I will forego posting any of my plebian comments. Y'all are way more cerebral than I, and nothing I could possibly post would equal the current discourse. :lol2:

I think I've gone to great lengths on this site trying to explain we are a democratic republic and not a democracy. It seems to confuse most people. People calling for the end of the Electoral College again don't understand why it was put in place. If anything we should go further back to how to it was intended.

 

We have created and drifted to an oversized central Federal government and a to powerful executive branch. Both parties are to blame for this. But this is the major reason tyranny could come , not because of populous sentiment but because the checks put in place have been dwindled and power has been centralized.

 

Those who laugh at those who support things like state rights , smaller federal government and checks on the executive branch in recent history , and then support the thoughts of this article come off hypocritical. But Sullivan is nothing but one of our world's greatest hypocrites.

 

I do think putting this on Trump or creating some fear mongering platform of propaganda is disingenuous at best and cultural manipulation and out right lies at worst.

 

The fear mongering that comes out every election cycle is hysterical. Do we need not go back to 2008 and see the fear mongering on the right. But now fast forward to 2016 and people on the left will justify it because in their minds it's different.

This is a fascinating idea and the real meat of the article. Are the disaster that calls itself the U.S. Congress and a court currently ill-equipped to stand up for precedent and the rule of law ripe to be overshadowed by a political strongman? There's been a lot of anger on the right about Obama's executive actions and the growing power of the executive office, but if Trump can't get an agenda through Congress, I've seen nothing in the last 12 months to suggest he'll do anything other than just do it himself.

 

So your suggesting Trump would break the laws ? We have rules and checks in place it's not like he could ignore the other two branches.

 

That is why these strawmen arguments always bug me. Yes the executive branch is to powerful but they are still not and not even close to a monarchy.

 

What could he actually do by executive order that would be so drastic ?

I will forego posting any of my plebian comments. Y'all are way more cerebral than I, and nothing I could possibly post would equal the current discourse. :lol2:

 

Now that's silly. I'd like to hear your thoughts and I imagine I speak for most of us here.

So your suggesting Trump would break the laws ? We have rules and checks in place it's not like he could ignore the other two branches.

 

That is why these strawmen arguments always bug me. Yes the executive branch is to powerful but they are still not and not even close to a monarchy.

 

What could he actually do by executive order that would be so drastic ?

 

According to everyone around here, that's exactly what the current president has been doing for the last eight years. So my question to you is whether the Republican party actually believes the things they say and want to be a conservative, constitutionalist party, or do they want a strongman?

 

I don't know whether he'll break the laws. Maybe it's not him, it's the next guy. The whole point of the article is whether through democratization we've allowed popular movements more sway over politics than we ought. The Constitution is scarcely worth the paper it's printed on unless enough people actually care about what it says to abide by it.

 

Let's take Trump out of the equation. How long can American governance endure a Congress so incapable of action that more and more rightful duties are transferred to the judicial and executive branches until such time as a strong executive merely takes a mandate and acts well beyond the scope of his/her office and no one does a darn thing about it?

It's also worth noting that his arguments go the other way. Sanders is a result of the same anger and frustration, it's just focused in a different way (and he doesn't have the charisma to really focus that into a cult of personality the way a guy like Trump can). It would have been inconceivable just a few short cycles ago that guys that think like Sanders or Trump would have been serious candidates in their respective parties.

According to everyone around here, that's exactly what the current president has been doing for the last eight years. So my question to you is whether the Republican party actually believes the things they say and want to be a conservative, constitutionalist party, or do they want a strongman?

 

I don't know whether he'll break the laws. Maybe it's not him, it's the next guy. The whole point of the article is whether through democratization we've allowed popular movements more sway over politics than we ought. The Constitution is scarcely worth the paper it's printed on unless enough people actually care about what it says to abide by it.

 

Let's take Trump out of the equation. How long can American governance endure a Congress so incapable of action that more and more rightful duties are transferred to the judicial and executive branches until such time as a strong executive merely takes a mandate and acts well beyond the scope of his/her office and no one does a darn thing about it?

 

If you read the post above I address my stance on this issue.

 

I do find it humorous when we blame just congress, all 3 branches are to blame. The public says they want a strong congress but when Ted Cruz is one of the few people in the legislative branch to weild the power of that branch to stop the increasing power of the executive branch some want to paint him crazy.

 

We can't have it both ways. With the trend of American politics it takes some like Cruz in the Senate willing to take a very strong stance to stop the over reach of the executive office.

 

But as I stated in my earlier post it isn't the populous movement itself that is the problem. It's our eroding of the checks and balances put in place.

 

There are many on here who will applaud Sullivan's article and also are the same people who mock those who are against a large central Federal government , believe it's dangerous with the eroding of state rights and the executive office is trending with to much power.

 

Those people can't now come out of the wood work using fear mongering on Trump , after those people supported the eroding of our democratic republic.

 

Heck just a month or so ago many on here were calling for the abolishment of the electoral college. You don't see the irony with that when many of those same people are leading the propaganda war against Trump ?

If you read the post above I address my stance on this issue.

 

I do find it humorous when we blame just congress, all 3 branches are to blame. The public says they want a strong congress but when Ted Cruz is one of the few people in the legislative branch to weild the power of that branch to stop the increasing power of the executive branch some want to paint him crazy.

 

We can't have it both ways. With the trend of American politics it takes some like Cruz in the Senate willing to take a very strong stance to stop the over reach of the executive office.

