You forgot to mention the Democratic Party's tactic of rigging their own primary elections so that the choice of the candidate is driven primarily by the party elites rather than the party base. For all the Republicans do to "undermine Democracy", they have not yet to my knowledge expressed in court the notion that they are not obligat…
You forgot to mention the Democratic Party's tactic of rigging their own primary elections so that the choice of the candidate is driven primarily by the party elites rather than the party base. For all the Republicans do to "undermine Democracy", they have not yet to my knowledge expressed in court the notion that they are not obligated to run a fair election. Indeed, one of the contributing factors of Trump getting elected in 2016 is due to the fact they did not undermine the will of their voters even though he was very unpopular among the Republican elite. Bernie Sanders, however, was buried by the Democratic Party in 2016 and 2020. The DNC was even taken to court about it, and they essentially admitted to rigging the election and argued that they are not bound to run a fair election. That is on record, in court. The Democratic Party does not care about democracy in their own primaries.
It is very peculiar, the concern some Democrats have about the Republican Party's efforts to "undermine democracy" when the party they express loyalty to has explicitly stated on public record that democracy doesn't matter to them.
"As a party, it has spearheaded the decline of American democracy."
That, of course is laughable. American democracy didn't just start declining when Republicans started "politicizing election procedures". A), America is not a democracy, it is a Republic. Democracy was undermined when the constitution was first written -- intentionally. B) America had a civil war in which one faction, led by the Democratic Party, fought another faction, led by the Republican Party over whether America should continue slavery, which is certainly not particularly compatible with democracy. Furthermore, after the civil war, the Democratic Party then nursed a terrorist organization, the KKK, with a direct purpose to violently restrict the democratic participation of black people in the political process, and not only because they were more likely to vote Republican, but because they thought white people should properly rule and black people were monkeys.
I'll leave you with a quote from John Adams on democracy:
" Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history. Those Passions are the same in all Men under all forms of Simple Government, and when unchecked, produce the same Effects of Fraud Violence and Cruelty. When clear Prospects are opened before Vanity, Pride, Avarice or Ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate Phylosophers and the most conscientious Moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves, Nations and large Bodies of Men, never."
I agree with your first point on the DNC's undermining democracy in its own primaries. Thanks for bringing that up.
I'm not sure why you brought the "America is not a democracy" into this. I don't see what relevance it has. First, it is pedantic on one point (the definition of democracy vs. Republic), while stating that "America is not a democracy" with a towering lack of pedantry ("America" is a continent, not a country). Second, I'm not sure how the status of the US as a republic detracts from, adds to, or offers any perspective whatsoever on the article's points. Can you provide further analysis or commentary?
I'm also not sure why you brought the civil war into this other than as some kind of bizarre smear of the Democrats. I've seen this a few times. I just have one question: do you think the people who perpetrated the civil war and its postwar terrors would be more likely to register Democrat today? That's of course a stupid question because the world has changed and the people who existed then wouldn't be able to exist today. For the same reason, trying to pillory today's Democrats because the Democrats of 80 years ago were bastards is stupid.
“I'm not sure why you brought the "America is not a democracy" into this. I don't see what relevance it has.”
I brought it up because the author, and many other people, often talk about democracy as if it is sacred. Furthermore, the author's argument is premised on the idea that more democracy is a better country. Which is false. He may as well have brought up the electoral college and how the Republicans generally support using it rather than a popular vote for the presidential election. Surprised he didn’t.
“ First, it is pedantic on one point (the definition of democracy vs. Republic), while stating that "America is not a democracy" with a towering lack of pedantry ("America" is a continent, not a country). ”
Lol. Do you think I was referring to the continent?
“ US as a republic detracts from, adds to, or offers any perspective whatsoever on the article's points. Can you provide further analysis or commentary?”
His references to democracy were false pieties. And also brings us to...
“ I’m also not sure why you brought the civil war into this other than as some kind of bizarre smear of the Democrats.”
Because the author made the claim that the Republican Party “spearheaded” the "undermining of democracy". The civil war is the shiny example of why that claim is ridiculous. What is bizarre is that Democrats still pretend that the Democratic Party started in 1964.
“ I just have one question: do you think the people who perpetrated the civil war and its postwar terrors would be more likely to register Democrat today? That's of course a stupid question because the world has changed and the people who existed then wouldn't be able to exist today. ”
Yah that is a stupid question because the people who ran the Democratic Party after the civil war were people who wanted to keep black people in chains and party leaders of neither think that today. And what the democratic voters of that time would do today is as relevant as asking what party Islamic jihadists would probably register for today. Neither party supports jihadists but jihadists would probably still prefer one party over the other for extrinsic reasons. But just to note, Richard Spencer, who was one of the people who organized the "Unite the Right" rally, and considered by so many to be the arch white nationalist supported Biden.
“ For the same reason, trying to pillory today's Democrats because the Democrats of 80 years ago were bastards is stupid.”
No it is wrong for people who are sympathetic to the Democratic Party to defend its past when that party lies about its past on its own website, claiming that it has been fighting for civil rights for 200 years. It is wrong to defend an organization with a horrific past that is currently trying to use the past as a means of convincing the populace that policies need to be enacted to fix the imbalances of injustice from the past — the past that they were centrally responsible for defending and creating and today still derive their wealth and power directly from. I have written a thorough, intricate, and nuanced substack post on this topic. I encourage you to read it. I wrote it precisely because how frequently people come to the defense of the Democratic Party’s past and express the sentiment that it should be morally absolved of that past. That is a mistaken judgement, and one that people who are rational will come to accept as mistaken if they are given the facts and the perspective— people who are contrarian trolls, sycophants, or hopeless party zombies though will continue to make their stupid remarks in defense of the Party of Slavery's past.
