A new government for America?

Ok, this is my second time typing I forgot to insert the subject title! ..
Sorry mod if this is in the wrong place.. move it if you wish.

OK, my question for all you ATSers is this. Do you think our form of government is broken? Has Democracy failed us?

It is my personal opinion that it has. And I am not even going to talk about 9/11 and fake wars and terror, sure thats bad but thats not even it. Right now in the house, they act like nothing more then prostitutes. They sell their vote to the highest bidder, then hault legislation that would benifit all of America for the sake of a company doing un ethical operations.

It is my personal opinion that Democracy is a failed form of government, after just 200 years it is broken, the unethical and rampent corruption will soon bring this country to its knees, our leaders care nothing about the people that put them their, which we may or may not do!

In Ohio, the governer election is scared with corruption on both sides, and we HAVE to vote for Dem or Rep and they both stink of corp filth!

The republican, Blackwell has been in the news recently because the voting machines he purchased for the state are ineffective, can be hacked and can alter the outcomes of elections. That is a break through, the actual investigation began because when he bought them he had alot of stock in the company. He said he didn't know he had thousands of dollars worth of that stock. Right.. what ever you say.

WE allllll know Haliburton! Cheney, the slimy dog, no bid contracts and we all know he used to be the owner, that he has tons of stock in the company, yet the company is given all kinds of jobs. We all know about the FEMA disaster after Hirricane Katrina they bought thousands of trailers that to this day are sitting at an airport in Mississippi! Corruption has brought down empires before, we are no different, we are not special, it can happen here to!

So, tell me what kind of government do you think is the best form for America, or do you prefer Democracy for our republic?

Personally I believe the only form of government that can be both effective and fair is an elightend monarch. All forms of governments have faults, nothing is perfect, but what do you think would be best?

No one has any thoughts or opinions or even an argument against me??

Yes there is a lot of corruption in our government, which is one of the reasons why I don't trust anything they say. But every country has very corrupt governments and problems. I don't really know what kind of government there can be without some corruption. Of course minus a government without human beings.

I see what your saying, but I think the two worst forms of government because of corruption are Democracy and Communism, both very young forms that have both failed. Democracy only stands because America stands, with our debt out of control how long will our beloved Democracy last?

I think an absolute monarch is an answer to corruption, however there are obvious problems with dictators and not catoring to the people. An enlightend monarch, as rare as they are I feel are the perfect form of government, monarchy is one of our oldest forms of government and has been effective for thousands of years.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Democracy only stands because America stands, with our debt out of control how long will our beloved Democracy last?

lol, Rockpuck, debt is not based on how much it is. But what percentage it is of the GDP. When you look at it that way, the US debt is not out of control.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

I know that nogrit, I usually refer to US as a republic, however we try and spread "democracy" in what ever form that may be, constitutional, monarch democracy what ever. The point for all of that is of course so that our government can pressure those democracies to do as our govenrment wishes.

Democracy has'nt failed, democracy is a great form of government.
What has failed is the way we've let it be underminded and corrupted.

In my opinion though, the kind of government we, as America should
have is a Democratic SocioCapital government.

In other words, half your money go's to helping everyone, building
things needed and funding the government (though not paying the
pres. and legislative, they get more money than they should
ever get as is), while the other half you do with lik you do now.

Another thing, the whole bi-party system we have is screwed,
we need to get rid of parties altogether and just have people campaign.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I know that nogrit, I usually refer to US as a republic, however we try and spread "democracy" in what ever form that may be, constitutional, monarch democracy what ever. The point for all of that is of course so that our government can pressure those democracies to do as our govenrment wishes.

The particulars aren't improtant. I believe that the main issue is that bourgeois democracy, i.e. liberal (not the Rush Limbaugh sense of the word) democracy, is what rules not only the US, but also the rest of the capitalist world. The version of democracy is resultant of and integrally tied to the current capitalist mode of production. Change the mode of production and the government changes (speaking in terms of general, broad historical trends).

This bourgeois democracy, I argue, needs to be replaced with a workers' democracy. This will only occur once the worker's have raised their conciousness and work to change the social relations of production and thus the mode of production.

What is a workers' democracy, you may ask? Well, that's for the workers to decide.

EDIT: Minor addition.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]

Democracy isn't a failure, and it isn't a new form of government. An absolute enlightened monarch/benevolent dictator would be the most efficient form of government, sure, but how do we decide who gets to be king - we'd probably have to vote lol! Even GWB was quoted saying something like "This would all be a whole lot easier if this were a dictatorship... So long as I'm the dictator."

Then there's Churchill's classic, "The best case against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter..."

