Losing faith in democracy

Post Reply New Topic

Sometimes I think that democracy, though a nice ideal, is psychologically harmful toward people under it. Democracy breaks a nation's people into factions and forces them to fight each other every two years. I have not, even in middle school, seen as much cattiness and backbiting among my friends as I have in the 2006 and 2008 election years. Democracy is an eternal alienation from one's fellow man. Democracy is the eternal state of being pissed off.

And for what? Our government, no matter what party is in charge, is always just as violent, corrupt, ineffective, and idiotic as the more sophisticated autocracies.

I'm exhausted from the anger, mostly. Everyone's in a screaming rage over some political thing all day every day. I am of the opinion that anger is the least pleasant and most pointless of emotions; God, even depression has it's poetic side, but anger is just plain gangrene of the soul. Sometimes I think that I might gladly sacrifice the first amendment if only to get everybody to stop yelling for a while.

It's actually really sad. I've stopped believing that anyone can change the world in such an organized mob-rule hell.

Democracy isn't the problem. The problem is lack of it. Because we have a two party system, whose members have passed laws restricting the ability of third party candidates to gain traction, AND proactively prevent any of their own from stepping too far outside their controlled norms (eg, the belittling of the candidacies of Ron Paul (R) and Dennis Kucinish (D) and Mike Gravel (D), ANY OF WHICH WOULD BE MILES ABOVE THE THREE WE HAVE STILL IN THE RUNNING), they limit our choices and thus there is no democracy at all, only the illusion of it.

Didn't you post a topic accusing Christians who believe in the Rapture of being anti-Semites yesterday?

Before you complain about democracy, you should probably look inwards.

Democracy?, where?
Here in the UK, you vote for a member of parliament who claims to represent your interests, but once he gets his seat in Parliament, he doesnt vote on what you, his elctor wishes, he votes on what the party whips tell him to vote on, or he will lose his position in the party.

And whos wishes do the party whips insure are carried out?
Not yours, but the big businesses and world bankers etc who financed the parties rise to power, and you can bet the wishes of the Elite are not the same as yours.

Here in Britain, the Labour party is now said to be more conservative than the conservative party, no wonder both sides voted on the illegal war in Iraq that thier masters wanted.

I think a better discription would be Fascism.

If you must vote, vote for an independant.

Hey MissPickwickian,

You got me curious now. If it was all up to you, what kind of government would you establish to run a country?

Actually, I believe that US is not a democracy as it does not have "one person, one vote" and never has. I do believe the founding fathers(who, yes, were far from perfect but trying to create something better than most governments of the time), would be upset at what has happened in this country.

I am personally for a benevolent philosopher queen/king....she/he's got my vote

I think anger can be poetic, but I agree that it is the most destructive force out there.


Yeah, I think it was Winston Churchill who said something like "Democracy is the worst government system there is, but it's better than all those other ones"

I think it is important that we have power over the government. The government is supposed to be there to serve the people, and if people have no say, the government doesn't need to serve the people at all. As long as we elect them they have to do enough to give at least the illusion of working for us.

Yeah, it sucks that everyone gets so angry. But if we didn't have our voice and our other rights, there would be a lot more to be angry about.

Last edited by TheMidnightJudge on 27 May 2008, 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Too true

ORIGINALLY, the US was VERY different! Abraham Lincoln would probably have NEVER had a chance of getting elected if a newspaper publisher didn't hear a debate with Douglas and make it FAMOUS!

I think the idea of the current system ORIGINALLY had merit. Each state was represented based on its population with a balance based on equal representation. The president had the "electoral college" which I always figured was setup to vote AGAINST the public if any traitorous info was known about the elected person.

We should NOT have a multi party system. It was originally supposed to be, and should have been, a ONE party system with the goal to support the US place in the world, provide for the COMMON defense and welfare, and just act as the FINAL arbiter!

THINK ABOUT IT! THAT is what the constitution is for. THAT is what it says!

So HOW did it end up? Each state is for ITSELF! NO, each is even for their own district. They enjoy using the STOLEN money(The constitution FORBIDS such "taxes"), to pay their "friends"! Two parties LYING about one another. Sometimes a THIRD pops it's head up to DESTROY things! The electoral college is run by propaganda and party garbage.

So what about the presidential candidates?

