Dual Monarchy or Democracy?

[STDzRus]

Think about this.

If Hilary Clinton recieves the nomination for Presidential candidate in 08 and wins..we will have had nothing but Bush's and Clintons in office for over 2 Decades. Never in the history of this country (which I must say isn't that long) has this happened. So I would like to ask..is this country still a Democracy? More like a Dual Monarchy with two families fighting against each other.

And to look at it in a more BROAD perspective would be to say that the Republican and the Democrat party are the two major parties fighting.

Independent parties aren't even included in the National Debates that are televised anymore. Why?

Isn't this a country where everybody has a voice?

Why are the Independent / Liberal / ETC parties being silenced because of lack of money?

This is a democracy not a Hierarchy, Monarchy, Ogliarchy, Dictatorship, Communist or whatever other form of government we SLIGHTLY fall under. It is a democracy, so why don't we start acting like one and give the people a voice.

[eg420ne]

Its actually a Republic or was, I cant seem to find where the democracy came in. ya, it weird that Bushs & Clintons been in the white house since Reagan became prez. The Real Enemy of the American People live and work in Washington DC..

[NeoBudd]

Ummm *cough cough*

Capitalist Oligharchy comes to mind ;)

Several states have seen the people vote to decriminalize, but for some strange reason, it never went into effect..........Is that indicative of a Democracy?

[zooted999]

It's not that independent parties are silenced, it's that they don't have the money to afford things like television spots. And (PLEASE! correct me if I'm wrong) I believe they need to collect a certain percentage of the votes to be eligible for the national debate which is why Ross Perot was included back when he was running.

As previously noted, this IS a republic. We directly elect people to vote for us.

Lastly, though it would be 2 decades of Bush and Clinton, it would be the American public who made it that way. Not to mention, 2 decades is deceiving-- 12 years of Clinton and 12 years of Bush is more accurate.

[ermitonto]

If by democracy you mean the administration of society by the people who compose it, then by definition all governments are anti-democratic. But politicians have a way of twisting words. For all practical purposes, the word "democracy" in their lexicons can be interpreted as "any government which agrees with the policies of the United States, no matter what form it takes". For example, when they say they want to bring "democracy" to the Middle East, what they mean is getting rid of governments they don't like (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc), then replacing them with more pro-US governments, even if like in the new Islamic Republic of Afghanistan it's still just a theocracy. And horribly oppressive régimes like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan are allowed to stand so long as they cooperate.

[zooted999]

All governments are anti-Democratic? What about Switzerland, aren't they a pure Democracy?

[ermitonto]

No. The Swiss people do not rule themselves. They are ruled over by a government, which tells them what to do and what not to do, and uses violence to make sure everyone complies. If society were administered by the people, there would be no need for government. They could do it directly, according to the principles of egalitarianism and free association, where everybody has a voice in forming the decisions which affect their lives. All governments are hierarchical, that is, they centralize power into the hands of a few. Being able to pick who rules over you is hardly democratic.

[STDzRus]

egalitarianism
That is all you need right there.

[zooted999]

If government was run strictly by people, factions would arise and the tyranny of the majority which Hamilton warned about in Federalist 10 would occur. During the time of the Articles of Confederation, there wasn't anarchy per se, but every state worked and operated for itself and the result was a weak government with no defense and a shitty economy so the nation couldn't function well. That has to be taken into account when dealing with large amounts of people.

[ermitonto]

I'm not proposing a "government" run by the people, but rather a society run by the people. Anything else is simply not democracy. Governments are hierarchical institutions whose main function is to protect the interests of the elite in control of society. There is no practical function of the government that could not be performed directly by the people in a bottom-up manner instead of a hierarchy where people on top tell everybody else what to do.

"To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so . . . To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorised, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolised, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown it all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality." —Pierre-Joseph Proudhon