And one naturally says the reason why we are in such a mess is not simply that we have wrong systems for doing things—whether they be technological, political, or religious—but we have the wrong people. The systems may be alright, but they are in the wrong hands, because we are all in various ways self-seeking, lacking in wisdom, lacking in courage, afraid of death, afraid of pain, unwilling really to cooperate with others, unwilling to be open to others.
Probably no nation ever should last for more than 100 years. That seems to be about the time it takes for things to go bad, even if they were good to start with.
And of course there are countries like modern Russia that should have lasted for about 5 years.
Late 18th century. The chaos of the French Revolution arguably diluted its viability as an example to other countries, despite the structure of democratic government being objectively better, so you can argue that we were still on the cutting-edge through the 19th century, even, when most countries were still autocracies or constitutional monarchies with extremely questionable de jure voting systems.
I would argue as late as the 1950s, our democratic structure was closer to average than below-average, but by the 1970s, what gave the US more in-common with other developed democracies was that we had extensive practice with our democratic system; by then our structure was not just hopelessly outdated, but a structure that no one in their right mind would take seriously as a foundation for a new government. Come the fall of most of the single-party Soviet-backed regimes of the 1990s, and the only countries we actually beat out for being a ‘good democracy’ are ones that… well, are only questionably democracies to begin with. And even then, most of them have structures that are superior to our’s; only a tradition of civic participation has led us to hobble on as long as we have without becoming an outright authoritarian state.
Though this might be the last month I can say that, which says a lot about the failures of our shitshow of an attempt at implementing democracy.
The majority of the population could not vote, either due to their skin color, sex, or degree of property ownership (colony by colony/state by state as I recall).
The majority of the population could not vote, either due to their skin color, sex, or degree of property ownership (colony by colony/state by state as I recall).
Yeah, you should look into other governments of the period.
Just to be specific, your argument is that the United States of the late 18th century can be considered a “trail blazer” in terms of democratic achievement. You are agreeing to my assertion that the franchise can be used as a measure of democracy, and you are asserting that the United States was uniquely forward in this area. This follow up statement is limiting this to a comparison of similar governments of the 18th century?
Which is a comparison that makes complete sense. When you say that someone is leading the way, you are clearly referring to them being at the forefront at the time when they were leading the way. Any system that was a trail blazer 100+ years ago should be outdated by now, unless progress stopped or went backwards in the meantime.
Women were not specifically barred from voting in the United Kingdom until the Great Reform Act of 1832. This doesn’t mean that they voted often - and would have been practically barred in most circumstances, but it was possible in some. There were no bars on suffrage for black men in the United Kingdom at any point.
If we talk about representative power, we can talk about how the balance of power in Congress was unfairly weighed in favor of southern states through things such as the 2/3 Compromise (having large, non voting enslaved population.) There was no direct voting on Senate positions until a later amendment which I’m too stoned to bother looking up right now. Even if your ideal of democracy is the Athens of direct democracy - one man one vote - I don’t think the 18th century US was that spectacular.
If he meant “this system isn’t democratic enough”, hard agree. It sounded like the “the founders wanted a republic and we should stop trying to be a democracy” you hear from MAGAs.
When a person says the US is a republic, not a democracy, I take it as them defining “democracy” as a “pure democracy” only, despite the fact that there are other kinds, such as republics. Kinda like saying “that’s not a dog, it’s a Labrador.”
Well, the founders wanted an oligarchy, and we have an oligarchy…
The first step to fixing the problem, is admitting we have a problem: The US was never intended to be a democracy for anyone except oligarchs, and it’s still not a democracy for anyone but oligarchs.
On paper, it was a rejection of monarchism, so a step away from centralized control - but, in the same sort of way as the Magna Carta, where they didn’t make the leap all the way to popular democracy, and instead sought to partially democratize power only among the ruling class. More democratic features have been added since then (suffrage, equal protection clause, etc.), though not nearly enough. IMO we do need to completely throw the system out and start over, only carrying over things for the sake of streamlining/continuity.
And the very next day:
Hybrid Regime with democratic features
—Alan Watts, Mind Over Mind
We were trailblazers for a time. Other than that, we were always kind of fucked as a democratic system.
Democracy is the worst form of government…
Except for all other forms.
Probably no nation ever should last for more than 100 years. That seems to be about the time it takes for things to go bad, even if they were good to start with.
And of course there are countries like modern Russia that should have lasted for about 5 years.
