> [WS:] I am not quite sure where your argument is heading. Are you trying
> to sell me the old trite leftist canard of the US as "the oppressed
> people?"
>
I certainly do not believe such a preposterous thing.
>
> 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.
>
Every single aspect of US politics was a product of the working of actual political institutions, yes.
>
> 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.
Well, yes, so I don't see what the citation of elections with bad outcomes proves.
> 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.)
>
Define "mob." How are anti-racists, homophiles, communists not mobs? Certainly their opponents have not refrained from characterizing them as such.
>
>
> 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.
What set of institutional structures would you prefer?