American Democracy

[starfortress]

Is the Concept of Democracy Completely Misunderstood by the Bush Administration?by Stan Moore
(Sunday June 27 2004)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Instead of democracy being a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, American democracy has evolved into a government over the people, with dissent tolerated as long as it is not effective."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Among others, George W. Bush and his National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice, seem to believe that democracy means that the public has the right to protest government policy, but not set it.

Thus, we see Bush and his Vice-President, and his entire administration meeting in secret with their attorneys, their energy consultants, their base of "have-mores" and setting policies that harm the public interest and eventually enrage some of the population, who then are allowed to protest. Why? Because, after all, the U.S. is a "democracy".

Condoleeza Rice apparently feels that the same sort of operation of democracy in Iraq is an improvement over the reign of Saddam Hussein. Paradoxically, Saddam Hussein set up a fine education system for Iraqis, gave them good medical care, a high standard of living for the region, but did not tolerate dissent. Rice thinks the Iraqis are better off now, with the new right to protest their significantly deteriorated living conditions, because Rice believes in democracy for Iraq under an appointed government.

Bush and his crew believe that democracy is a commodity that is installed by military force. They brought democracy to Iraq with F-15 fighters and M-1 Tanks and all the other hardware of war in the U.S. arsenal. It was as philosophically simple as removing a U.S. installed dictator and replacing him with a U.S. installed committee of mostly exiled Iraqis. The Iraqi people, according to U.S. doctrine, are not to be a significant player in Iraqi democracy.

Instead of democracy being a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, American democracy has evolved into a government over the people, with dissent tolerated as long as it is not effective. In the U.S. style democracy, the people are deceived, lied to, and manipulated into acceptance of policies which are against their own interest, or which have significant side affects that are hidden until irreversible. In the U.S. model of democracy, the governing elite decides for the public which policies are appropriate, and the public is manipulated through endless propaganda into believing that public debt is good, that transfer of national wealth from the many to the few is appropriate, and that war is necessary to make peace. The public, in its stupor and unquestioning acceptance, is often not even conscious of its own lost freedom and increased injury.

The U.S. government wants to do for the people of Iraq what it has done for the people of America, but without the economic benefits for the Iraqis. The U.S. government wants to exploit the national wealth of Iraq for the interests of American and multinational corporations, and then encourages Iraqis to feel that they are better off with "democracy", but not control over their own welfare and economics. The question remains, are the Iraqi people capable of being duped as the American people have been?

Source

[MTAFFI]

is this an opinion or an article written somewhere?

[Fishman]

:sl:
That's quite a good article actually...
:w:

[starfortress]

:sl:
That's quite a good article actually...
:w:

:sl:

Bro,there a lot more good article in the linksource there.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Keltoi]

Actually, the public doesn't set government policy, that is exactly what the founding fathers hoped to avoid. Yes, we have the right to vote and elect our representatives, but the people we elect set policy. I agree that the U.S government has become to big for its own good, but that can hardly be avoided if one considers the level of responsibility it has for the economy, security, foreign affairs, etc. Quite frankly, most of the American people are so misinformed about just about everything that I'm glad they don't make policy.

[KAding]

Is the Concept of Democracy Completely Misunderstood by the Bush Administration?by Stan Moore
(Sunday June 27 2004)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Instead of democracy being a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, American democracy has evolved into a government over the people, with dissent tolerated as long as it is not effective."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Among others, George W. Bush and his National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice, seem to believe that democracy means that the public has the right to protest government policy, but not set it.

It appears that the author of the article does not understand the basic principles underlying representative democratic government as it is practiced in the West. By definition representative government DOES NOT give the public the right to 'set policy'. This is, rather, the responsibility of their representatives in parliament. The public in general has only retroactive control over policy, in that it can later remove a government if it disapproves of certain policy. This was done by design and there is no constitution in the democratic world that does not follow this line. It was done to make governing manageable and create some political stability.

There is no country in the world that allows the public direct control over policy. The closest is possibly Switzerland or California with their extensive possibilities of referenda.

Thus, we see Bush and his Vice-President, and his entire administration meeting in secret with their attorneys, their energy consultants, their base of "have-mores" and setting policies that harm the public interest and eventually enrage some of the population, who then are allowed to protest. Why? Because, after all, the U.S. is a "democracy".

