me too
angel
joined 10 months ago
It says "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"
There's nothing in it comparable to "the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority".
it also means any form of government where the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people.
I don't see anything here that grants ultimate power to the people.
It's a non-immigration country like Japan. They might make exceptions for highly-skilled scientists or footballers, but you generally can't "move to China"
There was always an anti-democratic strain in the political thought of the USA.
It was founded to restrain/limit democracy with strongly centralised executive institutions.
It was that way from the start, by design.
That's not a unique quote either, it's typical of the Founders' thoughts.
Hungary was also the best part of the Soviet Bloc to live in for the people.
So it's not just that modern Hungary is worse: communist Hungary is more miss-able than communist East Germany.
Nigel Swain's two books on the subject are good:
-
Collective Farms Which Work? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)
-
Hungary: The Rise and Fall of Feasible Socialism (London: New Left Books, 1992)
He's writing from the perspective of a non-red English academic who's like.... "wait... this works?? how do we explain the anomaly?"
Hungary had full shelves, booming agriculture, available consumer goods.
Or the CIA made it all up because Mao and Stalin et al did nothing wrong. 🙄
They made mistakes. But overall their countries were a gazillion times better from their influence.
If that were true, it seems to me they would have put the word 'democracy' in the constitution or declaration of independence.
This one talks a lot about democracies and republics, and argues against deomcracies in favour of republics, e.g. " The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region."
America was always an anti-democratic project. I think that's a fair reading of the historical documents, as they're fairly explicit about it. The alternative explanation is that it was supposed to be a democracy but somehow got perverted along the way by something, by parties ("faction"), by capital, or something else. But I think it's simple and supportable to say it just never was one in the first place, by design.
PS: Easy to find that the word 'democracy' was used as a pejorative among the founders of the country:
"we beg Leave to answer, that though we are not so absurd as to “design a Democracy,” of which the Governor is pleased to accuse us"
"You would have torn up the Foundations and demolished the whole Fabrick of the Government, and have suffered Democracy, Aristocracy, Monarchy, Anarchy, any thing or nothing to have arisen in its Place."
"Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontrouling disposition requires checks."