I was taken completely aback by an opinion a coworker shared with me yesterday. It was her contention that America was never intended to be a representative government in that it represents the citizens of the nation.
Rather, it is intended to represent the winners of the most recent election, and those who agree with the reigning administration, whoever that is.
She went on to explain that the term "this country" then represents those people who support the current government, and the rest are not politically significant until they gain power.
Is this a number-supported belief "out there" that I have simply not been exposed to prior to this?
If so, I believe we will need a new constitution. I was surprised to hear things like America, love it or leave it---if you want change, go somewhere else, etc. I thought that went out with Nixon.
I have always believed the strength of our system is its adaptability such that changes can be made by the will of the people in more than just majority-rules fashion, and that desires for change are allowed to be discussed in a healthy society.
posted
Uh.. I've been told a variation of "love it or leave it" many times when I complain about how socialist the country is becoming. That concept is not the least bit dead.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was her contention that America was never intended to be a representative government in that it represents the citizens of the nation.
Rather, it is intended to represent the winners of the most recent election, and those who agree with the reigning administration, whoever that is.
The first part could possibly be argued, but the second part seems pretty flat wrong to me.
I have no doubt that there were men with the will to power to simply rule American from the get go, but in order to gain the participation of the most populous states (which geographically divided the north and south colonies) it was necessary to incorporate the experiment of democracy. That's why it's a democratic republic.
P.S. I suppose the second part could be a perversion of the principle behind why the republic aspect was retained, in that the majority should not have absolute control over minority elements, be they racial, religious, or of different economic systems. For instance, if a majority of the population were farmers, they might set policies that were very antithetical to people who live in cities. But that's nearly the opposite of what you report your co-worker saying.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My question would be this: If our government only represents the winners of the election, why would the losers of the election have any obligation to obey a government that gives them no representation?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole concept is silly, since at any given time there's at least 40% of the legislature that is the other party from the winner of the executive.
Edit:
You could argue that the Unites States military (and other foreign policy) only represents the executive branch, since that appears to be largely true under this administration.
posted
Majority rule with respect for minority rights. The people in power get to do a lot of stuff the minority might not like, but they don't get carte blanche to do whatever they want. Well, unless they're up against Democrats anyway, in which cause it's sort of a de facto carte blanche, but it wouldn't be if Democrats had less spineless leaders.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Definitely not, the original framers of the Constitution even intended that the person not elected President be made Vice President. That clearly shows desire to represent the will of all of the people. That practice has not been adopted due to the inability to show a united Executive branch if that were the case.
Our nations laws apply to those who didn't vote for the current President, and they have the right to attempt to influence their elected representatives on certain issues.
Our government is a representative democracy, meaning that whoever the majority vote for might be in power, but the minority still have every right to make their voices be heard. (Usually by hiring over payed lobbyists to push for special interests.)
"Democracy: the best form of government corporate lobbyists can buy."*
*While I do believe that the above statement has merit in that large corporations have the ear of our elected representatives than "the people" do, (At least on allot of issues. You don't see ordinary people taking senators to lunch.) However I do not believe that this country has gone down the tubes, nor do I believe that the system is inherently flawed.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do believe one should "love it or leave it", but not in the sense that most people mean. It's healthy to disagree with a spouse, child, parent, etc. Why wouldn't you disagree with elected officials you don't necessarily like?
I just don't understand the people who whine about how terrible America is and how it should be more like somewhere else. Not little complaints, but ones that attack the character of Americans themselves. It's like living with someone and wanting to change everything about them. At some point, it's easier to get a different roommate.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Avid--good point. Just because I don't agree with someone or something doesn't mean I don't love it. That is where the idea of "Love it or leave it" failed as a political axiom.
What sets the US Founding Fathers apart from others is that they recognized the dangers of a winner-take-all system, and enacted in the constitution many road blocks to that "The US only represents those who voted for the winners" threat from becoming a reality.
Otherwise we would outlaw the losing political party, before they had a chance to win.
Highest amongst those devices to keep one group or one party from controlling the country is the "Separation of Powers" into three equal branches.
Unfortunately this administration has striven hard to undermine that separation.
What those founding fathers strove for was a system of negotiated compromise between the various groups. Instead we have a present administration glorifying the role of "With us or against us." They give no inch and only call total capitulation as bipartisanship. What they can not bully into law, they try to sneak into practice.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Unfortunately this administration has striven hard to undermine that separation.
As a separate issue, the Judicial branch has been crowding the Legislative branch as of late. It is rather unnerving.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
