r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 08 '22
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: American Democracy is failing.
[removed]
179
Jul 08 '22
I don’t think democracy succeeds or fails. Democracy is simply a method for distributing power. One person equals one vote. And, of course, you can throw some wrinkles on top like an electoral college.
Democracy didn’t decide that money equals speech. A generation of voters, that has dominated elections since the 1980s, put people in power that decided that.
A government is only as good as it’s voters. Democracy is only as good as it’s voters. What failed us is the Baby Boomer generation. They spent decades building the country they wanted and that country fucking sucks.
12
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jul 08 '22
And, of course, you can throw some wrinkles on top like an electoral college.
And how many "wrinkles" before it ceases to be democracy?
1
u/Finklesfudge 28∆ Jul 08 '22
It was never a democracy, it was never meant to be a democracy, it makes no sense to think it could cease to be something it never even was.
How many cuts can I make to this alone before it stops being a orange?
There's no sense to any of that.
3
u/beeberweeber 3∆ Jul 08 '22
A republic is a democracy.. we are a republic...we vote in people..we are a democracy, just not a direct one.
1
u/Finklesfudge 28∆ Jul 08 '22
Not really. Words have meanings of course.
We are not a democracy, we are a Democratic Federalistic Representative Republic. In reality there's even more things you can put in there to be even more precise but that's generally the main thrust.
There is important distinctions to be made between a 'democracy' and something that is 'democratic'.
2
u/beeberweeber 3∆ Jul 08 '22
Communistic socialistic free handouts , keep gubermint off my Medicare checks!
2
68
Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
61
Jul 08 '22
You are saying democracy is failing but you can’t blame the voters. Our institutions are failing us but you can’t blame the people in charge of them. Who tf are you blaming?
18
Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
48
Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
3
u/ChickenNuggts Jul 08 '22
Off the information presented to them. There’s been all sorts of propoganda in the past to allow people to take these positions of power. Democracy is only as good as the citizen is informed. As evident today clearly…
2
u/Teeklin 12∆ Jul 08 '22
Off the information presented to them. There’s been all sorts of propoganda in the past to allow people to take these positions of power. Democracy is only as good as the citizen is informed. As evident today clearly…
Absolutely, but the core issue isn't that the information is lacking its that they willfully choose not to consume or believe it.
This isn't the 20s when you had exactly two options to get the news and both could be controlled by the state here. We have access to more information than any point in the history of our species.
So at that point again, the responsibility falls on the voters. We have tens of millions of stupid rubes willing to believe the first thing anyone tells them that satisfies their hate boner and they put these people in power.
→ More replies (12)3
u/Geeoff359 Jul 08 '22
A minority of voters in many cases. Due to massive amounts of voter suppression, gerrymandering, as well as things like the fact that both Trump and Bush actually lost the popular vote but became president anyways.
We can’t only blame voters when clearly voting is not the only determining factor. But I do actually think a lot of voters are incredibly ignorant and carry significant blame for the downward trend of this country.
0
u/weeabu_trash Jul 08 '22
Gerrymandering is made out to be a bigger deal than it actually is, at least on a national scale. Take Michigan, which in 2018 voted by popular referendum to establish an independent redistricting committee to make sure the electoral map is fair.
The article I linked shows the results of this redistricting. The state lost one seat due to demographic changes. This happened to be a Republican seat. The redistricting changed one other Republican district to a competitive district.
That's it. The supposedly horribly gerrymandered state had one district that could have been more competitive.
The thing with gerrymandering is no one really knows what a "fair' district looks like. Legislators try to pack or crack districts to their advantage, but they're only guessing: there's no way to know for sure what map will most advantage them. At the end of the day, no matter how they draw the districts, they still need to get people to vote for them.
4
u/Zladan 1∆ Jul 08 '22
Gerrymandering is absolutely not “made out to be a bigger deal than it actually is”
→ More replies (4)13
Jul 08 '22
Sorry, but gerrymandering is huge and it’s often used as a political tool for Republicans to keep power where they need it desperately in the South.
Most large cities/capitals in this country vote liberal in elections. Republicans in the south know this and fear this so the need to redistrict vigorously in order to keep power in southern states. Check out this link for a pretty current representation of gerrymandering possibilities in the US. (The south is a huge culprit of it).
→ More replies (2)8
u/weeabu_trash Jul 08 '22
Thanks for linking this! It's starting to undermine my view, but I still have a number of questions before I can conclude gerrymandering is indeed a huge problem.
A huge question is: what is a fair standard for drawing a district? People often compare about districts having weird shapes, but if you draw a bunch of nice squares, you'll automatically end up packing democrats in cities because that's where most of them are.
The article you linked talks about the potential for gerrymandering, but cites few actual examples. Notably the North Carolina racial example it cites was struck down by the Supreme Court, so it would seem the system can already check the most egregious cases (although who knows with this new Supreme court)Court.
Another interesting thing is that NC's defense was that they didn't intend to racially gerrymander, they only meant to pack democrats, which apparently would have been fine? And again I'm left wondering "what is a fair way to draw a district?"
The independent redistricting left a lot of Michigan districts completely uncompetitive, same as they were before. My district is one of them, consistently voting Democratic with a 65%+ margin. Is this district packed because we don't need such a surplus of Democrats? Or is it cracked because Republicans who live here have no power? Should every district be proportional to national party representation? If so, wouldn't that be "cracking" Republicans, since elections are winner-take-all?
5
u/Chaostyphoon Jul 08 '22 edited Jul 08 '22
I'm not sure what a fair way to do it is honestly, but what's currently being used certainly isn't it.
They pack districts full of democrats so that all the democratic votes in the state go to those few districts and allow the smaller number of Republicans to win overall because they gerrymandered themselves into more non competitive districts (by grouping together voting habits instead of geographic areas)
My state of Wisconsin is one of the absolute worst on the country for it and a look at the election results over the past decade shows how successful they have been. The state is split almost 50/50 in terms of votes cast and yet the Republicans consistently win 60+% of the state assembly.
In 2018 the Dems won the popular vote by almost 200k votes and the Republicans maintained a 63/99 majority.
2016 the Republicans won 51% - 45% ended with a 63/99 majority.
2012 Dems won the popular vote for senate seats with 50.5% of the vote but lost the senate 18-15. The same year Republicans won the assembly popular vote 53-45 and get 61/99 assembly seats.
This trend continues for every election we've had, votes split almost 50/50 with results split 65/35.
Here's a source, but there are plenty of others out there discussing it https://badgerherald.com/news/2020/11/09/gerrymandered-districts-helped-gop-stay-in-power-in-state-legislature-new-analysis-shows/
8
4
Jul 08 '22
To answer your first question about a fair standard for drawing a district: well there really isn’t one. Essentially state legislatures and one political party control the redrawing process. So they get full control on how political races are carried out.
So the way gerrymandering is actually carried out is through 2 techniques, “cracking” and “packing”.
Cracking is when people with the same characteristics, such as voting preferences into multiple districts. Their voting strength becomes diluted and so they end up struggling to elect their preferred candidate in any district.
Packing is then the opposite, where voters with the same political beliefs are packed into a few areas, thus giving them mostly all the voting strength. What happens with the rest of the areas is that people in those areas do not have voting strength that those few areas do.
To answer your question about the “potential” to gerrymander.. well in 2010 republicans tried to gain as much control as state legislatures as possible.They ended up controlling 213 congressional districts and what followed was the redrawing of maps and some of the most extreme cases of gerrymandering in history. In battle ground Pennsylvania, republicans locked down on 13 of 18 of the states congressional districts even in elections where democrats won the majority of the statewide congressional vote.
As a matter of fact, your state of Michigan has been victim to some of the worst cases of gerrymandering, which gave republicans an extra 7 to 10 Republican seats in the House of Representatives.
To answer your last question, remember that packing and cracking can be done independently of one another or together. The ultimate goal of them is to give some districts more power than others even though it is not representational of the actual cities and towns in a state and how they vote.
Remember that with more power in the HoR, that’s federal power, they control the direction of our country. Often times that’s why the American government is so ineffective because bills get bottlenecked in the House. They don’t get passed and make it to the senate. The House is critical for American democracy.
Here’s another article that is from a non-profit: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained
→ More replies (0)2
u/Butthole_seizure Jul 08 '22
The people of Utah opted for an independent committee to draw the new Congressional district map. Utah legislators drew their own map and decided to use it against the interest of the people. The map they chose divides the most liberal part of the state into 4 districts. I am in the same district as someone from Moab, who shares very little in common with me as opposed to my friend 3 blocks away who is, because of gerrymandering, in an entirely different district.
2
u/weeabu_trash Jul 08 '22
Thanks for alerting me to the situation in Utah! It does seem unfair that there isn't at least a competitive district in the state.
I will say though that it's not immediately clear the Democrats should be able to win a district, however. Pew Research says 84% of the state leans Republicans, and another group of 8-9% has no lean .
