The Perils of Democracy

Republicans are 100% correct: our revered Founding Fathers did not intend that America should be a democracy (where “the people” rule).  Most of the so-called evidence that our Founding Fathers did not favor a democracy can be found on conservative websites with an anti-democratic agenda (it is only recently that Republicans or conservatives seem to be drifting away from the ideal of democracy).  But consider – from the gitgo, from the ratification of the U.S. Constitution – who had the right to vote was up to individual states.  Most states had a land-owning requirement, only one state allowed women or African Americans to vote, and only a few gave the vote to Catholics or Jews (atheists were not even a “thing” back then).  Everyone who sat in on the Constitutional Convention were white men of means, the aristocrats of their day.  And they did not intend that the “people” (as we see the word today) should rule themselves.  So, partisan Republicans are quite right.

However, …

The Fight Against Inequality

Republicans talk about “inequality” more often than Democrats. Republicans’ talking point is that Democrats favor Equality of Outcomes while Republicans favor Equality of Opportunity and consequential Inequality of Outcomes. This is, of course, political posturing, as NO Democrat (not Robert Reich, not Bernie Sanders, not Elizabeth Warren, not even AOC) has ever suggested that he wishes for Equality of Outcomes; and when they have had the power, Republicans have never advanced any legislation to address Equality of Opportunity for disadvantaged persons.

Time Travel

Hold on, folks, we are going for a short ride through recent American history, to the presidential elections of 2000 and 1992, years when third party candidates nearly sunk our electoral system.

Let’s travel back to the year 2000 AD, when George W Bush won the presidency from Al Gore, by an Electoral College margin of 5 votes, 271 to 266, where the election was decided in Florida not by a measly 534 votes out of nearly 6 million, but by the Supreme Court’s five Republican justices. Many remember that Ralph Nader, running as a Green Party candidate, won 97,000 votes in Florida, a wee bit more than the margin of Bush’s victory there; and Democrats everywhere have faulted him ever since for spoiling the election for Al Gore, whom they supposed would have received Nader’s votes had he not run. What is less known is that Nader won more votes in eight states (with 72 Electoral College votes) than what separated Bush and Gore. Another way to say this is that 72 Electoral College votes went to a candidate who had not won 50% of those states’ votes.

Ranked Choice Voting

While the biggest problem in our democracy is the undue influence of big money in elections and in legislation, the second biggest problem is the two-party system.  This electoral reality is nowhere forced upon us, it is not mentioned in the Constitution; it is just there.

“I don’t like my choices; I like neither the Republican nor the Democrat, but I do like the Libertarian / Green party candidate.  But if I vote for him, I will be wasting my vote as he has no chance to win.”

When we go to choose a candidate for a particular elected office, we are often faced with three or four or even five choices.  But we know that we are “wasting our vote” if we vote for a candidate of a minor party, not a Republican or a Democrat.  Even worse than that is our sense that our third-party vote may contribute to the loss of the major party candidate whom we dislike less than the other major party candidate.  So, we reluctantly vote for the major party candidate (“the lesser of two evils”) who is not our first choice, as we dare not help elect the other major party candidate.

Doomsday Democracy

What is a Democracy?

The word “democracy” derives from the Greek “demos” (the people) and “kratia” (rule).  Even though WE honor the expression “the people,” the Greeks meant “the common people” or a “mob.”  Our Founding Fathers meant “the people” to rule, but they meant people like themselves, aristocrats in today’s vernacular.  When WE ask who are “the people” –  who should rule – we mean ALL of us (over 18 years of age).

The Greek philosopher, Plato, was not a fan of democracy as the Athenian democracy had sentenced his mentor, Socrates, to death.  But those who made up the "democracy" of Plato’s day were aristocrats of their time, not the common people.  Plato favored a “philosopher king,” an extraordinarily knowledgeable man who would never – from his own ambition – seek to rule others.  We Americans, on the other hand, elevate ONLY those who would seek to rule others!  Plato would not have approved.

Dems ... Losing ... Messaging ... Socialism

I spoke this unforgettable quip years ago, maybe more than ten years.  “What do Democrats do best?  They lose elections.”

"But they own the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.  So how can you say that?”

Indeed, they “stole” the White House from the most reviled presidential candidate in U.S. history, they took the Senate by a few Georgian hairs' breadth, and they lost thirteen seats in the House while maintaining a slim majority of seats.

Masks and Rights

Sure doesn't

This post was inspired by the aggressive ignorance of this woman (video) who insisted that she had the RIGHT to transact business in her bank without complying with its demand that she wear a mask.

In a previous post, an important takeaway is the # of Americans who could pass a basic Citizenship test, only 38% of us!  A corollary of that fact is that a clear majority of us do not understand what our so-called RIGHTS really are.

By definition, our legal (and Constitutional) rights are established in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and the rest of the amendments to the Constitution.

Reparations

The first thing that may come to mind when you hear the word “reparations,” “is this an idea whose time has come?”  “No” gets you back to your can of beer and your TV remote, while “Yes” is a much heavier lift.

The next thing that will likely pop into your mind is the obvious question, “should we pay reparations? Yes or No?”  Once again, a “No” is an easy way to dodge the hazards of this question.

This post is NOT about whether we should pay reparations; this post is about the difficulties involved in answering Yes to the question.  Be clear, the fact that a Yes demands thoughtful time and energy is NOT an argument against Reparations.

#2A

This essay concerns the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not mass shootings and not gun violence (for which, please see 2016  and 2015).

Here is the Second Amendment, in all her 27 words of naked splendor:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is the whole thing.

Anti-War

Kurt Vonnegut swore to the widow of his best war-time buddy that his Dresden novel (Slaughterhouse-Five) would be an anti-war book before she welcomed him into her home.

Vonnegut enlisted into the U.S. Army in early 1943, at the height of our involvement in World War II.  Whether he enlisted rather than waiting to be drafted is not clear.  As a 4th generation German American (he makes this absolutely clear on the title page of Slaughterhouse-Five), he may very well have been conflicted fighting Germany.  Whether he could have opted for the Asian theater of war is also not clear.

He published his anti-war novel, Slaughterhouse-Five, in 1969, 24 years after the central event (the Allied fire-bombing of Dresden) of the book.  It is not unusual for writers to take years (or decades) before they can write about traumatic events in their own lives (and to fictionalize it, too).

But what IS unclear above all else is: the reader is left not really understanding what the phrase “anti-war” means to the guy writing an anti-war novel.

Surely, you are kidding; it is self-evident what “anti-war” means.  For example, the United States of America is an anti-war nation, our people are “anti-war,” Americans hate war.