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
Tags:

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 55 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Zafar (View Comment):
    But the filibuster and partisan use of the filibuster imposes a minority veto on just about anything the majority wants to do. 

    Yup. Ain’t it beautiful?

    • #31
  2. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    BDB (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    When you say Republic do you mean federalism?

    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.

    All good.  Australia is a bicameral democracy but not a Republic.

    • #32
  3. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    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).

    I think you can have a representative democracy that is still not a republic, if you only have majority-rules type delegation.  e.g., only a House, but no Senate.

    • #33
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Zafar (View Comment):

    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. ??

    I don’t think there’s any requirement that a bicameral legislature have one part that is strictly representative and another that isn’t.

    You could, for example, have one part that is elected by districts within each state, and the other where the members are elected state-wide within each state, but with the same numbers of members for each state.

    • #34
  5. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    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).

    In India (a Republic) the members of the House are directly elected by the people, but members of the equivalent of the Senate are mostly elected by the States’ legislative assemblies (who were elected by the people of each State).

    Edited to add: but it’s the same basic process in Spain, which is a monarchy.  So…I think it’s more than voting (which is democracy, right?).

    • #35
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    BDB (View Comment):

    Chuck (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: 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.

    So what’s the problem? Xiden can, as my child suggested to me decades ago, “just write a check”.

    Ah, children!

    Or just go to that wall that money comes from (ATM).

    • #36
  7. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    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).

    In India (a Republic) the members of the House are directly elected by the people, but members of the equivalent of the Senate are mostly elected by the States’ legislative assemblies (who were elected by the people of each State).

    That’s the way it was here, until the 17th Amendment was passed and the country started to go to hell.

    The filibuster became more important then, not less.

    • #37
  8. Chuck Coolidge
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    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).

    In India (a Republic) the members of the House are directly elected by the people, but members of the equivalent of the Senate are mostly elected by the States’ legislative assemblies (who were elected by the people of each State).

    That sounds vaguely familiar.

    • #38
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Percival (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    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).

    In India (a Republic) the members of the House are directly elected by the people, but members of the equivalent of the Senate are mostly elected by the States’ legislative assemblies (who were elected by the people of each State).

    That’s the way it was here, until the 17th Amendment was passed and the country started to go to hell.

    The filibuster became more important then, not less.

    I suppose that’s true, although the filibuster isn’t in the constitution, it’s just something the senate decided to have in certain areas.

    • #39
  10. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Chuck (View Comment):

    In India (a Republic) the members of the House are directly elected by the people, but members of the equivalent of the Senate are mostly elected by the States’ legislative assemblies (who were elected by the people of each State).

    That sounds vaguely familiar.

    Just adding that India is pretty much the poster child at the moment of how to undermine and vitiate democracy, so my feeling is that there’s more to that than just legislative structures or federalism or being a republic.

    • #40
  11. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Ole Summers (View Comment):

    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.

    Currently, we have both the senate and the presidency elected in the same manner. There is something seriously wrong with this.

    • #41
  12. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Zafar (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    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.

    And that’s a strength.

    A Representative Republic means the people don’t get to vote on who isn’t allowed to speak.

    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.

    It’s set up so the central government is supposed to only get done what EVERYONE can agree it must get done.

    That has been grossly perverted.

    If we are constantly passing things at 50/50 splits (or close to it), maybe the central government shouldn’t be the governing structure passing it. That’s what the state governments are supposed to be there for.

    • #42
  13. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Let us not become overly attached to definitions or labels.  PRC and DPRK, etc.  There’s a *reason* the USCS defined pornography as something which “I know it when I see it.”

    Or something like that.

    • #43
  14. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    After calling us “semi-fascists,” Biden was quoted in the Orlando Sentinel today:

    ‘It’s sickening to see the new attacks on the FBI, threatening the life of law enforcement and their families, for simply carrying out the law and doing their job,’ Biden said before a crowd of more than 500 at Wilkes University. ‘I’m opposed to defunding the police; I’m also opposed to defunding the FBI.’