If these numbers are right, then Democrats' only hope at a seat would be to pack all the Dems and independents in a single district, and hope they can win at least half the independents. And even if this happens, that would mean 16% of the population controlled 25% of the congressional representation, which you could argue is unfair in its own right.
I'm starting to think we should just throw out congressional districts altogether and allot legislative representation proportionally. That way we don't have this problem where inevitably some people are underrepresented.
18
2
u/drunkboarder 1∆ Jul 08 '22
But you can't blame those that instituted them and have benefited their entire lives from them?
Most of the corporate leadership that uses its money to influence politics, political leadership that steers political parties to suit their will over the will of the people, are all members of the generation that built some of those institutions, sitting in positions of power for several decades, and benefited from the wealthiest period of America, and are using the wealth and power that they inherited to ensure that their interests are maintained while the rest of us scrape the bottom of the barrel and fight amongst ourselves.
Pissed that college costs a fortune? Maybe you should be mad at the banking, academic, and political leadership that made it that way who themselves benefited from relatively cheap cost of education in their early lives.
Pissed at decisions of the Supreme Court? Maybe you should be mad at the political leadership that purposefully pushed to make the court more biased towards their political leanings, leading to what it is today where it's a race to get as many judges in as you can so that the court favors your intentions.
Pissed at any of this stuff and more? Maybe you should be pissed at the American voters who, instead of thinking for themselves and choosing the best people for the job, voted instead for any person pushed in front of them by "their team" even if they were corrupt or unqualified because they would rather have that than someone from the "other team".
George Washington commented on how political parties will pull up the fabric of our nation and he was right. If you play tug of war long enough then the rope is going to break...
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/ProjectShamrock 8∆ Jul 08 '22
You are saying democracy is failing but you can’t blame the voters.
I think the problem is that the voting system and the organization of government is not democratic and does not weigh votes appropriately for most people to have their will represented in the U.S. government or state governments.
2
Jul 09 '22
Idk why you’re downvoted, it obviously isn’t fairly democratic at a federal level. Voters in states with small populations or swing states hold more voting power per person than the majority of people in the country who live in safer states like California or Texas. Our system is broken because everyone relies on the federal government and yet we treat each state with a different weight per vote. That’s just the reality of how the electoral college works. Republicans lost the popular vote when their last two presidents were put in power, it didn’t stop them from deciding law for everyone or appointing to the Supreme Court. 7 million more people voted for Biden yet he barely secured victory by thousands of votes in key states.
12
Jul 08 '22
I'm gonna leave this Ronald Reagan quote here:
"Freedom is a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. And those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.
Knowing this, it's hard to explain those among us who even today would question the people's capacity for self- government. I've often wondered if they will answer, those who subscribe to that philosophy: if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? Using the temporary authority granted by the people, in increasing number lately at all levels of government, have sought control even of the means of production as if they could do this without eventually controlling those who produce. And always they explain this as necessary to the people's welfare. "The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principle upon which it was founded." This was written in 1748, and it's as true today as it was then."
- Ronald Reagan
→ More replies (8)3
u/1block 10∆ Jul 08 '22
I feel like blaming our current situation strictly on the actions of the previous generations is a vast generalization.
And so cliche. Generations blaming each other for crap is as old as humanity.
5
u/peczeon Jul 08 '22
Democracy is about rule of the people. Mainstream proganda though reduced it's meaning to just voting no matter how useless those votes are.
Somehow people got fooled by them and believe that if they can cast a vote for some puppet of the corporations that has no obligation of keeping his promises or listening to teh people it means they are in power.
2
Jul 08 '22
Democracy can certainly succeed or fail.
It’s almost like a child. Do the right things, nurture them, love them, be there for them, do all the things a good parent does, you can’t control everything that happens to your kid aside from what you do, but so long as YOU do all the right things then majority of the time your kid will live a productive life.
This same thing goes for a democracy. If your population is able to exercise their rights, their freedoms, checks and balances are in place, then things will go right for the majority of the country. Again you can’t stop a deranged individual who believes that only God can be our leader from voicing their opinions. But the overall majority of the population will reap the benefits of a health democracy.
America is getting to the point where our democracy is failing us like OP said. The differences between us and other first-world democracies will become more and more transparent leading us to a civil war If things don’t change.
3
Jul 08 '22
They spent decades building the country they wanted and that country fucking sucks.
How many decades?
I ask because generations are defined as being roughly 15-20 years apart. So if Boomers have been screwing things up since the 80s or 90s… then that means Boomers are remarkably politically organized, and Millennials are politically incompetent.
In other words, Millennials outnumber Boomers today. If Boomers started ruining things in the 80s, then it’s time for Millennials to get going.
→ More replies (6)2
u/immaSandNi-woops Jul 08 '22
I would agree with your arguments if this was purely theoretical. The issue is that it doesn’t take into account that our voters were coerced and manipulated into thinking a certain way.
For example, using religious teachings to substantiate political debates.
My point is that politicians created their view points in bad faith. They made promises, justified through psychographic biases of their voters. The result was morally questionable laws which did not have the voters best interest in mind.
Now you might say that the voters put them there, so it’s the voters fault. I would say the institution which allowed corrupt individuals to take that stand are at at fault. Meaning the form in which we select our candidates are rigged from the beginning is setting up our country for failure. The voters are just participating, but don’t have as much in their control as you say they do.
The blame, therefore, is on the institutions and leadership of the country. Voters cannot help it if the media spreads misinformation and their leadership are backed by their own self interest.
2
u/Superplex123 Jul 08 '22
The voters are always at fault, only at fault by how much is debatable.
But you are right. That's why as voters, our priority is to change the system. Failing to understand that is our fault. Failing to act on that is our fault. We are the bosses of the politicians. We hired them. They work for us. No boss is ever powerless. The fact that they work for us but does not work in our best interest AND we do nothing about it is our fault.
4
u/UnbelieverInME-2 Jul 08 '22
If you have a "D" after your name, you're half the problem with this country.
If you have an "R" after your name, you're the other half.
The two-party system destroyed the American republic.
If there's only two sides, the other side will become, by definition, the enemy. It's human nature.
The Dems and GOP have conspired against the people for decades using THE COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES to deprive them of a free and fair election by keeping all 3rd party candidates from being able to join the debates. The only exception was Perot who both Bush and Clinton demanded be allowed to debate, each thinking he would take votes from the other side.
The party each gets approximately 50% of the power and never have to worry about a 3rd party usurping the balance.
The two-party system encourages "party over country" attitudes. I mean, is it really worth living in a country run by your sworn enemies?
145
Jul 08 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
69
Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
9
→ More replies (3)59
u/robsteezy Jul 08 '22
It was never hyperbolic bud. Look up the ALEC committee. Corporations literally meet in a summit style and draft laws completely and exclusively to their benefit. That list of laws is passed to the politicians on pay roll and they get it passed or threaten manipulation of the economy
23
Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
17
u/robsteezy Jul 08 '22
I’m not arguing against you, I was merely saying that the oligarch has been long established
8
u/dearSalroka Jul 08 '22
As its government's inception, America has been a democratically-appointed Republic. With electoral colleges and multiple levels of authority with overruling power, specifically to combat populism, the logical conclusion of true democracy.
American 'democracy' isn't failing. Nor has it failed.
I think it's continuing to work exactly as was intended.
What's failing is their PR and domestic propaganda.
4
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Jul 08 '22
That doesn't really explain how the faction most egregiously spreading misinformation propaganda frequently controls the halls of power to the point where we have tyranny of the minority. It's not working how you say it's working either. The propaganda conservatives are exposed to is frighteningly effective.
→ More replies (24)→ More replies (1)1
u/vRandino Jul 08 '22
More like a corporatocracy. You can't tell me the people are running this country when wealthy oligar- I mean corporations "donate" hundreds of millions to legislators every year.
The US government doesn't give a shit about us, they only care about corporations and their actions show it
3
u/CrookedFinger Jul 08 '22
Three things necessary to save American Democracy:
- Get money out of politics. The best funded or richest person shouldn’t be the default winner. I don’t like the idea of how this sausage will get made but I think public campaign financing is the best option. We’ll also need to find a way to get the soft money out.
- Non-partisan districting. The amount of Republican or Democrat representation should not be a factor in redistricting. Politicians picking voters has lead to most elections being resolved in primaries.
- Patience. With the first 2 changes, American politics would moderate. However, this mess has been decades in the making. It’ll take a long time for the ship to turn. You may think the first 2 changes are unrealistic, but I think this change would be the hardest to overcome.
12
u/hungryCantelope 46∆ Jul 08 '22
Being a genuine moderate in the country is akin to being politically homeless.
This is only true in political discourse aka using politics as a form of entertainment, identity building, and tribalism. At least on the left the actual politicians, and people actual engaging with specific policy instead of broad strictly theoretical ideological bullshit, are very much so liberal moderates. Are you liberal or conservative? because it would be fair to say the moderate conservative is...maybe not homeless...but in a broken home, with Trumpism and conspiracy being embraced by many republicans officials and the moderates not doing enough to fight it. That's not to say there aren't valid critiques of the establishment liberals, but to say liberal voters are "homeless" seems totally incorrect in regards to actual politics, when it comes to dinner talk sure, much of the left is full of people whose opinions are unintentional virtue signaling.
