The “will of the people” has been manipulated and subverted by the Democrat party and its allies in the press, administrative state, and elsewhere for the last three Presidential cycles. This powerful Blob has lied to and gaslit the American people; run disinformation campaigns against them; censored unfavorable views; and accused people questioning the state’s narratives as promoting conspiracy theories.
This manipulation began in 2016 with the Clinton campaign and DNC funded Steele disinformation operation. Well after the Steele dossier was discredited, Democrats (Schiff; Pelosi, Schumer), the FBI, and the Press continued to promulgate these lies, hindering and hobbling Trump’s Presidency.
When Trump won, he was called an illegitimate President. His opponents tried to recruit faithless electors. Scores of Democrat politicians boycotted his inaugural. Government employees declared themselves part of “the Resistance,” not so subtly declaring their support for a soft coup.
The 2020 election saw the coordinated suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story. It was censored and deamplified on social media. Anthony Blinken organized 51 national security experts who wrote a blatant piece of propaganda that the laptop looked like a Russian disinfo operation. (Did anyone but me bother to read it?) As they knew would happen, a compliant press turned took the indefinite “looked like” into the definitive “is.” The press actively tried to debunk or ignore the laptop story, not investigate it.
This disinformation effort may not have changed the outcome of the 2020 election, but it certainly was a continuation of their norm destroying efforts.
In 2024, the Democrats rigged the nominating process in Biden’s favor. After his debate the Blob shifted from declaring that his best days were yet to come to eulogizing him. Reportedly, he was threatened with the 25th Amendment. The Democrats, their donors, and the press would force Biden out of the Presidency because he would not bend to their political will. This is the very definition of a coup attempt. Biden acquiesced to the extortion and withdrew.
And now the Blob has coalesced behind Harris. If the polls are unchanged in two weeks, will the Blob select another candidate in their unending quest for power?
I agree with John that the word "democracy" has become like "mom and apple pie". Just something we're all supposed to agree is good. But one reasonable meaning of the word comes from the Gettysburg Address: "government of the people, by the people, for the people". We still need to define what that means in practice, but it's a good description of the standard to which the government should aspire. Unless you want to disagree with Abraham Lincoln.
When someone says that Trump is a danger to democracy, they need to be more specific about what Trump could do that would violate Lincoln's standard. For example, he has already tried to overturn one legitimate election, where "election" means the process of registering voters, voting, and then counting votes, NOT the overall 18-month experience of campaigning, campaign funding, media treatment, "Hunter Biden's laptop", etc. That broader process can certainly be criticized, but that's not what Trump said was fraudulent.
"When someone says that Trump is a danger to democracy, they need to be more specific about what Trump could do that would violate Lincoln's standard."
I thought this was the central argument in John's piece. Biden and some in the media often used the word democracy without getting into specifically what they meant. Notably, Harris hasn't done that - she talks about specific freedoms and uses phrases like "the right to voted and have one's vote counted" instead of just saying democracy.
At another point in this same podcast, John suggests that the left is superior because of their tendency to intellectualize and develop elaborate argumentation to support their instinctual positions. Yet here he somehow can't connect the dots. Yes, John - democracy has been hollowed out of real meaning and used imprecisely and emotionally. Definitely, that is a problem. But claiming it is because they only should use something simpler really misses the point. The intent is to leverage a weak link to democracy and escalate it to this vague emotional call. They should replace that with "Trump is a threat to....People Power!"?? Repurposing "democracy" is just another example of pushing meaning shifts to sieze power in a discussion. Diversity, inclusion, justice, woman ... Reframing disussions by misleading people with language is indeed characteristic of the left. Maybe he's confused because he actually seems to also admire it?
The tricky thing is it may be intentional only for the most strident activists and academics - for most I think it's a reflection of their worldview - an accurate representation of the "lens" they see things through - contradictions included. The language just reflects their own attention, what they deem as important, what they deem as problematic, and their attempts to avoid the cognitive dissonance of their positions. They push this language out of desire to validate their own positions, and their need for everyone else to ignore and disregard "dangerous" and challenging information, just as they do.
I'm reminded of John's dismissal of Charles Murray's "Facing Reality" - he acknowledged all the data regarding disparities, but it just made him feel icky. The data wasn't wrapped in a narrative, and Murray offered no straightforward solutions, so John wanted to dismiss it. You can either face reality and wrestle with these challenges and their implications, or label the thoughts as dangerous, racist, far-right and avoid them. This inclination to reshape reality to exclude uncomfortable truths is at the core of the progressive worldview.