Actually. The US is a republic ;). There is a reason why the US is called a republic and not a democracy. This was a deliberate choice of the founding fathers, so it is hardly an invention of Cheney or Bush. Traditionally a republic rest on three pillars, a strong executive (the president), a aristocratic element (the senate) and a popular element (parliament).

The American public has the choice to remove Bush in 2 years from now. They can replace their representatives in a month or two. In the meantime the current executive has considerable discretionary power, but it is of course limited by the other branches of government.

Condoleeza Rice apparently feels that the same sort of operation of democracy in Iraq is an improvement over the reign of Saddam Hussein. Paradoxically, Saddam Hussein set up a fine education system for Iraqis, gave them good medical care, a high standard of living for the region, but did not tolerate dissent. Rice thinks the Iraqis are better off now, with the new right to protest their significantly deteriorated living conditions, because Rice believes in democracy for Iraq under an appointed government.

Sorry, but this is a complete misrepresentation of neo-con ideology. The whole 'democracy' stuff has always been a long-term plan. It is based on the fact that developed democracies have never fought a war against eachother. The metaphores used by neo-cons illustrate this. They always talked in terms on 'planting the seed of democracy' in a region dominated by autocratic regimes.

Bush and his crew believe that democracy is a commodity that is installed by military force. They brought democracy to Iraq with F-15 fighters and M-1 Tanks and all the other hardware of war in the U.S. arsenal. It was as philosophically simple as removing a U.S. installed dictator and replacing him with a U.S. installed committee of mostly exiled Iraqis. The Iraqi people, according to U.S. doctrine, are not to be a significant player in Iraqi democracy.

Ehm. What is this 'U.S. doctrine' according to him? I think the exact opposite is the problem. The US and many Iraqi political actors pushed for elections too soon, believing giving the Iraqis a say would help bring stability. IMHO this is incorrect. You first need to develop the institutions and then slowly increase popular elements in government. Elections in itself can cause serious instability.

Instead of democracy being a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, American democracy has evolved into a government over the people, with dissent tolerated as long as it is not effective.

"Effective dissent"? What does that mean? It can really only mean two things. Either the opposition wins the next election, which would clearly be accepted and thus 'tolerated' by Bush. Or the dissent manages to persuade enough members of congress, in which case the president would have to compromise. After all, congress is the only branch of government which can enact new laws. The author appears to demand that the government, especially congress, do what they demand. But like I explained, that is not how our systems of government work.

In the U.S. style democracy, the people are deceived, lied to, and manipulated into acceptance of policies which are against their own interest, or which have significant side affects that are hidden until irreversible. In the U.S. model of democracy, the governing elite decides for the public which policies are appropriate, and the public is manipulated through endless propaganda into believing that public debt is good, that transfer of national wealth from the many to the few is appropriate, and that war is necessary to make peace. The public, in its stupor and unquestioning acceptance, is often not even conscious of its own lost freedom and increased injury.

LOL! Classic. The people are being wronged, they just don't know it. <sarcasm>Thank god we have someone like this author who knows our True wishes! It is not as if the masses have the intellect to decide stuff like this for themselves of course ;)</sarcasm>

The U.S. government wants to do for the people of Iraq what it has done for the people of America, but without the economic benefits for the Iraqis. The U.S. government wants to exploit the national wealth of Iraq for the interests of American and multinational corporations, and then encourages Iraqis to feel that they are better off with "democracy", but not control over their own welfare and economics. The question remains, are the Iraqi people capable of being duped as the American people have been?

Source

I disagree. The idea that the US is making money on this whole Iraq adventure is plainly ludicrous. The US already spend $320 billion dollars on it. Why would they spend that when they were already buying the oil from Saddam?

[snakelegs]

i think that the existence of elections is often seen as democracy.
i certainly don't feel that anyone in high office represents me.
i also don't think there is ever a serious choice for president, or even a possibility to bring about a real change by picking the guy who is less bad than the other guy.
these guys do not serve the people - they serve the corporations who fund them.
simplistic maybe, but that's how i see it.