The Survival of "Democracy"
I've read a number of articles citing how democracy is dying, or how Trump/Republicans are killing democracy.
I've also read articles blaming the Constitution and electoral system for democracy's fall...usually because Trump got elected but didn't get the popular vote.
First, for all those who support the LGBTQ+ cause/agenda--including the downfall of traditional marriage--the only reason LGBTQ+ had a chance to even get more mainstream acceptance was because the Constitution does a phenomenal job at protecting the minority by preventing them from the majority.
In a real, true democracy the majority votes, the majority rules. LGBTQ+ would not have had any chance because they would not have had any protections.
But, because the Constitutional rights of all are protected and because our system of government is not by absolute popular vote, those in minorities are protected.
It certainly does not eliminate bullying, but our representation does a good job at slowing things down.
I don't think the LGBTQ+ agenda would have had any chance if our country was a real democracy, but as a representative democracy those with the alternative lifestyles have been able to make some progress pushing their views on the rest of the country.
It's similar with the legislature.
The less-populated states have each say in the senate as the more populated coastal states. Neither has more power.
But to allow for the voice of the people to be better heard, the House of Representatives is setup where states get representatives based on their population. So, states with more people (like California and New York) get more representatives in the House.
If laws were passed strictly by the House, then the populous states would have more power. But, since both the House and Senate have equal power, the less populous states can't be as bullied by the states with more people.
This means it takes longer to get things done.
And it can take longer for the views of the "progressive" and "liberal" states to influence the more conservative ones, if they get to that point.
I personally don't think the United States of America would have lasted as long as it has were it not for the representative system of government that the Founding Fathers set up.
But, I think it is because of the representative Constitutional Republic that the country has lasted for as long as it has. That and because the country had been founded with a belief in God and had been more religious until recently.
However, as the country has turned its back on God, and those with immoral lifestyles have pushed and popularized their views, the majority has turned to accepting and supporting these.
The result is the representation in government is also shifting towards those views and laws are passed that tend to overly protect those minorities, at the expense of the rights of the majority through loss of Constitutional rights.
If the USA had been a more democratic form of government, two things are more likely to have happened.
First, the majority would have walked over any minority group and taken away any rights they had. This is evident by the many laws that have been passed and then tossed out as being unconstitutional. People want to think that the Constitution would have prevented such laws from being passed, but it is the Constitution that has set up our government as it is, and it is the Constitution that protects the rights of all. A democracy is majority rule, so a constitution under a democratic rule would change to protect the majority.
The second is if the majority can be convinced to follow a minority, like a very persuasive, charismatic person, then the majority could be persuaded to make changes in the law that would favor that highly influential person. The influential person could just as easily be an institution, organization, or agency.
If the majority can then be persuaded to change the law, then it could be changed in such a way could undermine and take away the democracy and rule of the people. This is a more likely scenario if the people are convinced they need a "king" or a strong central government that can provide everything free for the people, protect them, and keep everyone safe simply by the government taking control of everything (or at least the majority of industry and services).
As it is, our Constitutional Republic is set up with various checks and balances, which include the two forms of representation in Congress. Because of this, change can be slow which means most of the time in-the-heat-of-the-moment bills don't get passed.
Overall, this is good for our country because it tends to force compromise, rethinking, and retooling of laws. And, sometimes, laws just don't get passed because there isn't sufficient support from both the Senate and House of Representatives sides of Congress. Some of these bills may be supported by a "majority" but they are bad for the whole country.
Most bills that have "popular" support--or are supported by a democratic majority--are good only for the more populous states. This means they are forcing their opinions and views on the minority, or less populous, states.
The problem we are against is that the majority in the highly populated states want to force their way of life, their opinions, their views on the rest of the country. They think their views are right for everyone and that the others are wrong.
Entertainment industries and much of news media are slanted in this so-called liberal direction.
The problem is it is not truly liberal. Most "liberals" are not open to differing behavior or opinions. They may be willing to discard old "traditional" values, and open to "new" behavior but only if it matches their worldview.
In my experience moderate conservatives are closer to being true "liberals" (according to the dictionary definition of liberal), and most of those who are described as, or call themselves, liberal are often very closed minded, highly biased, and bigoted.
You may note that I said "moderate conservatives." This because I know there are so-called "conservatives" who are way too far right, to the extreme, and they are also close minded, highly biased, and bigoted.
It will be interested to see how this mid-term election turns out. I hope I'm wrong and the Democrats don't gain a majority in either house of Congress.
But I think our form of democracy is on a fast downhill slide, and it will be replaced by more government control, intervention, and regulation when the Democrats/Liberals regain control.
If you didn't catch it, I did not say the Democrats/Liberals will be increasing our democratic process. They will be further eroding it by giving more power to the government. If they are really wanting to give the people more democratic control, then they need to promote less government.