What time was that? (genuinely curious)
Late 18th century. The chaos of the French Revolution arguably diluted its viability as an example to other countries, despite the structure of democratic government being objectively better, so you can argue that we were still on the cutting-edge through the 19th century, even, when most countries were still autocracies or constitutional monarchies with extremely questionable de jure voting systems.
I would argue as late as the 1950s, our democratic structure was closer to average than below-average, but by the 1970s, what gave the US more in-common with other developed democracies was that we had extensive practice with our democratic system; by then our structure was not just hopelessly outdated, but a structure that no one in their right mind would take seriously as a foundation for a new government. Come the fall of most of the single-party Soviet-backed regimes of the 1990s, and the only countries we actually beat out for being a ‘good democracy’ are ones that… well, are only questionably democracies to begin with. And even then, most of them have structures that are superior to our’s; only a tradition of civic participation has led us to hobble on as long as we have without becoming an outright authoritarian state.
Though this might be the last month I can say that, which says a lot about the failures of our shitshow of an attempt at implementing democracy.
The majority of the population could not vote, either due to their skin color, sex, or degree of property ownership (colony by colony/state by state as I recall).
And how was the situation in the rest of the world?
Yeah, you should look into other governments of the period.
Just to be specific, your argument is that the United States of the late 18th century can be considered a “trail blazer” in terms of democratic achievement. You are agreeing to my assertion that the franchise can be used as a measure of democracy, and you are asserting that the United States was uniquely forward in this area. This follow up statement is limiting this to a comparison of similar governments of the 18th century?
Which is a comparison that makes complete sense. When you say that someone is leading the way, you are clearly referring to them being at the forefront at the time when they were leading the way. Any system that was a trail blazer 100+ years ago should be outdated by now, unless progress stopped or went backwards in the meantime.
Late 18th century, yes. And if I hear pop history myths about the Iroquois, I will be irritated.
Women were not specifically barred from voting in the United Kingdom until the Great Reform Act of 1832. This doesn’t mean that they voted often - and would have been practically barred in most circumstances, but it was possible in some. There were no bars on suffrage for black men in the United Kingdom at any point.
If we talk about representative power, we can talk about how the balance of power in Congress was unfairly weighed in favor of southern states through things such as the 2/3 Compromise (having large, non voting enslaved population.) There was no direct voting on Senate positions until a later amendment which I’m too stoned to bother looking up right now. Even if your ideal of democracy is the Athens of direct democracy - one man one vote - I don’t think the 18th century US was that spectacular.
Before any of us were alive. Some would say before centralized banking in the early 20th
I think “For a minute or two” is a more apt answer.
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
A republic you say?
Republic just means a country without monarchy.
China is a Republic
North Korea is a Republic
The US is a Democratic Republic
Where do you think the name of the political party “Democratic-Republicans” come from?
North Korea is also. Democratic Republic too!
So much good, amirite?
xD
Technically true. But instead of two-party system, they get one-party system. Decision is overrated anyways!
Hail the the supreme leader 🫡 /s
Hey now! The US is much more democratic, because we get to choose between two hand picked selections from our oligarchs.
I mean yeah the US absolutely is much more democratic than North Korea, but it’s the lowest of bars
A republic is a kind of democracy.
So long, and thanks for all the fish
In other words, a republic is a kind of democracy.
Oh my god, can you people shut up with this already.
The senate, and SCOTUS are verrrry democratic.
Not having primaries for either of the two available parties is very democratic.
The electoral college is the most democratic way to make sure the minority voice maintains a dictatorship.
If he meant “this system isn’t democratic enough”, hard agree. It sounded like the “the founders wanted a republic and we should stop trying to be a democracy” you hear from MAGAs.
When a person says the US is a republic, not a democracy, I take it as them defining “democracy” as a “pure democracy” only, despite the fact that there are other kinds, such as republics. Kinda like saying “that’s not a dog, it’s a Labrador.”
Well, the founders wanted an oligarchy, and we have an oligarchy…
The first step to fixing the problem, is admitting we have a problem: The US was never intended to be a democracy for anyone except oligarchs, and it’s still not a democracy for anyone but oligarchs.
On paper, it was a rejection of monarchism, so a step away from centralized control - but, in the same sort of way as the Magna Carta, where they didn’t make the leap all the way to popular democracy, and instead sought to partially democratize power only among the ruling class. More democratic features have been added since then (suffrage, equal protection clause, etc.), though not nearly enough. IMO we do need to completely throw the system out and start over, only carrying over things for the sake of streamlining/continuity.
But I like fish.
He wrote “it’s not a democracy, it’s a republic” originally.
Do hollywood next (aka the propaganda machine of the US).