Who believs that the US is a Democratic nation?

Do you think that the American system is a democracy, in its purest sense?

if not why?

 

No.
It's a Republic. It was never meant to be a democracy in the truest sense of the word.

Well, maybe I should say it was a Republic until “W” got in there.

 

Well, there are republics that are democracies, but I agree with Designer that the USA is not a democracy, because in a democracy the government representatives are elected through a fair elective process by a majority of the citizens.

Okay, let's see
Fair elective process
Hindering certain groups of people to cast their vote, disappearing ballots, ballot machines with constructional defects, misprinted ballot papers ...all that is everything but a fair elective process.


Elected by a majority of the citizens
Majority = at least 51%
Not only received JQ Adams, Polk, Buchanan, Lincoln, Hayes, Garfield, Cleveland, Harrison, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Clinton and Bush less than 50% of all popular votes, Bush, Adams, Hayes and Harrison were even appointed to be the president of the USA eventhough they received less popular votes than their opponents (Tilden, the opponent of Hayes, even received the absolute majority of the popular votes, nevertheless, he "lost" the election).

Everytime I hear Bush talking about how he is fighting for democracy and how he wants to bring democracy to all countries in this world I think by myself: Fine, why don't you start with your own country first? Especially since the USA with their single-party system, censorship and corruption of the media, violation of civil liberties and international human rights, pervasive propaganda against other countries and cultures, the arbitrary capture and indefinitely arrest and torture of humans without charge or defense counsel, has definitely more in common with totalitarianism than with a democratic country.

 

Silver!!!!!!!!!

Very well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

words like democracy and freedom are hanger words.

what i mean by that is they are words which others can hang their ideals on them as long tehy adhere to some principle originally meant be said word.

No one really examines the American political structure. Well the average citizen does not. They, we all take for granted certian ideals and principles that the goverment runs by. We simply hang our ideas onto the words and make adjustments where need be to be satisfied with current circumstances.

 

I think I understand what you are saying…

I do believe we have become lax in our duties to insure that the government remains true to its original goals.
Between the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, I believe we have one of the best foundations for a free society - in my mind anyway.
I think we have forgotten that “we the people” are the government but when we fail to become active in the “system” for whatever reason, we open ourselves up for the type of things that are happening today.

Without any social awareness, we are likely to lose those things that we say define us as a country.
That stuff we claim to be giving to the Iraqis.

 

It's funny how this nation was founded upon the purpose of proclaimed ideals that we as a country, go all out of our way NOT to live by.

 

It is far easier to say you believe something than to suffer the hard work of actually doing it.

 

Very True Silver. I dont think many Europeans consider the U.S. to be a true democracy. Not every European country is either. Some U.K citizens ( Northern Ireland) had to wait until 1972 for an equal vote in local/municipal elections ! ! :?:

 

Silver, very well said as usual. Personally, I'm glad GW will be out in a year. He scares me. He is so obsessed with turning everyone to his way of thinking, and convinced that having a so-called democratic government is the only way that he is willing to enforce his views by conquering other nations and forcing its peoples to live how he sees. Hitler was on a quest to do the exact same thing.

The U.S. was founded on war, and throughout its life, it's needed wars to keep its economy prosperous. I wish it didn't have to be that way.

 

All of those who mention Jimmy Carter as the worst President ever are wrong. The worst is currently sitting there.

 

US is the first Liberal democracy and its also a constitutional republic instead of a constitutional democracy. So its a democratic republic. Europe has a problem with letting go of old failed systems. One reason why Great Britain still has a queen. And Russian is still pretty staunch against democracy.

 

I guess you never heard about the age of enlightenment, eh?
I'm also curious to know how Black Codes and Jim Crow fit into the concept of a "Liberal Democracy".

 

I never said it was a perfect liberal democracy. Blacks had the right to vote but the biggest problem was enforcement of rights. The Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional. Another problem was the South got too much power after reconstruction. Andrew Johnson was the biggest problem and the only people who liked him were the South. Too bad the radical republicans did not get power. I doubt Lincoln would have let that happen. In addition, I never said that the age of enlightenment did not play a part.

 

The 15th amendment only states that you cannot deny the right to vote to anyone based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Thus, it meant that Black MEN could vote, b/c their color/race could not be used as criteria to dismiss them from the right to vote. However, Black women did not have the right to vote b/c they were WOMEN until the 19th Amendment which stated in so many words you cannot use sex as the criteria to dismiss the right to vote. The state not the federal gov't determines who has the right to vote, and each state has it's own criteria. This is why the states in the South could get away with denying the right to vote to Black men and Black women by using literacy tests and the like for a long time until the Voting Rights amendment of 1965 . In all honesty, no one in the U.S. has the individual affirmative right to vote. Furthermore, the president is not elected by popular vote but by electors--the electors determine who gets in office, not the people of the nation. No where in the Constitution does any citizen in the U.S. has the right to vote for his or her own president.

