Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Who’s Putting Our Democracy in Peril?
The Democrats have once again taken a word that is a treasured symbol for our country–Democracy–and has tried to desecrate it by assigning blame to Republicans for imperiling it. The irony is that they apparently don’t know what a Democracy actually is, having chosen to mis-define it, celebrate Marxism, and use their new definition to incriminate Republicans. I thought I could help them out by clarifying the characteristics of a Democracy, and we can all reflect on who is doing the most damage to our country.
Let’s start with the border—you know, the southern border that is supposed to indicate the line where we begin to protect our national security. Oh wait, that’s right, we have no security in the south . . . due to the neglect of the Biden administration. And then we have the overwhelming abuse of fentanyl, which no one has addressed . . . well, probably because we have no southern border to provide national security, and we don’t want to offend the Chinese. And then we have illegal immigrants bearing down on our borders, even though our borders are closed . . . except that they are not closed. And what about the fact that sex trafficking is taking place due to the dominance of the cartels . . . but of course, those are just rumors . . . as is the news that children may be being kidnapped to harvest their organs.
And we have the Democrats behind these activities, in spite of their trying to blame the Republicans. And the Democrats fear our Democracy is imperiled.
But let’s just move along here . . . with our commitment to climate change, we are severely limiting our access to coal and natural gas, even though we could supply ourselves and most of the world. (Even Elon Musk knows we can’t stop using fossil fuels in one fell swoop.) But of course, we are using both of those fuels to manufacture solar panels. You know, those panels that insurance companies are threatening not to insure because of the weight they put on the roofs of ordinary homes. And we are being told to purchase electric vehicles that require hard-to-acquire elements for their batteries . . . and the fact that the average car buyer can’t afford an electric vehicle. And the fact that you risk being stuck in some god-forsaken place when you run out of power . . . and let’s not forget that we are trying to buy energy products from other countries who, unlike us, have no scruples about producing them.
And speaking of national security, let’s not forget our military, that can’t staff its ranks because it can’t find enough people who are fit enough, smart enough, or interested enough to join this woke enterprise. Maybe those people didn’t grow up with two mothers.
And finally, being told that we must suffer this “transition” time as our country becomes poorer, less free, disrespected by most of the world, and incapable of protecting ourselves.
So tell me again, Democrats, why is our Democracy in peril?
Published in General
Who thinks that? The same primitive villages in Guatemala or wherever it was, who occasionally attacked and killed American tourists who they thought were kidnapping people, removing their organs, carrying them around in their backpacks for a week or two, and then returning to the US and selling the well-aged organs to American millionaires?
The reporter Sarah Carter, who spends a lot of time at the border.
The Republic is in danger again from Their Democracy. Once every other generation, They need putting down.
Not a Democrat (or an American) but I think it’s the Senate filibuster that most undermines the one man one vote everybody gets an equal say principle that undergirds democracy. Also the way that Senate seats are allocated across the country.
That’s because the US was never meant to be a pure democracy, aka “mob rule.” “Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for breakfast.” etc. It’s supposed to be a Representative Republic. A Representative Republic means the people don’t get to vote on who isn’t allowed to speak.
And that’s a strength.
But the filibuster and partisan use of the filibuster imposes a minority veto on just about anything the majority wants to do. Which undermines democracy – or putting it another way, the two wolves can stop the three sheep from voting to constrain the wolves.
That’s pretty twisted. The three sheep don’t need to vote to constrain the wolves.
Sez the wolves.
No, in the system being described, the wolves can’t just decide to eat the sheep without a vote, and then the sheep have to vote that they can’t, which the wolves then “filibuster.” Holding the vote to eat the sheep is where the 3 sheep outnumber the 2 wolves, and a filibuster on that would mean the vote to eat the sheep doesn’t even count.
Why not? That is their nature and their natural advantage. It doesn’t need a vote.
I think you are talking past each other. First, are there rules to follow? Do both groups agree to follow the rules? If so, what ever comes naturally isn’t relevant: you either follow the rules or you don’t. Or you change the rules.
