep us under our desks and docile.

we have constututional rights. or we did. now there are less. and apparently they are open to interpretation. this is a more recent development - since 9/11 - and it's one i really don't like. never before has the government sought so much influence over and access to the private lives of americans. some say that if one isn't a criminal there is no reason to be bothered by gov't observation. i see it as a step toward a police state.

so what happens, i wonder, to out gov't if we haven't got the fervor and the fear? opinions? why is that happening?

so maybe i think i didn't clarify my opening post enough; i feel that any semblance or facade of representative government in america is slipping away, to be replaced with something much more totalitarian. agree? disagree?

one of the aspects of british politics that i greatly respect - from the admittedly little i know of it - is the multi party system they use. in america our two party system dominates the ballots and the media. in a lot of places a third party candidate can't even make it on the roster, and independants sometimes can't vote because they're not aligned with one of the parties.

where then is the ACCURATE representation? a choice is given between two veteran politicos. is it naive to imagine that were there more competition for office - like in britain(i think. lol) - then we might not always be feeling that we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils?

also i need to clarify, i had mentioned the roman empire because i was alluding to the death of the republic.

and to belabor a much abused subject, i still don't feel that any good arguments have been made against a direct democracy.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

That's why they have the impeachment process. The problem with that is that party politics tends to override intelligence. They would rather keep their bad president, just because he belongs to their party, than put him on trial for his indiscretions and risk losing the presidency to the other party.

The biggest problem with any democracy is not necessarily the number of people involved, but the number of intelligent people involved. I don't think I would want to live in a true democracy where the majority of people are voting with their gut rather than their brain.

Keep in mind that the impeachment process is based on the commission of "High crimes and misdemeanors". It would be very difficult to overcome an executive order through that process. With enough votes Congress could enact a veto-proof law to reverse an executive order but that could be negated through a Signing Statement by the President. (Bush has used signing statements to avoid parts of laws more than the other Presidents of the 20th century combined, as I recall.) There is the route of challenge of the constitutionality of an order through the Supreme Court but that is time consuming and is based on an interpretation of the Constitution as opposed to right/wrong of the order.


The aspect of a pure democracy (1 person one vote, majority rules) on all subjects without checks and balances appears to offer more anarchy than anything else. I agree that gut voting as opposed to intelligent thought is most often the norm.