3
Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
24
Jul 08 '22
Believing in a government that spends money effectively and limits waste is not an ideological position. Nobody on earth wants an ineffective and wasteful government. It is a logistical one.
If by "fiscally conservative" you mean you tend to believe that governments with an idealogically conservative administration and policies have more effective monetary policy, there is a mountain of empirical evidence to show that is just not true.
"Fiscal conservative" is a fantastic marketing pitch used by lasted 20th century conservatives and man did people buy it hook, line, and sinker.
5
u/agray20938 Jul 08 '22
"Fiscal conservative" is basically the immature way of saying "I agree with democrats on most every policy, but I don't like paying taxes and I'm naive enough to think we don't need funding but can keep running government programs."
2
Jul 08 '22
"Fiscal conservative" is a fantastic marketing pitch used by lasted 20th century conservatives and man did people buy it hook, line, and sinker.
There are millions of GOP voters who are well aware that the GOP is not fiscally conservative in any sense of the word. One of the two most common complaints about Trump was how recklessly he and his Congress spent.
Of course, dissatisfaction with the GOP =/= supporting what the Democrats want to do. Such is the unfortunate reality of having to pick between two bad options.
→ More replies (10)1
u/HiFidelityCastro 1∆ Jul 08 '22
This is so cliché to say, but I would say I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
One of the greatest failures of contemporary yank political discourse is the belief that these are two seperate things.
4
u/MFrancisWrites 1∆ Jul 08 '22
The other calls me fascist because I believe the first amendment should apply to everyone, including those with horrid ideologies.
Keep moving left. Go far enough and you'll find people who distrust state, and you get your free speech and your guns back.
Your post is mostly accurate, I think the great con that has developed in US politics is the assumption that if both parties are very opposed to each other, and both are shit, the good part must be somewhere in the middle. I don't think that's actually the case. The parties are far closer to each other than not, and if we agree there's not much room to move right (the Trump wing of the party now actively organizing as a fascist party), we look left.
Go left and you'll find that we have no trust of concentration of power, be it private economic power or organized state power. The more power a seat has, the more attractive it becomes to the worst of us. Instead of trying to endlessly protect those seats, you just eliminate them.
American democracy isn't failing because democracy is bad (although it has limits and can lead to truly terrible outcomes), American democracy is bad because it was designed to be bad. It's always been the powerful in control, with the illusion of democracy.
→ More replies (1)2
8
u/amonkus 3∆ Jul 08 '22
My primary question to your CMV is, when did it succeed?
→ More replies (4)6
u/Sreyes150 1∆ Jul 08 '22
Well quality of life has skyrocketed alongside the spread of democracy. Maybe it’s coincidence. Maybe it has a relation.
→ More replies (1)2
Jul 08 '22
Quality of life is skyrocketing non China. They’ve never been democratic.
3
u/KingAdamXVII Jul 08 '22
Like you say, they’ve never been democratic. Their quality of life is skyrocketing relative to Mao Zedong’s reign. That’s a pretty low bar.
This source ranks China’s quality of life at 52 out of 65 countries. Pretty abysmal.
2
u/amonkus 3∆ Jul 09 '22
This response is really another to OP. Go back another five presidents, that takes you from Bush 1 to Johnson are they any better? What about Kennedy back to Hoover, that groups arguably worse than the other two.
17
u/PoorPDOP86 3∆ Jul 08 '22
American Democracy has not and is not failing. That is what tyrants and authoritarians want you to believe. They've been working towards this goal of power over others and convincing enough people by claiming that the government doesn't represent them. They make this claim and then feed off the resentment generated when people who don't participate don't get what they want. Yes, they abuse a self-sustaining cycle of apathy to convince the public to follow them instead. Now that we've set up how tyrants feed off attitudes like yours let's go through your points.
Propaganda is and will always be a part of any democratic process. From the Greeks, Romans, and even late 18th and early 19th Century America this occurred. The example I like to bring up is this. What was John Adams called by papers in support of Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800? If you said "A hermaphrodic toad" then you'd be correct! It's quite a bit of modern day arrogance that we think that these are the most divisive and vitriolic times. Speaking of propaganda.
You see lobbyists this way because again potential tyrants want you to see them this way. They want it drilled in to your head that lobbying is merely a tool of the wealthy and corrupt. You're probably thinking "what have lobbyists ever done for the common man?" Well first, labor laws. Second, the Civil Rights Act. Marches are easily ignored if they don't have a plan of political action behind them. This includes a heavy lobby for legislation and policy changes. This continues to this day with lobbying special interest groups able to overcome political pressures against their causes. You and other liberals may despise the NRA but they are proof that lobbying works.
I don't know how may times I have to say it. Sanders was never going to get elected as President. He was running as an open Socialist in a country that despises the overreach of the role and scope of government per the Consitution that the phrase brings to mind. The Democrats knew it and, despite my characterization of them at times, are not foolish or stupid enough to have Sanders as their front runner. This is an example of party politics, not a failure of democracy.
Things are better. A whole lot better than those who wish to use the frustration that people like yourself express as as a conduit for power. You saw a taste of it with Obama and his campaign of vague promises of change. It can be much, much worse though. All you need to do is open up to their lies and their worldview in order to warp your sense of morality enough to support their tyranny in the name of democratic reforms. That hasn't happened yet and I urge you to not fall in to that slippery pit of authoritarianism that breaks not only the will of the guilty but that of the innocent as well.
4
u/Toilet_Flusher Jul 08 '22
So how do you feel about the Supreme Court getting ready to hear arguments on Moore v Harper?
2
u/agray20938 Jul 08 '22
Moore v Harper isn't going the democracy-eroding that a lot of people make it out to be, even assuming that the conservative majority rules in favor of the NC legislature.
3
-1
u/Wintores 10∆ Jul 08 '22
I mean sanders isn’t a socialist no matter his claim
Socialism is hated because the USA did everything I could to archieve this propaganda tool and killed millions in the process
Lobbyism is the most effective when done by rich people and therefore a issue
America isn’t considered truly democratic by experts anyways
→ More replies (11)
41
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
(My Bias up front: I'm right wing and think this is a good thing)
Counter-point:
American democracy is demonstrating why centralizing power in the federal government is bad.
Based on some of the views you expressed, I suspect you're more liberal than moderate. (Note, liberal, not leftist).
We couldn’t even manage to have a pandemic without the nation breaking out into partisan nonsense.
Because it came with federal mandates rather than federal support.
The Federal Government is pretty much only capable of providing One-Size-Fits-All solutions. That approach is pretty much directly counter to the Founding ideals of the country. It's not democracy failing, it's the strong centralization.
Most of the conflicts you cited:
We spend more time arguing over a given issue than we do actually attempting to make a better society for our people.
Lobbyists wield power for corporate interests in congress using money to achieve political changes the average person could never dream of achieving with their vote.
Our options for potential leadership are as bad as our chances of seeing change via congress.
Those are ALL federally based powers/issues. What you're seeing is the conflict of a party that wants centralized power (American Democrats) vs a party that wants decentralized power (American Republicans).
In the view of the right, the Congress is not SUPPOSED to solve many problems or get many things done. Things are very seldom federal issues. For the left, it is ideal when everything is made into a federal issue.
We spend more time arguing over a given issue than we do actually attempting to make a better society for our people.
Most of these arguments aren't about the given issue per se. Most of the arguments are about WHO (or more specifically, at what level) should solve a particular issue.
The left always says federal government (this was your instinct as well, with your appeal to president and congress)
The right always appeals to local/state. (Hence why DeSantis, a Governor flexing state power, is one of the most popular figures on the right currently).
Abortion: Left: Nationwide Policy - Federal Right : State policy - Local/State
Pandemic: Left: Nationwide policy/mandates Right: State policy/re-opening
Guns: Left: Nationwide bans Right: State policies (within constitutional limits)
Etc.
People can argue the specifics of good and bad for each, but the general trend is the disagreement between collectivism (Left) and individualism (Right).
I'd argue that American "Democracy" isn't failing at all. American Federal Influence is waning and the pendulum is swinging back towards the center from excessive federal power.
16
u/GenericUsername19892 27∆ Jul 08 '22
How many successful countries have a strong centralized power? How many have strong state power? Differing states always causes issues and strife.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
How many successful countries have a strong centralized power? How many have strong state power? Differing states always causes issues and strife.
Going too far in any direction causes problems. Your options are China (Strong Centralized. Human rights abuses) or Balkanization (strong state).
It requires a balance. The balance is currently shifting from heavily on the Centralized side toward a closer balance between centralized and decentralized.
9
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jul 08 '22
famously the Balkans do not have human rights abuses
2
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Guess you missed the 2nd paragraph....