I'm not sure how to contrast this with a conservative worldview because I don't really identify with that, but also maybe because it's less interested in reshaping and changing things. And it seems that the institutional and cultural power is squarely with the left now. Both government and academic circles are furthering the progressive distortions. A progressive response may bring up denial of negative impacts on the environment, denial of election results, disregarding the negative impacts of abortion restrictions, stifling of speech. We could get somewhere if only these issues could be brought up for honest debate, in an attempt to deal with the complexity of the challenges facing society, rather than just tarring the other side as reactionary and retreating to rhetoric. The framing of our politics as a battle between Democracy and near-Fascism - between good and evil - makes this impossible.
I think there is something there. Hubris - or to focus on what's lacking - humility. I too had a visceral reaction to John's recent takes. My objections are very hard to put in to words, but they got me on here commenting, At the root of his mistakes is an inability to see a greater context, or to recognize potential bias in analysis. Ian McGilchrist's conception of the function of the brain hemispheres is very instructive here - the context and connections that the right hemisphere provides is absolutely critical, whereas the cold purpose-driven analysis of the left hemisphere dominates today.
We are not a democracy and have never been. We were once a republuc but are now an oligarchy. The Dems are struggling mightily to make sure it stays that way and firmly under their control. Enjoy the illusion of mattering to them.
John should spend his time thinking more about what’s actually going on that worrying about whether terms have worn out. I guess he has the luxury of being able to spend his time thinking about such things.
Let’s mention some other terms that have lost their meaning:
• racist
• nazi
• white supremacist
• transphobe
• homophobe
• insurrectionist
What do these terms have in common?
1. They are all used by the left
2. They all incorrectly, by the left (calling a Jewish person a nazi, for example)
3. They are overused, by the left, to the point they lose any meaning. For example, I no longer care if I was called a racist by the left
Notice a pattern? You should, because I’ve spelled it out.
So how about people on the left focus on substance and policy rather than name calling and character assassination?
I’ll see John’s linguist and raise him one lawyer.
The only feature of our system that is based on pure democracy is initiative and referendum. States like Minnesota (where I live), which conduct referenda but only on proposals put forth by the legislature, do not have a purely democratic feature.
In theory our system is a constitutional democratic republic. Laws are made by elected legislators, and enforced by an elected (indirectly in the case of the President) executive. Our state and Federal constitutions are written, and limit the power of governments. The limits in those constitutions are enforced by judges. Although it took almost 200 years, since 1970 all adult (18+) citizens are entitled and practically able to vote.
But there is a defect in our system that adds an oligarchic or aristocratic element. Because there are no practical checks on the judiciary (especially in the Federal constitution), the Courts, especially the Federal Supreme Court, have developed into super-legislatures. Particularly when it comes to social issues, we are governed by the judiciary. As a result, the final decision makers on issues like abortion, school “integration” and gay marriage are not elected representatives, but judges, which is a fancy name for lawyers who know politicians. Since the 1980s, the Federal Supreme Court has consisted of appointees from a very small number of elite schools. Since 1970, all of the Justices appointed have graduated from Harvard (10), Yale (4), Stanford (2), Northwestern (1), Columbia (1) and Notre Dame (1). The current court has 4 Justices from Harvard, 4 from Yale and 1 from Notre Dame. This concentration of graduates from the top law schools means the Supreme Court is not representative of anything except the elite of the legal profession. If the Court were exercising a purely legal function, this would not be a problem. But since it legislates, it is a severe defect.
In public discourse, “democracy” means “the government I wish we had.” So American Progressives argue that the role of the U.S. Supreme Court is undemocratic now that it has a majority of “conservatives,” even though they lionized the Court when it was dominated by liberals in the late 20th Century, and even though they simultaneously argue against legislation to limit the Israeli Supreme Court, which legislates without a written constitution to provide a fig leaf but is more liberal than the elected Knesset. “Our democracy” means different things depending on the ideology of the person using it. So when you hear that so-and-so is a “threat to democracy” or a “threat to our democracy,” what that really means is “a threat to the government I wish we had.”
