Home | About | Donate

Democracy Free-for-All


#1

Democracy Free-for-All

Robert C. Koehler

Here in America, we celebrate democracy by staying in touch with the lack of it. What better way to honor our ancestors’ struggles to win the right to vote — and have that vote counted — than to have to struggle ourselves for the same thing?


#2

With two contested conventions looming, TPTB are soiling themselves overing the political awakening.


#3

from Bruce Cockburn, partial lyrics to "Call it Democracy", [or listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68zccrskOqQ] A more global look at democracy, but its all the same game, like the national championship and the world title. Thank you Mr. Koehler.

North South East West
Kill the best and buy the rest
It's just spend a buck to make a buck
You don't really give a flying fuck
About the people in misery

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there's one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt

See the paid-off local bottom feeders
Passing themselves off as leaders
Kiss the ladies shake hands with the fellows
Open for business like a cheap bordello

And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy

See the loaded eyes of the children too
Trying to make the best of it the way kids do
One day you're going to rise from your habitual feast
To find yourself staring down the throat of the beast
They call the revolution


#4

Thank you for this, Mr. Koehler:

"Democracy is an inner urgency far more than it’s a settled political system. The United States does not embrace the idea that the more eligible voters who actually vote, the better we are as a nation. Indeed, beyond voting rights for white, male property owners, voting eligibility has accrued only to those who claimed it after a long, bitter struggle. Deep wariness of actual democracy is still very much who we are as a nation."

This statement is a logical fallacy. Since Democracy has only GRADUALLY extended to a number of groups, the premise of ONE collective WE defining who gains privileges and who doesn't is misleading.

"Indeed, no one is marginal in a democracy — a concept we embrace as a nation but don’t believe. And thus citizens are marginalized all the time.”

Who is it that doesn't believe in Democracy? Those waiting on long lines or those hoping under "The Dream Act" to become assimilated certainly believe in Democracy.

It's those possessed of power who deny it. Therefore, rather than using one uniform collective WE to suggest "who doesn't believe in Democracy"; it's far more honest and accurate to explain that specific groups that have ALWAYS held power deny Democracy (to certain groups) as often as they can.

Why do so many writers hide the specific acts of specific entities and actors behind the one-size-fits-all collective label of we?

Did women NOT believe in their own right to vote, or did the great patriarchs and those with influence deny them this right?

Did Black persons NOT believe in their own humanity and right to self-determination, or did patriarchs and those with power deny them this right?

It's time to deconstruct the language and language frames that attribute the problem to those being done unto, rather than those who engineered "the doing."

Here's one more example to drive this point home: Is it that WE don't believe in global warming, or that the Oil Hegemons have so firm a grasp over politicians as to keep the matter (and reliance upon the existing energy systems) under debate as long as they can?


#5

TPTB? I must be out of it, please elaborate


#6

The Powers That Be


#7

as i listen to the almost constant barrage of political commentary, i am struck by the absurdity to the point of farcical disconnect taking place in campaign 2016. according to my calendar of events the national election should take place in november--almost eight months from now, yet our "expert" political commentators already predict a clinton/cruz choice for that future election. two big "for profit" organizations, the dnc and gop, work in concert to bar any third party candidates as serious contenders. the delegates and super delegates and not we_the_people decide each party's nominee. in most states the majority of citizens who remain independents cannot vote in these primaries. so, is this what democracy looks like?

And this, too, is what democracy looks like: determination pushing, not always successfully, against power and bureaucracy. Democracy is an inner urgency far more than it’s a settled political system. The United States does not embrace the idea that the more eligible voters who actually vote, the better we are as a nation. Indeed, beyond voting rights for white, male property owners, voting eligibility has accrued only to those who claimed it after a long, bitter struggle. Deep wariness of actual democracy is still very much who we are as a nation.

personally, i define "democracy" not merely as a political system, but as a way of living free from oppressive authoritarianism. we should be choosing those most eligible to represent and protect the individual's constitutionally protected rights. as been franklin said, "we've given them a republic, if they can keep it!" we participate in the republic every two years, but democracy should be for all time. however, the party insiders, ie deciders, in these two powerful entities do their utmost to destroy the very meaning of a republic or a free democratic society.

until we_the_people find the way to divorce big money's influence from this electoral sham, we cannot enjoy a government by for and of the People! think demographic and understand the very word "democracy" references people, not politicians.


#8

"Who is it that doesn't believe in Democracy? Those waiting on long lines or those hoping under "The Dream Act" to become assimilated certainly believe in Democracy."

hi, 'souixrose'. you know, i would change one word from the above question you pose from "assimilated" to "accepted" because all too often to become assimilated means one cedes her/his cultural heritage, religion, dress and even hair-style in order to fit in and become indistinguishable from the dominate society. as i feel sure you know that when europeans arrived on these shores with their superior fire power in flint/lock guns, cannons and such, these new arrivals considered the millions of indigenous inhabitants as insurgents with their own primitive culture and unwillingness to immerse themselves into the "superior" civilized culture of the occupiers from across the sea. i, for one, enjoy being part of a society rich in diversity. both you and i rail against "one_size_fits_all" solutions. as a beautiful garden displays a variety of styles and colors, our society gains depth from the diversity. below i post thoughts on social assimilation from wikipedia:

Cultural assimilation is the process by which a person or a group's language and/or culture come to resemble those of another group. The term is used to refer to both individuals and groups, and in the latter case it can refer to either immigrant diasporas or native residents that come to be culturally dominated by another society. Assimilation may involve either a quick or gradual change depending on circumstances of the group. Full assimilation occurs when new members of a society become indistinguishable from members of the other group. Whether or not it is desirable for an immigrant group to assimilate is often disputed by both members of the group and those of the dominant society.


#9

I like your improvement on my comment. You're correct. I type quite quickly and don't always edit my posts. Nonetheless, others' intelligent additions (and sometimes corrections) are appreciated. No writer writes in a vacuum. Many of the best ideas are like totem polls... built up segment by segment, or premise by premise.

Thank you.