Here is the symbol of democracy:
Posted on 06/01/2003 12:05:12 PM PDT by SWake
CONSTITUTIONAL Do-over
Why a 1789 guide for a 2003 nation?
By Ken Wheatcroft-Pardue
Special to the Star-Telegram
After invading an impoverished, almost defenseless country and slaughtering its military with a barbarity that would've shocked earlier generations (almost 100 Iraqi defenders killed to every one American), the Bush administration -- seemingly without irony -- now places democracy as the centerpiece of its postwar Iraqi policy.
Time will tell if such talk is mere window dressing, camouflage for imperial designs, but I can think of nothing more important to our collective future than to critically examine our own democracy, warts and all.
Despite strong evidence to the contrary, many Americans believe that their government -- under a Constitution adopted in 1789 -- is the perfect system, "the most democratic country in the world." But self-delusion is not patriotism.
In reality, our system is not all it's cracked up to be. Consider our most recent war, in which a rigorous debate in the British House of Commons before the war was matched by a nonexistent debate here.
Or compare our representatives' fawning obsequiousness during our annual State of the Union address with the catcalls and real debate in the House of Commons when the prime minister stands to answer questions.
The fact is, as compared to other Western democracies, we are deficient in more than debating skills. We have astronomical rates of crime, incarceration, poverty and infant mortality. In almost any meaningful index of quality of life, we lag far behind other Western democracies.
And it should come as no surprise that, according to a study by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the United States "ranks 139th in the world in average voter turnout in national elections since 1945." This widespread voter apathy is in reality an index of citizen frustration and alienation from a political system that just doesn't work.
As Daniel Lazare has pointed out in The Frozen Republic, we have suffered for too long "under the terrible Republican-Democratic duopoly" that has "a record of political stagnation without parallel in virtually any other country."
Regardless of what most Americans believe, our Constitution has not been a model for the rest of the democratic world.
In fact, as Yale University professor Robert A. Dahl has written in How Democratic Is the American Constitution?, "It would be fair to say that without a single exception they have all rejected it." Largely because, as Dahl makes clear, our governmental system "is among the most opaque, complex, confusing and difficult to understand."
Our Constitution is the oldest constitution in the Western world, and it's beginning to show its age.
Consider the past 10 years: legislative gridlock and impeachment during one administration and then the (s)election of another president under questionable circumstances -- and all of the above clearly the fault of our 18th-century Constitution.
With its balance of powers, legislative gridlock is stamped into our governmental system like DNA.
Government in America doesn't work, Lazare points out, because it's not supposed to work. In their infinite wisdom, the Founders created a deliberately unresponsive system.
As for impeachment, we borrowed it from the British, who had the good sense to abandon it in the late 18th century because it was a clumsy and inefficient instrument for getting rid of the executive.
Modern democracies don't impeach. If there is a conflict between the executive and legislative branches that cannot be worked out, new elections are called -- not a cumbersome, quasi-judicial proceeding but a political solution to a political problem.
As for our last presidential election, regardless of whom you were for, it revealed clearly that we are not a modern democracy.
Modern democracies do not have elections that remain in doubt for weeks, using ballots that are difficult to read, while at the same time allowing some votes to count more than others because of an arcane method of tabulating votes adopted because of a political compromise more than 200 years ago.
In modern democracies, the first-place vote-getter wins. Period. It is straightforward, transparent and clear, as every good government is and ours is not.
The fact is that our Constitution is not even particularly democratic. Consider the U.S. Senate, the least representative governing body in the Western world.
The practice of having two senators per state is an outrage. In the Senate, less than 1 million Wyomingites have the same amount of representation as 35 million Californians.
As Alexander Hamilton put it, "the practice of parsing out two senators per state shocks too much the ideas of justice and every human feeling." And he said that when the ratio between the most populous state and the least was near 10-to-1, not the obscene 69-to-1 that it is now.
We have put up with the patented absurdities of an unrepresentative Senate and the Electoral College for far too long. A constitution is only a plan of government. There is nothing sacred about it.
The legitimacy of the constitution, Dahl points out, ought to derive solely from its utility as an instrument of democratic government -- nothing more, nothing less.
At the very least, before we attempt to export democracy to the cradle of civilization, we should begin talking about the real deficiencies in our Constitution.
No one still wears white wigs and satin breeches, and no reason exists for us to continue to govern ourselves with an 18th-century document. Other countries with people no more capable than us have recently written new constitutions: Denmark in 1953, the Dutch in 1972 and 1983, and Portugal and Sweden in 1976. What stops us?
------------------------------------------------------
End of article. The following is contained in a sidebar.
Excerpts from modern constitutions:
Netherlands
No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.