I've also read articles blaming the Constitution and electoral system for democracy's fall...usually because Trump got elected but didn't get the popular vote.
First, for all those who support the LGBTQ+ cause/agenda--including the downfall of traditional marriage--the only reason LGBTQ+ had a chance to even get more mainstream acceptance was because the Constitution does a phenomenal job at protecting the minority by preventing them from the majority.
In a real, true democracy the majority votes, the majority rules. LGBTQ+ would not have had any chance because they would not have had any protections.
But, because the Constitutional rights of all are protected and because our system of government is not by absolute popular vote, those in minorities are protected.
It certainly does not eliminate bullying, but our representation does a good job at slowing things down.
I don't think the LGBTQ+ agenda would have had any chance if our country was a real democracy, but as a representative democracy those with the alternative lifestyles have been able to make some progress pushing their views on the rest of the country.
It's similar with the legislature.
The less-populated states have each say in the senate as the more populated coastal states. Neither has more power.
But to allow for the voice of the people to be better heard, the House of Representatives is setup where states get representatives based on their population. So, states with more people (like California and New York) get more representatives in the House.
If laws were passed strictly by the House, then the populous states would have more power. But, since both the House and Senate have equal power, the less populous states can't be as bullied by the states with more people.
This means it takes longer to get things done.
And it can take longer for the views of the "progressive" and "liberal" states to influence the more conservative ones, if they get to that point.
I personally don't think the United States of America would have lasted as long as it has were it not for the representative system of government that the Founding Fathers set up.
But, I think it is because of the representative Constitutional Republic that the country has lasted for as long as it has. That and because the country had been founded with a belief in God and had been more religious until recently.
However, as the country has turned its back on God, and those with immoral lifestyles have pushed and popularized their views, the majority has turned to accepting and supporting these.
The result is the representation in government is also shifting towards those views and laws are passed that tend to overly protect those minorities, at the expense of the rights of the majority through loss of Constitutional rights.
If the USA had been a more democratic form of government, two things are more likely to have happened.
First, the majority would have walked over any minority group and taken away any rights they had. This is evident by the many laws that have been passed and then tossed out as being unconstitutional. People want to think that the Constitution would have prevented such laws from being passed, but it is the Constitution that has set up our government as it is, and it is the Constitution that protects the rights of all. A democracy is majority rule, so a constitution under a democratic rule would change to protect the majority.
The second is if the majority can be convinced to follow a minority, like a very persuasive, charismatic person, then the majority could be persuaded to make changes in the law that would favor that highly influential person. The influential person could just as easily be an institution, organization, or agency.
If the majority can then be persuaded to change the law, then it could be changed in such a way could undermine and take away the democracy and rule of the people. This is a more likely scenario if the people are convinced they need a "king" or a strong central government that can provide everything free for the people, protect them, and keep everyone safe simply by the government taking control of everything (or at least the majority of industry and services).
As it is, our Constitutional Republic is set up with various checks and balances, which include the two forms of representation in Congress. Because of this, change can be slow which means most of the time in-the-heat-of-the-moment bills don't get passed.
Overall, this is good for our country because it tends to force compromise, rethinking, and retooling of laws. And, sometimes, laws just don't get passed because there isn't sufficient support from both the Senate and House of Representatives sides of Congress. Some of these bills may be supported by a "majority" but they are bad for the whole country.
Most bills that have "popular" support--or are supported by a democratic majority--are good only for the more populous states. This means they are forcing their opinions and views on the minority, or less populous, states.
The problem we are against is that the majority in the highly populated states want to force their way of life, their opinions, their views on the rest of the country. They think their views are right for everyone and that the others are wrong.
Entertainment industries and much of news media are slanted in this so-called liberal direction.
The problem is it is not truly liberal. Most "liberals" are not open to differing behavior or opinions. They may be willing to discard old "traditional" values, and open to "new" behavior but only if it matches their worldview.
In my experience moderate conservatives are closer to being true "liberals" (according to the dictionary definition of liberal), and most of those who are described as, or call themselves, liberal are often very closed minded, highly biased, and bigoted.
You may note that I said "moderate conservatives." This because I know there are so-called "conservatives" who are way too far right, to the extreme, and they are also close minded, highly biased, and bigoted.
It will be interested to see how this mid-term election turns out. I hope I'm wrong and the Democrats don't gain a majority in either house of Congress.
But I think our form of democracy is on a fast downhill slide, and it will be replaced by more government control, intervention, and regulation when the Democrats/Liberals regain control.
If you didn't catch it, I did not say the Democrats/Liberals will be increasing our democratic process. They will be further eroding it by giving more power to the government. If they are really wanting to give the people more democratic control, then they need to promote less government.
Comments
Post a Comment