We’re talking about wolves and sheep in the context of voting, and what their motivations would be. Outside of that, the “two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for breakfast” doesn’t even apply, because the wolves would simply chow down. But we’re dealing with voting situations, and what is “pure democracy” versus a “representative republic.” Which is what you should want too, because in a “pure democracy,” the people could vote not only to just execute all homosexuals and then it’s done, they could vote to execute YOU IN PARTICULAR, for no reason at all. ANY limitations – even just a “due process” requirement – means it’s no longer a “pure democracy.” (actually, in a “pure democracy,” the voting is the only “due process” there is.)
My point is that the wolves can filibuster to stop the rules coming into place.
We started this with the wrong language, the language that those who would restrict our liberty use all the time. It is not a democracy we are worried about saving. Our founding concern was not majority rule as much as individual rights. So yes, the minorities do have powers. The structure of the Senate is an important key to that, giving the states ability to influence even beyond their population. One person one vote has its place but it is not the totality of the process at all. In fact, one of the worst “reforms” has been amending the Constitution to allow senators to be elected directly instead of being selected by the states’ representatives.
Considering that the Senate is intended to dampen the volatile winds issuing from the rambunctious House, you have accurately portrayed the System Working As Designed.
Well, so long as we’re carrying the analogy too far, don’t forget about Mrs. She’s donkey that’s gonna mess the wolves up.
Yuuuuuge donkey.
It’s a balance, and probably a good one when the common objective is good policy rather than good politics. Which is something the system seems vulnerable to?
Edited to add: I like the term volatile winds. Kudos.
This is only one facet of a Republic. The several states are also supposed to get a say. That’s the Senate. The Constitution is also supposed to get a say. That’s more complicated — a duty laid upon all, but then arrogated by the Court, and abandoned by most of the rest.
Democracy is a disaster, and if people didn’t know that worldwide, then Constitutions around the world would be about three lines long.
Yes, that’s what I started out with in #12.
Keeping in mind that, with “pure democracy,” the only real rule is “the most votes.”
“The Rules”/are already in place. I oppose literally all legislation that does not repeal existing laws which do not comport with the Constitution.
The greatest victory for the people is utter, rage-filled, impotent gridlock in Washington.
Not if it’s about voting, which was the initial state that was set. In a simple-majority “pure democracy” situation, the two wolves can simply vote to eat the sheep, and the sheep is outvoted. But even in a simple-majority “pure democracy” situation, 2 wolves cannot outvote 3 sheep. Nor can they simply assert that they can eat the sheep unless the sheep vote that they can’t and the wolves filibuster the vote. Voting means voting. Which means there would have to be a successful vote to eat the sheep, which the wolves lose. (Unless one of the sheep is “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” But that’s a different fairy tale story.)
Which thank you.
As with free markets, the beauty of a Republic is that it does not depend upon any such “common objective”. Those don’t exist. That’s the fundamental problem exposed by a Democracy, and solved by a Republic.
Except he’s skipping over the first vote where the wolves want to eat the sheep, but they lose, 2 to 3.
And to “filibuster” that doesn’t mean that the 2 votes by the wolves count but the 3 votes by the sheep don’t; it would mean the vote doesn’t actually happen at all.
I could have done a better job of making a distinction between what the Democrats mean when they say our democracy is in peril: when we either don’t agree with them or support them, or when we do things they don’t approve of. They are then trying to say our country is in peril. I’m saying that our country is in peril because of their incompetence, disdain for the rule of law, a commitment to Marxism and their elitist agenda. And I tried to provide a few examples. As a couple of you suggest, their protests have little to do with democracy.
When you say Republic do you mean federalism? From my understanding in a Republic the head of state is elected while in a monarchy, for example, they inherit the post. For eg, the UK and the US are both democracies, one is a republic (like India!) and the other is a monarchy. The Senate, as opposed to the House, is a feature of bicameral legislatures – but you can also have unicameral republics like Israel. ??
In a Republic, we elect people to act on our behalf, that is, the legislature (House and Senate).
So what’s the problem? Xiden can, as my child suggested to me decades ago, “just write a check”.
I do not care about this cul-de-sac.
I mean the United States as (literally) constituted. The sine qua non, the non plus ultra, the the the jeunnesse et squaw of Republics! No offense to any antipodeal sorts.
Ah, children!