We need to stop using the word as a description of our government. The people only have the power to elect Representatives. Democracy is not what we want. We don’t want majority rule. We are a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected representatives. There is a good reason that Constitutional comes first in that definition. They are trying to change the meaning for reflective reasons imo. If you want democracy vote for a democrat. It’s
Absolutely pandering to the lowest information voter. Stop using the damn term interchangeably
No one who used the term democracy to describe the US government is under the misimpression that the US is an Athenian style direct democracy. Meanings and uses of words do evolve over time
Have you ever talked to anyone ? They don’t understand what Athenian even is. Many think that a democrat is for democracy or power to the people. Which they aren’t. It’s being used incorrectly not just evolving. And it’s being done insidiously to favor a political party. Most don’t even have a clue what is wrong with majority rule.
"And it’s being done insidiously to favor a political party."
I have often wondered why so many Republicans a take strident "We're not a democracy, we've a constitutional Republic!!!" position. Are you saying the reason is that democracy sounds like Democrat?
I've always been fine with "democracy" used loosely, as in the current dictionary definition. Rule by the people, whether direct or through representatives. No one really objects to the title of the famous book, "Democracy in America," do they?
I can think of a theoretical situation where the majority of Americans could not get what they wanted (a Constitutional amendment, say, where support is overwhelming in two or three big states, but mildly opposed in all the other states), but I never hear anyone discuss it. In practice, we can and do change everything, including the Constitution -- which we've even changed and changed back.
The reason it is important to separate "Democracy" and "Republic" is the electoral college. Once people accept that we are a democracy, convincing people to accept a Net Popular Vote scheme becomes easier.
This is another example where the Left oversimplifies. The electoral college is designed to balance the varied interests of the states and their citizens. It's a well considered compromise that has helped unite the country.
Instead of debating the issue on its merits, the Left just says, "It's the "will of the people!"
(BTW, on the off chance that Trump wins the popular vote, the NPV movement will quickly reverse course.)
But it is not changed by the people. It’s changed by the representatives voting not the people
If we were a democracy then we would actually have majority rule, which we obviously do not. We wouldn’t have the majority of civil rights legislation if we were. (I’m not saying we should or shouldn’t ) The minorities would have no power. The closest things we have are ballot referendums. Which I would question whether they are actually constitutional or not. They shouldn’t be. They only allow for radicals to get to
The polls for a single issue like legalization of marijuana or something. We have strayed far enough in my opinion from the constitution it can be used and abused as any interpretation sees fit. It’s no longer a short set of absolutes, it’s a constant reinterpretation. Something like the Bible
Right, but both are included under the dictionary definition for "democracy": Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
False. It is appropriate modern usage of the word to refer to the US government as a democracy, meaning that we elect the people who represent us in the government. It is only boring pedants like Mike Lee who think they are saying something profound when they claim we aren’t a democracy.
Randall, one day I had the same thought: Perhaps this is an example of the current trend to immediately change "inconvenient" dictionary definitions. [There was a recent incident of this, but I am drawing a blank on it right now.] But when I investigated, I found a 100-year old dictionary online that had the same "whether directly or through representatives" wording.
Anyway, I don't have a dog in the fight. I tend to think using the word loosely as so many do today is fine, but if I had to, I could make the other case as in my prior post.
Glenn, I have to object to the somewhat glib characterization of American democracy as putting power into the hands of the people. As Cenk Uygur's book Justice is Coming argues, American politics has shifted towards an increasingly corporatist bent since the 1970s, culminating in the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling which upended campaign finance laws in America by abolishing the limits that individuals could contribute to political action committees and allowing corporations to contribute without limit to PACs as well.
The American political system has essentially legalized bribery and there are numerous examples of elected politicians being beholden to corporate or lobbyist interests in opposition to the will of the people. Much has been made of the authoritarian Chinese government's crackdown on Chinese tech companies in recent years, but one can't help but note the irony that in China corporations obey the will of the government while in America it seems like the opposite is true, that government obeys the will of the corporations.
Likewise, the aftermath of the Israel-Gaza war has laid bare the extent to which our political class has been captured by foreign interests. We witnessed 12 Republican senators, all of whom had taken money from AIPAC, threaten the lead prosecutor of the ICC should he attempt to pursue arrest warrants against senior Israeli officials for their conduct in the Gaza war. Progressive congressman Jamaal Bowman, who was mentioned in this week's conversation, lost his seat to an AIPAC funded contender in large part due to his stance on Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu, despite not being particularly popular in his own country due to his prosecution of the Gaza war, was given rapturous applauses by Congress during his recent speech in Washington. And let's not forget that Donald Trump moved the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem during his first administration at the behest of mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, in effect putting US foreign policy up for sale.
