Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

Maury’s musing — Democracy at dinner time – Glens Falls Post-Star (blog)

This is the first in an occasional series of posts about personal reflections on politics and government.

A line in recent spare-time reading got me thinking.

Congress is intended to be slow -- to promote deliberation and the weeding out of ideas that may be popular for a moment, but imprudent, Donald Rumsfeld wrote in his 2011 memoir Known and Unknown, published by Sentinel.

Think of congressional democracy in terms of buying dinner out for my children and grandchildren.

The process might start with the 12 grandchildren each suggesting a different restaurant. (Yes -- this is the House of Representatives, but dont read too much into the metaphor.) The grandchildren start negotiating with each other until at least seven of them agree on one restaurant.

The restaurant selection then moves to the Senate -- my three children and their spouses -- two members from each household.

If a majority of the adults agree with a majority of the children, then the decision passes to me to either approve or veto.

Democracy is a great way to make laws. But its not practical at dinner time.

Follow staff writer Maury Thompson at All Politics is Local blog, at PS_Politics on Twitter and at Maury Thompson Post-Star on Facebook.

Read more:
Maury's musing -- Democracy at dinner time - Glens Falls Post-Star (blog)

Democracy rejected by founders – Anza Valley Outlook

In the 2016 presidential election the Democrats never used the word republic to describe the political system and Republicans rarely used it, both preferring to use the word democracy. Most people ignorantly refer to the political system as a democracy and have to be reminded that this word is not in the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights or any other document given by the Founding Fathers. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag identifies the nations form of government as a republic.

Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1759, Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. A republic has seven major components.

First, the importance ofmajority rule is recognized but limited. Is the majority always right?No.Mother made this point when her teenager asked to smoke marijuana on the basis that everyone was doing it and said,If everyone jumped off a bridge would you?

Second,minority rights, registering less than 50 percent, are protected from the majority.In Franklins analogy, the lamb had the right to exist even if the majority, the wolves, said differently.A lynch mob is a democracy; everyone votes but the one being hanged.Even if caught in the act of a crime, the defendant is entitled to the protection of law, a judge, jury, witnesses for his defense and a lawyer to argue his innocence; all necessary but expensive.Later, if he is found guilty, he can be hanged.Because democracy only considers majority rule, it is much less expensive.A rope tossed over a tree limb will do.

Third, a republic isbased upon natural inalienable rightsfirst acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence.This document asserted to the world that the nation acknowledged that humans have rights from a source higher than mere man. A reference to deity is mentioned five times.If there is no God, there can be no inalienable rights coming from him, and we are left with man as God.What man is good enough?

Fourth, a republicemphasizes individual differences rather than absolute equality, as does democracy.We are not equal, even from the womb, and we never will be, if equality means sameness. One baby with a cleft palate needs three operations to live well and look normal.Some children come out of the womb with access to a laptop, others with a basketball or golf clubs.One of my first great insights in life was that everyone was better at everything than I was.The second great insight I made was that life is not fair and never will be.Free men are not equal, and equal men are not free.Genetics makes one fat, another bald and gives yet another terminal cancer in his youth.

Even economically, it is not possible to be equal.Should I give each of my students a million dollars in exchange for everything they now own, shave their heads and give them identical uniforms, that is should I approximate sameness as much as possible, before requiring that they returnin five yearswith some ledger of net worth. Would they be the same in what was left of the million?No.Why does the government try so hard to do that which is impossible?A republic looks upon peoples differences as assets decidedly not the base of democracy.

Fifth,limited governmentis also a major aspect of a republic.Centralized government is good, so long as the government remembers that when it oversteps its bounds it becomes the greatest obstacle to liberty because it pulls decision-making power away from the individual.Excessive government, as the cause of the American Revolution, is never forgotten.The Constitution as created to handcuff the government and prevent it from dominating the citizens lives, thus the powers of the federal government were listed in Article I, Section 8. The Founders understood that the more government at the top, the less at the bottom, and that was the essence of freedom.

Sixth,a republic has frequent elections with options. Frequent elections happen in some socialist countries, so this action alone does not ensure liberty.In fact, it may be somewhat deceiving as it fosters the notion that we choose and thus deserve the elected officers.It also assumes that the people are correctly informed, which assumes a free press and equal access to all information.The part of the phrase with options is the part that ensures liberty.Elections under socialism provide choices but offer no options, as all the participants are from the same party.

Seventh, a healthyfear of the emotions of the massesand of its potential to destabilize natural law upon which a republics freedom is based; as for example, the notion that someone elses wealth belonged to the masses destroyed freedom in Athens and Rome. The U.S. needs a caring, sensitive, compassionate government, but emotion must not be allowed to overwhelm reason and time-tested natural law constants.Aristotle taught that the poor will always envy the rich, and that the rich will always have contempt for the poor.A republic will not allow the poor to destroy the rich in their quest for the wealth of the rich, but does incentivize the poor to increase their wealth and become the middle class, which in time becomes the largest body.

As explained, democracy does not protect liberty. In Benjamin Franklins analogy, it would have allowed the wolves to have eaten the lamb simply because the lamb had been outvoted.No wonder the Founding Father rejected democracy in favor of a republic.

Dr.Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, visitwww.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Read this article:
Democracy rejected by founders - Anza Valley Outlook

A simple bicycle and the complex practice of democracy – The Hindu


The Hindu
A simple bicycle and the complex practice of democracy
The Hindu
What is democracy? Abraham Lincoln's phrase that it is political rule of the people, by the people, for the people is surely a clich. But is it also a good description of democracy? Is it weightier than what we have come to suppose and ...

and more »

Read more:
A simple bicycle and the complex practice of democracy - The Hindu

Islam’s lessons on freedom and democracy – WatertownDailyTimes.com

'); //-->

From his hateful tweets and provocative rhetoric to his new (and now failed) executive order banning Muslims and refugees all over again, President Donald Trump is driven by the idea that Islam is a threat to what makes us American.