No one shall be required to submit thoughts or opinions for prior approval in order to disseminate them by means other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law. The holding of performances open to persons younger than sixteen years of age may be regulated by Act of Parliament in order to protect good morals.
Adopted in 1983
Portugal
Everyone has the right to express and make known his or her thoughts freely by words, images, or any other means, and also the right to inform, obtain information, and be informed without hindrance or discrimination.
The exercise of these rights may not be prevented or restricted by any type or form of censorship.
Adopted in 1976
Denmark
Any person shall be entitled to publish his thoughts in printing, in writing, and in speech, provided that he may be held answerable in a court of justice. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.
The citizens shall without previous permission be entitled to assemble unarmed. The police shall be entitled to be present at public meetings. Open-air meetings may be prohibited when it is feared that they may constitute a danger to the public peace.
Adopted in 1953
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Wheatcroft-Pardue is a Fort Worth teacher and free-lance writer.
After invading an impoverished, almost defenseless country and slaughtering its military with a barbarity that would've shocked earlier generations (almost 100 Iraqi defenders killed to every one American), the Bush administration -- seemingly without irony -- now places democracy as the centerpiece of its postwar Iraqi policy.
I see: You would have prefered to have a more equal match up, right? Maybe 2 Iraqi dead to every American killed? Or how about evenly matched? If anything, this was was one of the most humane ever fought, with the Allied forces (the good guys, although you would never guess it from many of the press reports, as well as this Clymer!) taking great pains to avoid civilian casualties! We saw the little boy who lost his arms in what some say was an American missile attack. If this were WWII, there would have been nothing left of Baghdad... Ever see the photos of German cities after the end of WWII? I say this loser is WAY off-base!
Time will tell if such talk is mere window dressing, camouflage for imperial designs, but I can think of nothing more important to our collective future than to critically examine our own democracy, warts and all.
Democracy is over-rated, and by the way: We don't have a democracy: It's a constitutional republic, but again, you're part of the news media, so truth isn't something that you'd naturally be worried about.
Despite strong evidence to the contrary, many Americans believe that their government -- under a Constitution adopted in 1789 -- is the perfect system, "the most democratic country in the world." But self-delusion is not patriotism.
The product of the public school systems, and the leftists (mostly successful) attempts at indoctrination... Again, we don't have a democracy, and the US form of government was never meant to be one. Every democracy in history has failed. It was the hopes of the founding fathers that a republic would last...
In reality, our system is not all it's cracked up to be. Consider our most recent war, in which a rigorous debate in the British House of Commons before the war was matched by a nonexistent debate here.
Really... No debate here? I believe that there was plenty of debate in Congress... In fact, they even passed a resolution on the use of force. Maybe your phrase "nonexistant debate" comes from your belief that the Congress made the wrong decision?
Or compare our representatives' fawning obsequiousness during our annual State of the Union address with the catcalls and real debate in the House of Commons when the prime minister stands to answer questions.
Ahhhh... So you believe that we should base our government on that of Great Britian? Maybe we should have a queen too... Maybe Queen Hillary, the First?
The fact is, as compared to other Western democracies, we are deficient in more than debating skills. We have astronomical rates of crime, incarceration, poverty and infant mortality. In almost any meaningful index of quality of life, we lag far behind other Western democracies.
And I would like to see exactly where you get those "facts" from. We have high crime rates, because violent criminals are released from jail far too early, we may be the only country in the world where many of the "poor" are fat and have cable tv, and I seriously doubt your claim at the "astronomical rate of infant mortality." I want to see the numbers!
And it should come as no surprise that, according to a study by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the United States "ranks 139th in the world in average voter turnout in national elections since 1945." This widespread voter apathy is in reality an index of citizen frustration and alienation from a political system that just doesn't work.
Again, my belief that your words, "a political system that just doesn't work" should actually read, "doesn't work the way I wanted it to." So, we're #139 in the world... Which countries are #138 and #137? In fact, I wasn't aware that there were 139 countries that have democraticly elected political leaders. I suppose that their #1 country was the most recent Iraqi election of Saddam Hussien, who as I recall, was elected with nearly 100% turnout!
As Daniel Lazare has pointed out in The Frozen Republic, we have suffered for too long "under the terrible Republican-Democratic duopoly" that has "a record of political stagnation without parallel in virtually any other country."
This screed started with the condemnation of the Constitution, saying that it just didn't work... Well, this "duopoly" is not set anywhere in the Constitution. Change things: Form your own party. Ross Perot did it, and got Bill Clinton elected.
Regardless of what most Americans believe, our Constitution has not been a model for the rest of the democratic world.