Yeah, the two party system isn't so great, but we can't really go to having a free-for-all system based on people and not a party-line because, well, somebody would actually have to take the initiative and make the first step to pack it all in and set things rolling. This is why we don't vote for third-party candidates even if we think they are the best choice, this is especially true given the razor-sharp voting counts in our last two elections - if I vote for the guy I think is best from a third (or no) party, the "lesser of the two evils" (in my opinion) will be losing a vote and the edge will be given to the "greater of two evils." Trust me, during 2000 and 2004 I wasn't the only Republican helping promote Ralph Nader to college voters and others because we knew we were causing a hemorrhage of voters from the Democrat party. (just an example, this isn't really a partisan discussion and is best left that way.)

Thanks guys for the great responses.

First, I would agree that the party system needs to go, it only divides people. Everyone is pushed into these parties no matter what you believe, they would normally be independant but you can't get elected that way unless your from a small area and are well known.

I would disagree that we are a bourgeois democracy, middle class, but more of an aristocracy, rich run the government. Kerry? billionair. Bush? Millionair. you have to be rich to get into office, to campaign.

Democracy is not new that is true, but the only country I can think of that has used it extensivly is Greece, which was alot different then the way we do it. Romes Senate was a republic.

An absolute monarch that could be elected into a life time office, and elected out of office if they are not running things right, and keep the military under the control of civilians would work would it not?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Thanks guys for the great responses.

First, I would agree that the party system needs to go, it only divides people. Everyone is pushed into these parties no matter what you believe, they would normally be independant but you can't get elected that way unless your from a small area and are well known.

I would disagree that we are a bourgeois democracy, middle class, but more of an aristocracy, rich run the government. Kerry? billionair. Bush? Millionair. you have to be rich to get into office, to campaign.

Democracy is not new that is true, but the only country I can think of that has used it extensivly is Greece, which was alot different then the way we do it. Romes Senate was a republic.

An absolute monarch that could be elected into a life time office, and elected out of office if they are not running things right, and keep the military under the control of civilians would work would it not?

Actually I think you have it backwards, Kerries a millionare, and Bush is a billionare.

Also, technically the military is supposed to be under civilian control,
hence why you can't be the president if your currently serving in the
military. But yeah, it does need more civillian control.

Uhh, well Bush had a net-worth of about 12 million when he was elected - a nice nestegg to be sure, but certainly not even close to uber-rich these days - and he was by far the poorest of candidates (pres or vp) of the three tickets that got the most votes. But that's not what we're talking about.

You don't need to be rich to get elected really, though it seems lately it's turned out that way. You just need the support of a rich PARTY... and that's the problem we're talking about! I don't think Kerry or Bush used a penny of their personal wealth on their campaigns. (Then again, Perot spent tons of his own cash on his failed attempts) Also remember the type of person that runs for president - ambitious, outgoing (lots of socializing=lots of networking), middle-aged (is 35 middle-aged still?), and typically in a career field that pays a lot of money - lots of business-degree and law-degree presidents through history. It would just seem to fit that the president is somebody (through whichever means) who turned out to be very successful in their field thus being well compensated. Ambition=success, and no matter how fed up one is with the system, they have to admit that becoming president is pretty darn impressive. (I know we can all think of certain exceptions to this paragraph, but I believe it is a fair assessment.)

If we elected a monarch for life and then elected to throw him out if we didn't like what he was doing, wouldn't that just be like eliminating term-limits in our current system? I mean, it would kind of defeat the idea of having an "absolute monarch" if, say, he did something the people didn't like (though, say it was an awesome idea, but people just didn't catch on or see the wisdom in it) and they voted him out of office. Similarly, who would vote them out? 300 million people are hard to please all at once!

I kind of like the idea of implementing what they did in the old days - guy with most votes = president, guy with 2nd most votes = vice president. However, this would certainly be even less efficient that what we're doing now. Like Bush implied - It'd be great if we were ruled by an emperor, as long as I'm the emperor.

edit: some funky text didn't quite mesh

[edit on 18-8-2006 by AlphaHumana]

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Thanks guys for the great responses.

First, I would agree that the party system needs to go, it only divides people. Everyone is pushed into these parties no matter what you believe, they would normally be independant but you can't get elected that way unless your from a small area and are well known.

I would disagree that we are a bourgeois democracy, middle class, but more of an aristocracy, rich run the government. Kerry? billionair. Bush? Millionair. you have to be rich to get into office, to campaign.

Democracy is not new that is true, but the only country I can think of that has used it extensivly is Greece, which was alot different then the way we do it. Romes Senate was a republic.

An absolute monarch that could be elected into a life time office, and elected out of office if they are not running things right, and keep the military under the control of civilians would work would it not?

Actually I think you have it backwards, Kerries a millionare, and Bush is a billionare.

Also, technically the military is supposed to be under civilian control,
hence why you can't be the president if your currently serving in the
military. But yeah, it does need more civillian control.

Kerrys wife was the heir to hienz katchup, she was a billionair but he married into wealth, though he was wealthy before had.

Would a man who makes 30k a years ever become president?

I see where your going about the monarch can't be mixed with democracy style elections. I think the UK has a pretty good system, I think the Monarch should have more control though, especially over foriegn relations.

