Fighting for "Democracy": watching the Daily Show isn't enough)

Here's the thing, democracies have to have something that we lack. An active public that participates. In recent elections the United States has had around 1/3 of its population show up to decide who will decide how to execute all of the largest government, economy, and military in the history of the world is used.

Divide the government however you like, but the thing that disiguishes democracy as an idea from other governments is that radical notion that people have the say in how their affairs are carried out on a routine basis. Essential to living in a democracy is consistant engagement by the people in the governing authority.

That point exactly, that this government was "of, by and for the people" was the great acheivement of the US Constitution. And now we mock the efforts to produce such a breakthrough (and think not now of the "sacrifices" made by the indigenous Americans and abused Africans) centuries ago by initiating violence and commiting a war on people who meant you and I no harm.

One of the intellectual pillars of neoconservative thought is that democracies do not attack other democracies. Presumably, part of the reason for this conclusion is that when people decide the fate of their nation; consistantly, they find that starting a war -especially a war with people of like mind - is not in their national interest. Yet, we were all sold on the idea that this was somehow in our interest. And since we are "us" then our interest is moral. (Romans 13:1-3)

But, this makes me wonder about what exactly democracy is. I mean we as a 'democracy' did start a fight with another nation that had never attacked us before. Look it up.

I found the following in Crystal Reference Encyclopedia online:

The word "democracy" from the Greek ~ demos (‘people’) and kratia (‘authority’)
(the fact that 'people' only came to mean all adult citizens is something new, happening only as the 20th century progressed, such a discussion of the in/ex-clusions of such democracies please show enough interest in this so as to continue [prequel] this discussion.)

The 2nd half of the reference article I found states:

Today it is widely accepted that because the people are too numerous and scattered to come together in assemblies, decision-making has to be handed over to a small group of representatives. Elections, including the right to choose among different groups of representatives offering different doctrines and party programmes, have therefore become seen as essential to democracy. Further necessary conditions are the legal equality of citizens, and the free flow of information to ensure that citizens are in an equal and informed position to choose and hold accountable their rulers. Some radicals argue that economic equality is also necessary, but moves towards economic democracy have been limited.


The first sentence is probably true of the United States. Mostly, we concern ourselves with "nuclear" matters effecting only a small bubble of contact and give a temendous amount of imperial lattitude to the elected officials and the public servants they appoint.





Further options:

1. Expanding Elections- more candidates/run-offs, voting for cabinet level positions, more ballot initiatives.
2. Effective Demonstrations (they exist/they are possible)
3. Go back to your favorite church, bar/club/pub, or couch to tune back in Family Guy and forget about the whole thing.