The uncritical adulation of American democracy seems to me to be misguided at best. This is why I've always been skeptical of the claim that someone like Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy in this country, because in my opinion the structural deficiencies of the American political system far transcend any one individual. In fact, I think there's a serious argument to be made that despite being an authoritarian regime, the CCP better represents the will of the Chinese people than does the US government represent the will of the American people. The CCP may not brook any challenges to its authority, but it sure as hell doesn't sell out its own constituents on behalf of a foreign government.
Question on this statement: "...There are numerous examples of elected politicians being beholden to corporate or lobbyist interests in opposition to the will of the people." Could you provide six specific examples with names of the politicians and corporations?
As a long-time student of China (20+ years), I would be interested to hear a serious argument that the CCP better represents the will of the Chinese people better than the US government represents the will of the American people (specifying the period over which this occurred -- your post might seem to imply since the 70s?). Such a discussion would be inappropriate here, but perhaps it might be acceptable to post some sources supporting that argument? (With apologies to Glenn for the digression.)
Let's hope the term "democracy" is never worn out. Or needs replacement. It must always be referenced as a link to an historical and philosophical context. As do the words Republic (Res Publica), and Federal. These all have Greek and Latin roots -- and that's a good thing. For with them come Greek and Roman and by proxy Italian, Carthaginian, Polish histories and political philosophies. We can study what went right and what went wrong in the past. We can read Aristotle's Politics and see how he reviews the 100 + "ancient" Republics that predated Aristotle by centuries. We can then read John Adams Defence of the Constitutions from 1787 that reviews ancient and modern Republics from the vantage point of the 1780s. Et al. Et al. But we need those fundamental universal, three millenia old words and concepts as common threads to guide us.
What confuses me is that impartial observers can't condemn the attack on our Democratic-Federal Republic by both Republicans and Democrats. The attempt by Trump to bestow powers upon the president of the Senate, his own VP, without a clear justification in law should be condemned (see Prof. Richard Epstein's dismantling of the notion that the VP was authorized to "count" electors.) The attempt by Democrats to prevent voters from having a chance to elect Trump or not by contorting legal language and procedures that had never been so contorted before should also be condemned. Why is this so difficult?
I think the case to remove Trump from the ballot was open and shut based on the text and original public meaning of the 14th amendment. Although I do agree that the Supreme Court made the right decision here - sometimes pragmatism should carry the day.
I agree the Court made the right decision too but agree with the minority that the opinion went too far. Re: 14th Amendment. Like Article II, Sec 1, where "be counted" is used, the 14th Amendment too has to be interpreted since the President is not mentioned in the list of officers in Sec. 3 . Drawing on the discussion of Mr. Loury and Mr. McWhorter, I would make the case that discussion of the words Democracy, Republic, Federal, etc. are necessary and their meanings should be wrestled with because semantics and interpretation are in the nature of a republic based on a written Constitution. We can't escape it.
In John Adams' 1787 Preface to A Defence of the Constitution, he wrote, "......We find simple monarchies established every where. Whether the system will now become stationary, and last for ever, by means of a few further improvements in monarchical governments, we know not ; or whether still further revolutions are to come. The most probable, or rather the only probable change is, the introduction of democratical branches into those governments. If the people should ever aim at more, they will defeat themselves ; and indeed if they aim at this, by any other than gentle means, and by gradual advances ; by improvements in general education, and informing the public mind. The systems of legislators are experiments made on human life and manners, society and government. Zoroaster, Confucius, Mithras, Odin, Thor, Mahomet, Lycurgus, Solon, Romulus, and a thousand others, may be compared to philoſophers making experiments on the elements. Unhappily a political experiment cannot be made in a laboratory, nor determined in a few hours. The operation once begun, runs over whole quarters of the globe, and is not finished in many thousands of years.
The “will of the people” has been manipulated and subverted by the Democrat party and its allies in the press, administrative state, and elsewhere for the last three Presidential cycles. This powerful Blob has lied to and gaslit the American people; run disinformation campaigns against them; censored unfavorable views; and accused people questioning the state’s narratives as promoting conspiracy theories.
