> [WS:] I do not want to engage in semantic arguments. I provide several
> examples of reactionary measures introduced by a democratic process
> (voting,
> ballot initiatives, referenda, etc.) To prove me wrong, you need to provide
> me with some good examples of progressive changes being introduced by the
> same means (as opposed to being enforced by auithorities of some sort.)
> Can
> you?
> PS. I agree that SC is a reactionary institution, but then this country as
> a whole tends to be reactionary. All its political instituions reflect
> that. The point I am making is that progressive reformers have it much
> easier to introduce progressive reforms via administrative means (such as
> courts or government) than through a democratic process, which is far more
> likely to produce reactionary results than progressive ones.
>
> Wojtek
The oppositions between "voting, ballot initiatives, referenda" and "enforced by authorities of some sort" and between "through government" and "through a democratic process" seem odd, to me.
If you're defining "democracy" as "elections, even unequal elections, such as occurred during Jim Crow" then the opposition seems even more odd, but your point appears clearer. A regularly scheduled election almost always happens under conditions crafted by the long-term elites, and a plebiscite almost always happens under conditions favored by the present government.
Trivially there are cases of elections with good outcomes. Lincoln was elected. Roosevelt was elected. Every good legislator was elected. Plenty of ballot initiatives on gay rights have resulted in the victory of equal treatment under the law. Plenty haven't, but as you say, America has leaned to the right.