our "democracy" had been gamed to the point were it is not. FDR's America is now Merika - a fascist state. We do not need a dictator - we need to wake up and take back our country - not by force - but by teaching the truth - about who we are, were, and how we got here.

As a historian of the post WWII era - concentrating on post civil rights era Merika as we shfited into "The Great Repression" - I had no trouble finding boatloads of evidence to support my thesis - even fascists who wallow in the swill of their creation will admit that the facts are and have been available - but Merikans have their noses so far into the trough that they dont see the slaughterhouse right over the fence.

Plato had it right -- the best form of government is that of Philosopher-King. Unfortunately, history attests that rule usually falls to kings who fall tragically short when it comes to philosophizing.

Some who don't know any better also point to the fact that Mussolini made the trains run on time, and that Hitler gave Germany the Autobahn and the Volkswagen. The short answer to that foolishness is that on balance, there was no balance.

Personally, I'd be very leery of the changes you suggest. However, as I suggested in a comment on my post Takin' it to the Streets, it is long past time we did away with the filibuster. It's also time to end super-majority votes in the Senate. And thanks to the SC decision in the disputed 2000 Presidential election and in Citizens United, I am now in favor of a confidence vote -- say every five or ten years -- for SC justices.

Some might suggest such changes are tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I say this baby has gotten long in the tooth, and it's time he got off his ass and started working.

You already got your wish. If you look closely at how the system works you'll understand that we don't really have a democracy after all. Sure, all eligible voters can vote. But who actually gets to run? Only people who are rich, have strong ties to political parties or groups of rich people, or both. And only some of those pople are able to get their voices heard, because it takes money to get media advertising. By the time individual voters actually get to vote, only a small field of people who have been pre-selected have any chance.

Your main concern is that a large percentage of the voting public consists of people who shouldn't be voting -- the dumb, whacked-out, the clueless, careless, hapless etc. Not to worry: These people are gullible, and roughly equal numbers of them are sucked to either side based solely on catch-phrases, demogoguery TV ads, how well they like the way a candidate looks or talks, or just the fact that they always vote for a certain political party.

Rich people have much more political power since the Supreme Court allowed PACS to gather unlimited amounts of money from anonymous donors and spend it on campaign ads that don't mention a candidates name but push his agenda. Everyone knows which candidate the ads are endorsing.

Democracy? Hah! In the USA, the rich select political leaders, and then control them.

Frank, I'm starting to have my doubts. But then again, is there a better alternative?

Thanks Snowden, Tom, and Gary.

I’ll have specific replies to what you have written, but I really hope more people will comment before I do.

One general comment: It does sound as though each of you see the deficiencies in existence, even if some prefer to think of them not as failures of democracy, but rather as perversions of it. But I suggest that if democracy is so easily perverted, that in itself is a deficiency of democracy.

But like I said…more after a few more comments. Thanks you guys for stopping by. I really appreciate it.

Oops, Walter, you sneaked in there.

Not sure about "alternatives"... but I plan to discuss that a bit more after a few more replies (I hope).

I suggest we quit paying elected officials...oh, a nominal salary is okay, but make them fly, eat, live, get healthy (ahem) like the people who elected them. I think we might save some $ as well as get people who really represent the people.

New Hampshire has 435 representatives in its lower house. Our Congress is no longer representative given our population. Increase the size of the House to its population ratio of 1912 and it will be difficult to have big money play a role.

Well, we don't really have a pure democracy, we have a representative government. That construct ensures, in some districts, anyway, that the views of (50% of pop.-1 person) are not represented at all. I think straight up voting by all the people, rather than by a "representative" few, would create very different outcomes.

I think the parliamentary system meets your criteria, mostly. A party wins a majority and then the leader of the party becomes prime minister, and has great power. If any party members don't back the leader, they have to leave the party.

THINGS GET DONE - unlike in the American system where party members are essentially autonomous.

If the population doesn't like the things that got done, they vote in a different party next time.

R

Hi Frank. I guess it would be constructive to looks at the various forms of government and try to make an assessment of which delivers better results to its population. Great Britain and ex-colonies Canada, Australia and New Zealand (I think) are parliamentary democracies. Have they been measurably better than the U.S. over the decades? Maybe, and it looks like it especially now. But they also get accused of being democratic dictatorships when the winning party has a majority. How would that have played out in the Bush and Reagan years? I'd have to look it up to see what system the Scandinavian countries use. They seem to come up with the best set of policies. Intriguing suggestion.

