this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2025
196 points (76.8% liked)
memes
11186 readers
4911 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And the very next day:
We were trailblazers for a time. Other than that, we were always kind of fucked as a democratic system.
Democracy is the worst form of government...
Except for all other forms.
Probably no nation ever should last for more than 100 years. That seems to be about the time it takes for things to go bad, even if they were good to start with.
And of course there are countries like modern Russia that should have lasted for about 5 years.
What time was that? (genuinely curious)
Late 18th century. The chaos of the French Revolution arguably diluted its viability as an example to other countries, despite the structure of democratic government being objectively better, so you can argue that we were still on the cutting-edge through the 19th century, even, when most countries were still autocracies or constitutional monarchies with extremely questionable de jure voting systems.
I would argue as late as the 1950s, our democratic structure was closer to average than below-average, but by the 1970s, what gave the US more in-common with other developed democracies was that we had extensive practice with our democratic system; by then our structure was not just hopelessly outdated, but a structure that no one in their right mind would take seriously as a foundation for a new government. Come the fall of most of the single-party Soviet-backed regimes of the 1990s, and the only countries we actually beat out for being a 'good democracy' are ones that... well, are only questionably democracies to begin with. And even then, most of them have structures that are superior to our's; only a tradition of civic participation has led us to hobble on as long as we have without becoming an outright authoritarian state.
Though this might be the last month I can say that, which says a lot about the failures of our shitshow of an attempt at implementing democracy.
The majority of the population could not vote, either due to their skin color, sex, or degree of property ownership (colony by colony/state by state as I recall).
Yeah, you should look into other governments of the period.
Just to be specific, your argument is that the United States of the late 18th century can be considered a “trail blazer” in terms of democratic achievement. You are agreeing to my assertion that the franchise can be used as a measure of democracy, and you are asserting that the United States was uniquely forward in this area. This follow up statement is limiting this to a comparison of similar governments of the 18th century?
Late 18th century, yes. And if I hear pop history myths about the Iroquois, I will be irritated.
Women were not specifically barred from voting in the United Kingdom until the Great Reform Act of 1832. This doesn’t mean that they voted often - and would have been practically barred in most circumstances, but it was possible in some. There were no bars on suffrage for black men in the United Kingdom at any point.
If we talk about representative power, we can talk about how the balance of power in Congress was unfairly weighed in favor of southern states through things such as the 2/3 Compromise (having large, non voting enslaved population.) There was no direct voting on Senate positions until a later amendment which I’m too stoned to bother looking up right now. Even if your ideal of democracy is the Athens of direct democracy - one man one vote - I don’t think the 18th century US was that spectacular.
Before the reform act of 1832, something like 1% of the population of the UK could vote due to property requirements, stricter than any of the US states in the 1790s.
It was 3/5 compromise, but you're both right. Pug is more correct though.
Which is a comparison that makes complete sense. When you say that someone is leading the way, you are clearly referring to them being at the forefront at the time when they were leading the way. Any system that was a trail blazer 100+ years ago should be outdated by now, unless progress stopped or went backwards in the meantime.
And how was the situation in the rest of the world?
—Alan Watts, Mind Over Mind
Now do one with Xinnie the Pooh
Neither he nor his country seem to be on their way out currently. Same old authoritarianism as usual.
Hybrid Regime with democratic features
Do hollywood next (aka the propaganda machine of the US).
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
A republic you say?
Republic just means a country without monarchy.
China is a Republic
North Korea is a Republic
The US is a Democratic Republic
Where do you think the name of the political party "Democratic-Republicans" come from?
North Korea is also. Democratic Republic too!
So much good, amirite?
xD
Technically true. But instead of two-party system, they get one-party system. Decision is overrated anyways!
Hail the the supreme leader 🫡 /s
Hey now! The US is much more democratic, because we get to choose between two hand picked selections from our oligarchs.
I mean yeah the US absolutely is much more democratic than North Korea, but it's the lowest of bars
Oh my god, can you people shut up with this already.
The senate, and SCOTUS are verrrry democratic.
Not having primaries for either of the two available parties is very democratic.
The electoral college is the most democratic way to make sure the minority voice maintains a dictatorship.
If he meant "this system isn't democratic enough", hard agree. It sounded like the "the founders wanted a republic and we should stop trying to be a democracy" you hear from MAGAs.
When a person says the US is a republic, not a democracy, I take it as them defining "democracy" as a "pure democracy" only, despite the fact that there are other kinds, such as republics. Kinda like saying "that's not a dog, it's a Labrador."
Well, the founders wanted an oligarchy, and we have an oligarchy...
The first step to fixing the problem, is admitting we have a problem: The US was never intended to be a democracy for anyone except oligarchs, and it's still not a democracy for anyone but oligarchs.
On paper, it was a rejection of monarchism, so a step away from centralized control - but, in the same sort of way as the Magna Carta, where they didn't make the leap all the way to popular democracy, and instead sought to partially democratize power only among the ruling class. More democratic features have been added since then (suffrage, equal protection clause, etc.), though not nearly enough. IMO we do need to completely throw the system out and start over, only carrying over things for the sake of streamlining/continuity.
But I like fish.
He wrote "it's not a democracy, it's a republic" originally.
No I didn’t.
I was explaining my fish preferences.
I tried to hold on to the red snapper but I took what was in the box.
No need to keep commenting
Why not? It’s fun. Plus I hate it when the herring bones get stuck in my teeth.
Do you not love fish?
A republic is a kind of democracy.
So long, and thanks for all the fish
In other words, a republic is a kind of democracy.