First off, thank you both for reading my blog, "Why political debate in America is pointless". I'm posting my response to you here so it does not get lost at the bottom of the page.
MADISON -- you make a strong point in which I did ignore and shouldn't have. it was wrong of me to say that voicing opinion and political dissent has no value because it truly does. In fact, I am now a little embarrassed about my blog's title because it is wrong; there is some value in political debate. In democracy's most simple form, voicing opinions is what it is all about.
JAKE -- I have to say that I am quite disapointed with your post.
I understand that the United States is not a democracy and that is precisely my point!
I understand why our "elected" officials are called "representatives", but I simply think that they do not represent us.
I understand that the Founders did not want Democracy for us, but again, I simply disagree with their philosophy. You do realize that a majority of our Founders believed in SLAVERY, right? Now, it is not to say that I don't admire a lot of the Founders (for instance Thomas Paine and George Washington), but a lot of them had a poor -- or at least hypocritical -- view of liberty.
In addition, you claim that big corporations are a problem in how they have bought off our "representatives". And this is what I am talking about -- it is fairly simple to buy off 535 people, but not so much 300 million.
Your last comment insulting my knowledge of the American political system was nothing more than un-called for. I shall refrain from being nasty, but I will note that it is my understanding of the American political system that leads me to reject it. It is an elitist system and it does not value the concept of democracy or liberty. The Constitution is a fine document; it's our leaders who have failed and oppressed us for too long.
Your previous post showed very well what your knowledge of the American political system is. Not only did you misunderstand the nature of debate in society (and miss that rational debate rarely occurs due to a frightening omnipresence of stubbornness); you missed the point of the Constitution: it was made to establish a republic and prevent democracy. As I said in my comment, democracy is bad. When the people decide the law, the people become a mob, and their rule is tyranny. Yes, the Founders did not include black people or women in the Constitution. Neither would the public have done so 220 years ago. Notably, the concept of tyranny of the majority is what the Civil Rights movement and the Feminist movement had to fight. The majority - white men in the South and in the rest of the country - resisted the law, and made their own law: discrimination. It took elected representatives like Kennedy, Johnson, Congress - and the judges they appointed - to enact laws to restrain the people. These are the people you think should be leading the country. Have you been hearing about all those raucous town meetings recently? That is the public. It should not rule. The Founders realized this and made sure the majority couldn't be a tyranny through this document called the Constitution.
I'm amused that you first criticize the Founders for the Constitution they wrote, then laud the Constitution, and finally blame current leaders. I'm not being nasty - I am examining your post rationally. If you're not willing to have that done to every single article you write for the newspaper, you should think about whether you have the stomach for journalism. I have a good example for you of someone who was criticized repeatedly for his articles for the Teen Takeover staff: he wrote numerous opinion pieces for the blog (look for them in the rants archives), many of which were printed in the Sunday paper. He got tons of comments on the blog - this was back when people read the blog - and you should read one of his best rants: http://www.yorkblog.com/teentakeover/2006/03/america-is-not-really-a-democr.html#more
By the way, his name is Jake Mokris. I got so many comments - many that, unlike this one, were truly nasty. I didn't get so many rational or well thought-out comments like what I'm giving you. I bother to comment because I care about you guys on the Teen Takeover staff - and want you to think. Because few people think about what they believe.
I don't like to get into long arguments on the internet anymore. This will be my last comment. Think about it, Andrew.
I never claimed that your first response was nasty. I just thought your last paragraph claiming that I was uneducated about the American political process was unfounded and it was a bit insulting. I DID appreciate your response, but I think you do not know enough about my beliefs to judge my political knowledge.
I will reiterate -- it is my understanding of the American political system and how it concentrates power into the small elite minority which leads me to reject it. I understand the Founder's intention, but I disagree with a lot of it.
Democracy is not bad! The abolitionist movement, the Civil Rights movement, the anti-war movements and many of the true reform movements originated from grass roots -- the public. A bunch of people, which you claim to be a "mob", rallied together to protest. That is a part of democracy!
You claim that it was representative government that abolished slavery? I would argue that it protected slavery for nearly 100 years until the abolitionist movement started. Most slave-owners were of the upper-class. They were the elites and only the elites and wealthy ever get elected into office.
Are you seriously going to defend our political system by mentioning Lyndon Johnson?! A man notorious for dubious and dirty political campaigns; a man who enslaved black (and white) people through the use of the military draft to go fight in Vietnam, a war based on many of his own false-hoods! People like Lyndon Johnson are a part of the reason why I reject the idea of a republic!
What we have now is the tyranny of the MINORITY! Do you not see it? I do not know about you, but I am sick of having millionaires like George Bush and Bill Clinton ruling our lives. I am sick of having representatives who are bought off by corporations to rule our lives.
But what really needs to be addressed are my political beliefs. I like the Constitution!!! It is a great tool to restrict the power of government. What I advocate is CONSTITUTIONAL direct democracy -- or at least in the long run I support that. Citizens get to create legislation, vote on legislation and vote on laws. The people's votes are just another checks and balances to our system. There are still the Courts and there is still the constitution. You would not be able to vote people's rights away.
What you really need to do to understand my beliefs is look into the Switzerland government system and more importantly read about the National Innitiative For Democracy [ni4d].
So Jake, hopefully you can come away with a better understanding of what I stand for. Your comment about me and public schooling is quite amusing since most of what I know is self-taught and my philosophy is NOT taught in public schools, I can assure you.
I'll leave my email here if you want to continue this, because i could go way more in depth than this.
larma7@yahoo.com