Bob Herbert: "As the throngs celebrated in Cairo, democracy is on the ropes in the United States"

[Better Believe It]

When Democracy Weakens
By BOB HERBERT
February 11, 2011

As the throngs celebrated in Cairo, I couldn’t help wondering about what is happening to democracy here in the United States. I think it’s on the ropes. We’re in serious danger of becoming a democracy in name only.

While millions of ordinary Americans are struggling with unemployment and declining standards of living, the levers of real power have been all but completely commandeered by the financial and corporate elite. It doesn’t really matter what ordinary people want. The wealthy call the tune, and the politicians dance.

The poor, who are suffering from an all-out depression, are never heard from. In terms of their clout, they might as well not exist. The Obama forces reportedly want to raise a billion dollars or more for the president’s re-election bid. Politicians in search of that kind of cash won’t be talking much about the wants and needs of the poor. They’ll be genuflecting before the very rich.

The corporate and financial elites threw astounding sums of money into campaign contributions and high-priced lobbyists and think tanks and media buys and anything else they could think of. They wined and dined powerful leaders of both parties. They flew them on private jets and wooed them with golf outings and lavish vacations and gave them high-paying jobs as lobbyists the moment they left the government. All that money was well spent. The investments paid off big time.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/opinion/12herbert.html?_r=1&ref=bobherbert

[sufrommich]

1. Citizens United must be overturned. This should be on the lips

of every Democrat running for office anywhere. k&r for Bob Herbert.

[bvar22]

27. While you are correct,

we lost our democracy before Citizens United,
and overturning it won't restore our democracy.

Without free, fair, transparent, verifiable elections,
there is no democracy.
We do not have transparent, verifiable elections in the USA.

....then there is the problem of limiting our choice to only two corrupt political parties.
The "fix" is in even before the primaries.

The scope of our problem in the USA is overwhelming,
but, YES...Citizens United MUST be overturned.

[Enthusiast]

39. Yes! Overturn Citizens United and

return to paper ballots this time with international election observers on poll sites.

[glinda]

124. Here here!

[louslobbs]

50. I raise a glass to you

here, here!

[OnyxCollie]

85. For those keeping score,

the authors of HAVA have:

Been convicted of bribery and corruption for deals with Jack Abramoff and sentenced to 30 months in prison- Rep. Bob Ney
Been convicted of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering to get repub candidates elected, and have received a sentence of three years in prison- Rep. Tom DeLay (See also DeLay's ties to Abramoff.)
Run for President (poorly)- Sen. Chris Dodd
Business and financial ties with ES&S, the company that has a monopoly on vote counting in the US- Sen. Chuck Hagel

[hulka38]

92. Yes. n/t

[kster]

130. Transparent Ballot Box, for 500 - 800 Paper Ballots, with Deposit Trap and Counter

Easy to use, sturdy and stackable. Lockable with two individual locks. Deposit trap is operated using a lever which is coupled with the counter. Can be safely stored in the reusable protective box.



These would put an end to the insanity going on in this Country.

[midnight]

132. Yes....fix our corrupt voting system, and overturn citizens united.

[pacalo]

143. Retracting Citizens United & ensuring a fairer voting process are just part of the equation.

The main problem is that the rich have taken over everything & our politicians are working strictly for them.

We the ordinary citizens outnumber the rich; in helping to break their stronghold, the thrust of the article is this:

I had lunch with the historian Howard Zinn just a few weeks before he died in January 2010. He was chagrined about the state of affairs in the U.S. but not at all daunted. “If there is going to be change,” he said, “real change, it will have to work its way from the bottom up, from the people themselves.”

I thought of that as I watched the coverage of the ecstatic celebrations in the streets of Cairo.

[rhett o rick]

147. I agree but want to point out that fair elections are not possible without public financed elections

We must cut lobbying to the bone. That has to be the first step.

[olegramps]

154. The United States resembles the decline of Imperial Rome

In stead of Doles and Circuses, we have Reality TV and Dancing With Stars to distract the citizens as the wealthy drive the nation into bankruptcy and citizens into poverty.

[bluethruandthru]

155. Campaign financing needs a total overhaul.

Elections need to be publicly funded. No more "richest takes all" elections.

[Dot Com]

36. Agreed. That should be overturned

and REAL campaign finance reform instituted or publicly financed-only elections. Right now the pols listen to the people w/ the most money to contribute: corporate, special interests.

[DallasNE]

86. Public Financing Of Federal Exections

Would go a long ways and I have long been a strong supporter of public financing but Citizens United could still overwhelmn elections because people like Karl Rove with the Koch brothers billions would still dominate.

