This is what Democracy looks like
The problem isn't the other guys.
The problem is democracy.
To the extent democracy can work, it quite evidently can't work on the scale of the United States. You think you hate each other, and most of you probably really do right now. But do you hate people in south European or south American countries that outlaw abortion? Or north European countries that allow it? Probably not. You may disagree. Do you hate people in countries that have legalized drugs like Portugal? Probably not. Do you hate people in countries with socialized health care? Do you hate people in countries with free market health care? No. You may, depending on your position, feel sad for them. But you don't hate them.
So it's not the policies that are the problem.
It's the fact that we have different cultures, diverse cultures, being forced together and being forced to live under one law. This wasn't the intention of the Constitution. The Constitution was intended to allow 18 specific powers, and leave everything else up to the states, so they wouldn't fight.
Any hope for that Republic has long gone however, as Trump won't appoint, and Hillary wouldn't have appointed, any justice unless they had a history of mutilating the Constitution. So that's out. Congress has no interest in divesting power. So that's out. Certainly Hillary nor Trump has any interest in divesting power, so that's out. Maybe there's a way but I don't see it. Currently the United States are a marriage where both people have come to hate each other, but are forced to live together. Domestic violence will ensue. So unless Congress or the Courts or POTUS somehow miraculously starts repealing or not enforcing all the federal unconstitutional laws, and leave most things up to the states, shit's not gonna end well. And the feds won't do that.
Everyone who voted was willing to force all the other guys to be ruled by people you know the other guys hate. Is this really the best solution to differences of opinion and culture? Well regardless, some of you won, and some of you lost. And the losers can't really complain because they were quite willing to do it to the other guys.
On both sides, winners and losers.. is this any civilized way to run society? Democracy of any size requires people to fight each other over who gets to force the other guy to pay for their shit, but a democracy this large forces people to not just fight over resources, but over culture and identity.
They can always get people to vote for evil, by making the other option even more evil. It's not an accident we're always faced with the lesser of two evils. It's the only way the system works. In democracy, evil always wins. People disagree about who was more evil, but it hardly matters, evil won, and the losers now hate the winners even more. But the winners were just doing what the losers would have done if they could have, and will do next time if they can. Fighting over their culture, not to mention who has to pay for whose crap.
But it doesn't need to be.
I'm pretty sure no one hates Mexicans because their government bans abortion, which most Mexicans approve of.
People can get along fine, and do get along fine, despite vast cultural differences, if one group isn't forced to impose their differences on the other.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans can ever say, "lets leave the other guys alone". I like to think most Americans would say that if they could. But they don't really get a choice. One city issues orders to the entire country, arguably often the world, and you don't get to say "How about this time, we do things our way and let the other guys do things their way?" Nope. You only have two options. Force your will on them, or they force their will on you. If you don't vote, you're forfeiting to the people you have come to hate.
Texans don't get to say "Californians are wacky, but nice! I don't need California to conform to my ideals"
Californians don't get to say "Texans are wild and loony, but friendly! I don't need Texas to conform to my ideals"
You have no option but to vote for one group of political scumbags that will rule the whole shebang. Even if you're really just prefer to live and let live. You get no choice. It's your way for everyone, or their way for everyone. With no other choice, you will fight each other.
'Winners' need to think about next time. You may not 'win' next time. In my opinion the only winners are in DC, sitting fat and happy while we all hate on our fellow Americans, for doing exactly what we were trying to do to them.
If the Federal government was legitimate, and remained within it's 16 powers, and strictly obeyed it's 10 explicit proscriptions, we wouldn't be fighting. I don't think that's a genie that can be put back in the bottle, and I don't think it was ever really intended to be kept in. If you notice every law the ruling class makes for us has a punishment clause. They don't pass a law saying you can't smoke pot, and not put what happens if you do not OBEY. Isn't it odd there's no teeth in the Bill of Rights? If they really meant it, they would have written something like "Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the right to free speech, on pain of death by slow dipping in a pool of ill tempered piranhas of any official attempting to pass or enforce such law." That kind of language might make it a little more clear.
