[Peace-discuss] Mildly

[John W.]

At 10:13 PM 3/29/2007, n.dahlheim at mchsi.com wrote:

>Circular argument?
>
>I think I need to rephrase my thinking then.  I am fairly certain that 
>democracy cannot work in the
>United States because the structural prerequisites do not 
>exist.  Tocqueville provided the framework for
>developing this line of analysis.  The precondition for democracy is a 
>society constructed around and
>oriented towards equality.  However, the rise of an industrial and now 
>financial/commercial elite has
>created the soft tyranny Tocqueville feared would destroy the equality of 
>social conditions in American
>democracy.  This elite and the unequal society formed under their watch 
>came to power because
>Americans have, as Tocqueville also noted, a concern with private affairs 
>that trumps their
>communitarian values and committment to general equality.  This is best 
>manifested in the American
>consumerist ethos and even the American Dream that rewards economic gain 
>ahead of the
>community---an ethical system whose values permeate social institutions 
>and destroy their democratic
>character.


Hear, here!!  What he said!!

Can we agree that democracy does work after a fashion, but that it works 
badly or in a half-assed manner?  Can we agree that it works better for 
some than others, namely them that has the gold who makes the rules?  Can 
we agree that democracy works better on a local level than it does on a 
larger scale?

Can we agree with Winston Churchill that "Democracy is the worst form of 
government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time 
to time" ?



> > Note that omitted word is in title. I like short titles, but who wants 
> to argue
> > about "mildly".
> >
> > Nick- Your statement seems to say that democracy can't work in our society
> > because our society is structured so that democracy  can't work. This is a
> > little terse even for a confessed minimilist like me to follow, and 
> seems to be
> > massively circular. Could you express this more clearly but still 
> inside of one
> > paragraph?
> >
> > Bob