This manipulation began in 2016 with the Clinton campaign and DNC funded Steele disinformation operation. Well after the Steele dossier was discredited, Democrats (Schiff; Pelosi, Schumer), the FBI, and the Press continued to promulgate these lies, hindering and hobbling Trump’s Presidency.
When Trump won, he was called an illegitimate President. His opponents tried to recruit faithless electors. Scores of Democrat politicians boycotted his inaugural. Government employees declared themselves part of “the Resistance,” not so subtly declaring their support for a soft coup.
The 2020 election saw the coordinated suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story. It was censored and deamplified on social media. Anthony Blinken organized 51 national security experts who wrote a blatant piece of propaganda that the laptop looked like a Russian disinfo operation. (Did anyone but me bother to read it?) As they knew would happen, a compliant press turned took the indefinite “looked like” into the definitive “is.” The press actively tried to debunk or ignore the laptop story, not investigate it.
This disinformation effort may not have changed the outcome of the 2020 election, but it certainly was a continuation of their norm destroying efforts.
In 2024, the Democrats rigged the nominating process in Biden’s favor. After his debate the Blob shifted from declaring that his best days were yet to come to eulogizing him. Reportedly, he was threatened with the 25th Amendment. The Democrats, their donors, and the press would force Biden out of the Presidency because he would not bend to their political will. This is the very definition of a coup attempt. Biden acquiesced to the extortion and withdrew.
And now the Blob has coalesced behind Harris. If the polls are unchanged in two weeks, will the Blob select another candidate in their unending quest for power?
I agree with John that the word "democracy" has become like "mom and apple pie". Just something we're all supposed to agree is good. But one reasonable meaning of the word comes from the Gettysburg Address: "government of the people, by the people, for the people". We still need to define what that means in practice, but it's a good description of the standard to which the government should aspire. Unless you want to disagree with Abraham Lincoln.
When someone says that Trump is a danger to democracy, they need to be more specific about what Trump could do that would violate Lincoln's standard. For example, he has already tried to overturn one legitimate election, where "election" means the process of registering voters, voting, and then counting votes, NOT the overall 18-month experience of campaigning, campaign funding, media treatment, "Hunter Biden's laptop", etc. That broader process can certainly be criticized, but that's not what Trump said was fraudulent.
"When someone says that Trump is a danger to democracy, they need to be more specific about what Trump could do that would violate Lincoln's standard."
I thought this was the central argument in John's piece. Biden and some in the media often used the word democracy without getting into specifically what they meant. Notably, Harris hasn't done that - she talks about specific freedoms and uses phrases like "the right to voted and have one's vote counted" instead of just saying democracy.
At another point in this same podcast, John suggests that the left is superior because of their tendency to intellectualize and develop elaborate argumentation to support their instinctual positions. Yet here he somehow can't connect the dots. Yes, John - democracy has been hollowed out of real meaning and used imprecisely and emotionally. Definitely, that is a problem. But claiming it is because they only should use something simpler really misses the point. The intent is to leverage a weak link to democracy and escalate it to this vague emotional call. They should replace that with "Trump is a threat to....People Power!"?? Repurposing "democracy" is just another example of pushing meaning shifts to sieze power in a discussion. Diversity, inclusion, justice, woman ... Reframing disussions by misleading people with language is indeed characteristic of the left. Maybe he's confused because he actually seems to also admire it?
Fantastic comment.
"Reframing discussions by misleading people with language"
I truly think that is the only tool today's Democrats have.
The tricky thing is it may be intentional only for the most strident activists and academics - for most I think it's a reflection of their worldview - an accurate representation of the "lens" they see things through - contradictions included. The language just reflects their own attention, what they deem as important, what they deem as problematic, and their attempts to avoid the cognitive dissonance of their positions. They push this language out of desire to validate their own positions, and their need for everyone else to ignore and disregard "dangerous" and challenging information, just as they do.
I'm reminded of John's dismissal of Charles Murray's "Facing Reality" - he acknowledged all the data regarding disparities, but it just made him feel icky. The data wasn't wrapped in a narrative, and Murray offered no straightforward solutions, so John wanted to dismiss it. You can either face reality and wrestle with these challenges and their implications, or label the thoughts as dangerous, racist, far-right and avoid them. This inclination to reshape reality to exclude uncomfortable truths is at the core of the progressive worldview.