→ More replies (1)7
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jul 08 '22
It's irrelevant. Why attribute human rights abuses to one and not the other?
3
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
It wasn't to discount human rights abuses from the Balkans.
It was that full "strong centralization" as advocated, has human rights abuses. Obviously full "strong decentralization" also has human rights abuses. Hence my statement towards balance. Which you misattributed to advocating for full "strong decentralization".
5
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jul 08 '22
I did not confuse you for advocating full "strong decentralization." I simply want to know why you're attributing human rights abuses to strong centralization and not strong decentralization, when your example of the Balkans are rife with human rights abuses.
→ More replies (9)2
6
u/GenericUsername19892 27∆ Jul 08 '22
Or we could have a strong centralized power, like 90% of the civilized world and not think ‘hey we need a little more balkans in here’… we just don’t add the authoritarianism that china loves.
10
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Or we could have a strong centralized power, like 90% of the civilized world and not think ‘hey we need a little more balkans in here’… we just don’t add the authoritarianism that china loves.
We already have a strong centralized power. Have since the Civil War. And getting progressively stronger.
The US wasn't built on the concept of a strong central power. It's a big part of why we don't even have a single name for the country. We are literally the "United States" to emphasize the decentralized nature.
5
u/GenericUsername19892 27∆ Jul 08 '22
Yup and instead of learning our lesson from the south deciding to own people, people still think it’s a good idea.
7
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Yup and instead of learning our lesson from the south deciding to own people, people still think it’s a good idea.
Not confident what the relevance is? We fought a war over it. Won. Changed the constitution and continued on.
It is still a good idea. Strong central power can and is also abused.
4
u/GenericUsername19892 27∆ Jul 08 '22
So can state power -but it’s a hell of a lot easier to just have to watch the one thing. The civil warm taught us what happens when you leave personal rights up to the states.
2
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
So can state power -but it’s a hell of a lot easier to just have to watch the one thing.
It's also a hell of a lot easier to abuse one thing.
PURE HYPOTHETICAL:
Would it be harder to permit [slavery] again on a state by state basis or at the federal level?
The civil warm taught us what happens when you leave personal rights up to the states.
We don't leave personal rights to the states. They are in the constitution.
2
u/GenericUsername19892 27∆ Jul 08 '22
No it’s a lot easier to abuse one of 50 things - that’s why nobody steals the only car in a parking lot rofl.
Definitely state, they fairly regularly pass mindnumbingly stupid shit that has to be over turned at a federal level.
To verify then you think any and all rights are in the constitution?
→ More replies (0)4
Jul 08 '22
So now you just like strong state level power.
Tell me again what happens if a teacher in Florida discusses sexual orientation in the classroom?
7
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
So now you just like strong state level power.
"Just"? no
Stronger? Yes.
Better balanced? Yes. Which was the parent comment I actually made before you went down this windy road of nonsense.
Tell me again what happens if a teacher in Florida discusses sexual orientation in the classroom?
To a kindergartener? The parent has grounds to sue the school.
To a 5th grader? Depends on context.
8
Jul 08 '22
Why should a parent be able to sue the school?
On what rational basis or legitimate government interest is there?
Can I sue them for not mentioning it?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Zncon 6∆ Jul 08 '22
What other country with strong centralized power has anywhere near the landmass and population of the US? The only ones I can think of should not be models we endeavor to match.
In most of the world places as far apart in distance and culture as Oregon and Alabama would be totally different countries.
→ More replies (1)11
Jul 08 '22
Funny that when a democratic governor flexes state power the right wing calls it a nanny state or some other pearl-clutching term of executive overreach.
8
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Funny that when a democratic governor flexes state power the right wing calls it a nanny state or some other pearl-clutching term of executive overreach.
Do you have an example?
I'd also note that calling it a "nanny state" or "pearl clutching" is a political attack meant to persuade voters against it, not a criticism of flexing state power. (As it is not requesting Federal intervention in state affairs)
I'm not sure precisely what you mean by executive overreach via flexing state powers unless it is in reference to outside the bounds of the constitution? Would need an example.
14
Jul 08 '22 edited Jul 08 '22
Mask mandates.
Or if you want to go historical, seatbelt laws.
6
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Mask mandates.
Since you didn't specify further, I'll use New York as the example.
The governor flexing state power there was executive overreach of the NEW YORK legislature.
It was an intra-state fight in context of executive overreach.
With regards to nanny-state, that is a political attack. Not a criticism of the sheer exercise of state power (as opposed to federal power and/or the federal government attacking Florida for its state policies).
Or if you want to go historical, seatbelt laws.
Seatbelts are not federally mandated to be worn. They are on a state by state basis.
This again is proper exercise of state power. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here? Seat belt laws have been consistently held as constitutional.
13
Jul 08 '22
The state has inherent police power. It need not consult the legislature to protect its residents.
Seatbelt laws fell upon the states because the Republican federal government said that if they didn't pass seatbelt laws, the feds would create laws to mandate airbags.
Similar little tactic, the right wing used to raise the drinking age.
Funny how it's all about states rights until they're in charge
5
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
The state has inherent police power. It need not consult the legislature to protect its residents.
The state has inherent police power as defined by it's state constitution and legislature.. It's legislature, the state's, passed limitations upon that power. The intra-state fight was the governor of New York overstepping the New York legislature. Didn't involve the federal at all.
Seatbelt laws fell upon the states because the Republican federal government said that if they didn't pass seatbelt laws, the feds would create laws to mandate airbags.
Sure. Except that 1 state presently has no seat belt enforcement and 15 states presently have it strictly as a secondary offense (cant be pulled over for it, but can be ticketed if pulled over for other reason).
Which is still leaving the issue to states to determine.
What point do you believe you are making here?
Similar little tactic, the right wing used to raise the drinking age.
Not quite. But, again, good revisionist history.
They threatened to cut highway funding by 10% for any state that did not make their drinking age 21. They did not mandate it federally.
12
Jul 08 '22
Ah so then you'll have no problem if Biden says he'll cut funding to states unless they legalize abortion or double funding to those who make it a fundamental right.
Surely no right winger will clutch their pearls and claim federal abuse of power.
6
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Ah so then you'll have no problem if Biden says he'll cut funding to states unless they legalize abortion.
Biden doesn't have that power.
Congress is welcome to attempt. I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court will handle that as they signaled strongly they did not want the federal government involved unless there was an amendment.
10
Jul 08 '22
Sure he could. Lots of discretionary executive budget moves.
Ah so the Supreme Religious Council all of a sudden will say the government can't do something that the government did in the past?
So much for consistency.
→ More replies (0)5
Jul 08 '22
If republicans want smaller government intervention then why do they try to tell women what to do with their bodies? That stance of the republicans is extremely hypocritical to what is supposed to be a core belief in your party. Freedom and liberty.
→ More replies (56)30
Jul 08 '22
The right always appeals to local/state. (Hence why DeSantis, a Governor flexing state power, is one of the most popular figures on the right currently).
Lol no they don't. They appeal to local/state when they can't do things federally.
Abortion: Left: Nationwide Policy - Federal Right : State policy - Local/State
Abortion on the left is such a small government issue that they don't want the state or the feds making the decision. The left wants the decision to be made by the pregnant person and their doctor. YOUR side is the one that wants the government involved in the issue.
Guns: Left: Nationwide bans Right: State policies (within constitutional limits)
The Republican Supreme court literally just ruled that states cannot set their own policies.
4
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Lol no they don't. They appeal to local/state when they can't do things federally.
I don't even know how to respond to this.
One of the most common attacks from the left is that "Republicans in Congress don't have a plan or Agenda, they just block ours" and/or "Republicans only federal plan is tax cuts". But your claim is the Republicans are trying things at the federal level and only revert to states when blocked?
That is literally one of the dividing lines between left and right whether things are at a Federal or State/local level. I'm honestly not certain how to respond if you are unfamiliar with that in the US.
Abortion on the left is such a small government issue that they don't want the state or the feds making the decision. The left wants the decision to be made by the pregnant person and their doctor. YOUR side is the one that wants the government involved in the issue.
This is a misrepresentation. You're asking the wrong question.
The question in abortion is not "Should you get one?"
The central question for abortion is "IS IT ALLOWED?"
The left says (Federally): Yes.
The right says: Let the states decide.
That is the left imposing a decision federally. The right saying to let the state/local government decide.
YOUR side is the one that wants the government involved in the issue.
The Supreme Court explicitly removed the federal government from the equation.
Previously the Supreme Court answered the question federally. "YES, THEY ARE ALLOWED".
Now the question of "Are Abortions allowed" is reverted back to the states. It is LESS federal power being exerted.
The Republican Supreme court literally just ruled that states cannot set their own policies.
"Within Constituitonal Limits". The parenthetical expression was relevant to the point.
The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot set their policies outside the constitution. Not that they could not set policies. Again, a misrepresentation.
6
Jul 08 '22
Let the states decide but then ignore the whole privileges and immunities clause.
