View Full Version : Of the People, For the People, By the People . . . NOT!
During an interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz, she prefaced a question to Cheney by saying, "Two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fighting."
"So?" Cheney interjected.
"So?" replied Raddatz. "You don't care what the American people think?"
"No," said Cheney. "I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls."
It's the Imperial Guard in the White House who don't care one whit about some pesky little ideas such as democracy.
article (http://www.newsobserver.com/505/story/1007974.html)
W3MIV
03-22-2008, 04:53 PM
Nothing new, here, Robert. LBJ would have answered the question in the same way as did Cheney. Indeed, Lincoln would, too, have answered in the same way.
Sometimes the stated policy is the best route to follow, and sometimes not. That's why we have elections.
Albert,
While I agree that many politicians would have answered the same, I don't concede that that is the proper way for a leader in a representative democracy to act. A good leader acts in one of several ways. Either they select a course of action because they know it is the right way regardless of public sentiment or they find out what way the herd is going and then they run like Hell to get in front. A good leader knows when they should select which.
Our history is filled with leadership that selected the wrong way. Establishing national prohibition, continuing the war in Vietnam, setting the speed limit at 55 mph are just a few examples of leadership failing to get in front of the herd. Things like school segregation, women’s suffrage, imprisonment of Japanese-American citizens in World War II are examples of leadership following popular opinion. They all lead to very poor results. The end result of these failures in leadership has resulted in things like general disregard for the law, increase in organized crime, injustice to our citizens, and terrible divisions among the population.
I think Cheney’s total disregard of what the majority of Americans want with regard to the continuing occupation of Iraq has lead to acrimony and divisions in the American population that will take years to heal–very similar to the aftermath of Vietnam. In short, his attitude is not in the best interest of this country.
kc7jty
03-23-2008, 04:35 AM
2/3? That's quite a few. Saying they don't think it's worth fighting doesn't mean they are significantly opposed to it, or think it's important that we get out.
Politicians are like animals on the hunt. Once they bag the prey they do with it as they please. Next election, next animal.
KG4JYD
03-23-2008, 05:01 AM
The Constitution has at least one error in it. "We the People" is incorrect. It should've more accurately been "We the Independent States"
The Constitution has at least one error in it. "We the People" is incorrect. It should've more accurately been "We the Independent States"
When Ron Paul is elected president, he will fix that! Just don't hold your breath!
AE6IP
03-23-2008, 05:26 AM
The Constitution has at least one error in it. "We the People" is incorrect. It should've more accurately been "We the Independent States"
No, Matt. One plus one does not equal seven.
W3MIV
03-23-2008, 11:50 AM
Robert, one of the more obvious errors in your initial post (and subsequent response to my comment) is that Cheney is not in a position of actual leadership. In simple fact, he occupies a role that "Cactus Jack" Garner famously derided as "not worth a bucket of warm spit."
Were he to suddenly awaken to a new sense of responsibility and decide to lead a populist revolt, he would have much the same effect as did Hubert Horatio Humphrey. Which is to say, none.
The failures of the Bush Administration do not coalesce around Cheney; like gargantuan barnacles, they cling to Bush.
W3MIV
03-23-2008, 11:56 AM
The Constitution has at least one error in it. "We the People" is incorrect. It should've more accurately been "We the Independent States"
For the last time, Mattie: The state conventions that ratified the Constitution were drawn from the people by direct election, not from the governments of the thirteen states by appointment. It was not, therefore, the "states" that ratified, but "the people."
If you would take the time to study the history through sources of unimpeachable quality, instead of relying on internet bloggers and whackoes, you would see that you have been led inevitably down that garden path of conspiracy theories that moisten the sheets of bent theorists.
KG4JYD
03-23-2008, 03:49 PM
It was not, therefore, the "states" that ratified, but "the people."Wrong. The legislatures had to ratify the Constitution, not a direct vote of the People.
W3MIV
03-23-2008, 04:11 PM
Wrong. The legislatures had to ratify the Constitution, not a direct vote of the People.