Trump has declared that Islam hates us. There is, he says, an unbelievable hatred. Stephen K. Bannon, one of his chief advisers, claims that we are in an outright war against ... Islam and doubts whether Muslims that are shariah-adherent can actually be part of a society where you have the rule of law and ... are a democratic republic. He believes Islam is much darker than Nazism and seems to agree with HUD Secretary Ben Carson that Islam is a religion of domination.

But Trump and his administration could learn a thing or two about American values such as freedom and equality from the religion and people they so hate.

In Islams founding story, after Muhammads death, it was unclear who would lead the nascent Muslim community. Typically, succession disputes make for great drama. This one, however, was more C-SPAN than Game of Thrones.

Rather than intrigue or bloodshed, believers pursued democracy. Only by the peoples consent, they reckoned, could a ruler justly be named and a community freely governed. They chose Abu Bakr, one of Muhammads companions. His inauguration speech, according to one of Muhammads earliest biographers Ibn Ishaq, was brief (though were not sure how big the crowd was). It went something like this: Im no better than any of you. Only obey me if I do right. Otherwise, resist me. Loyalty means speaking truth. Flattery is treason. No human, but God alone is your lord.

Abu Bakr sought to guard the people against domination by making himself accountable to them. The people obliged, securing their liberty. They could call him out at any time, and he had to listen. He even had to ask permission for new clothes.

His successor, Umar, carried the legacy forward. Publicly rebuked by a woman for overstepping the law, Umar responded: That woman is right, and I am wrong! It seems that all people have deeper wisdom and insight than me.

This spirit of accountability and liberty would become enshrined as a religious duty in Islam, though as with any tradition, these values are not always upheld. Nonetheless, every Muslim has the obligation to command right and forbid wrong, correcting and resisting any who betray justice, rulers included. That Abu Bakr and Umar are paradigms of good Islamic rule for well over 1 billion Sunni Muslims tells us something about this traditions love for freedom, whether or not its followers always live up to their ideals.

So does the 12th-century theologian al-Ghazali, one of Islams most beloved figures. In his most famous political work, an open letter to a young sultan, Ghazali famously defends a golden rule of liberty: The fundamental principle is ... treat people in a way in which, if you were subject and another were Sultan, you would deem right that you yourself be treated. Nothing a ruler would not himself endure has any place in politics. While sin against God can be forgiven, violation of this rule cannot: Anything involving injustice to mankind will not in any circumstance be overlooked at the resurrection.

Ghazali tells rulers that on judgment day, not God but the people will determine their fate: The harshest torment will be for those who rule arbitrarily. He sounds striking similar to James Madison writing in Federalist 57, for whom rulers will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their exercise of power is reviewed, and they must descend to the level from which they were raised. Only in Ghazalis vision, the tyrant descends to hell.

Of course, like their Western counterparts, many Muslim regimes fail to honor this vision of liberty. But it is women and men like Malala Yousafzai, Humayun Khan and the hopeful youths who filled Tahrir Square who are faithful to the best of Islam, not the likes of the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and Saudi princes.

For Islam and the American founders alike, freedom is about protection from arbitrary power and rule by law, not the caprices of men. Theirs is a vision where citizens stand not in slavish deference to masters but on equal terms with all. This vision animates our whole system of governance. It was this vision Lincoln endorsed when he wrote, in words that echo Ghazali: As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. And it was this vision Sojourner Truth, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Harvey Milk invoked when they each demanded that equality before the law be still further expanded so that it would eventually include not just straight white men but everyone.

This vision is under threat in a way it rarely has been in our history. But it is under threat not by Islam, but by Trump and his administration.

Trumps first Muslim ban was an act of brazen, unconstrained power and barely concealed animus. The second ban is more of the same. The blessing of the first was just how blatantly it betrayed our deepest values. The danger of the second is its attempt to conceal its dominating and bigoted aims. No serious observer thinks these bans make us any safer. Instead, they seek to circumvent rule of law, roll back libertys benefit and wage Bannons war with Islam. They give Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security and other agents discretionary power to decide on a whim whether to sever families, deport refugees and detain Muslims. And they make Trump and his cronies unaccountable arbiters of who really loves the very American values the administration is busy betraying.

Trump wants to return America to its former greatness. But when it comes to freedom, Ghazali and Abu Bakr have far more in common with Madison and Lincoln than with terrorists and tyrants who claim Islams mantle. For that matter, they have far more in common with this countrys great lovers of liberty than does the current president.

So, instead of banning Muslims, Trump should listen to them: He might learn something about liberty and equality, two values he seems not to have learned to love from our own nations history or the Constitution he swore to uphold.

Decosimo teaches religion, ethics and politics at Boston University and is writing a book on freedom and domination in Christianity and Islam.

Here is the original post:
Islam's lessons on freedom and democracy - WatertownDailyTimes.com

This ‘Latest Academic Craze’ Is Threat to US Democracy – Newser


Newser
This 'Latest Academic Craze' Is Threat to US Democracy
Newser
Sullivan argues that this is why protesters shouting down campus speakers they don't agree with seem to be performing a ritualistic exorcism. He concludes that this raising of ideology above facts is dangerous to democracy no matter your politics. Read ...

and more »

Go here to read the rest:
This 'Latest Academic Craze' Is Threat to US Democracy - Newser