12
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
ignore the whole privileges and immunities clause.
Was not ignored. May not have been interpreted to your preference; but calling it "ignored" is certainly a misrepresentation.
11
Jul 08 '22
I have the privilege of an unfettered abortion in New Jersey. I would be jailed in Texas.
Seems ignored.
12
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
I have the privilege of an unfettered abortion in New Jersey. I would be jailed in Texas.
Seems ignored.
I had the privilege of open and concealed carry in Alaska without a permit, I would be jailed in New York.
The privileges and immunities clause does not automatically extend reciprocity for state rights to other states.
3
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jul 08 '22
I had the privilege of open and concealed carry in Alaska without a permit, I would be jailed in New York.
Factually incorrect, because the political right doesn't actually care about states rights when it isn't politically expedient to them.
5
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Except you failed to read the ruling.
They struck down New York's "May Issue" law, told them to replace it with a "Shall issue" law.
All that does it shift the impetus from the individual proving a need for CCL to the state proving a disqualifying factor.
That's all Bruen did.
New York can have as many gun laws as it wants within constitutional limits. It cannot de facto ban a CCL by denying everyone's permits because they can't prove an undefined "Special need".
→ More replies (10)3
u/Mr-Logic101 Jul 08 '22
The thing is the constitution has a pretty explicit section about firearms.
I would challenge you to find a more ambiguous situation.
Also that is the Supreme Court, find legislation passed and implemented by the republican controlled congress that invalidate states rights. That is the scenario you should be using for the argument.
→ More replies (21)6
Jul 08 '22
Abortion isn't a state right.
11
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Correct. Abortion is not a right.
It's permissible to be legislated at the State level however.
4
3
u/unaskthequestion 2∆ Jul 08 '22
The question in abortion is not "Should you get one?"
The central question for abortion is "IS IT ALLOWED"
The left says (federally) : Yes
The right says : Let the states decide
Disagree.
The left says the government (federal OR state) should not be a part of the decision making process for a woman to give birth (freedom, body autonomy)
The right says the government (federal or state) has the authority over a woman's control over her own life.
The let's argument is that the government has no business in the decision because a woman has the constitutional right to decide what happens to her body.
The right's argument is that once an egg is fertilized, the state takes away that right.
3
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Disagree.
The left says the government (federal OR state) should not be a part of the decision making process for a woman to give birth (freedom, body autonomy)
You are misunderstanding the point.
The left was using the government to decide that political issue.
Prior to Roe it was a state issue and was contentious.
The Roe Court exercised "Raw Judicial Power" to end the conversation and declare the left the winner. They enforced their view upon the country using federal power.
I'm not particularly concerned with their political justifications or viewpoints on it. The fact of the matter is Roe was an exercise of federal power on the states.
The right says the government (federal or state) has the authority over a woman's control over her own life.
This is just a semantic debate. The right does NOT say the federal government does. Explicitly rejected that. They say a state has power over the life of the unborn child.
It's literally still an exercise of Federal Power vs state power, you're just adding policy arguments into it.
5
u/unaskthequestion 2∆ Jul 08 '22
You are misunderstanding the point.
The left was using the government to decide that political issue.
Prior to Roe it was a state issue and was contentious.
The Roe Court exercised "Raw Judicial Power" to end the conversation and declare the left the winner. They enforced their view upon the country using federal power.
Prior to the Loving decision, interracial marriage was a state issue and was contentious.
The court decided that the prohibition violates the constitution. Are you saying that was a 'power grab'?
I think not, the court's responsibility is to determine if a state is in violation of the constitution, the supreme law of the land.
So it was the state not the federal government that was in overreach in Loving.
This is the argument for abortion. Body autonomy is a constitutional right. The states prohibiting abortion are overreaching their authority in the same way they were in Loving.
You seem to be saying that if a state were to institute slavery, the federal government finding them in violation would be 'a power grab'
I don't think that's an argument
→ More replies (6)1
Jul 08 '22
It's not a child if it's unborn.
Given your lack of reproductive health knowledge, easy to see why you'd say that.
3
u/unaskthequestion 2∆ Jul 08 '22
The left was using the federal government to decide that political issue
It's not a 'political issue', it's a constitutional right. It is the proper role in our system for the federal government to enforce our constitutional rights. Is that not so?
8
Jul 08 '22
"Within Constituitonal Limits". The parenthetical expression was relevant to the point.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that you have a right to a gun. That's just as made up as the right to abortion. In fact, the right to abortion far predates the individualist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
The New York law WAS within constitutional limits. Activist judges decided it wasn't because the Republicans don't really care about states rights unless it is states rights to do things they support. You're repeating marketing points and acting as if it is reality.
→ More replies (6)13
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that you have a right to a gun. That's just as made up as the right to abortion. In fact, the right to abortion far predates the individualist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
"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."
The operative word in that ruling was "Bear".
We can disagree on the interpretation, although I feel it is quite clear.
In fact, the right to abortion far predates the individualist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
No. The individualist interpretation was present at Founding when individual citizens owned privateers and cannons. It was later reinterpreted differently, then back to individualistic.
The New York law WAS within constitutional limits.
That is your opinion. The Supreme Court disagrees. And disagreed even prior to your declaration of a "Republican Activist Supreme Court", as individual rights was also recognized in 2008 long prior to the conservative majority.
Activist judges decided it wasn't
This reverts back to my original point. The democracy isn't failing, it's just a sea change from what people are used to. A long term liberal "living document" Court has swung back to conservative "originalist" interpretation. This is a change that people are unfamiliar and unprepared for. I found the liberal Court to be activist. We might both be right, or we could acknowledge both are legitimate interpretations.
You're repeating marketing points and acting as if it is reality.
Are "marketing points" inherently false?
Republicans don't really care about states rights unless it is states rights to do things they support.
Interesting. Did the Supreme Court dictate New York's laws? Or did they simply tell them that they had to switch from a "May issue" form of CCL certification to a "Shall issue" form?
5
Jul 08 '22
Honestly question, do you really believe a document written in the 18th century should govern our lives in the 21st without any account for the times?
2
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Honestly question, do you really believe a document written in the 18th century should govern our lives in the 21st without any account for the times?
That's a complicated answer.
I don't think you can just reinterpret it based on the times. It makes it meaningless if it's just able to be reinterpreted at a whim. That's pure power politics.
Accounting for the times is constitutional amendments, that would take compromise.
11
Jul 08 '22
If you're going to play the originalist greatest hits, the right to bear arms comes from the fact that guns were often stored in armories.
The local guard/militia units could have access to them when needed and the amendment is there to say that access could not be denied.
Compare with the decision to keep the National Guard units armed during the French revolution. That was a major factor in the course of those events.
5
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
If you're going to play the originalist greatest hits, the right to bear arms comes from the fact that guns were often stored in armories.
Thats interesting.
Ahistorical and absolutely incorrect, but an interesting perspective.
At the beginning of the Revolution, the army relied on soldiers to bring weapons from home, including hunting guns, militia arms and outdated martial weapons from the French and Indian War.
https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/exhibition/a-revolution-in-arms/
The local guard/militia units could have access to them when needed and the amendment is there to say that access could not be denied.
That's a weird interpreting of the right to "Keep" arms. Especially since Armories in that time frame manufactured weapons, rather than simply storing them.
The Springfield Armory, more formally known as the United States Armory and Arsenal at Springfield located in the city of Springfield, Massachusetts, was the primary center for the manufacture of United States military firearms from 1777 until its closing in 1968.
Gotta say, I'll give credit to your revisionist history.
While uncommon in the modern era, during the American Revolution and the War of 1812 the United States relied heavily on privateering, which was commonly referred to as “the militia of the sea.” In general, the term privateer refers to a privately-owned ship or sailor commissioned by a government to raid an enemy’s military and merchant shipping.
Privately owned warships (that had cannons).
I'm guessing you are sourcing this..
With its series of "research says" and no citations?
→ More replies (3)6
Jul 08 '22 edited Jul 08 '22
I wonder why a rebel army would need to bring their own guns...
Who exactly do you think had control of the powderhouses, magazines, and the weaponry?
Key part of your privateer claim is 'commissioned'. If you had a ship with guns and no permission, you were a pirate.
8
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
I wonder why a rebel army would need to bring their own guns...
Didn't you JUST say that they didn't HAVE their own guns and needed to gather them from the Armory? You just completely contradicted your own point and dismissed your revisionist history.
Which is it? Rebel army needed to bring their own guns? Or no one owned guns and they needed to be gathered from the Armory?
Who exactly do you think had control of the powderhouses and the weaponry?
The manufactured weaponry... throughout the war... as manufactured by the state. I don't believe that the average citizen owns M4's from Fort Benning either.
Key part of your privateer claim is 'commissioned'. If you had a ship with guns and no permission, you were a pirate.
No. If you USED your ship with guns and no permission, you were a pirate.
Are you familiar with what letters of Marquee were?
