Would the US perform better in both economic and military activities if it was a democracy?

[MorkandMindy]

I'm going to the 'yes' camp on both.

This is a multifaceted question as there are many predicaments in the many parts of the US and a huge variety of people within the US, and therefore it can only be competently answered by collective intelligence consisting of as many as possible of the nation's inhabitants.

That is to say, the question of whether it would be better to be a democracy can only be competently decided democratically.

So we have to become one to decide if we should become one.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I am expecting a lot of 'no' votes because the rich and powerful who direct the lobbyists also run the media so they will tell you what a great job the lobbyists and weapons makers are doing.

The media is about 80% lies when it comes to anything important - a lot more often wrong than right.

I've posted many times about the state of the US economy and been largely ignored every time, I guess because people believe they already have all the answers, from reading the newspaper...

 

[Paulos23]

The population at large as shown they are not better than lobbyists, and they can be influenced just as much by money and ads.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The population at large as shown they are not better than lobbyists, and they can be influenced just as much by money and ads.

Yes, there are plenty of examples of that, like Elizabeth Warren gave up on promoting a more efficient healthcare system (maybe, hard to tell) and switched to promoting a less efficient one and claiming that Bernie's plan would not work and her better plan would cost 52 Trillion over ten years. I read her platform and it made about zero sense.

I think she decided an efficient plan would never be passed by the lobbyists and therefore gave up on it at the start.

I'm sure the politicians are second-guessing the lobbyists and staying in their good books by proposing wasteful plans.

Ditto Obamacare ended up as a huge collection of private insurance companies each making a huge profit by boosting prices and bureaucracy.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I'm going to the 'yes' camp on both.

This is a multifaceted question as there are many predicaments in the many parts of the US and a huge variety of people within the US, and therefore it can only be competently answered by collective intelligence consisting of as many as possible of the nation's inhabitants.

That is to say, the question of whether it would be better to be a democracy can only be competently decided democratically.

So we have to become one to decide if we should become one.

No Probably the best example is crisis management. Having one or a few people who have experience make decisions is the best management. That is why the word tyrant exists, that was once an official position in Rome before the empire form, they elected a person to be dictator for 2 years who would manage a crisis situation, especially wars with other powers.


The opposite side of this trying to do things in committee! Democracy does not make for good decision making. You got to appease lots of people with opinions and fears but little or no experience. Socrates had a great writing on this explaining why Democracies lead to bad decision making.
(Although for certain things like imposing high taxes, drafting them into the military those kinds of things it is good to have consent of the public.)


I actually think the reason why things are so screwed up comes from the role of Democracy aka how our Republic chose the guy in charge etc. A large faction of people simply wanted a person who wasn't Trump and didn't care about anything else. e.g. newspaper headlines "Stay Alive Joe Biden, ignoring major scandals like Hunter Biden, and Tara Read, not being concerned with signs of cognitive decline, ignoring his past history starting with his presidential run in 88, etc.

 

[MorkandMindy]

We accept what can not be changed.

We always have a war going on. There were only little ones going on after the Vietnam War, so we knew there was something big brewing and kept the military ramp-up going because we knew we would need it, or use it - same thing.

But if, after they've run the country for most of the last hundred plus years, we had actual choices, maybe we could do better?

 

[Norbert L]

Other (pls explain if you have time) modify the yes or no or give something different.

I'm not always a fan of asking one question in the title and then asking another in the poll. I was expecting to answer the pros and cons of having a Republic compared to a pure democracy.

However when it comes to the vote in the broader sense of The People, a rather wise individual would see the logic behind this statement:

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well-administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

 

[Albion]

A constitutional republic would be preferable to all other possibilities.

 

[VirOptimus]

A constitutional republic would be preferable to all other possibilities.

Why?