Matt, you are simply wrong. No legislatures ratified the Constitution. The states held open elections to choose delegates to state ratifying conventions, and it was those conventions of elected "people" who ratified the Constitution.
Wherever you are reading this drivel you believe, it is simply and utterly wrong. Do your research and look into the writings of Madison, who was intimately involved in a trying battle with Henry in the VA convention. Look into the writings of Hamilton about the NY ratifying convention.
Get your head out of your butt and off of the conspiracy blogs that contain no whit of truth among the dross of misinformation you are gobbling by the bushel.
KU0DM
03-23-2008, 04:14 PM
Matt's an anti-federalist :p
KG4JYD
03-23-2008, 05:16 PM
Matt, you are simply wrong. No legislatures ratified the Constitution. The states held open elections to choose delegates to state ratifying conventions, and it was those conventions of elected "people" who ratified the Constitution.
"Each State in ratifying the Constitution is considered a sovereign body independent of all others..." - Madison
There is nothing in the Constitution, DoI, or AoC that enables the "American People" to create a national government. When did the States cease being States to make themselves into a nation? When did the "American People" ever assert or ratify anything?
AE6IP
03-23-2008, 06:35 PM
There is nothing in the Constitution, DoI, or AoC that enables the "American People" to create a national government. When did the States cease being States to make themselves into a nation? When did the "American People" ever assert or ratify anything?
As far as "nothing in", you need to reread the Declaration again.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The right of the people, Matt, not the right of the states.
one plus one still fails to equal seven.
W3MIV
03-23-2008, 07:00 PM
"Each State in ratifying the Constitution is considered a sovereign body independent of all others..." - Madison
There is nothing in the Constitution, DoI, or AoC that enables the "American People" to create a national government. When did the States cease being States to make themselves into a nation? When did the "American People" ever assert or ratify anything?
You have taken Madison out of the context of Federalist #39. If you once read that paper carefully, and not permit yourself to be distracted by the sirens of the whackoes you so admire, you will find that Madison founds his "authority" as "the authority of the people," and in that very same paper he specifically informs you that the conventions being called by the separate states to ratify the Constitution, were composed of ordinary citizens specifically elected for that purpose alone, and that these conventions were NOT a part of the states' governments. They acted in the capacity of the populace of each state speaking on behalf of the polity that they held in and of themselves.
You are proof positive of that ancient adage that a "little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
KB1QBW
03-23-2008, 07:09 PM
It's the Imperial Guard in the White House who don't care one whit about some pesky little ideas such as democracy.
This isn't, has never been, and wasn't intended to be a democracy.
K9STH
03-23-2008, 10:14 PM
JYD does not understand that the United States of America is a representative republic and NOT a democracy. The truth be known, there is not a single democracy in the world in terms of a national government.
I wonder if JYD knows the answer to this question?
What are the two oldest countries in the world in terms of form of government?
Glen, K9STH
Albert,
While I agree that many politicians would have answered the same, I don't concede that that is the proper way for a leader in a representative democracy to act. A good leader acts in one of several ways. Either they select a course of action because they know it is the right way regardless of public sentiment or they find out what way the herd is going and then they run like Hell to get in front. A good leader knows when they should select which.
No argument. However, a good leader will also make a convincing case for going against the prevailing opinion if he chooses a course of action that is at odds with consensus. With Vietnam, the "case" for the war was "to stop the spread of Communism." With Iraq, the "case" is "to stop the spread of Terrorism." In neither instance was the "official" reason very convincing.
Our history is filled with leadership that selected the wrong way. Establishing national prohibition, continuing the war in Vietnam, setting the speed limit at 55 mph are just a few examples of leadership failing to get in front of the herd. Things like school segregation, women’s suffrage, imprisonment of Japanese-American citizens in World War II are examples of leadership following popular opinion. They all lead to very poor results. The end result of these failures in leadership has resulted in things like general disregard for the law, increase in organized crime, injustice to our citizens, and terrible divisions among the population.
Every nation's history is filled with leadership that made bad decisions.