I'm not sure how to contrast this with a conservative worldview because I don't really identify with that, but also maybe because it's less interested in reshaping and changing things. And it seems that the institutional and cultural power is squarely with the left now. Both government and academic circles are furthering the progressive distortions. A progressive response may bring up denial of negative impacts on the environment, denial of election results, disregarding the negative impacts of abortion restrictions, stifling of speech. We could get somewhere if only these issues could be brought up for honest debate, in an attempt to deal with the complexity of the challenges facing society, rather than just tarring the other side as reactionary and retreating to rhetoric. The framing of our politics as a battle between Democracy and near-Fascism - between good and evil - makes this impossible.
Careful, looks like you're matching John's TDS with some MWDS
I think there is something there. Hubris - or to focus on what's lacking - humility. I too had a visceral reaction to John's recent takes. My objections are very hard to put in to words, but they got me on here commenting, At the root of his mistakes is an inability to see a greater context, or to recognize potential bias in analysis. Ian McGilchrist's conception of the function of the brain hemispheres is very instructive here - the context and connections that the right hemisphere provides is absolutely critical, whereas the cold purpose-driven analysis of the left hemisphere dominates today.
We are not a democracy and have never been. We were once a republuc but are now an oligarchy. The Dems are struggling mightily to make sure it stays that way and firmly under their control. Enjoy the illusion of mattering to them.
💯
3 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. It’s isn’t majority rules, it hinders majority rule.
John should spend his time thinking more about what’s actually going on that worrying about whether terms have worn out. I guess he has the luxury of being able to spend his time thinking about such things.
Let’s mention some other terms that have lost their meaning:
• racist
• nazi
• white supremacist
• transphobe
• homophobe
• insurrectionist
What do these terms have in common?
1. They are all used by the left
2. They all incorrectly, by the left (calling a Jewish person a nazi, for example)
3. They are overused, by the left, to the point they lose any meaning. For example, I no longer care if I was called a racist by the left
Notice a pattern? You should, because I’ve spelled it out.
So how about people on the left focus on substance and policy rather than name calling and character assassination?
I’ll see John’s linguist and raise him one lawyer.
The only feature of our system that is based on pure democracy is initiative and referendum. States like Minnesota (where I live), which conduct referenda but only on proposals put forth by the legislature, do not have a purely democratic feature.
In theory our system is a constitutional democratic republic. Laws are made by elected legislators, and enforced by an elected (indirectly in the case of the President) executive. Our state and Federal constitutions are written, and limit the power of governments. The limits in those constitutions are enforced by judges. Although it took almost 200 years, since 1970 all adult (18+) citizens are entitled and practically able to vote.
But there is a defect in our system that adds an oligarchic or aristocratic element. Because there are no practical checks on the judiciary (especially in the Federal constitution), the Courts, especially the Federal Supreme Court, have developed into super-legislatures. Particularly when it comes to social issues, we are governed by the judiciary. As a result, the final decision makers on issues like abortion, school “integration” and gay marriage are not elected representatives, but judges, which is a fancy name for lawyers who know politicians. Since the 1980s, the Federal Supreme Court has consisted of appointees from a very small number of elite schools. Since 1970, all of the Justices appointed have graduated from Harvard (10), Yale (4), Stanford (2), Northwestern (1), Columbia (1) and Notre Dame (1). The current court has 4 Justices from Harvard, 4 from Yale and 1 from Notre Dame. This concentration of graduates from the top law schools means the Supreme Court is not representative of anything except the elite of the legal profession. If the Court were exercising a purely legal function, this would not be a problem. But since it legislates, it is a severe defect.
In public discourse, “democracy” means “the government I wish we had.” So American Progressives argue that the role of the U.S. Supreme Court is undemocratic now that it has a majority of “conservatives,” even though they lionized the Court when it was dominated by liberals in the late 20th Century, and even though they simultaneously argue against legislation to limit the Israeli Supreme Court, which legislates without a written constitution to provide a fig leaf but is more liberal than the elected Knesset. “Our democracy” means different things depending on the ideology of the person using it. So when you hear that so-and-so is a “threat to democracy” or a “threat to our democracy,” what that really means is “a threat to the government I wish we had.”
I am so looking forward to John going all in for Harris.
His nose will be passed the brown, into the pink.
With the mention of Trump, and John's TDS, he'll be the doing the Saint Vitus dance.
He will appreciate her drastically reduced usage of the word “democracy” as compared to Biden!