[Dot Com]

88. I meant exclusively

utilizing public financing.

[Prospero1]

69. I'd be glad to see that happen but...

the underlying problem is corporate personhood. THAT is what really needs repealing.

[Dot Com]

87. That goes way back to

this case right?:

"Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819"

[FedUp_Queer]

102. Not quite

the notion of "personhood" is grounded in the 14th amendment, which did not exist at the time the court decided Dartmouth. The case that "dealt with" the issue and from which the notion flows is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886). Although, if you read the opinion, the court did not actually address the issue. A clerk's headnote attaches a conclusion to the fact the court did not take up the issue.

[DeSwiss]

84. The problem is Capitalism. K&R - n/t

[OHdem10]

2. Excellent article and the Democratic Party should examine its

conscience. Since the formation of the DLC both
parties abandoned the poor. Now that the DLC is
closed down, will the Democratic Party return to
is roots??

[MoonRiver]

16. No.

Remember we're a "center right" country. :sarcasm:

[BeyondGeography]

3. Gotta love Herbert

He once again makes an essential point. Corporations do a lot of destructive things to people here, and they are anything but democratic.

[Solly Mack]

4. K&R

[99 Percent Sure]

5. Mr. Herbert cut to the chase, didn't he? eom

[socialist_n_TN]

6. The surprise is NOT that this is happening............

I think most of us on here have seen this coming for decades now. No, the surprise is that someone in the MSM is, not only noticing, but actually WRITING about it. Herbert is a liberal opinator it's true, but he does write for the NYT which IS a mainstream media outlet.

It's gotten so obvious that even some in the MSM can't turn a blind eye to it anymore.

[defendandprotect]

94. Exactly -- !!

[treestar]

7. We can vote. Unrec'd. We are light years ahead of Egypt and

what we have is what they strive for.

[originalpckelly]

9. No, we are the Egyptians with more things. We are no freer.

Noble Romans lived high on the hog during the imperial days, but they were no less an autocratic empire.

We are the Romans, but we are worse, because we have the power to eliminate every human being on the planet.

This is serious stuff folks. Egypt wasn't even 1/1000 the danger we are.

[treestar]

15. They won't be any freer either then

[originalpckelly]

18. If they have parties that aren't heavily bought off by big money...

They may do well.

[Raksha]

112. Good point - "We are the Egyptians with more things."

[RegieRocker]

10. Egypt in no way or fashion strive for what we have.

They strive for a true democracy and will have more than two choices to run their government.

[tomp]

139. don't be naive.

you think the powers that be in egypt have given up and gone home? no, they are retrenching and finding a new way to rob and enslave the egyptians. already the army has decided no more demonstrations. the people are now under the control of the army and whatever plan the powers that be come up with.

no different from the u.s. the governor of wisconsin has threatened to call out the national guard against unions. ohio is going the same way.

sooner or later the people are forced to stand up against the armed forces of power.

the resignation of mubarak is a show as is democracy in the u.s.

the naivete is killing us.

[RegieRocker]

156. That is an assumption on your part of Egypt. Here in the US

you're correct. The page is not written yet for Egypt as it is here.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

14. We have a hand in who is chosen to run.

We vote in the primaries. People who don't vote have only themselves to blame.

This is ridiculous. It'd dodging responsibility. If we watch Survivor rather than paying attention to politics, it's our problem.

But we have the chance to pay attention if we choose. We take it for granted.

[RegieRocker]

17. It would take extraordinary measures at this point

and don't try and portray that you would take that route either unless you honestly mean it. I agree with you the "People" are to blame.

[Better Believe It]

44. So we can vote for the candidate who we think gives the best dramatic and believable performance.

And the candidate who gives the most convincing acting performance (pretending they represent average working people)from either major party and gets the most corporate funding will probably be "elected" to high office.

What could be more democratic than that?

[tekisui]

61. That's cute. We have a hand. Riiiiiiight.

[HughBeaumont]

136. Our choices are this:

Corporate-approved neo-liberal, trickle-down-supporting Republican posing as a Democrat
Corporate-sponsored Batshit Insane Theocrat Posing as a Republican
Corporate-frightened-of-and-eventually-marginalized/ridiculed Symbolic Wasted Vote.

All chosen by, among others, a voting public that's comprised of three kinds of people:

One-third who share the same corporation-controlled brain (Fox News/M$M watchers),
One-third who've been hurt by the economic and health care policies of the first two parties but will vote for the first party because the alternative's social and religious agendas are far, FAR worse,
One-third who are so disillusioned by it all and can't rub two nickels together to even care.

THIS is our big menu?