Not to knock the working class man, but if you're the minimum age to become president (35) and are still only making 30k a year... Well, in all probability you do not have even a university bachelor's degree - maybe not even a high school diploma - do you have the ambition, drive, resourcefulness, whatever, to be president?

Tom Delay was an exterminator before he became House Majority leader, and that's pretty high up. I don't know how much exterminators make, but I imagine it's not seven figures, or even high-mid six figures.

I think we need to find a way to herd this discussion back to your original post. Personally, I don't see any reason why a middle-class person can't become president. He or she is not spending their personal wealth on campaigns in the vast majority of cases.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I would disagree that we are a bourgeois democracy, middle class, but more of an aristocracy, rich run the government. Kerry? billionair. Bush? Millionair. you have to be rich to get into office, to campaign.

By bourgeois, "middle class" in the modern sense of the word is not meant. Perhaps in the middle ages, the bourgeois was the middle class. Now, however, the term "bourgeois" is for the class that receives their income by virtue of owning, not by working.

Thus, bourgeois democracy means a democracy which looks out for the interests of the capitalists... the people that own the companies and run the show. The bourgeois is the new "aristocracy", and has been since the 19th century.

EDIT: Clarity.

EDIT 2: Missing comma.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]

[edit on 18-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]

I don't know, ArbitraryGuy, the meaning of bourgeois to me has always been fairly derogatory. The meaning of the word always seemed to be used to describe contented people, not worldly, probably own a house and have the 2.5 kids, a dog, and a white picket fence, the mother might drive a volvo - certainly not dangerous. Webster's called the bourgeois the "social working class" and it seems to fit into the contemporary usage that I've experienced.

I don't want to nitpick, but I wouldn't call the current usage of the term to describe rich people or the "owners of capital" - it always seemed to me to have a negative connotation.

AlphaHumana that is how I usually relate to the term bourgeois the well to do but still working. White colar if you will.

Tom Delay may have been an exterminator when he got elected, he is very wealthy now? I know exterminators do not make nearly enough money to support his house. I just don't see the normal average joe being able to make to be president. House sure, that is sort of easy compared to President. To be President do you have to be the ambitouse man, out going, gone to yale or harvard and have all the right friends in all the right places? How do you get that far with out being corrupted.. is that not the same as corporations electing the president? Who ever gets the most donations from the biggest corporations and who ever makes the most promises.. that man gets elected? And all the stipulations put in place by the two parties to block third parties from entering the race and being able to campiegn, to be able to debate openly with the two parties also reduces the actual effectivness of the democracy.

Oh, most certainly the dominant two-party system reduces the effectiveness of true democracy, no question! I don't know how wealthy Tom Delay became after being elected to the house, but I don't believe he used wealth to get elected initially.

I do, however, believe you need to be ambitious to become president - of the United States, a major corporation, or any other organization really. Yale, Harvard? Nah, but many very successful people have gone to those institutions. You can get an amazing education wherever you go, as long as you seek it out... It is well known, for example, that Ivy League schools very rarely give students C grades (or below), and it is not because all of their students are brilliant, they are just saving face and trying to help their grads get good jobs so, in turn, they get bigger donations => endowments. From my experience, you need to be either an idiot or a slacker to ever even get a B in school.

I think you can get as far as the presidency without being corrupted. Especially these days where the internet is gaining more and more influence over the political landscape... Internet is very cheap advertising and organizing, and if you have regular access to the internet logic says you are doing well enough to own a computer and pay for the internet access, and as we know the higher your income the higher probability you will vote, or know/care enough to vote.

Many corporations donate to both the Democrats and the Republicans... It seems kinda silly - like betting $50 on both the Dolphins and the Bills, but it's not because they get the tax advantage, and (perhaps) favorable treatment in the future (although you'd think this would be negated because the company also "supported" the opposing party).

But, as stated, the party system is the problem and I see few ways to deconstruct it - I mean, if two opposing people having guns pointed at each others' heads... Who takes theirs away first? The Democrats aren't going to dismantle their system until the Republicans dismantle theirs, and vice-versa.

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
I don't know, ArbitraryGuy, the meaning of bourgeois to me has always been fairly derogatory....

I don't want to nitpick, but I wouldn't call the current usage of the term to describe rich people or the "owners of capital" - it always seemed to me to have a negative connotation.

"Bourgeoisie" is the term used in today and historically in the social sciences to describe the owners of capital. Most dictionaries list "capitalist" or "capitalistic" as a synomym of "bourgeois". Check the link for how the term is used in my field. I have also heard the term used in the way you describe (esp. in Europe).

I agree that it is sometimes a misunderstood term, as are most terms in political/social theory (meaning different things to different people). For example, "liberal" in the USA means the opposite of "liberal" in Europe and "liberal" 150 years ago.

For the tip-top of society I personally use the term J.M. Keynes used, the "rentier class". But when I use that, nobody knows what I'm talking about (most of the time).

Hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from.

EDIT: Minor addition.


[edit on 19-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]

[edit on 19-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]