But let's pretend that the Constitution has some force. It was certainly a good idea if you think the Rule of Law is a good idea. The idea that the cats making and enforcing the law should obey the law. Which, we're told, in America is first and foremost, the Constitution.
You can personally help with this next time you're on jury duty. When they find some evidence from a fishing traffic stop in an illegal search you can refuse to convict. You can say "not guilty on the grounds that your search was un Constitutional, and the drug law is un Constitutional. The only substance the Constitution was ever allowed to prohibit was alcohol, and that was repealed. No Amendment has been passed to outlaw drugs at the federal level, so enforcement of this 'law' is base kidnapping, treason, and I will not stand by and listen to you bad mouth the United States of America!". Then march out humming the National Anthem, and then go shoot a horse in the Deans office.
Now they won't invite you back to jury duty, and they may try to lie and convince you you have to give the verdict they like, and you're only to judge the facts and not the law.. but you can say "Newp! Even the supreme court says that's bullshit" and you'll have done a good deed, and they might start to get the message. Detail: states can have laws against drugs or any substances, according to the Constitution. They might be stupid, but they are 'legit'.
But that goes back to my main point: If Texas outlaws pot and California taxes and regulates it, Texans and Californians don't have to hate each other. If Texas restricts abortions and California allows Starbucks to offer drive through abortions, again they don't need to hate each other. (fun note, in New Orleans you can still get daiquiris at a drive through, wacky Cajuns)
So one answer is the feds could start obeying the Constitution. ROFLCOPTR1
Ok seriously, since that won't happen, the other option to avoid hate and violence, the more likely and better one is secession. If Cali and Oregon want to secede, so what? Lincoln's excuse to invade the south was slavery. Last I checked California doesn't have legal slavery. Trump would have no excuse.
If you love someone set them free. I'm pretty sure Texans and Californians would learn to love each other again really quickly if they weren't forced to live under one size fits all laws. If the west coast seceded, the heartland would get stuck with DC, which is hardly fair to the heartland, but it is what it is. Ideally DC would secede, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone. But I won't hold my breath on that either.
OR we can just continue down the path. And it doesn't look good for the coast. The GoP is in control of all three branches of federal government most of the redistricting in the country. And the GoP would be foolish not to cement this advantage.. forever if it could. But they might screw it up, despite appearances they are just as dumb as the democrats, so they might hose it up.
One thing is certain. Because we're all forced to live under one rule, from one town on the east coast, we're going to hate each other more and more. Everyone feeling good right now, just remember how it felt last time. Everyone feeling bad, now you know how it feels.
This is what 'democracy', at least on this scale, forces. There's one ring of power, and no Frodos' to be seen. Maybe it can't be destroyed, but it might be able to be broken up into smaller pieces. If it's not, things are going to get ugly. The presidency keeps getting closer to a real ring of power. Reds and Blues CANNOT allow it into the other guys hands. The existence of the ring of power MAKES you hate each other.
The stakes are too high.
Trump might not deport all Mexicans, but he could. What would a progressive do to stop that?
Hillary might not have had an Australia type gun grab, but she could. What would a conservative do to stop that?
I'm not suggesting any particular course of action. Just tossing out some thoughts. But our current path won't end well. This is what democracy looks like.
PS: Don't really shoot a horse, not even with a blank. No matter how big a douche the dean is. The rest tho.. yeah.
Interesting analysis. So the problem isn't with democracy per se, but with overly centralized democracy. As someone who's lived all his life under a parliamentary democracy [like those too-vaunted "Nordic model" countries are], I can say that relatively centralized democracy requires the ordinary Joe to defer to authority.
Yep: the "Nordic model" structure, along with the more British version of parliamentary democracy, requires a deference to authority that would drive the average red-blooded American nuts.
In addition, centralized democracy only works fairly well (i.e., without tumult) in a culture that's a lot more conformist than the American variety.
Federalism - decentralization - was the key to making democracy work in modern times, as you so well noted. The Founders were well aware of the political philosophers who concluded that "pure" democracy only works at the city-state level; it works best in places like small towns where "everyone knows everyone". It does not scale well; when a democracy gets to the size where voters have to be divvied up into abstract categories, democracy does get creaky.