[rhett o rick]

148. We have no "hand" in the choice. Both parties are run but corporate owned puppets.

They have billions to "sell" their candidate and ruin others. We end up getting to "vote" for one of two puppets of the oligarchy. And in 2000 and 2004 we our votes were worthless. The election rigging of the past will be noting compared to that allowed by Citizens United.

You say the answer is "pay attention" as if we arent.

[Enthusiast]

41. Nice post, Smashcut....nt

[socialist_n_TN]

12. Who do we vote FOR? The TOTALLY owned..........

subsidery of the moneyied elites or the partially owned one? Remember the people of the Stalinist USSR could vote too. They even had choices most of the time. They could vote for the Stalinist or they could vote for the Stalinist.

[Better Believe It]

20. Working people can vote for representatives of Wall Street and corporate America in both parties!

Yup.

That's what Egyptians are fighting for.

And I thought it was all about democratic rights, civil liberties and economic justice.

The poor in Egypt want to be treated by the government just like the poor in the United States.

Like a pile of shit.

[Odin2005]

28. If voting changed anything they would make it illegal. --Emma Goldman

When the choice is between Corporatist 1 and Corporatist 2 "voting" is meaningless, it is merely legitimizing plutocracy.

[tahrir]

29. our system is more insidious than dictatorial and authoritarian regimes

as it gives the appearance of democracy, however when the elite control our choices, the only thing that changes is that the rich get richer and the rest have to make all the sacrifices.

[KoKo]

82. Yes..."fascism creeping in on "silent paws" Hat Tip to Eliot for the cat paw analogy.

[City Lights]

34. -1. nt

[Enthusiast]

40. Your post does not surprise me.

Oh yes, we have freedum.

[dflprincess]

77. Yes we can vote but as Stalin said what's important is who counts the votes

Electronic voting leaves no paper trails and in those areas voters are just expected to trust that the code has been programmed honestly because no recount is possible. If Minnesota used machines like that Normie Coleman would still be a senator.

[markpkessinger]

79. And here are our choices: . . .

We are "free" to vote for:

(a) a party that is totally bought and paid for by corporate interests and also espouses a radically hard right social agenda; or

(b) a party that is totally bought and paid for by corporate interests and also espouses a merely conservative agenda.

Sure, we can vote for third parties, assuming one can organize, but unless they can collect the sums of money the major parties collect from corporate interests, they have a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning any national races.

Until such time as election campaigns are 100% publicly financed with no candidate "opt-out" provisions, then our much vaunted "freedom" to vote will remain a pathetic delusion, since the choices will remain artificially constrained.

[defendandprotect]

96. You can vote on computers -- which is simply an automatic stolen election ...

and the Democrats have been doing nothing about it -- !!

[calimary]

8. And America fiddles - while it burns itself down.

:(

[Better Believe It]

13. This observation by Herbert pretty much summed up what we need to do.

"I had lunch with the historian Howard Zinn just a few weeks before he died in January 2010. He was chagrined about the state of affairs in the U.S. but not at all daunted. “If there is going to be change,” he said, “real change, it will have to work its way from the bottom up, from the people themselves.”

I thought of that as I watched the coverage of the ecstatic celebrations in the streets of Cairo."

[pacalo]

144. Exactly! I just posted the same thing upthread.

[The Straight Story]

19. And yet, when someone complains about eroding freedoms we call em a libertarian

And then turn around and endorse laws that remove freedoms because it is 'for the children' or might save us the almighty money down the road.

[Mojorabbit]

31. + a gazillion. nt

[liberation]

47. Who is this "we?"

There are plenty of progressives and people on the left who have complained and pointed out the perennial attacks on our freedoms.

[HughBeaumont]

104. I'd be perfectly OK with libertarians if so many weren't "Trickle Down" slobberers.

Never met one yet that wasn't on board with "Laissez Fail Free Marketz" and all the ruin that comes with it. That's pretty much where they lose me and where I deduce that they're merely Republicans with Ron Paul masks.

[Jim__]

21. And we'll have to win our democracy back in the streets.

Corporations own the US government now and they're not going to let go willingly, and they're not going to let us vote them out. Hopefully, the American people will eventually understand this and take to the streets. Meanwhile, corporations are looting everything that the people have built in this country.

[fasttense]

134. Protests do affect governments as the Egyptians have shown

Until the American people get up and out in the streets for weeks like the Egyptians, nothing will change.

We need to follow Egypt's lead. We need to build tents and live in DC until the federal government agrees to impeach Clarence Thomas and Scalia, prosecute torturers, a federal funded jobs program, a removal of all electronic voting machines, a law that overturns Citizens United, and mandated federally funded campaigns.

