Re: Democracy in America…
Reply #191 –
If there were typos above, I missed them… It was a pleasure to read a post by you that you yourself read, first! (There! I've satisfied my cheap shot quota.)
There are many other actions that constitute free speech and freedom of the press. Writing a check is not among them.
Why not?
Are bumper stickers and front yard signs okay? Billboards? How about newspaper ads and circulars? Radio and TV spots?
Donating money to campaigns, parties and "issues" organizations is still considered political speech, and thus a 1st Amendment exercise. Your main reason for opposing such appears to be the "drowning out" of the Voice of the People…
There are two presumptions I'd argue with there: First, that the People (and their various groupings) are disadvantaged unfairly. Their interests and means (investments in time, effort and -yes- money) far outweigh the resources of those you rail against; or they would…
Second, the Wisdom of the People has always been doubted, and for good reason. (Franklin's reply to the question What form of government the 1787 Convention had given the country was "A Republic, if you can keep it!" He wasn't overly optimistic.) Would you accept plebiscitary democracy, as a replacement for our cumbersome system?
There's another "problem" that hides in plain sight: Rational political ignorance… Don't you think this was exacerbated by (1) the popular election of senators and (2) the artificial limitation upon the number of representatives in the House? The larger the constituency, the more diffuse its attention and efficacy, no? Among other things, such allows elected officials to operate at a great remove from those they "represent"…
You ask "when do the members of congress address the concerns of the living, physical people?" When such people can effectively hold them accountable, I'd say. It is all-but a paradox that the more democracy we get the less our interests are served… Hot-button issues (and their propagandists) easily capture an election cycle when government grows beyond the grasp of your Common Man, Sang.
You'd demonize the Kochs… For what, exactly? Your go-to term for groups you don't like is astro-turf, but you would do better to consider weeds! (Feel free to play with it…) I specially like the -to you?- innocuous insertion of "in theory" when you mention Soros and the influence of his money!
The characteristics of a democracy are now present in the US: equality under the law, the right to petition elected officials, human rights and due process of the law, etc. You can also call it a republic on the basis of representative government. That said, a republic doesn't necessarily guarantee the above liberties.
It does seem (a derogatory) semantic issue, for you: What examples of those characteristics of democracy you listed does history provide?
This notion that corporations are people is not popular [; hence, it] will not stand and the precedent of Citizens United eventually will be overturned. Yes, Oakdale it can be, although it will again take the SCOTUS to do it.
Why must it take a SCOTUS to overturn it? Because the constitution's amendment process is too hard, compared to packing the Supreme Court?
Don't forget to vote! (I'm off to cast my ballot now.)