The Jim Crow laws were considered constitutional at that time before Brown vs. the Board of Education b/c the the Fourteenth amendment stated "no state shall make or enforce any law, " etc.. it did not apply to individual citizens and therefore, their businesses. Also, at the time when Jim Crow was operating a state could be viewed as well as within its right to demand persons of another race to attend separate schools or ride in separate cars and etc... because at that time--"Social equality is not a privilege of citizens of the United States."--from The Constitution by Frank A. Magruder and Guy S. Claire--referring to the McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe Railway Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914): Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 318 (1880).

The reason why many Blacks were screwed then and now is due to the actual laws that were established during the time of Reconstruction was inherently flawed. There were too many loopholes that allowed for the continued oppression of Black Americans.

Also, Andrew Johnson was supported by Northerners and Southerners.

Peace.

 

So you pretty much expanded everything I summarized. However, thanks for putting it into detail. Also, Andrew Johnson was pretty much hated by Northerners, Congress, etc. Even Ulysses S. Grant did not want to work for him. They even tried to get rid of him. But nothing short of a coup would help. Too bad the other assassin never finished the job.

 

I had to expand, b/c you generalized too much leaving out crucial information. For example, when you stated Blacks had the right to vote, you didn't say it was limited to Black men. Black women are also Black and they didn't have the right to vote. Furthermore, no one has the right to vote only the right to "apply" to vote. Voting rights is not universal and you still have to meet state requirements. Also, you stated Jim Crow was unconstitutional, yes, after Brown vs. Board of Edu., however, at the time of Jim Crow--it was not.

I emphasized the North, b/c the North gets to much credit for being progressive and not racist or not as racist. This is untrue.

Andrew Johnson had Northern supporters period. If he did had naysayers, it had more to do with his personality and his problem with alcohol than with his views. It was only a very few Republicans who were radical and truly supported the rights and privileges--full score--of Black people.


Peace.

 

You are talking about the Jim Crow laws were not unconstitutional if they provided separate but equal facilities. That was really one of the stupidest loopholes ever concocted. It was still unconstitutional and the court knew it. They knew separate but equal was still unequal.

Also of course, I agree that the North was racist also. I am talking about Johnson not being liked that much because he gave the South a pass for treason. The North and South hated him. The North did not trust him and the South was mad because he sided with the Union. He escaped impeachment by a single vote.

 

Well, you can't be separate and equal when Whites simply wouldn't allow it through violent terrorists acts and tying up the resources necessary to create a separate thriving society. By no means did segregation equal separation. They were not separated, segregation was a system used in an integrated society to keep Blacks from the necessary goods and resources they needed to thrive as a people. It was a know your place in our society kind of system. Whites continued to intermingle with Blacks by frequenting Black businesses, going to their night spots, went to Black neighborhoods to fool around with the locals, and took Black money to fund their White education system, municipalities, their local governments, their businesses, housing, and to maintain their
neighborhoods. (This is why being separate was found to be inherently unequal and thus, unconstitutional, in the Brown vs. Board of Education, because their truly wasn't a separate society for Blacks or Whites, but a system set up by Whites to dominate and control Blacks. However, at the time of Jim Crow before the Brown vs. Board of Education, the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, Jim Crow was constitutional. Yes they did use loopholes to condone the practice, that is one problem with the Constitution--there is a lot of loopholes. ) As a matter of fact, when I lived in the South for a while, a few years back, I learned the original purpose behind the Civil Rights Movement in the 50's-60's era was not for integration, but equality. Blacks, for the most part, did not want to integrate. What they desired, was for Whites to stop stealing and hogging up the resources away from Black people. To have a better education system for Black students and equal pay for Black teachers, better Black neighborhoods, access to better land and housing for Blacks, for their sewer and garbage system to improve, and to be recognized as human beings and be fully endowed with their civil rights and then be left the hell alone. It was until later, that integration became the dominant strategy to support in accomplishing these goals of educational and material parity. However, many Blacks today, esp. those who has witnessed the era of Jim Crow and Post-Jim Crow, view integration as being the worst thing that happened to Blacks, b/c they think we as a people still haven't reached these goals, and our condition is worst not only dealing with the material but on a spiritual and cultural standpoint.

Also, I see what you mean about Andrew Johnson.

Peace.

 

You are right on a lot of this Jeverage.

I've heard many black people talking how things are worst now after segregation but if that is the case, it's because we have failed to use what we have to make things better.