In fact, as Yale University professor Robert A. Dahl has written in How Democratic Is the American Constitution?, "It would be fair to say that without a single exception they have all rejected it." Largely because, as Dahl makes clear, our governmental system "is among the most opaque, complex, confusing and difficult to understand."
Actually, it's the current form of the government of the United States that has become "opaque, complex, confusing, and difficult to understand." The government set forth in the Constitution is actually quite small and simple to understand. It's a set of guidelines that specifically says, "Here's what the government is supposed to do." However, over the last wto centuries, it's grown into the behemouth we have today. So don't go saying that the other countries rejected the constitution because of that... Oh, and by the way, Mr Yale Professor... IT'S A REPUBLIC, STUPID!!!!
Our Constitution is the oldest constitution in the Western world, and it's beginning to show its age.
Consider the past 10 years: legislative gridlock and impeachment during one administration and then the (s)election of another president under questionable circumstances -- and all of the above clearly the fault of our 18th-century Constitution.
Hmmm... Gridlock by the dems... That seems to be OK.... Gridlock by the Republicans, time to get rid of the Constitution... And Impeachment! The country's chief law enforcement officer purgers himself, and is involved in witness tampering in a suit. Move along folks, nothing to see here... And the "Not Elected, he was Selected" crap again. Even the recently disgraced NY Times finally admitted that, yes Virginia, President Bush DID win the election! It's starting to get old, and I believe that the vast majority of the people, at least the voters, are starting to feel that way too.
With its balance of powers, legislative gridlock is stamped into our governmental system like DNA.
And that's how it's supposed to be, Zippy! A government with limited powers!
Government in America doesn't work, Lazare points out, because it's not supposed to work. In their infinite wisdom, the Founders created a deliberately unresponsive system.
As for impeachment, we borrowed it from the British, who had the good sense to abandon it in the late 18th century because it was a clumsy and inefficient instrument for getting rid of the executive.
Modern democracies don't impeach. If there is a conflict between the executive and legislative branches that cannot be worked out, new elections are called -- not a cumbersome, quasi-judicial proceeding but a political solution to a political problem.
This may well be the dumbest thing that I've read in the last month! THIS WAS NEVER A CASE OF A POLITICAL ISSUE. IT WAS PURJURY AND OTHER CRIMES BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! Although you may wish that it were a situation where the branches of government couldn't work something out, that's just not the case. You know it, but your absolute hatred for republicans will not allow you to see that.
As for our last presidential election, regardless of whom you were for, it revealed clearly that we are not a modern democracy.
Thank G-d for that. I believe that Robert Mugabe was elected in Zimbabwe with a pure democratic election... Hey, so was Hussien. The original intent of the founders of this country was to isolate the leaders from the whims and desires of the voting population. Only the members of the House of Representatives were to be directly elected by the voters. The President was to be elected by the Electoral College, and the Senate members were sent to Washington by the state legislatures. I still believe that the 17th Amendment was a seies and hugh mistake.
Modern democracies do not have elections that remain in doubt for weeks, using ballots that are difficult to read, while at the same time allowing some votes to count more than others because of an arcane method of tabulating votes adopted because of a political compromise more than 200 years ago.
In modern democracies, the first-place vote-getter wins. Period. It is straightforward, transparent and clear, as every good government is and ours is not.
Well, if you have problems with the "ballots that are difficult to read," blame the democrats in Florida. They were the ones that designed the "butterfly ballot." And NO votes counted more than others! That is, of course, another really dumb thing that you have to say.
The fact is that our Constitution is not even particularly democratic. Consider the U.S. Senate, the least representative governing body in the Western world.
The practice of having two senators per state is an outrage. In the Senate, less than 1 million Wyomingites have the same amount of representation as 35 million Californians.
This Clymer now shows his true penchant for "MOB RULE." It's not an "outrage" at all. That's how it was designed. It's also why Wyoming has fewer representatives than California. This Clymer needs to take a lesson in American History. BTW Zippy... If we had this sort of "mob rule," there would NOT have been an end to slavery, and the 13th Amendment would not have been passed. May good things have been done in this country against popular opinion!
I'm Sorry, but I just can't deal with this any more. I really did try.
Mark
I have the idea that the people who oppose globalization when it means free trade are the same ones who favor it when it means world socialism under one "democracy."
It's not often you see someone openly attack our Constitution, this guy almost has to be a communist. I note it is not lost on him that "democracy" and socialism are perfectly compatible.
Has anyone here ever met a man with a hyphenated last name who wasn't a complete and total, pretentious retard?
You can't possibly expect a rational thought from such a man.
I knew a guy who hyphenated himself over a real hot babe, only to watch time and miss-fortune whittle him down to little more than an asterisk. While the infatuation lasted, rational he wasn't.
Wow, that's a lot farther than I got.