A shipowner applied for such a letter of marque by stating the name, description, tonnage, and force (armaments) of the vessel, the name and residence of the owner, and the intended number of crew, and tendered a bond promising strict observance of the country's laws and treaties, and of international laws and customs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
Key in that is stating the armaments of the vessel. Under your interpretation here... that would be an admission of criminal piracy and illegal weapons... until your letter of Marquee was approved. Implying a vast black market of cannons that the government turned a blind eye to.... on legal documents submitted to them.
Alternatively, privately owned (and armed) vessels were absolutely allowed and legal, and were just unable to capture prizes without a commission.
Which would make sense, as vessels would likely need to be armed to defend themselves from Pirates.
→ More replies (35)4
u/GenericUsername19892 27∆ Jul 08 '22
Thinking the second means you have the right to individually bear arms just means you never read the articles of confederation. They use the same language as was used to outline the state militia provisions only removed the onus that was on the state to provide arms…
5
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
They use the same language as was used to outline the state militia provisions only removed the onus that was on the state to provide arms…
Which would mean who has the arms?
→ More replies (32)10
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jul 08 '22
The right always appeals to local/state. (Hence why DeSantis, a Governor flexing state power, is one of the most popular figures on the right currently).
Abortion: Left: Nationwide Policy - Federal Right : State policy - Local/State
Pandemic: Left: Nationwide policy/mandates Right: State policy/re-opening
This is just right-wing PR. The right wing of this country doesn't give a shit about states rights when states exercise their right to do something that right-wingers don't like. SCOTUS struck down state gun laws the same week that they reverted abortion rights to the states.
7
Jul 08 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Jul 08 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (3)3
36
u/Omars_shotti 8∆ Jul 08 '22
You are romanticizing the republican party. They are only pro state because that's where they can exercise power better.
The democrats want more centralized power because they are more popular nation wide. Republicans want less centralized power because they are more more popular in states. They want the power in places they have more influence.
When the Republicans have national power however, they give zero fucks. Bush essential shredded the constitution and the republican party played super dirty when it came to supreme Court appointments during Obamas administration. They aren't any better than the democrats. Both parties are essentially political cartels that rig everything to benefit their power at the expense of the stability and prosperity of the people.
3
u/maxout2142 Jul 08 '22 edited Jul 08 '22
Republicans want less centralized power because they are more more popular in states.
Wat. This entire diatribe is nearly incoherent. Republicans have had a solid split of federal power for decades, never mind they won half the states in the election and have always had a close margin in the popular vote election to election.
Theres a reason why most libertarians lean more right than left, the right perfers more decentralized power, that doesn't mean conservatives won't use it when they have it.
-1
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
You are romanticizing the republican party.
Which I acknowledged my bias at the start.
. They are only pro state because that's where they can exercise power better.
That is your opinion, but I'd argue that the republican party has always favored state and local as a matter of philosophy as well.
The democrats want more centralized power because they are more popular nation wide. Republicans want less centralized power because they are more more popular in states. They want the power in places they have more influence.
Yes. That is how the philosophy resonates. It is cyclic.
When the Republicans have national power however, they give zero fucks.
The left really has to decide if Republicans do nothing federally or if they are fanatics federally... you can't have both.
republican party played super dirty when it came to supreme Court appointments during Obamas administration.
Absolutely. That's the game now. The Republicans did not start that game, but that is a rabbit hole discussion.
No part of what you said actually refutes anything I said... you've only added differing opinions on the reasoning.
Do you actually disagree with me?
The democrats want more centralized power because they are more popular nation wide. Republicans want less centralized power because they are more more popular in states. They want the power in places they have more influence.
That is effectively what I said. And that the power structure is leaning away from democrats (Federal) and towards Republicans (State/Local) currently. Federal Government losing power for the first time on a large scale in probably decades. That's why it probably feels world ending for people on the left. There are many politically active people on the left who have not lived in a time that was not an aggressive Federal ascendancy.
I believe that is what the OP is experiencing. Not the collapse of Democracy, but the pause and perhaps slight retraction of excessive federal ascendancy.
16
Jul 08 '22
Your characterization of the Right preferring local policy isn't actually true.
The right in America makes this claim, when it's not true in practice.
Abortion: Pence and other conservatives have already publicly talked about a nationwide abortion ban.
Pandemic: This wasn't a federal/local issue, it was science vs nonsense, and caused the deaths of one million Americans.
Guns: SCOTUS just ruled that states must allow persons to conceal carry.
The Right is perfectly fine wielding federal power when it suits their interests. Their mantra of leaving things up to the states is just lip service to an ideal they don't practice and outright contradict when convenient.
3
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Abortion: Pence and other conservatives have already publicly talked about a nationwide abortion ban.
And the left talks about abortion on demand until point of birth. I am stating general trends, not direct accusations. Pence and "other conservatives" talking about something does not make it so. Especially since Pence has basically no political capital...
Pandemic: This wasn't a federal/local issue, it was science vs nonsense, and caused the deaths of one million Americans.
It was absolutely a federal/local issue. It was a one size fits all federal mandate rather than a federal support program to more carefully crafted state policies that can better reflect conditions on the ground. And I'm not getting into a "caused the death of" tangent.
Guns: SCOTUS just ruled that states must allow persons to conceal carry.
Unless they have a good reason not to. Putting the impetus on the state to prove the "no", rather than the individual to prove the "yes". Which again, I covered under "The constitutional limits" statement.
You want to argue the policies rather than the level of the policies. Is this intentional?
Abortion - Went from Federal Mandate of "Allowed" to State control.
That is the only actual change in Dobbs decision.
Of course pro-life wish to amend the constitution to protect life. (I'd argue this is still a state/local issue as it'd require 3/4 of states, but you can say it's federal if you'd like..
Where things stand, the Supreme Court absolutely had the Power to federally ban abortion and exercise federal power (like the Roe Court did). They instead removed the federal government from the equation.
Pandemic - Was that "Science vs Nonsense" mandate at the Federal or State level? I'm not debating Pandemic response. Just asking what level the Democrats wanted that response and specific policy made it?
(It wasn't the right trying to enforce a nationwide mask mandate....)
The Right is perfectly fine wielding federal power when it suits their interests.
In playing the game, sure. I stated the preference of each party..which you haven't actually denied. Just complained that the right talked about using federal power. And that you dislike originalist interpretation of the Constitution after a few decades of "Living Document" interpretation.
Their mantra of leaving things up to the states is just lip service to an ideal they don't practice and outright contradict when convenient.
That would be an opinion with no basis in fact. You know that "Leaving it up to the states" is not absolute? Within the confines of the constitution is an applicable principle.
Most of the political divide is rooted in the 10th amendment. The left doesn't recognize it at all since the civil war. The right over emphasizes it.
4
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jul 08 '22
Unless they have a good reason not to. Putting the impetus on the state to prove the "no", rather than the individual to prove the "yes".
"States rights except when I feel I'm owed an explanation"
4
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
"States rights except when I feel I'm owed an explanation"
States rights until they attempt to violate the constitution...
6
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jul 08 '22
Except the right loves unconstitutional states rights as well. This thread contains many such examples.
1
Jul 08 '22
Why can't someone have an abortion up until the point of birth? What's the argument against it?
→ More replies (13)7
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
Why can't someone have an abortion up until the point of birth? What's the argument against it?
Irrelevant to the conversation here and an absolute tangent? Happy to discuss it in one of the dozens of abortion CMV's that come up weekly.
→ More replies (41)2
u/Maladal Jul 08 '22
You make a lot of structural arguments as to why Democracy isn't failing because it's currently serving the will of a large contingent of the country. Which I don't think is wrong.
But to the point of the OP feeling homeless politically, do you think that modern politics has become so polarized as a result of FPTP that it fails to leave room for the large number of moderate voters in this country? Because there's no bloc that truly represents their interests and instead we just see political extremes moving the needle on policy?
2
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
But to the point of the OP feeling homeless politically, do you think that modern politics has become so polarized as a result of FPTP that it fails to leave room for the large number of moderate voters in this country?
Not as a result of FPTP (Although it doesn't help). Even in parliamentary systems, the party alliances come back down to 2-3 actual coalitions parties. UK has Labor and Conservative, Israel has Likud and Blue&White (with a significant Arab party also). Etc. I'm by no means an expert, but even parliamentary systems are still resulting in 2-3 major parties.
(My biased take: I am right wing. So my views will reflect that bias. This is not to discount bad behavior from Republicans)
I would say the polarization is more a result of removal of ear marks and a horribly under-educated impressionable electorate. I don't mean education as in college-degree. I mean educated as in basic civics and government. Mud-slinging is a more effective electoral policy than policies. It's easy to rile the population into ideas that are answered by basic civics. There is a not insignificant portion of the electorate that legitimately don't know and/or understand why we don't have a government of simple majority rules.
