Sen. Mike Lee hates democracy

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Wait. Lee "worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few", therefore he thinks America should be less democratic? How the hell does he think non-democratic systems of government work that they give less power to "the few" than democracy does?

Majorities have often in history voted for those who promise to concentrate power in their own hands in order to act on behalf of the majority's interests.

Yes, but the alternative is minorities arrogating and wielding power themselves. A polity is either ruled by the majority, in which case what you're suggesting is a perennial risk, or ruled by some minority or another, in which case it's a definitionally present reality.

The idea of the US Constitution was to allow for representing majorities and minorities alike through various mechanisms so they could balance against each other and no faction big or small could dominate completely.  People can argue whether it works, but that's the idea.

Yes, but I find people like Lee's insistence on stressing this point hair-splitting to the point of disingenuousness. It conflates concern for democracy, in the sense that people on the center-left and left mean it when they raise the alarm at some of the actions of this administration and its supporters, with advocacy of complete supremacy of the majority. No "democratic" country works by pure majority rule on every issue under the sun except arguably the United Kingdom.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Wait. Lee "worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few", therefore he thinks America should be less democratic? How the hell does he think non-democratic systems of government work that they give less power to "the few" than democracy does?

Majorities have often in history voted for those who promise to concentrate power in their own hands in order to act on behalf of the majority's interests.

Yes, but the alternative is minorities arrogating and wielding power themselves. A polity is either ruled by the majority, in which case what you're suggesting is a perennial risk, or ruled by some minority or another, in which case it's a definitionally present reality.

The idea of the US Constitution was to allow for representing majorities and minorities alike through various mechanisms so they could balance against each other and no faction big or small could dominate completely.  People can argue whether it works, but that's the idea.

Yes, but I find people like Lee's insistence on stressing this point hair-splitting to the point of disingenuousness. It conflates concern for democracy, in the sense that people on the center-left and left mean it when they raise the alarm at some of the actions of this administration and its supporters, with advocacy of complete supremacy of the majority. No "democratic" country works by pure majority rule on every issue under the sun except arguably the United Kingdom.

Perhaps some hair-splitting is in order when "undemocratic" is used to mean both refusing to accept the results of an election based on the electoral college, and the existence of the electoral college itself. 

[Ferguson97]

"We're a republic not a democracy" is a middle-school level understanding of how things work.

[GP270watch]

This has always been the conservative stance.

[Alben Barkley]

Asserting that America is a constitutional republic rather than a democracy is basically just arguing that constitutional protections of rights, and restrictions on powers, take precedence over democratic majorities, which is obviously true about the United States by design. The Left should embrace this if they want any legs to stand on when arguing that abortion rights, gay marriage rights, etc. should not be put up for a vote.

Except the majority of the public is on our side on those issues, and just about all issues in fact. That would be why the GOP fears democracy and seeks to obstruct and limit it as much as possible; they know they can’t win if all the people get a say.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

If you want to make policy, you win elections. Fillibuster should go and the court should not be 6-3 and we will make sure it isn't!

[Wakie77]

This is not surprising. Trump said on Fox today that if Barr doesn't arrest his political enemies and Trump doesn't win the election "I won't forget".  Which feels weirdly like a threat.

The reality is that the Republican party is moving more and more away from respect for Democracy.

[Figueira]

This has always been a conservative talking point, but it's a dumb talking point. They're never really able to articulate why their preferred ideals are preferable to democracy, beyond pseudologic and appeals to the Founders.

[Alcibiades]

Wait. Lee "worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few", therefore he thinks America should be less democratic? How the hell does he think non-democratic systems of government work that they give less power to "the few" than democracy does?

Majorities have often in history voted for those who promise to concentrate power in their own hands in order to act on behalf of the majority's interests.

Yes, but the alternative is minorities arrogating and wielding power themselves. A polity is either ruled by the majority, in which case what you're suggesting is a perennial risk, or ruled by some minority or another, in which case it's a definitionally present reality.

The idea of the US Constitution was to allow for representing majorities and minorities alike through various mechanisms so they could balance against each other and no faction big or small could dominate completely.  People can argue whether it works, but that's the idea.

Yes, but I find people like Lee's insistence on stressing this point hair-splitting to the point of disingenuousness. It conflates concern for democracy, in the sense that people on the center-left and left mean it when they raise the alarm at some of the actions of this administration and its supporters, with advocacy of complete supremacy of the majority. No "democratic" country works by pure majority rule on every issue under the sun except arguably the United Kingdom.