 

But as I stated in my earlier post it isn't the populous movement itself that is the problem. It's our eroding of the checks and balances put in place.

 

There are many on here who will applaud Sullivan's article and also are the same people who mock those who are against a large central Federal government , believe it's dangerous with the eroding of state rights and the executive office is trending with to much power.

 

Those people can't now come out of the wood work using fear mongering on Trump , after those people supported the eroding of our democratic republic.

 

Heck just a month or so ago many on here were calling for the abolishment of the electoral college. You don't see the irony with that when many of those same people are leading the propaganda war against Trump ?

 

No. The Electoral College provides no protection against a Trump presidency other than pointlessly divorcing the popular vote from its vote allocations, and if Trump can win the popular vote the EC will be no obstacle (outside of a complete random possibility the cards fall differently). If you want to bring that thread up again then go ahead and I will happily continue discussing its demerits there.

 

But I take your point to really mean that since Sullivan's article expresses apprehension over majoritarian democracy and since the Electoral College is a relic of a time when democracy was constrained to the House that I'm a hypocrite for both posting this article and advocating the elimination of the Electoral College.

 

I found the article provocative precisely for the reason that it was cogently argued and contradicted my inveterate democratic sensibilities. I've said as much above and have found the discussion so far interesting. I also thought the article's criticism of populism and Trump's candidacy from a traditional conservative angle to be provocative, especially on this board. At any rate, I'm not convinced of his conclusions, but I think it's an interesting counterpoint to our democratic tendencies, nonetheless. And I certainly don't find the Electoral College to be the solution to any of these issues. As I explained in that thread, even Madison considered the Electoral College a "faulty part" of the new government.

No. The Electoral College provides no protection against a Trump presidency other than pointlessly divorcing the popular vote from its vote allocations, and if Trump can win the popular vote the EC will be no obstacle (outside of a complete random possibility the cards fall differently). If you want to bring that thread up again then go ahead and I will happily continue discussing its demerits there.

 

But I take your point to really mean that since Sullivan's article expresses apprehension over majoritarian democracy and since the Electoral College is a relic of a time when democracy was constrained to the House that I'm a hypocrite for both posting this article and advocating the elimination of the Electoral College.

 

I found the article provocative precisely for the reason that it was cogently argued and contradicted my inveterate democratic sensibilities. I've said as much above and have found the discussion so far interesting. I also thought the article's criticism of populism and Trump's candidacy from a traditional conservative angle to be provocative, especially on this board. At any rate, I'm not convinced of his conclusions, but I think it's an interesting counterpoint to our democratic tendencies, nonetheless. And I certainly don't find the Electoral College to be the solution to any of these issues. As I explained in that thread, even Madison considered the Electoral College a "faulty part" of the new government.

 

I wasn't referring to you directly that's why I said some. I can barley remember what I ate for lunch let alone who posted what in a thread a month ago .

 

But yes I would say if you agree with the concept of eroding the checks for populous movement could lead to tyranny and also support the elimination of Electoral College it is a hypocritical stance.

 

Also of course the Electoral College itself doesn't protect us from what is discussed. But it is apart of system put in place with many checks and balanced meant to do that very thing. If we erode away at each check individually eventually we get to the point Sullivan is tryiny to make.

Some more kindling for discussion here.

 

American democracy is doomed - Vox

 

In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government — but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."

 

The exact reasons for why are disputed among scholars — in part because you can't just randomly assign different governments to people. One issue here is that American-style systems are much more common in the Western Hemisphere and parliamentary ones are more common elsewhere. Latin-American countries have experienced many episodes of democratic breakdown, so distinguishing Latin-American cultural attributes from institutional characteristics is difficult.

 

Still, Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."

 

In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.

 

But within a presidential system, gridlock leads to a constitutional trainwreck with no resolution. The United States's recent government shutdowns and executive action on immigration are small examples of the kind of dynamic that's led to coups and putsches abroad.

Some more kindling for discussion here.

 

American democracy is doomed - Vox

 

In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government — but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."

 

The exact reasons for why are disputed among scholars — in part because you can't just randomly assign different governments to people. One issue here is that American-style systems are much more common in the Western Hemisphere and parliamentary ones are more common elsewhere. Latin-American countries have experienced many episodes of democratic breakdown, so distinguishing Latin-American cultural attributes from institutional characteristics is difficult.

 

Still, Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."

 

In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.

 

But within a presidential system, gridlock leads to a constitutional trainwreck with no resolution. The United States's recent government shutdowns and executive action on immigration are small examples of the kind of dynamic that's led to coups and putsches abroad.

 

I would argue part of the reason are system was put in place is because our founding fathers didn't believe gridlock was a bad thing. A government gridlock can't grow in size and it's really hard to argue against the fact a majority of our founding fathers believed in a limited central government.

 

The reason this doesn't work Europe is because these were countries built on monarchy where America was built on the individual citizen.

I will throw my hat in with @Getslow as I tend to agree with him in this particular thread. It was an interesting article, but I don't really buy into the idea that Plato's ideas are a particularly insightful comment on our present day circumstances. Not that it is a bad jumping off point for a discussion though.

 

Certainly some of our political process was designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority, and the case can be made that Trump represents, or has harnessed, the type of support that could be a tyranny of the majority.

 

Eh. I see this as a good thing, we need this in a way. I wish we had a better choice, one that I was more fired up about, but in the end Trump is about hate, about hatred of the other, and that is a good basis to have an election over. Now is as good a time as any to decide if we are going to give in to our worst passions.