We need to stop using the word as a description of our government. The people only have the power to elect Representatives. Democracy is not what we want. We don’t want majority rule. We are a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected representatives. There is a good reason that Constitutional comes first in that definition. They are trying to change the meaning for reflective reasons imo. If you want democracy vote for a democrat. It’s
Absolutely pandering to the lowest information voter. Stop using the damn term interchangeably
No one who used the term democracy to describe the US government is under the misimpression that the US is an Athenian style direct democracy. Meanings and uses of words do evolve over time
Have you ever talked to anyone ? They don’t understand what Athenian even is. Many think that a democrat is for democracy or power to the people. Which they aren’t. It’s being used incorrectly not just evolving. And it’s being done insidiously to favor a political party. Most don’t even have a clue what is wrong with majority rule.
"And it’s being done insidiously to favor a political party."
I have often wondered why so many Republicans a take strident "We're not a democracy, we've a constitutional Republic!!!" position. Are you saying the reason is that democracy sounds like Democrat?
I've always been fine with "democracy" used loosely, as in the current dictionary definition. Rule by the people, whether direct or through representatives. No one really objects to the title of the famous book, "Democracy in America," do they?
I can think of a theoretical situation where the majority of Americans could not get what they wanted (a Constitutional amendment, say, where support is overwhelming in two or three big states, but mildly opposed in all the other states), but I never hear anyone discuss it. In practice, we can and do change everything, including the Constitution -- which we've even changed and changed back.
The reason it is important to separate "Democracy" and "Republic" is the electoral college. Once people accept that we are a democracy, convincing people to accept a Net Popular Vote scheme becomes easier.
This is another example where the Left oversimplifies. The electoral college is designed to balance the varied interests of the states and their citizens. It's a well considered compromise that has helped unite the country.
Instead of debating the issue on its merits, the Left just says, "It's the "will of the people!"
(BTW, on the off chance that Trump wins the popular vote, the NPV movement will quickly reverse course.)
But it is not changed by the people. It’s changed by the representatives voting not the people
If we were a democracy then we would actually have majority rule, which we obviously do not. We wouldn’t have the majority of civil rights legislation if we were. (I’m not saying we should or shouldn’t ) The minorities would have no power. The closest things we have are ballot referendums. Which I would question whether they are actually constitutional or not. They shouldn’t be. They only allow for radicals to get to
The polls for a single issue like legalization of marijuana or something. We have strayed far enough in my opinion from the constitution it can be used and abused as any interpretation sees fit. It’s no longer a short set of absolutes, it’s a constant reinterpretation. Something like the Bible
Right, but both are included under the dictionary definition for "democracy": Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
False. It is appropriate modern usage of the word to refer to the US government as a democracy, meaning that we elect the people who represent us in the government. It is only boring pedants like Mike Lee who think they are saying something profound when they claim we aren’t a democracy.
How long has it been appropriate.
Randall, one day I had the same thought: Perhaps this is an example of the current trend to immediately change "inconvenient" dictionary definitions. [There was a recent incident of this, but I am drawing a blank on it right now.] But when I investigated, I found a 100-year old dictionary online that had the same "whether directly or through representatives" wording.
Anyway, I don't have a dog in the fight. I tend to think using the word loosely as so many do today is fine, but if I had to, I could make the other case as in my prior post.
In many I have looked up the second listing is majority rule…. We don’t have that for sure.
For as long as people who have used the word that way.
Real good answer. Couldn’t have expected better
Glenn, I have to object to the somewhat glib characterization of American democracy as putting power into the hands of the people. As Cenk Uygur's book Justice is Coming argues, American politics has shifted towards an increasingly corporatist bent since the 1970s, culminating in the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling which upended campaign finance laws in America by abolishing the limits that individuals could contribute to political action committees and allowing corporations to contribute without limit to PACs as well.
The American political system has essentially legalized bribery and there are numerous examples of elected politicians being beholden to corporate or lobbyist interests in opposition to the will of the people. Much has been made of the authoritarian Chinese government's crackdown on Chinese tech companies in recent years, but one can't help but note the irony that in China corporations obey the will of the government while in America it seems like the opposite is true, that government obeys the will of the corporations.
