(no subject)
During my long and (in)glorious time as a freelance thinker, which sounds better than unemployed shiftless layabout, I had time to ponder many things. Most are not fit for publication even on the trash heap of malformed logic and stupidity that is the internet. One train of thought, though, managed to make it from station to station long enough to be considered cohesive, dare I say, even worthwhile. Even better, I feel that it has some bearing on recent events in our country.
Or I'm talking out my ass again. You be the judge.
I pondered awhile ago why during the last quarter of the 18th century a number of self governing communities of mostly English origin along the eastern coast of the North America managed to successfully create a democratic form of government while in the period of my life, hundred of years later and with the advanced knowledge of democracy and the practice of democratic government that that time has brought, there have been so many failed attempts at creating working democracies. For the record, I know that the USA is not strictly a democratic government but rather a republic. And further that probably all of the failed, failing, or simply struggling democracies that I pondered are also not proper democracies. Yet it is the democratic aspect of our and other governments that I was thinking about, i.e. the actions of the populace in the workings of the government, so I will refer to governments as democratic.
We know the public workings of a democracy, at least in theory. Some subsection of the population, selected from the entirety of the populace by criteria of age, sex, status, or all too frequently just plain apathy, votes for legislation or for upstanding citizens that will represent them in voting for legislation. The cause, whether a particular piece of legislation or candidate, that garners the majority of the votes wins. Done. The opposing causes lose. Done. The law of the land may define majority in different ways, 50%, two-thirds, or whatever, but once reached it's done. The losing side may counter in a number of ways, but at some point in time they must acknowledge the loss, regroup, and move on to the next battle.
And that, that right there, is the Achilles heel of democracy. Functioning democracies depend on all the parties involved in the system accepting the rule that the majority wins, and whether you love or hate the majorities decision, you have to stand by that process, to stand by democracy. It is the fundamental compromise that makes democracy as a form of government viable. To do otherwise is to suggest a change in government, not from one administration to another, but from a government that derives it's powers from the will of the populace to one that doesn't.
Famously, Churchhill once said something to the effect that Democracy is the worst form of government created by man, except for all of the others. The Tea Baggers, Birthers, Deathers, and general vocal portion of the Right are really upset about the things that make Democracy suck. They're upset that the portion of the country that outnumbers and out votes them is trying to do things that they don't like (discussion of their reasons for not liking the actions of the Progressive left is a different, long, and ultimately fruitless post). The Birthers in particular are taking that tact that the basis of the new leftist movement is not really in charge, having cheated his way into the White House. These Right wing group haven't quite gone to the point of excusing themselves from the system, but their tactics of dragging the legislative process to a halt, disrupting public meetings rather than engaging in dialog, and mostly just spreading misinformation and lies to scare people to their side are damn close. I fear that should these below the belt tactics fail to stop the progressive movement, and I really really hope that they do, then some (or more) of the wackier wingnuts will decide to break the deal, to disregard the basic compromise of democracy. If enough of them do this, and it probably doesn't have to be more than a few percent of the population, then the whole thing could fall apart, usually in an escalating cycle of violence if history is any judge.
Yup, definitely talking out of my ass.
Or I'm talking out my ass again. You be the judge.
I pondered awhile ago why during the last quarter of the 18th century a number of self governing communities of mostly English origin along the eastern coast of the North America managed to successfully create a democratic form of government while in the period of my life, hundred of years later and with the advanced knowledge of democracy and the practice of democratic government that that time has brought, there have been so many failed attempts at creating working democracies. For the record, I know that the USA is not strictly a democratic government but rather a republic. And further that probably all of the failed, failing, or simply struggling democracies that I pondered are also not proper democracies. Yet it is the democratic aspect of our and other governments that I was thinking about, i.e. the actions of the populace in the workings of the government, so I will refer to governments as democratic.
We know the public workings of a democracy, at least in theory. Some subsection of the population, selected from the entirety of the populace by criteria of age, sex, status, or all too frequently just plain apathy, votes for legislation or for upstanding citizens that will represent them in voting for legislation. The cause, whether a particular piece of legislation or candidate, that garners the majority of the votes wins. Done. The opposing causes lose. Done. The law of the land may define majority in different ways, 50%, two-thirds, or whatever, but once reached it's done. The losing side may counter in a number of ways, but at some point in time they must acknowledge the loss, regroup, and move on to the next battle.
And that, that right there, is the Achilles heel of democracy. Functioning democracies depend on all the parties involved in the system accepting the rule that the majority wins, and whether you love or hate the majorities decision, you have to stand by that process, to stand by democracy. It is the fundamental compromise that makes democracy as a form of government viable. To do otherwise is to suggest a change in government, not from one administration to another, but from a government that derives it's powers from the will of the populace to one that doesn't.
Famously, Churchhill once said something to the effect that Democracy is the worst form of government created by man, except for all of the others. The Tea Baggers, Birthers, Deathers, and general vocal portion of the Right are really upset about the things that make Democracy suck. They're upset that the portion of the country that outnumbers and out votes them is trying to do things that they don't like (discussion of their reasons for not liking the actions of the Progressive left is a different, long, and ultimately fruitless post). The Birthers in particular are taking that tact that the basis of the new leftist movement is not really in charge, having cheated his way into the White House. These Right wing group haven't quite gone to the point of excusing themselves from the system, but their tactics of dragging the legislative process to a halt, disrupting public meetings rather than engaging in dialog, and mostly just spreading misinformation and lies to scare people to their side are damn close. I fear that should these below the belt tactics fail to stop the progressive movement, and I really really hope that they do, then some (or more) of the wackier wingnuts will decide to break the deal, to disregard the basic compromise of democracy. If enough of them do this, and it probably doesn't have to be more than a few percent of the population, then the whole thing could fall apart, usually in an escalating cycle of violence if history is any judge.
Yup, definitely talking out of my ass.