Poppycock. Every sick person in the world desperately dreams of getting an American doctor. Whatever source you got this "statistic" from must use some truly creative criteria for "quality healthcare". My guess would be that expense and availability would rank very high on their criteria list, and if so, it is designed specifically to favor socialist systems over free-enterprise. In other words, Leftist garbage nonsense.
and our literacy rate is not as high as some other nations
As a teacher, I can tell you that in most cases, those who can't read simply don't care about learning to read. If you want this to change, you either have to change the cultural background of those who aren't interested in learning, or force them to learn against their will. Neither is a freedom-based solution.
I'll leave you with this analogy: Since the fascist dictators of WWII were famous for having the trains running on time, would you advocate chaning our system to mirror theirs so that we can compete?
We don't have to be #1 in government-subsidized healthcare, and should not want to be. (However, I'd bet my home that the US is #1, by a wiiiiide margin, in providing healthcare to the world's poor.)
Netherlands
No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.
No one shall be required to submit thoughts or opinions for prior approval in order to disseminate them by means other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law. The holding of performances open to persons younger than sixteen years of age may be regulated by Act of Parliament in order to protect good morals.
Adopted in 1983
Portugal
Everyone has the right to express and make known his or her thoughts freely by words, images, or any other means, and also the right to inform, obtain information, and be informed without hindrance or discrimination.
The exercise of these rights may not be prevented or restricted by any type or form of censorship.
Adopted in 1976
Denmark
Any person shall be entitled to publish his thoughts in printing, in writing, and in speech, provided that he may be held answerable in a court of justice. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.
The citizens shall without previous permission be entitled to assemble unarmed. The police shall be entitled to be present at public meetings. Open-air meetings may be prohibited when it is feared that they may constitute a danger to the public peace.
Adopted in 1953
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
According to a study that practically requires free socialized health care in order for you to get anywhere near the top, rendering it meaningless.
This hyphenated goo-goo should read Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture and get the news that this is pretty much the average kill rate when European and European descended armies meet "The Other" in combat.
Raise your hand if you think Ken Wheatcroft-Pardue would be making this argument had Al Gore won in 2000.
Ah, zero. Just as I expected.
Why would you compare a democracy to a Republic?
our Constitution has not been a model for the rest of the democratic world.
Again, why would democracies use a Republican form of government as a model?
How Democratic Is the American Constitution?
You might know the answer to that by now but I'll give a hint. Find out how many times the word democracy and how many times the word Republic occur in the Constitution.
In modern democracies, the first-place vote-getter wins
That is why the Constitution established a Republic instead of a Democracy; the minorities were thus protected from the whims of the majority.
The practice of having two senators per state is an outrage
The outrage is the 17th amendment that caused the Senators to be beholding to the voters rather than the state the Constitution established them to represent.
A constitution is only a plan of government. There is nothing sacred about it.
This American Constitution is exactly that; a government established by the people describing exactly how they wished to be governed. It is not scared; in fact, the citizen is protected from the Constitution becoming scared by the Constitution itself.
What stops us? (from a new Constitution)
I don’t know who the “us” is but nothing stops the Constitution from being modified. The Constitution describes to “us” the exact steps required to make desired modifications. This has been accomplished 27 times before now so "us" will have some examples to review if "us" has questions. Any other attempt at modification will find people like me providing a great deal of guidance to people like “us”.
Yeah, end the duopoly and implement a proportional representation parliamentary system, so we can get the commies and brownshirts and Aryan Nation and the Greens minorities blocking power over federal legislation.
The point of the Constitution is not democracy, but representational government, imbecile.
"Teacher": that says it all.
Of course, neither of these facts have anything to do with constitutions, and neither of them are even particularly "facts." There is nothing in the US Constitution preventing a British-style Question Time. The House and Senate make up their own rules for the most part, and if the president could work out a deal with them for such a weekly event, it would happen. Indeed, several presidential candidates over the last decade have stated they admired Question Time and would love to implement it here. One of those candidates was Bill Clinton. Amazingly, it never came to be during either of his two terms. I can't imagine why.
The UK, of course, has no written constitution at all. Tony Blair altered Question Time by fiat when he became PM, and could eliminate it altogether at any time if he so wished.
As for the State of the Union being "fawning obsequiousness," Kenny's not paying much attention to the RAT side of the aisle. Tepid good manners is about all it is. And Question Time is more PR and debate games than it is serious discussion.
And it should come as no surprise that, according to a study by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the United States "ranks 139th in the world in average voter turnout in national elections since 1945." This widespread voter apathy is in reality an index of citizen frustration and alienation from a political system that just doesn't work.
I'm sure the fact that many nations require their citizens to show up to vote BY LAW has nothing to do with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.