Likewise, the aftermath of the Israel-Gaza war has laid bare the extent to which our political class has been captured by foreign interests. We witnessed 12 Republican senators, all of whom had taken money from AIPAC, threaten the lead prosecutor of the ICC should he attempt to pursue arrest warrants against senior Israeli officials for their conduct in the Gaza war. Progressive congressman Jamaal Bowman, who was mentioned in this week's conversation, lost his seat to an AIPAC funded contender in large part due to his stance on Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu, despite not being particularly popular in his own country due to his prosecution of the Gaza war, was given rapturous applauses by Congress during his recent speech in Washington. And let's not forget that Donald Trump moved the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem during his first administration at the behest of mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, in effect putting US foreign policy up for sale.
The uncritical adulation of American democracy seems to me to be misguided at best. This is why I've always been skeptical of the claim that someone like Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy in this country, because in my opinion the structural deficiencies of the American political system far transcend any one individual. In fact, I think there's a serious argument to be made that despite being an authoritarian regime, the CCP better represents the will of the Chinese people than does the US government represent the will of the American people. The CCP may not brook any challenges to its authority, but it sure as hell doesn't sell out its own constituents on behalf of a foreign government.
Question on this statement: "...There are numerous examples of elected politicians being beholden to corporate or lobbyist interests in opposition to the will of the people." Could you provide six specific examples with names of the politicians and corporations?
As a long-time student of China (20+ years), I would be interested to hear a serious argument that the CCP better represents the will of the Chinese people better than the US government represents the will of the American people (specifying the period over which this occurred -- your post might seem to imply since the 70s?). Such a discussion would be inappropriate here, but perhaps it might be acceptable to post some sources supporting that argument? (With apologies to Glenn for the digression.)
Let's hope the term "democracy" is never worn out. Or needs replacement. It must always be referenced as a link to an historical and philosophical context. As do the words Republic (Res Publica), and Federal. These all have Greek and Latin roots -- and that's a good thing. For with them come Greek and Roman and by proxy Italian, Carthaginian, Polish histories and political philosophies. We can study what went right and what went wrong in the past. We can read Aristotle's Politics and see how he reviews the 100 + "ancient" Republics that predated Aristotle by centuries. We can then read John Adams Defence of the Constitutions from 1787 that reviews ancient and modern Republics from the vantage point of the 1780s. Et al. Et al. But we need those fundamental universal, three millenia old words and concepts as common threads to guide us.
What confuses me is that impartial observers can't condemn the attack on our Democratic-Federal Republic by both Republicans and Democrats. The attempt by Trump to bestow powers upon the president of the Senate, his own VP, without a clear justification in law should be condemned (see Prof. Richard Epstein's dismantling of the notion that the VP was authorized to "count" electors.) The attempt by Democrats to prevent voters from having a chance to elect Trump or not by contorting legal language and procedures that had never been so contorted before should also be condemned. Why is this so difficult?
I think the case to remove Trump from the ballot was open and shut based on the text and original public meaning of the 14th amendment. Although I do agree that the Supreme Court made the right decision here - sometimes pragmatism should carry the day.
I agree the Court made the right decision too but agree with the minority that the opinion went too far. Re: 14th Amendment. Like Article II, Sec 1, where "be counted" is used, the 14th Amendment too has to be interpreted since the President is not mentioned in the list of officers in Sec. 3 . Drawing on the discussion of Mr. Loury and Mr. McWhorter, I would make the case that discussion of the words Democracy, Republic, Federal, etc. are necessary and their meanings should be wrestled with because semantics and interpretation are in the nature of a republic based on a written Constitution. We can't escape it.
In John Adams' 1787 Preface to A Defence of the Constitution, he wrote, "......We find simple monarchies established every where. Whether the system will now become stationary, and last for ever, by means of a few further improvements in monarchical governments, we know not ; or whether still further revolutions are to come. The most probable, or rather the only probable change is, the introduction of democratical branches into those governments. If the people should ever aim at more, they will defeat themselves ; and indeed if they aim at this, by any other than gentle means, and by gradual advances ; by improvements in general education, and informing the public mind. The systems of legislators are experiments made on human life and manners, society and government. Zoroaster, Confucius, Mithras, Odin, Thor, Mahomet, Lycurgus, Solon, Romulus, and a thousand others, may be compared to philoſophers making experiments on the elements. Unhappily a political experiment cannot be made in a laboratory, nor determined in a few hours. The operation once begun, runs over whole quarters of the globe, and is not finished in many thousands of years.