FWIW, the modern justification of democracy was that it provides a system to ensure the peaceful transfer of power from one government to another: in other words, it nips civil war in the bud. That's all.
And it's a poor justification. It doesn't work, and there's no particular reason it would. If peaceful transfer of power is really desired, limit the power. In democracy power really doesn't change. The factions that control the military ensure titular power changes but the real power never changes. Democracy is the front office for juntas.
So no, I'm no fan of democracy, but I think it can sort of work at a scale where social pressure can still be brought against the electees.
In economic terms the problem with democracy is pretty clear. The idea that you can pool your resources with people more powerful than you, and come out better off, is insane.
In a democracy, or a state in general, the rich can spend money, and leverage the resources of the entire populace, to achieve their goals. Think Soros or Koch, whoever your demon is. And it's of course not just ideologues like them, it's every firm, they can spend a small amount of money and turn that into multiples of return. The state is what allows, and makes inevitable, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It's what states do. In a weaker state, or a free society, spending money on bribing the state does you no good.
So again, in economic terms, once the the ratio of money spent buying influence to economic return approaches unity.. that government is too powerful to be stable. Corruption has grown to a point where the feedback is positive.
It's true in a free society or limited government the people with resources can more readily achieve their ends by spending money. But then it is spent
With a state powerful enough, they can spend resources on buying government and get more than they spend.
That's the only option. Have a situation where resources must continue to please consumers or dissipate, or have a situation where resources can buy more resources, which is the case when you have an active economically interventionist state.
I've always thought America is a horrible example of democracy and freedom. Glad to hear some Americans feel it too.
It's too big. The principles weren't terrible, but it's too big. And it's not just some Americans it's a lot. There's a lot of chickenhawks amongst the trumpsters, but there's also a lot of.. some other kind of bird that is fierce, but only in defense of the nest.. maybe angry birds:) Thanks to the internet some of America is waking up to not wanting to keep kicking over other peoples' nest. If not morally, at least practically. It's a waste of money.
Also democracy is an enemy of freedom. But I sort of addressed that in preceding comment. If you support democracy and then support minority rights, you're doin it rong:) (much less human rights)
One thing I really have a problem with is 51%. For a law to be anything close to just, it really needs to be approved by 95%. Then, all you are really doing is putting it down on paper.
I feel that all laws should have to be past by 90% of congress.
About putting teeth into the constitution... It becomes so hard to draw the lines. You think you are passing a clearly constitutional law, and zap, your fellow congress-people turn on you and its the angry piranhas for you.
Or the opposite, everyone in congress stands shoulder to shoulder and speak in unison that we didn't think that violated the constitution.
But, I wish for the tank of piranhas.
I do not know if the founders planned this (the group that says the constitution was drawn behind closed doors and shoved down the state's throats, says it was) however, evil has used democracy to sell more evil. And putting up two choices, evil-A and evil-B, to be voted upon, is pure evil.
I'm in that group. Patrick Henry smelled a rat, and it still stinks. Nevertheless the plausibility of the Constitution was the veneer of it's appeal to the rule of law. I'm a big fan of the rule of law, I just don't think it can be achieved under a monopoly. Just like I don't think anything can be done well under a monopoly.
And I'm sure you're aware, but democracy as a non pejorative, was mostly a 20th century innovation. I shouldn't be pedantic on the point, but that was kinda the point of my post. In addition to the economic problems I sketched out in other comments, democracy necessarily implies immorality, and I would assert, it implies nihilism.
The tempting thing about the Constitution is it asserts immutable rules of the road, presumably based on morality, but allows for some use of extortion in certain cases of expediency, "for the common good".
In practice there is no limitation the Constitution placed on the feds that they have obeyed. They keep the power, but scoff at constraint.
The US has become a true democracy, devoid of any Constitutional constraint, and thus has become the junta that Hamilton always lusted for.
I also would like the piranha pool, but I think they would have gotten around that as well. Just slower.