expertTexpert wrote:

How many "I hate the gubment" forums are people gonna make, where they rehash the same "independent" ideas?
As many as it takes until everyone else leaves RP?
 

Music, personal stuff, all that is fun. But this angry old white man stuff got really old really fast.
*forget*

What if democracy is a fraud?

 sirdroseph wrote: 
+ 1

Citizens versus Subjects in a Democratic Society: The American Case | Richard Falk/Global Justice in the 21st Century

            In my understanding silence is passivity as a way of being. Silence can be much more than the avoidance of speech and utterance, and is most poignantly expressed through evasions of body, heart, and soul. Despite the frustrations and defeats of the period, America was different during the years of the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. It was then that alienated gun-wielders assassinated those among us who were sounding the clearest calls for justice and sending messages of hope. In a perverse reaction, Washington’s custodians of our insecurity went to work, and the sad result is this deafening silence!

            I have long felt that most American ‘citizens’ increasingly behave as ‘subjects,’ blithely acting as if a love of country is exhibited more by obedience than conscience. In my view the opportunity to be a citizen is a precious reality, a byproduct of past struggles. Genuine citizenship remains possible in the United States, but has become marginal, and is not much in evidence these days. I am identifying the citizen as an ethically sensitive and responsible member of a political community, most significantly of a sovereign state. In contrast, the subject conceives of upright standing in a political community by the willingness to go along with the group and to obey the directives of government and those exercising formal authority.

            The moral substance at the core of genuine citizenship only exists if the political structure allows opposition without imposing a severe punishment. If citizenship is possible, then it automatically gives rise to responsibility to act accordingly, that is, by honoring the imperatives of conscience. Unfortunately, considerations of prudence, career, and social propriety make it more attractive these days for most Americans to behave as subjects living within a rigid set of constraints. Citizens are those who not only proclaim the virtues of freedom, but act responsively to the vectors of conscience even if these go against the established public order and prevailing cultural norms.

            Thomas Jefferson at the birth of the republic understood that liberty is a process, not an event, which can only flourish if the citizenry as a whole is actively engaged, and above all is vigilant in relation to abuses attributable to the state. Citizenship was better understood in the late 18^th century when the struggle against the pretensions of monarchy was vibrant. Today it is irresistibly tempting for ambitious political leaders to encroach upon the liberties of the people by insisting that national ‘unity’ and ‘patriotism’ are practical necessities at times when the country is at war or confronting enemies. And by a convenient Orwellian trope, wartime has become the norm rather than the exception, and peacetime is mainly a memory of ancient times that even the oldest citizen now alive never really experienced. Arguably, the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 ended once and for all the illusions of peace as the normal condition of a democratic society. Even the collapse of the Soviet Union did not restore ‘peace’ except in the misleading senses of the absence of war. This enthronement of war in the permanent collective imagination of the country was vividly re-inscribed by the 9/11 attacks and the Bush response of declaring a global war on terror and terrorists. Bush’s instinctive stroke of political ingenuity was to devise a new kind of war that never needs to end. Obama despite some ritual reassurances to the contrary has not broken faith with the militarist mentality and seems comfortable with treating war as the new normal.

           This vulnerability of democracy to the siren song of security has been effectively exploited by power-wielders for decades in the United States. Not only do politicians and militarists sing this song, but also private sector moguls whose primary amoral motivation seems to be the maximization of profits. This weakening of the substance, structures, and spirit of American democracy partly reflected the militarizing impacts of World War II and its Cold War sequel, but also the related extension of the American sphere of direct concern and involvement to all corners of the earth. This unprecedented global force projection coincided with the collapse of European colonialism, the ideological consensus affirming neoliberalism, and the backdrop of a globalizing world in which critical resources, sea lanes, and markets needed to be protected if the world economy was to flourish. This American transformation from being ‘a hemispheric state’ to becoming ‘a global state’ has had an extraordinary impact on national identity, especially giving rise to a self-anointing mission of global leadership that depends on military dominance. Such a mission has also witnessed a promiscuous reliance on ‘American exceptionalism,’ often at the expense of respect for the authority of the United Nations and international law. The claim is that America can set aside rules of behavior at will to meet the challenges confronting the country and the world, but that antagonistic others cannot.

            It is true that early in the American experience the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine (1823) signaled a national ambition to reign supreme in the Western Hemisphere (except for Canada), which expressed an early refusal by the U.S. Government to confine its definition of national interests to the territorial boundaries associated with being a normal sovereign state. But the strains of extra-territoriality were minimal compared what they became in the 20^th century, especially with the onset of World War II. For one thing, the challenge of imposing control was far simpler and cheaper in the era of ‘gunboat diplomacy,’ which enabled a small input of military power to achieve the political objectives of intervention under most circumstances. Since 1945 the mobilization of national resistance around the world has been very effective in raising the costs and risks of intervention, and neutralizing many of the advantages that had made it so easy to translate military superiority into desired political results during the colonial era.

            Also relevant for a discussion of the deteriorating quality of democratic life in the United States are expansions of scale and surveillance as byproducts of becoming a global state. To project power globally requires a global network of military bases numbering in the hundreds, a navy that patrols every ocean, missiles that can strike the most distant targets, attack drones that can be programmed to kill anyone anywhere on the planet, and the most extensive information-gathering capability that technology can provide and money can buy. This raises to astronomic levels the investment of energy and resources in sustaining such a global role. Unsurprisingly there are byproducts, including a militarized state at home and the assumption of associated custodial duties related to the protection of the American people against real and imagined enemies and the pursuit of national interests relating to wealth, influence, and prestige. To enhance security in this global setting pushes surveillance toward totalization as the Snowden disclosures began to reveal. It also creates a logic that views domestic opposition with grave suspicion, and leads to finding and destroying ‘the enemy within’ before it gains the leverage to unleash its assault of the established order.