To be honest (and mind this is someone who admittedly doesn't delve into politics much) given what the US is - a true melting pot of culture backgrounds, never mind the couple of centuries we've had to melt - I'm kind of surprised that any kind of democracy has worked at all, ever :). Natural progression perhaps, maybe government is related to population size? Below a certain number any form of government will work with varying degrees of success, but when the population grows past that magic number, nothing short of some sort of dictatorship will manage?

Once a population grows to the point of establishing factions that can pull in different directions, with enough power (in numbers or whatever else) for that pull to be effective 'the good of all' falls by the wayside as those factions begin to exert their preferences. It seems to me that under such a circumstance a democracy actually can't operate successfully, the capacity to have general agreement (as in what is good for all) is lost :-/.

We have various factions as well as every man for himself today and that just seems like a natural recipe for disaster. Or the recipe for an anarchy that won't work either because we don't have the resources or space to support it :(.

Benevolent dictator has popped up now and then, or philosopher king as TC mentions, which would probably be a solution, but is likely impractical.. I don't remember, did Diogenes ever find his man? For me, thinking about it too much causes me to get the willies, it appears that a solution isn't at hand and eventual and complete collapse is inevitable just from the sheer weight of stubborn disagreement in numbers. Then I imagine that same thing on a global scale..

Rated for just plain scary.

In the early 20th century, it was conventional wisdom that Democracy was inefficient compared to totalitarianism. And therefore doomed.

I think Americans are remarkably united on core issues. A lot of the venom that passes for conflict is due to the LACK of real differences.

America is still in first place in the standings and its challengers all have enormous problems.

Hi Frank:

I believe all is hopeless until you get the money out. Politicians need to work because of love of country.

I agree with Myriad.. Things are no where as bad in Canada as they are here.. this whole system and pardon my french sucks Frank.
HUGGGGGG

I've said for a long time, what this country needs is a constitutional convention.

The theory that granting absolute power to an executive "gets things done" no doubt has a certain validity. A glance at Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc, certainly certifies that things no doubt got done. If that's the kind of things you want done, you certainly have a point. But it requires a certain gullible enthusiasm and I find that is one of my personal great lacks.
Solving difficult social, economic, cultural, environmental etc. problems requires the the careful consideration of thoughtful minds that can balance advantages and consequences with a very solid immutable set of principles for basic humanity and compassion, something dictators rarely if ever find worthwhile to utilize.

No thanks.

I've long ago realized that in the U.S. anyway, democracy is broken. Tonight I saw the wonderful documentary by Oliver Stone, "South of the Border." (http://southoftheborderdoc.com/) He interviews the Leaders of Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Cuba - and THEY do the talking, putting it right out there how they were each able to represent the people of their country - not the oligarchs or the U.S. military or the IMF/World Bank. Quite inspiring.

Even tho the film was a 'flop' according to the august NYTimes, I found it refreshing. It is my hope that the 'Bolivarian' movement continues, escalates, and migrates even across the U.S. border....who knows? It could happen....and we'd be better represented if our leader listened to the people instead of the oligarchs in this country. Rant rated!

I have no doubts that democracy in the USA is exceedingly sick but I am not sure the malady is yet fatal. Like cancer, one always hopes for a remission as remote as that hope is at the moment.

But to declare it broken intimates it needs fixing, not discarding. When your car breaks down it seems to me unwise to substitute a ride on a rocket propelled missile with an explosive warhead just to pick up a container of milk at the supermarket.

Thanks everyone for commenting.

The state of affairs here and throughout the world certainly makes for dark thoughts. Obviously, I was in one of my very infrequent dark periods when I wrote my opening comments. I’m happy that most of the time I feel that I am an extremely lucky person who lives a reasonably comfortable and happy life for someone who lives at the poverty level.

But it would be nice if everyone could live a decent life…and I am saddened that so many seem to be living a life of near-Hell. So pondering our political-state-of-being is something I do a lot.

I honestly do not think democracy (or our representative form of it) works efficiently…and while I am not able to come up with a reasonable alternative, I feel we have to at least consider what other options are available.

I have to start my journey in that direction with a concession: It may not be just democracy that does not work in a society such as we find ourselves—but no form of government. And of course, chaos and anarchy are even further down on the line of possible ways to comport ourselves.

Allow me to digress (in a direction that is apropos of what I am trying to communicate here):

A long time ago, before the Internet forum days, I wrote an essay in response to a letter to the editor I read about possible visitors from other worlds to Earth. The writer expressed absolute certainty that there were civilizations “out there” greatly advanced of ours. I, ever the skeptic and agnostic, wanted to present a POSSIBLE alternate scenario.