1. Mccain. Frankly, I don't like him, but like him better than the others. I don't know enough about him though.

2. Hillary. A laughing stock, emotional, self serving LIAR! She claimed that she went to places UNDER FIRE! That makes Bush look like an even WORSE failure, makes the US look HORRIBLE, and makes her look like some sort of hero. ONE PROBLEM! *******THEY HAVE VIDEO*******! She went over there in a PRIVATE aircraft SAFE, there was not ONE shot fired, and even little kids met her. They had a PARTY! Even people WITH her confirm it! She has NO chance of winning fairly, and ANY attempt to CHEAT will brand them FOREVER as HYPOCRITES in light of their action during Gore's run! They CAN'T count florida or michigan because THEIR party said it was ILLEGAL to campaign then, and Hillary was the ONLY person on the ballot! It is EASY to win when nobody is running against you! She is ONLY for herself! FORGET she is a woman! SHE is hoping there are enough white racists and stupid females, that she can win. She is now in trouble for having basically said that! She HAD HER CHANCE in office, and FAILED MISERABLY!

3. Obama. At least HE is acting somewhat decent. Still, he is for the BLACKS! Look at his website! It makes it sound like you better give LOTS of blacks preferential treatment!

But, Truth be known, I don't like ANY of them!

I think they should release ALL of the info and ANY traitorous act or public act of weakness or stupid deceit(such as hillary's) should disqualify them. Everyone should get no less than 4 votes. #1,#2,#3,#4! Each vote should be used to determine the winner(Perhaps with #1 counting as 1.75 votes, and #4 as 1 vote.). THIS way, a disqualified candidate, or garbage like PEROT played, won't have such a big affect. ALSO, we could have a FIFTY party system if we wanted! There are currently only 4-5 semiviable parties anyway. The government should NOT support ANY party in ANY way! They shouldn't even pay to provide security or fly the current members around. And HOLD THEM TO THE PLEDGE!! !! !! ! "To protect the US against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic!"! !! !! ! If they fail to uphold it, they should be tried for TREASON, because that IS what it is! Raises should be approved by public vote that EXCLUDES anyone on the dole! They should NOT have ANY pension! BTW People on the dole , and illegal aliens, shouldn't be able to vote for ANYTHING.

BTW KREX is right! A DICTATORSHIP, if he or she is decent and honest, is the BEST way. Sadly, that will likely NEVER happen. It is rumored people wanted Washington to do that, but he didn't want to be a hypocrite, and said NO THANKS!

I think democracy is a great idea.

However, moder times elections and politics in general are a circus, it is total BS actually, I think it is a lot like watching a silly reality show.

I think there's no such thing as a benevolent government.

All social animals have power structures within their societies. Humans are no different. In any human society, no matter how big or small, you'll see the same hierarchical patterns. Sometimes these patterns are openly recognized; sometimes they are denied.

These power structures are conceptualized differently, and the details are always different. But they never go away. Get a group of ten strangers together for a day-long hiking trip. By the end of the day, there will be clear leaders and followers, and perhaps one or two people who drift away from the group. Get a country together, organize a government, and the same patterns emerge on different levels.

I have reason to believe this is an inevitable aspect of the existence of our species, or any species that lives in a social group.

The question is: How do you, yourself, want to deal with it?

The problem is, that it is run by corrupt and incompetent individuals in many places, who are out of touch with the public, and the pawns of big business. There needs to be a change in the power structure. I do not believe that all humans are prone to corruption, but too many are.

Benevolent government? Very rare, these days. Governments are more concerned with filling their back pockets than looking after their citizens, it seems, with a few exceptions. Also, what one might consider a great government, might be a bad government to others.

Totally agree with you.

I lost faith in democracy when Steve Harper was elected as our Prime Minister. What was Canada thinking?!

Last edited by Chibi_Neko on 28 May 2008, 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I agree
Canadians were so stupid to elect that nut
I hate democracy

go communism!

The US Founding Fathers and Lincoln were political giants and real statesmen who laid the foundations of a superpower; it's sad to see the contemporary US run by political pygmies. I don't think that, generally around the world the problem is democracy (except in countries that are clearly not ready for it, like Iraq) but the politicians. In any case, we seem to be entering a postdemocratic era, in which nominal democracies are just elected aristocracies. I think what's needed is more direct democracy and the power of recalling representatives, though in many countries a benevolent dictatorship is the best that can be hoped for.

I think having political debates is really good and healthy, otherwise people tend to not have a clue what is going on.
Yeah I don't like how people side with left or right wing politics and stop thinking for themselves.