    Right.

    • #44
  15. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    I believe the problem is the popular vote.  The popular vote is how governors and other state officials are elected, as well as US Senators.  It only takes a small number of Democrat-machine controlled voting districts to provide the necessary vote totals to overcome any lead a Republican opponent has.  This is why Demos are clamoring to get rid of the Electoral College, the final obstacle to an eternally-Democrat-controlled Federal Executive Branch.

    We should do the following:

    1. Return the election of senators to state legislatures, and
    2. Create miniature “electoral colleges” at the state level to prevent big cities from controlling an entire state.
    • #45
  16. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    I know this is not good, but I am having trouble more and more listening to “the other side”. Between redefinition of words that end up with me not sharing a common language with which to communicate and the rank character assassination of people who simply want the best for our society, it is impossible to have a conversation. I put “the other side” in quotes because I am not entirely sure of the outlines of who constitutes this group. Progressive activists, for sure. Registered Democrats, not necessarily. Democrat politicians, I would not say “all” but for their party discipline that makes any deals unreliable. Media, sadly most. I think you get my drift. And it gives me no pleasure to feel this way.

    • #46
  17. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Rodin (View Comment):

    I know this is not good, but I am having trouble more and more listening to “the other side”. Between redefinition of words that end up with me not sharing a common language with which to communicate and the rank character assassination of people who simply want the best for our society, it is impossible to have a conversation. I put “the other side” in quotes because I am not entirely sure of the outlines of who constitutes this group. Progressive activists, for sure. Registered Democrats, not necessarily. Democrat politicians, I would not say “all” but for their party discipline that makes any deals unreliable. Media, sadly most. I think you get my drift. And it gives me no pleasure to feel this way.

    You reflect my own sentiments to a great degree. And I’m not proud of it either. But I think sometimes people earn our disparagement, and after a time, they don’t even earn our attention, never mind our respect. It’s called consequences.

    • #47
  18. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Zafar (View Comment):
    In India (a Republic) the members of the House are directly elected by the people, but members of the equivalent of the Senate are mostly elected by the States’ legislative assemblies (who were elected by the people of each State).

    This was the original structure of the US constitution as well.  House members elected by the people and Senators selected by the state legislatures.   That was changed by the 17th amendment under the presumption that state legislatures were corrupt in selecting senators and that the people would do a better job.  It is an innovation we should probably scrap. 

    The original structure was designed to give states equal representation in the senate so big states like Virginia and New York couldn’t dominate small states like Rhode Island and Vermont.  It was also set up so that the Senate would represent the interests of the states rather than the interests of the people of the states, which is what we lost with the direct election of Senators.  It is unlikely that the power of the states would have been as eroded if we still had the Senate appointed by state legislatures. 

    The filibuster is not part of the structure of the constitution it is a tool to limit debate on a particular matter to keep it from being talked to death.  It is designed to force a larger consensus on legislation, which is actually a good thing.  The problem is in our partisan times neither party can gain a durable majority in the Senate and neither party is very good at legislating, they have lost interest in it.   This means a lot can’t get through the Senate that is popular with the base of either party.  What should happen is that the legislators should trim their sails.  Pursue legislation that is modest and can get broad support.  Since they are only really interested in appealing to their base partisans on both sides decry the system as broken when they are in the majority and use it mercilessly when they are in the minority.  

    The Senate needs to be non democratic otherwise the country would be run based on a coastal consensus primarily from California and New York which have very different views and voting patterns from the rest of the US.   If the senate were truly to run as a pure majoritarian body the country would have split apart years ago.  The problem isn’t the system.  It is that neither Red State America or Blue State America actually represents enough people to be able to force its political views on the other.   They really should be focused on finding a way to compromise and live together instead of doing political battle which each other.

    • #48
  19. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    The problem isn’t the system.  It is that neither Red State America or Blue State America actually represents enough people to be able to force its political views on the other.   They really should be focused on finding a way to compromise and live together instead of doing political battle which each other.