Not to defend bad decisions, but keep in mind that many decisions which seemed right at the time only became bad decisions when viewed in the 20/20 hindsight of history. Some things that made sense 50 or 100 years ago seem positively stupid when evaluated in the context of modern societal values. But that's the point: decisions need to be evaluated in the context of the time they were made. Don't ascribe evil intent to something that is more accurately explained by naievete or ignorance.
Public opinion isn't always right nor is it always wrong. The difficulty a leader faces is knowing when to follow it and when to ignore it. Sometimes, regardless of what they say, I suspect they flip a coin.
I think Cheney’s total disregard of what the majority of Americans want with regard to the continuing occupation of Iraq has lead to acrimony and divisions in the American population that will take years to heal–very similar to the aftermath of Vietnam. In short, his attitude is not in the best interest of this country.
At least you have to give Cheney some points for honesty (in this case, anyway). Most politicians would have equivocated or ignored the question; at least he gave a direct answer. He essentially said that public opinion counts for nothing with politicians and the gummint does what it damn well pleases...which is true. This is why we have a representive republic instead of a pure democracy. Both are prone to bad decisions, but history has shown (and the Founders knew very well) that pure democracy is a recipe for total chaos.
kb2vxa
03-24-2008, 07:28 AM
"JYD does not understand that the United States of America is a representative republic and NOT a democracy. The truth be known, there is not a single democracy in the world in terms of a national government."
Thank you Glen, you're one of the very few who understands that democracy is an electoral process and there is no such thing as "a democracy". That fallacious notion has been promulgated by every president who mouthed the words "make (or making) the world safe for democracy". Now how many can you name? Better yet tell us what that phrase means!
AE6IP
03-24-2008, 05:20 PM
"not a democracy" is perhaps the worst form of useless word-nerdery in political discourse in this country. It nit-picks the English language as it is commonly used as if it were being used with the precision of mathematical notation.
"is a democracy" has a well understood, commonly accepted meaning that applies very correctly to the United States: The majority rules.
People who think they are being careful with language when they claim the US is not a democracy are merely being pedantic without being precise. Precisely speacking, the United states is a representational democracy, taking the form of a constitutional republic, or, more succinctly, it is a representative democratic constitutional republic.
If you are going to pick nits about what the US is or is not with respect to how it is ruled, you must use all four of those terms. In modern English, we commonly shorten that phrase "representative democratic constitutional republic" to plain ole democracy since the phrase is an unwieldly mouthful.
Arguing that the US is not a democracy also betrays a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word democracy. It implies an 18th century pejorative form which equates all forms of 'democracy' with 'direct democracy' and argues that 'direct democracy' always degenerates into 'mob rule. While this argument has much emotional appeal to those who buy it, it is not upheld by the observed behavior of humans, and why we now tend to modify the word 'democracy' with the way in which the majority is arrived at, thus 'representational democracy'.
W3MIV
03-24-2008, 05:42 PM
Right you are, Martin. This whole "not-a-democracy" issue is a marvelous illustration of what Emerson had in mind when he penned that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Good post.
"not a democracy" is perhaps the worst form of useless word-nerdery in political discourse in this country. It nit-picks the English language as it is commonly used as if it were being used with the precision of mathematical notation.
"is a democracy" has a well understood, commonly accepted meaning that applies very correctly to the United States: The majority rules.
People who think they are being careful with language when they claim the US is not a democracy are merely being pedantic without being precise. Precisely speacking, the United states is a representational democracy, taking the form of a constitutional republic, or, more succinctly, it is a representative democratic constitutional republic.
If you are going to pick nits about what the US is or is not with respect to how it is ruled, you must use all four of those terms. In modern English, we commonly shorten that phrase "representative democratic constitutional republic" to plain ole democracy since the phrase is an unwieldly mouthful.
Arguing that the US is not a democracy also betrays a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word democracy. It implies an 18th century pejorative form which equates all forms of 'democracy' with 'direct democracy' and argues that 'direct democracy' always degenerates into 'mob rule. While this argument has much emotional appeal to those who buy it, it is not upheld by the observed behavior of humans, and why we now tend to modify the word 'democracy' with the way in which the majority is arrived at, thus 'representational democracy'.