Democracy is not a set of abstract principles but the working of actual political institutions. the US did not inherit the ruling class from Europe, it created it sown by democratic means. In fact, every single ugly aspect of US politics from slavery, to racism, to imperialism to capitalism and anti-labor laws were a product of democracy - in the deTocquevillean sense - as the tyranny of the majority.
The fact that Roosevelt and a bunch of other progressive reformers were democratically elected is irrelevant, because it is impossible in this country to get into the office in any other way. What matters is what one does after one gets into the office - you either pander to popular prejudices (racism, homophobia, anti-communism and general bigotry) as most so called elected representatives do, or you are trying to institute some reforms despite mob prejudices (as a few progressives did.)
The problem is that opponents will resist that and use democracy to derail reforms which typically involves mobilize the mob against reformers. And the scary thing is that most of the time they succeed. We do not have to look very far. Mr. Obama (who I belive is a true reformer) was attacked by the right wing rabble rousers but was also back stabbed by his own democratically elected Democrat party.
Do not get me wrong - I am not against the idea of democracy. I am against the particular instituional arrangement of democracy as it exists in the US. In the same way, many people were not against the idea of socialism, but they opposed its instituional arrangement in the x-USSR.
Wojtek
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [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.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>