Really? 2010-15 excepted, when was the last time we had a government with a mandate from a majority of voters?

[Where's the Epstein Client List?]

We are at the point at which a functioning democracy has ceased to be useful for the wealthy and influential, hence the millions upon millions invested over the past few years in disinformation campaigns and online hustlers stoking fears about 'campus sjws' and the useful idiots in the mainstream press bleating on about cancel culture. All to distract people while actual democratic norms are being chipped away at.

Trump, whether he wins or loses is just the first. Be fearful of a competent demagogue.

"When conservatives realize they can no longer achieve their policy agenda through democratic means, they won't give up on conservatism. They will give up on democracy." -David Frum

Majorities have often in history voted for those who promise to concentrate power in their own hands in order to act on behalf of the majority's interests.

Right now we have a government that has concentrated power in its own hands in order to act on behalf of the minority's interests.

[dotard]

At least he admits it.

[EastOfEden]

hey Jim Matheson...I think a 2022 comeback might be worthwhile now.

[freepcrusher]

can we throw you in ADX Florence then Mike?

[beaver2.0]

This argument is dumb because we're clearly a democratic republic.

[SWE]

"We're a republic not a democracy" is a middle-school level understanding of how things work.

It's as dumb as saying that "gorillas are primates, not mammals"

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

https://mobile.twitter.com/SenMikeLee/status/1314009246305079296

Sen. Lee Votes to Acquit President Trump

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Wait. Lee "worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few", therefore he thinks America should be less democratic? How the hell does he think non-democratic systems of government work that they give less power to "the few" than democracy does?

Majorities have often in history voted for those who promise to concentrate power in their own hands in order to act on behalf of the majority's interests.

Yes, but the alternative is minorities arrogating and wielding power themselves. A polity is either ruled by the majority, in which case what you're suggesting is a perennial risk, or ruled by some minority or another, in which case it's a definitionally present reality.

The idea of the US Constitution was to allow for representing majorities and minorities alike through various mechanisms so they could balance against each other and no faction big or small could dominate completely.  People can argue whether it works, but that's the idea.

Yes, but I find people like Lee's insistence on stressing this point hair-splitting to the point of disingenuousness. It conflates concern for democracy, in the sense that people on the center-left and left mean it when they raise the alarm at some of the actions of this administration and its supporters, with advocacy of complete supremacy of the majority. No "democratic" country works by pure majority rule on every issue under the sun except arguably the United Kingdom.

Really? 2010-15 excepted, when was the last time we had a government with a mandate from a majority of voters?

I said "arguably" because parliamentary sovereignty with an uncodified constitution and minimal judicial review is still not pure "majority rule" if most governments only have plurality mandates, but it is closer to being pure "majority rule" than what most countries with codified constitutions have.

[parochial boy]

You know, ehm, here in the real world, democracies have a better - that is better, by which I mean infinitely, demonstrably superior - record when it comes to protecting minority rights, civil liberties, and pretty much any form of freedom or right than you can imagine, than any non-democratic regime ever has.

[Pyro]

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1314267672834605060

[..]

“Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man."  
- Saint Ronald Reagan

[Santander]

“Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man."  
- Saint Ronald Reagan

loooool. Nice one. You have a bright future on this forum.

[Yellowhammer]

Love him! One of my faves! I 1000% agree!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

"We're a republic not a democracy" is a middle-school level understanding of how things work.

If so, why are people with college degrees talking like they've never heard it before and declaring it evidence of creeping fascism?

[Benjamin Frank]

This is not surprising.  The Republican Party has been moving towards an authoritarian coalition of the genuine elite: the very wealthy combined with right wing evangelicals since at least the election of Satan Ronnie.

Donald Trump was useful in this in part because he agrees with a good deal of their agenda (advancing the interests of the very wealthy elites) but also had the ability to con the idiot Republican voter base.

Of course there are a handful of areas of disagreement (immigration and free trade, although most very wealthy business people tend to be pro free trade in the abstract, but in support of tariffs to protect them)  but it was always obvious to me that Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination was a friendly merger and not a hostile takeover.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

This has always been a conservative talking point, but it's a dumb talking point. They're never really able to articulate why their preferred ideals are preferable to democracy, beyond pseudologic and appeals to the Founders.

https://twitter.com/SethCotlar/status/1314023245855690753
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

(I didn't realize, although I'm not really surprised, that sheer insanity and conspiracy-theory thinking has goes back so far in the roots of the right-wing.)