    Ah, but then we have something ridiculous like egos and preferences get in the way. Everyone thinks he or she knows best. And we all have to suffer with that reality.

    • #49
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Stad (View Comment):

    I believe the problem is the popular vote. The popular vote is how governors and other state officials are elected, as well as US Senators. It only takes a small number of Democrat-machine controlled voting districts to provide the necessary vote totals to overcome any lead a Republican opponent has. This is why Demos are clamoring to get rid of the Electoral College, the final obstacle to an eternally-Democrat-controlled Federal Executive Branch.

    We should do the following:

    1. Return the election of senators to state legislatures, and
    2. Create miniature “electoral colleges” at the state level to prevent big cities from controlling an entire state.

    States with bicameral legislatures already allow for #2, it’s a question of how the state senates are filled.

    • #50
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    In India (a Republic) the members of the House are directly elected by the people, but members of the equivalent of the Senate are mostly elected by the States’ legislative assemblies (who were elected by the people of each State).

    This was the original structure of the US constitution as well. House members elected by the people and Senators selected by the state legislatures. That was changed by the 17th amendment under the presumption that state legislatures were corrupt in selecting senators and that the people would do a better job. It is an innovation we should probably scrap.

    The original structure was designed to give states equal representation in the senate so big states like Virginia and New York couldn’t dominate small states like Rhode Island and Vermont. It was also set up so that the Senate would represent the interests of the states rather than the interests of the people of the states, which is what we lost with the direct election of Senators. It is unlikely that the power of the states would have been as eroded if we still had the Senate appointed by state legislatures.

    The filibuster is not part of the structure of the constitution it is a tool to limit debate on a particular matter to keep it from being talked to death. It is designed to force a larger consensus on legislation, which is actually a good thing. The problem is in our partisan times neither party can gain a durable majority in the Senate and neither party is very good at legislating, they have lost interest in it. This means a lot can’t get through the Senate that is popular with the base of either party. What should happen is that the legislators should trim their sails. Pursue legislation that is modest and can get broad support. Since they are only really interested in appealing to their base partisans on both sides decry the system as broken when they are in the majority and use it mercilessly when they are in the minority.

    The Senate needs to be non democratic otherwise the country would be run based on a coastal consensus primarily from California and New York which have very different views and voting patterns from the rest of the US. If the senate were truly to run as a pure majoritarian body the country would have split apart years ago. The problem isn’t the system. It is that neither Red State America or Blue State America actually represents enough people to be able to force its political views on the other. They really should be focused on finding a way to compromise and live together instead of doing political battle which each other.

    Another reminder of this one:

     

    • #51
  22. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

     

     

    • #52
  23. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    They are the democRAT party, not democratic nor democracy. They are RATs who hate America and everything that it has ever stood for.  Obama’s transformation continues. He wants the money and power from every white person that isn’t fully on board as his supporter, so that he can redistribute it as he sees fit. And he hated for America to have any standing or power in the world also. All of his dealings with Iran, Russia and China illustrated this.

    • #53
  24. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

     If we have a fair election presumably  we’ll sort it out.  If we don’t, then what?  Which is at the heart of matters.  We have to come to grips with these folks, the groups that appear to have excess influence, and folks from all sides of the political spectrum who seem to accept that we can run things fairly and democratically from the top if we elect the right people.  We can’t.  We should use the top and the President rather dynamically and broadly, but mostly to undo the embedded bureaucratic state and to reduce the influence of the Chinese, Soros and our own far left whose out of proportion influence is being addressed in the article.  What they say is insane as the article incisively points out.  

    • #54
  25. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I Walton (View Comment):
    We have to come to grips with these folks, the groups that appear to have excess influence, and folks from all sides of the political spectrum who seem to accept that we can run things fairly and democratically from the top if we elect the right people.  We can’t.  

    That has never given us a reliable or practical result. We need to stop the elites from dominating our lives in many, many ways.

    • #55
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.