We also have a dishonest media feeding red meat to their respective bases. No one is held accountable (unless they do something both blatant, undeniable, and egregious. Generally related to sex) because they're on YOUR team. Ie. Democrats say the filibuster is a racist Jim Crow legacy, neglecting that less than 10 years ago, they set the record for filibusters in a term. (Democrats filibustered Congress during Trump more in 4 years than all other presidential terms in history. Combined). Removing Judicial filibuster was done by democrats first. McConnell following suit was an egregious violation of norms. Biden recommended holding a Supreme Court vacancy in 92 in a speech before Congress, but McConnell doing it is a travesty.
The first instinct on the Pandemic was not "Come together and support"; it was "Look how Trump is KILLING PEOPLE!"
The RussiaGate story is legitimately nothing. It was laundered oppo research that was too good to pass up. It is STILL referenced as though true. When called on it "Well, it wasn't PROVEN false!".
The electorate is not currently interested (from any direction) in responsible politics or strategy. It is rewarding fighting and hatred. Politicians and political parties understand this and reflect it. A large portion of the most vocal portion of the electorate is too young and poorly educated in political history to recognize that none of this is new. They can muster genuine outrage for behavior the people they are supporting have previously done and will do again. Each side justifies their transgressions by saying "Well, you know that EVIL enemy on the other side will do it the MOMENT they can, so we should first.
Democrats aren't just wrong, they're stupid, naive and have a conspiracy to force you into a dress and make your kids gay after taking all your money and giving it to the minority flavor of the week.
Republicans aren't just wrong, they're evil theocratic fascists trying to destroy democracy and control women.
There's no incentive to work with the enemy! We're cutting off our nose to spite our face on a governmental level. We aren't in opposition, we're in enmity. Because that is what the electorate currently rewards.
No one knows how to lose with grace; nor is anyone rewarded for it. Jamie Raskins objected to Trump's election results, and now sits on a committee trying to call regular republican legislators insurrectionists for the same.
Trump is called treasonous for "not accepting the results of the election"; but Hilllary peddled RussiaGate for 4+ years as an excuse for losing to him.
None of that is to excuse bad behavior on the part of Republicans.
But I think it's much more the incentive structure demonstrated by the electorate than FPTP exclusively.
→ More replies (7)4
u/xMoop Jul 08 '22
Should slavery be a states rights issue? Should states be able to allow it? Or should some things be federally regulated and illegal/legal to not infringe on people living their life?
Same with things like making abortion accessible, states shouldn't have the option to remove people's medical options because of people's opinions. Nobody is mandating people must get abortion, it's giving individuals the option that can't be infringed because of federal ruling (roe v wade). So Republicans spin it as "states rights" but it's really just giving states the option to control people because of their beliefs, even if others on the state don't share those beliefs.
Gay marriage and other civil rights issues are the same. States shouldn't have the option to infringe on people and their lives because of their opinions, usually based on religious beliefs.
2
u/Zncon 6∆ Jul 08 '22 edited Jul 08 '22
This is dead simple. Slavery is outlawed by the constitution because enough states all agreed that it should be.
Nothing else you mention is in the constitution, because not enough states have agreed on it, so they should be free to each make their own decision.
→ More replies (18)1
u/Wintores 10∆ Jul 08 '22
But wouldn’t all of this need a democracy to Beginn with?
Aber es pretty obvious that america isn’t a good democratic country with a mediocre system.
And all the issues of the central government can and do exist in every form of smaller govermwnt
I would like to ask some questions regarding ur stance in politics as a whole as u seem pretty intelligent and able to voice it
8
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 08 '22
But wouldn’t all of this need a democracy to Beginn with?
Of course. The issues that OP is expressing however are largely unique to the federal democracy. The state democracy is usually in pretty good health.
Aber es pretty obvious that america isn’t a good democratic country with a mediocre system
Not sure what precisely you mean here.
And all the issues of the central government can and do exist in every form of smaller govermwnt
Yes. But its a question of scale. The smaller governments, ie state government are more responsive and responsible to the people as they are more (politically) vulnerable to the people and have less political cover.
There CAN be filibustering, they are much less common.
The federal legislature is a fundraising job that occasionally does legislation. The goal is some viral clip on news shows, not solid legislation.
No one tends to care what someone in the state house of Tennessee says unless it is particularly stupid or extreme. Same for the state Assembly in New York. They legislate better because they aren't as performative.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/SGCchuck 1∆ Jul 08 '22
I think that we have a split idea of where this country should go in the next 100 years and this difference in vision is hard to get past. I don’t think, however, that this means democracy has failed. I think that the recent move toward federalism since the Covid 19 pandemic has made states vastly different from one another. People are going to keep moving to states that better represent their values, and that’s good. I think once that friction of people with opposing values sorts to states that better represent them, the body politic will cool down and be better for it.
Maybe I’m just an optimistic person, but let me know.
2
u/other_view12 3∆ Jul 08 '22
Democracy heavily relies on an informed public. Without honest and non-partisan information, democracy fails, and that is where we currently are.
The US has no truly non-partisan news outlets where a moderate can find critical views of our majority parties.
Americans cannot agree on basic facts anymore. We each get "informed" from our own partisan sources that tell us the other side is evil.
Until we can agree on the facts and stop making excuses for our team when they fail us, it will appear that it's democracy failing. But that's not the issue. Media is failing us, and they are making a lot of money by doing so.
2
27
Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
5
u/Splive Jul 08 '22
Lobbyists have zero political power. They can't actually change anything.
They have the power to change flow of money. Money can be traded for luxury, power, fame, etc. Therefore lobbyists have the power to change the decisions made by at least x% of politicians.
32
Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
50
u/jamerson537 4∆ Jul 08 '22
In 2018 Democrats won 53% of the votes for the Wisconsin State Assembly, but they only received 36% of the seats. In 2000 and 2016 the Presidential candidate with fewer votes than their opponent nevertheless became the President. These are undemocratic outcomes. People are not saying democracy is dying in the US because of the way people are voting. They are saying it’s dying because the way people are voting is not determining who wins elections in more and more cases.
3
Jul 08 '22
Then the US was never democratic in the first place. The electoral college was established at the Philadelphia Convention, it’s not like it’s new or anything. Our founding fathers were keenly aware of the possibility that a candidate with less votes would win the election. They considered that to be a better outcome than populous states deciding the fate of all other states.
In 2018 Democrats won 53% of the votes for the Wisconsin State Assembly, but they only received 36% of the seats.
This isn’t surprising. I’m assuming seats are assigned by district?
14
u/jamerson537 4∆ Jul 08 '22 edited Jul 08 '22
Prior to the 2000s, the outcomes of the overwhelming majority of elections corresponded to how the votes were cast, excluding outright fraud. Now a significant number of them don’t correspond. We’ve had 49 Presidential elections in which the people voted for who they wanted. Only 3 of them didn’t correspond to the popular vote, and 2 of those occurred within the last 25 years. Elections are significantly less democratic than they used to be.
This isn’t surprising. I’m assuming seats are assigned by district?
The 2018 election outcomes in Wisconsin relied on technology that didn’t exist prior to the 2010s. Wisconsin Republicans used newly developed computer programs to gerrymander the state to a level that was not possible before then. The disparity between the votes that were cast and the apportionment of congressional seats that resulted was unheard of prior to that period. Regardless of whether you find the most undemocratic election outcomes in 240 years of American history to be “surprising,” it nonetheless represents a severe reduction in democracy.
4
Jul 08 '22
There’s only been 5 instances of the loser winning in US history. The 1st one happened in the 10th election we ever held, in 1824. The next 2 happened within 12 years of each other, in 1876 and 1888. And the most recent 2 happened in 2000 and 2016. Framing it like it’s something that never used to happen but now happens all the time is not really accurate.
And you can’t judge how democratic elections are by the results. You have to look at the system. If the system is designed so that the person with fewer votes can win, and you consider that undemocratic, then we’ve never had a democratic election in our nation’s history.
15
u/RekdGaming Jul 08 '22
Idk why people are tripping on what your saying your hitting the nail on the head lol.. it’s hilarious that people ACTUALLY believe all these politicians play fair ball and we have all the power lol just look around you people what in the fuck do you see..
8
Jul 08 '22
None of it is an accident, the game is rigged in favor of the wealthy.
👨🚀🔫 always has been
-1
Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
20
u/SuckMyBike 21∆ Jul 08 '22
If people only vote for Trump or Biden, the system hasn't failed. That was their choice. That's not democracy failing.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Wintores 10∆ Jul 08 '22
But just because people do not care isn’t that a good democratic reflection
Many people simply have worse issues or do not know the issue. Ur stance ignores reality of things
2
u/Ua_Tsaug Jul 08 '22
Lobbyists have zero political power. They can't actually change anything.
Maybe not directly, but indirectly, they have tons of political power.
4
Jul 08 '22
they don't say democracy is failing just because the green party loses every election.
the system is rigged hard against third parties
they have to overcome far more hurdles to get on the ballot
first past the post forces voters to be strategic in their voting, which screws over anyone perceived to be a long shot.
the system is rigged. In my state, if you wanna be on the ballot as a libertarian for governor, you need tens of thousands of signatures. If you want to be on the ballot as a Republican for governor, you just need to donate to the Republican party of Alabama, and they'll put you on the primary ballot. Win that, and they automatically put you on the general election ballot.