I suggested that it was possible that ALL evolving entities might take the path of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest”—and as a result, ALL evolving entities might end up with a dominant species that got to domination by being more intelligent and more ruthless in achieving success…and that ALL evolving entities might eventually reach a point where I saw us at the moment I was writing—namely: At a point in our technological evolution where we could conceivably destroy ourselves at the same time as being at point in our philosophical evolution where we WOULD DEFINITELY NOT DO SO.

I offered a suggestion that MAYBE all evolving entities get to where we are—and then actually do destroy themselves. MAYBE there are no entities anywhere in the universe that get past this point. Maybe we are among the most advanced species currently in existence—and we (and the others at our stage of being) will shortly blow ourselves out of existence—either by weaponry or carelessness.

In short, maybe NO POLITICAL system can work to make us stop our headlong rush into self-annihilation.

Wow! Talk about dark moments!

Gonna go play a round of golf now. Hope I shoot the dimples off the ball. I’ll come back and maybe the “darkness” will haves passed and I’ll have more to say on a happier, more positive note.

There are definite evolutionary indications that social groups which see to the beneficent impulses of the individuals which comprise it for mutual benefit have a very high survival rate. Evolution is not totally negatively driven.

To elaborate on this a bit further, any multicelled creature is a conglomerate of individual living cells and although there is no doubt that individual living cells can be very successful in the current environment, the solution to successful multicelled creatures are all around us. There is no guarantee, of course, that humanity will become one of the successful organizations in the search for a mutually beneficial integrated civilization but there is no question that progress has been made over the last centuries and the technological accomplishments of bringing the whole human world closer are mounting at a rapid rate. The anti-democratic forces of secret dealings and sectarian dominations by privileged groups such as the wealthy elite, bureaucratic hierarchies, exclusive religious and racial organizations and the open brutalities of the CIA, the Mossad, and other government arms which have been permitted to exercise horrendous brutalities have been and are being countered by the communication facilities which are joining all of humanity. These counter forces may fail in the near future as those in power attempt to shut down decent human objections to the habitual brutalities of those in power inmost countries, whatever their official hypocritical proclamations of freedom and decency and democracy but there are cracks in absolute power that are beginning to show and this gives, at minimum, the possibility of progress to decency and good government. There is, of course, no guarantee the forces for good will triumph in the near future but humanity is breaking into the capabilities of huge physical energies and if these are not used well, as Fukushima has demonstrated, humanity probably will not sustain. But something else probably will.

This is a republic, not a democracy, for your edification. To answer your title, you are wrong, but do I have a country for you.

Jeana, I understand that this is a Republic—I even made reference to that in my comments. Besides, that fact is mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance, which I, like most Americans, know quite well.

I was talking about democracy…and I was questioning whether it works to allow today’s society (societies in Republics included) to function at its peak.

I am delighted you are so sure I am wrong to question whether or not it does. Thank you for contributing.

…but do I have a country for you.

Obviously you are not especially happy with the post I made earlier in your blog. I resectfully suggest that my post there made a bit more sense than this one you have posted here.

I already have a country, this one—but I can suggest a way to insure that the country you have in mind will not wilt under the heat of the sun!

We are a republic and a democracy...for your edification...enlightenment...and to shoot down yet another parrot who repeats strange right-wing themes.

The even more fun truth is we are a liberal constitutional democratic republic.

So, Jeana, if you knew the slight difference between the words republic and democracy, or had read Madison's Federalist 10, you'd know to not make a silly mistake...or compound the error by acting As If you know what you're talking about.

A republic has a executive, usually a president, who rules through public input. Res publica -- public matter.

A representative democracy, which is still a democracy, is that form of our representation.

For your edification:

http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2009/02/16/usa_republic_or_democracy_answer_yes

Coming late to this discussion, I can only agree with what most have already said. It has been my 'feeling' for a long time hat the US has become too large and too heterogeneous to be be governed efficiently. Government is only a decision process held in place by the tension of all the interest groups with power. Fifty years ago, when communication and awareness was virtually non-existent and only the middle and upper white people had any influence, government was simpler. As people have become educated and minority and interest groups become large and powerful enough to become a political force, decision making and government is incredibly more complicated.

We can look at Scandinavia as potential models for efficient government but these countries places are tiny in comparison (there are more millionaires in the US than there are people in Denmark, Finland or Norway), their roles in the world are vastly different. Their relative homogeneity of populations makes a government based on shared cultural values much simpler.

I don't have any answers and only hope that some one or some group arises who does.