            The American global state is different than past empires, which were explicit in projecting their hard power, and insisting upon overt allegiance of those whom they rule. As Rumsfeld succinctly remarked some years ago, “we do not do empire.” What do we do? It is to manage a global state that seeks to meet hostile challenges wherever they emerge, and give a high priority to the maintenance of a trade, investment, and navigational framework that reflects the guiding assumptions of neoliberalism in the networked digital age. And because the most threatening hostile challenges seem currently mounted by non-state actors that have no particular territorial base of operations, the battlefield has been quietly globalized to encompass the economy, the surveillance panopticon, and the counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation sites of intervention and resistance.

            What then does American citizenship mean under these altered domestic and global conditions? It should be acknowledged that not all recent developments are negative with respect to the quality of democratic life in America: slavery was overcome, racism diminished, women’s rights strengthened, sexual preferences increasingly respected. Taking these concerns into account has meant that there many avenues that remain open for the expression of conscience in the United States, which entails the non-acceptance of various facets of the status quo: struggles against militarism, surveillance, plutocracy, global warming, poverty, inequality, human insecurity, class warfare, as well as the residues of racism and patriarchy.   Citizens should be selectively active in response to these challenges, while the subject is passive or a regressive champion of the status quo, and at best an advocate of incremental change (as Yeats reminded the world almost a century ago, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” The most effective forms of citizen action depend on popular mobilization and the adoption of nonviolent forms of collective action. The subject stands by sullenly, applauding the suppression of dissent and resistance by security forces. (...)

Asking "(w)ho really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters. (...)

Too many exports of democracy? 

 oldslabsides wrote:  They could've raffled off the opportunity. Fix the debt overnight!

 aflanigan wrote: 
dammit, I'd have signed that one!

Someone in the White House obviously hates democracy.

Petition to Punch Grover Norquist in Dick Removed From White House Petition Site

How Democracies Die

 imnotpc wrote: 
Well, what Congress has been doing should be a crime... oh, wait... they're pretty much ALL Republicans, arent they? We have to do what they want or they'll force the elderly and homeless to die... while refusing a woman the right to make her own choices, however difficult they might be. Next step is probably hijabs.

People have gone law crazy... we need a law for every freaking thing! Freedom? What's that? They let us keep just enough of it so we wont revolt. Not all of that is the Republican's fault, though... I don't think so, anyway. Maybe.

I am still registered independent, but I've never seen a Republican candidate that cares about We The People... it's always for banks, corporations, and the blood-awful wealthy, while fooling just enough people to get away with their crimes. My grandmother was a Republican, so I know it wasn't always like this... but it has been for quite a while now.

Anyway... I must stop now. I use Sarah Palin to keep my blood pressure up, but I must be careful not to OD.


There have been several issues with the site I have noticed lately. It may be time to rewrite the script. After a while in can be a nightmare to debug a script with all the stuff that gets appended over the years.

 Umberdog wrote: 
I understand there is controversy over the election of Bush 43. But do you really think that we don't have democracy? Admittedly it's not perfect and both sides use plenty of tricks and deceptions to improve their odds. I just think it's a big a jump from electioneering to a facade of democracy with predetermined outcomes.

I'm not sure what your seeing, but I posted a bug report a couple of days ago about the quotes outside the quote boxes problem. Last I heard from BillG he couldn't reproduce it.

 imnotpc wrote: 
Not everything.

Because all the vote counting fraud over the "elections" during the Bush Jr. regime. It was our first glimpse into their world. Here in Oregon they have mail-in ballot it doesn't matter so much. Every election season I see ballots on the top of mail-boxes. It's absurd.

One thing I will say for Republicans, they've got balls. Kind of like anti-Robin Hoods.

P.S. Why has the post form suddenly decided to strip carriage returns... sometimes.

 Umberdog wrote: 
I get it that you blame fat, rich, Republicans for everything wrong with the world. I don't agree, but fine. Everyone has an opinion. Why do you think we've never had a democracy?

I don't think we've ever had a democracy. All we've had are a bunch of rich, fat guys playing 'democracy' while robbing us blind and telling us how much they're saving us on the cheaper and cheaper crap they build. When I was a kid I knew a can of coffee was either one or three pounds. It is probably about half that now, but they try and make the can look big. They've been putting off one thing as another for so long I'm not sure if up is down anymore. Of course, with the information age these creeps are having such a hard time covering themselves up, finally Bush just decided what the Hell, and stopped caring anymore... with Gross Old Parties hand-shake and snaky grin... just check all your pockets before they get out of sight.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Weird old thread, but good post. This is exactly why our Constitution sets higher standards for amendments as well as a process that takes a bit of time. It's to prevent a short-term small majority from changing the Constitution to give themselves tyrannical powers. It's worked pretty well so far if we can just get the SCOTUS to enforce it as written.

Edit: I just noticed where he's from. Bridgewater State University was the closest non-community college to where I grew up. Not known for their academic excellence and in a liberal state, which makes him even more interesting.