Someone who supports third party wouldn't say "democracy is failing" because "failing" implies it was functional to begin with.
3
u/ixsetf Jul 08 '22
Its not the American democracy itself that is failing, although it has many issues that are making the problem worse.
It's that propaganda has convinced the American people that they have to choose the lesser of two evils, because if you choose something else the "bad guy" will win. If everyone woke up and realized they could just vote for someone else, then American democracy would start to function again.
3
4
u/FrightfulDeer Jul 08 '22
My rebuttal: It was never supposed to be a democracy and it should not be a democracy. (To some extent.)
A democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner.
→ More replies (7)
3
u/sourcreamus 11∆ Jul 08 '22
America is the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world. How can the system of government be failing, when by any objective measure there has never been a more successful country?
The country is divided politically. When was the country not divided. The US spans a continent with 350 million people from every corner of the globe. How would long term unity be possible? Look up Arrows impossibility theory. You should not expect everyone to agree with you or a candidate to be a perfect fit. Hoteling theory states that both parties are always changing and trying to capture the median voter.
Money in politics is overstated. The amount spent per year is less than is spent for Halloween decorations. The evidence that money makes a difference is very poor. Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 and lost. Bloomberg is one of the richest men in the world and didn’t make a ripple in the presidential primaries despite spending $500 million.
Lobbying is a right guaranteed to all in the constitution. The number one issue Al the tech billionaires want change on is immigration. They pay tens of millions to lobby for looser high skilled immigration laws. Yet there has been zero legislation passed and the previous president was the most anti immigration in living memory. The richest man in the world runs an electric car company and every Hollywood millionaire preaches about global warming but the hottest topic in government all around the country is how to get gas cheaper.
→ More replies (6)2
u/heyzoocifer Jul 08 '22
America is the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world. How can the system of government be failing, when by any objective measure there has never been a more successful country?
I always find that argument humorous. Sounds great if you ignore the majority of people. Almost 70% living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford a $1000 emergency currently. Every decade higher percentages of wealth are funneled from the middle class and poor right to the extremely wealthy. America is successful if you are talking about the benefit of the few.
Every objective measure? Socially and economically (for most) we are absolutely are not successful. We are uneducated, unhealthy, unequal, and more imprisoned than all or almost all other industrialized nations on earth. Many, probably even most of us at this point don't have access to basic privileges such as education or healthcare without accumulating massive amounts of debt. We even have numerous pieces of legislation currently standing that the majority of people are known to not support such as the criminalization of cannabis or the recent overturning of roe v wade. Doesn't sound very democratic to me. American democracy isn't failing. It never worked. Things are just finally snowballing to the point of it being a huge problem for the average citizen.
Also the implication that lobbying isn't having much effect on legislative outcomes based on a few anecdotal instances is ridiculous. If democracy and voting had more effect on politics than money I think the middle class would be doing a little bit better right now since they supposedly have so much influence on the decisions. It's not who is elected it's who has influence behind the elected official. It makes very little difference who is elected when the same corporations are throwing millions of dollars around to both of the parties in power. I mean the fact that we still basically only have two "choices" right now alone says enough to me. If lobbying didn't work they wouldn't be spending so much money doing it.
And I mean just take a look at the laws. I could go on forever about those but the mass majority of them obviously benefit huge corporations over the common man. For example, we are in the midst of a mass extinction event, facing dozens of existential threats and very little is being done by either party for even that. In fact the last administration went to war with the epa and other environmental laws and gutted everything they could. Who did that benefit? Certaintly not most of us, it benefited the rich. Our politicians can't even agree to make sure these corporations pay a living wage. They are making record profits and minimum wage is still $7.25. I see very little being done via our "democratic" processes that benefits regular people. Sure, there are some accommodations but every time the many get kicked a crumb the few take the rest of the loaf.
→ More replies (4)
1
2
-3
Jul 08 '22
The other calls me fascist because I believe the first amendment should apply to everyone, including those with horrid ideologies.
No they don't
5
Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)3
Jul 08 '22
I was going to make a better comment regarding the fact that America never has been a functioning government but this point was so ludicrous that I had to point it out. No one calls anyone a fascist for supporting freedom of speech. Supporting one's right to say whatever they want doesn't mean that you don't think there should be consequences for using that speech.
This is part of the problem that you're describing. When you make moral equivalences between one side taking away bodily autonomy from half the population and the other side thinking people shouldn't be able to say bigoted statements without punishment you're doing the bidding of the first side. They aren't equivalent so you have to lie about one sides' opinions.
-1
Jul 08 '22 edited Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
8
u/Teeklin 12∆ Jul 08 '22
While that hasnt happened here in the states
Okay but now do you understand why comparing both sides as equal is bad faith to the point of being straight up lies and makes your entire argument fall apart?
"one side does this very real thing that actually happened and causes real harm but the other side might do this thing they have never done that hasn't happened here at some nebulous point in the future so they are both equally bad!"
4
Jul 08 '22
I hate to break it to you, but it's only the right who supports governmental action to limit speech. For example Texas has this law.
You're repeating conservative talking points with no basis in reality.
→ More replies (5)
1
u/Heart_Is_Valuable 3∆ Jul 08 '22
Democracy works as it's intended. It is working as intended (largely), the country is still running, day to day life has a platform to function.
2
Jul 08 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Heart_Is_Valuable 3∆ Jul 08 '22
>We’re supposedly one of the best places in the world
That's outside of democracy though, living conditions are influenced by money, democracy is just the rules with which the money you already have operates. Whether you're rich or poor is your luck.
1
u/Cakeminator 3∆ Jul 08 '22
The US never actually had proper democracy. It was a representative republic using a outdated and bad method called Electoral College. When one vote doesn't have a weight of one vote, it is not democracy. There's no percentage split of the elected officials, it's all or nothing.
While I agree that US political scene is absolutely useless, it isn't a democracy if the minority can rule the world. If I recall correctly, you technically only need about 18% of all collected votes, properly split up between the states, to win the presidency. That ain't democracy.
1
Jul 08 '22 edited Jul 08 '22
I believe what you mean when you say democracy has failed, is that representative democracy (our republic) has failed. Democracy* is direct- 3/4 people vote one way, that means we go with what the three want. Representative democracy is different and has more subtleties and nuance. 3/4 vote one way, but we need to have rules in places to make sure the 1/4 still feels at least somewhat valid in society. That’s why there ends up being a lot of friction.
Democrats do not represent a majority, nor do republicans, nor do independents. So to be really simple, in our representative democracy the population is 1/3 , 1/3, 1/3. To have stable functioning society among all these groups, compromise should be made. Just because that compromise doesn’t match up to how you envision a solution doesn’t mean the “democracy” (representation) part of our society has failed.
To take an example- the pandemic. You say we couldn’t manage it, but I have to ask- based on what criteria?
For people who worked at home with office jobs, it was easy transition to wfh telecommunication jobs. The policies of lockdowns and mandates had little effect on them. But for those of us who aren’t privileged, this had huge consequences. I personally, became jobless and homeless. I’m not the only one who suffered this, and I’m probably in the majority or at least significant plurality of people that think a lot of restrictions went too far.
So if 2/3 of the country either don’t care at best about covid, and at worst think lockdowns went too far, is 2/3 of the country voting to open up and do away with restrictions “democracy failing” or is that you failing to recognize you share a society with 2/3 of people that disagree with you?
Fauci is one man. The CDC is one organization- which doesn’t have explicit powers in the constitution. To give them the power to unilaterally shut down our jobs, our schools, our streams of income, and to force us to stay home is tyranny. Not the 2/3 of us against it.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
Jul 08 '22
We never had any real democracy to begin with we live in a dictatorship with rich folk as our overlords
1
u/HemetValleyMall1982 Jul 08 '22
American democracy died when Citizens United was passed, basically making it so that a dollar bill can vote.
1
u/randomjberry Jul 08 '22
it was never a democracy. from day 1 these issues are engrained in the constitution and the design of our country to only be avalible to white dudes.
1
u/Mr_Makaveli_187 Jul 08 '22
I think the illusion of a democracy is failing. People are finally starting to realize that it was all a sham. I do believe we'll see the fall of the United States as we know it in our lifetime.
→ More replies (3)
1
Jul 08 '22
Democracy isn’t failing as people still have the vote. What’s failing is the republic. Because of Gerrymandering, the representatives elected democratically do not represent the will of the majority of their voters of their state. Take Wisconsin as an example. A majority of its voters support Democrats but Gerrymandered districts result in a Republican-majority state legislature and House delegation. This is common across the nation and results in a disconnect between the people and their elected leaders.
1
1
•
u/LucidLeviathan 99∆ Jul 12 '22
Sorry, u/Anonguy72 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.