You forgot to mention the Democratic Party's tactic of rigging their own primary elections so that the choice of the candidate is driven primarily by the party elites rather than the party base. For all the Republicans do to "undermine Democracy", they have not yet to my knowledge expressed in court the notion that they are not obligated to run a fair election. Indeed, one of the contributing factors of Trump getting elected in 2016 is due to the fact they did not undermine the will of their voters even though he was very unpopular among the Republican elite. Bernie Sanders, however, was buried by the Democratic Party in 2016 and 2020. The DNC was even taken to court about it, and they essentially admitted to rigging the election and argued that they are not bound to run a fair election. That is on record, in court. The Democratic Party does not care about democracy in their own primaries.
https://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-lawsuit-presidential-primaries-bernie-sanders-supporters/
It is very peculiar, the concern some Democrats have about the Republican Party's efforts to "undermine democracy" when the party they express loyalty to has explicitly stated on public record that democracy doesn't matter to them.
"As a party, it has spearheaded the decline of American democracy."
That, of course is laughable. American democracy didn't just start declining when Republicans started "politicizing election procedures". A), America is not a democracy, it is a Republic. Democracy was undermined when the constitution was first written -- intentionally. B) America had a civil war in which one faction, led by the Democratic Party, fought another faction, led by the Republican Party over whether America should continue slavery, which is certainly not particularly compatible with democracy. Furthermore, after the civil war, the Democratic Party then nursed a terrorist organization, the KKK, with a direct purpose to violently restrict the democratic participation of black people in the political process, and not only because they were more likely to vote Republican, but because they thought white people should properly rule and black people were monkeys.
I'll leave you with a quote from John Adams on democracy:
" Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history. Those Passions are the same in all Men under all forms of Simple Government, and when unchecked, produce the same Effects of Fraud Violence and Cruelty. When clear Prospects are opened before Vanity, Pride, Avarice or Ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate Phylosophers and the most conscientious Moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves, Nations and large Bodies of Men, never."
I agree with your first point on the DNC's undermining democracy in its own primaries. Thanks for bringing that up.
I'm not sure why you brought the "America is not a democracy" into this. I don't see what relevance it has. First, it is pedantic on one point (the definition of democracy vs. Republic), while stating that "America is not a democracy" with a towering lack of pedantry ("America" is a continent, not a country). Second, I'm not sure how the status of the US as a republic detracts from, adds to, or offers any perspective whatsoever on the article's points. Can you provide further analysis or commentary?
I'm also not sure why you brought the civil war into this other than as some kind of bizarre smear of the Democrats. I've seen this a few times. I just have one question: do you think the people who perpetrated the civil war and its postwar terrors would be more likely to register Democrat today? That's of course a stupid question because the world has changed and the people who existed then wouldn't be able to exist today. For the same reason, trying to pillory today's Democrats because the Democrats of 80 years ago were bastards is stupid.
“I'm not sure why you brought the "America is not a democracy" into this. I don't see what relevance it has.”
I brought it up because the author, and many other people, often talk about democracy as if it is sacred. Furthermore, the author's argument is premised on the idea that more democracy is a better country. Which is false. He may as well have brought up the electoral college and how the Republicans generally support using it rather than a popular vote for the presidential election. Surprised he didn’t.
“ First, it is pedantic on one point (the definition of democracy vs. Republic), while stating that "America is not a democracy" with a towering lack of pedantry ("America" is a continent, not a country). ”
Lol. Do you think I was referring to the continent?
“ US as a republic detracts from, adds to, or offers any perspective whatsoever on the article's points. Can you provide further analysis or commentary?”
His references to democracy were false pieties. And also brings us to...
“ I’m also not sure why you brought the civil war into this other than as some kind of bizarre smear of the Democrats.”
Because the author made the claim that the Republican Party “spearheaded” the "undermining of democracy". The civil war is the shiny example of why that claim is ridiculous. What is bizarre is that Democrats still pretend that the Democratic Party started in 1964.
“ I just have one question: do you think the people who perpetrated the civil war and its postwar terrors would be more likely to register Democrat today? That's of course a stupid question because the world has changed and the people who existed then wouldn't be able to exist today. ”
Yah that is a stupid question because the people who ran the Democratic Party after the civil war were people who wanted to keep black people in chains and party leaders of neither think that today. And what the democratic voters of that time would do today is as relevant as asking what party Islamic jihadists would probably register for today. Neither party supports jihadists but jihadists would probably still prefer one party over the other for extrinsic reasons. But just to note, Richard Spencer, who was one of the people who organized the "Unite the Right" rally, and considered by so many to be the arch white nationalist supported Biden.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/socialist-white-supremacist-throws-his-support-behind-biden
“ For the same reason, trying to pillory today's Democrats because the Democrats of 80 years ago were bastards is stupid.”
No it is wrong for people who are sympathetic to the Democratic Party to defend its past when that party lies about its past on its own website, claiming that it has been fighting for civil rights for 200 years. It is wrong to defend an organization with a horrific past that is currently trying to use the past as a means of convincing the populace that policies need to be enacted to fix the imbalances of injustice from the past — the past that they were centrally responsible for defending and creating and today still derive their wealth and power directly from. I have written a thorough, intricate, and nuanced substack post on this topic. I encourage you to read it. I wrote it precisely because how frequently people come to the defense of the Democratic Party’s past and express the sentiment that it should be morally absolved of that past. That is a mistaken judgement, and one that people who are rational will come to accept as mistaken if they are given the facts and the perspective— people who are contrarian trolls, sycophants, or hopeless party zombies though will continue to make their stupid remarks in defense of the Party of Slavery's past.
https://minorityreport.substack.com/p/accepting-the-obvious