I like it when I come across an
article that agrees with things that I have written. There are times when I
feel I am writing articles that only I agree with and only I write about. Such
a subject is US democracy. I feel it isn't real. It is similar to the democracies created in Greece , many
years ago, chiefly by Cleisthenes. It was based on the idea that people rule.
People are suppose to make decisions as to how they live. Much of what we call
democracy has been modeled after Athenian democracy. This democracy was created
some time around 594BC. Since that time nearly all the worlds so called democracies
seem to follow that model to some extent. They usually have designate political
parties. They include elections. The core of US leaders and philosophy is that
only capitalism is compatible with democracy. But I don't believe that. I don't
believe that capitalism can co-exist with democracy. And according to the
article below, by GABRIEL ROCKHILL, the US has
never had a democracy. That is not what the founders of the US really
wanted. And the system they created, to this day, is not a democracy at all. We
have two and only two political parties and we have elections. But they do no
produce a system where the people really decide how they are going to live. It
is all here in this article, just as I have written earlier. -SJ Otto
From Counter
Punch:
One of the
most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a
democracy. Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to
point out detrimental exceptions to core American values or foundational
principles. For instance, aspiring critics frequently bemoan a “loss of
democracy” due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian measures on the
part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption,
deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are
considered undemocratic exceptions. The same is true for those
whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing the actions of the U.S. government
to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction between the two and
clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.
The problem, however, is that there is
no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States
simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront,
and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as
preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical
record in order to see for themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in
large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in
modern history. What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and
methodically inspected, is that a country founded on elite, colonial rule based
on the power of wealth—a plutocratic colonial oligarchy, in short—has succeeded
not only in buying the label of “democracy” to market itself to the masses, but
in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and psychologically
invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and
well-documented arguments to the contrary.
To begin to
peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this
article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy
(a more sustained and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present). To begin
with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name
of the freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of
power to the people. Those who settled on the shores of the “new world,” with
few exceptions, did not respect the fact that it was a very old world indeed,
and that a vast indigenous population had been living there for centuries. As
soon as Columbus
set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and killing the native
inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately
thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal
assault against the indigenous population. Moreover, it is estimated that over
half of the colonists who came to North America from Europe
during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women were
generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude. Rather than the land of the
free and equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas
imposed a land of the colonizer and the colonized, the master and the slave,
the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free. The former constituted,
moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the
overwhelming majority, meaning “the people,” was subjected to death, slavery,
servitude, and unremitting socio-economic oppression.
Second,
when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland
and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a
democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to
democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers. They
understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For
the so-called “founding fathers,” the masses were not only incapable of ruling,
but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly
necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one
telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute
wealth and dissolve the “subordination” so necessary for politics. When the
eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution,
they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic
that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than “the filth of the
common sewers” by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new
constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of
Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a
property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves—meaning the overwhelming
majority of the population—were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators
were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the
state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. It is
in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of
judgments: “it is not a democracy.” George Mason further clarified the
situation by describing the newly independent country as “a despotic
aristocracy.”
For the rest click here.
Pix by Wired.
No comments:
Post a Comment