We should live in the streets until the Obama administration agrees to these necessary steps to bring back Democracy. And if he agrees and does nothing, we need to get back in the streets.

There was one group conspicuously absent among the protesters in Egypt - the very rich and powerful. I saw no one dripping with diamonds and gold. I saw no one in limos, I saw no one wrapped in furs and silks. The uber rich were not among the protesters because they were the ones the protesters were fighting against.

Until Americans get out and protests for weeks and months, nothing will ever change in America.

[dotymed]

141. Therein lies the problem.

"Meanwhile, corporations are looting everything that the people have built in this country."
By the time (if ever, since we no longer have the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE and MOST Americans get their "News" from the MSM) we, the people, understand and are willing to act on the FACT that ""we'll have to win our Democracy back in the streets" there will be nothing to win back.
The elitists own 95% of America, now. They own 100% of the power.
Unless we "take to the streets" immediately, it will be impossible for us to regain any semblance of what America was.
Yes, we must publicly finance elections.

But our first and immediate goal must be the restoration of THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. Without an honestly informed populace we can not hope to "do" anything, until it is too late.
If we could get the Fairness Doctrine reinstated, we could mobilize Americans IMO, within 6 months, to retake our government.
The people must be honestly informed of what is happening to America, immediately.
Hell, I don't know if I successfully "said" what I mean. Nevertheless, If we will immediately protest for the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, and win, then everything else becomes possible.
Then we can "fix" America before it is too late to matter.
One movement, one goal, one begiining....

[kentuck]

22. Only the truth can set us free...

We are losing ground.

[Enthusiast]

42. The truth can't get out.

There is a corporate media/government conspiracy to keep the truth from the American people.

[somone]

23. Great article

[hulka38]

24. I like Bob. n/t

[Better Believe It]

26. I don't agree with him all the time but he's one of my favorites.

[hulka38]

25. When Obama and that senate is as good

as we're going to get, we the people need to push the reset button on our democracy. It can be done.

[abq e streeter]

30. While this system is rotting and corrupt, as are most political 'leaders"...

ultimately, the brain-dead, and brainwashed fools who continue to vote against their own interests are the ones to blame. No one here is being forced to vote for the very "leaders" who are selling them down the river. All the corporate billions flooding the election process have not put a gun to the head of one single solitary citizen and forced 'em to vote for the very people ensuring their economic (at the very least)destruction. Ignorance among our fellow citizens is the true enemy, and I don't see that improving in my lifetime. We DO have a democracy; it's just that in the hands of the millions upon millions of idiots in this country, the oligarchs are freely chosen time and time again by their victims.

[virtus_contagiosa]

46. Wait a minute...

We are not ALL brain dead. In fact Obama won the election quite handily. And how? By saying everything the middle and lower class needed to hear. Take on the corps, not touch social security...you know the BS he spit out during the campaign. And he won by saying all the right things. Those things he pretended to be for were not against our interests...they were whats needed to stop this insanity. But turns he was a liar. We didnt know that. We thought he could be trusted (although his FISA vote had me wondering). He was a liar.

So before you go blaming ALL of us understand the power that bald faced lies have when people are desperate for change, something to prove that there is somebody up there in DC that gives a shit. We learned the hard way...there isnt.

[abq e streeter]

49. I probably should have clarified that by" braindead millions" etc, I was specifically referring to

all those people who continue to vote for extreme right wingers; I did not, however, at any time say nor imply that "all" of us are brain dead/brainwashed, but it's depressingly obvious that millions are. Please do not put words in my mouth. I simply observed the rather obvious fact that millions upon millions of people vote for candidates who openly and proudly espouse policies that are destroying their most ardent supporters. And I fully agree about the power of baldfaced lies. Re: Obama, I had my doubts all along and posted them here often during the primaries, but he has exceeded my worst fears. I have fallen for other lies before, and probably will again; being an imperfect human, I suppose that's inevitable though I am more and more distrustful of anything out of the mouths of all but a small handful of politicians at this point. And I have also posted numerous times about the disgusting sellout and/or spinelessness of the Democratic party, but again, my post was referring to supporters of the virulent, Mussolini-ite right wing (is there any other kind of right wing?) who are apparently too fucking stupid and/or brainwashed to figure out how and why (and by who)they're being fucked over, and will probably go to their graves believing it's all the fault of whoever Rush and Beck and Palin tell them done it to 'em.
57 million people voted for Sarah Palin for the vice presidency of the United States. FIFTY SEVEN MILLION. 60 million for George Bush. All of their own free will. Every right wing lunatic out there; Bachmann, DeMint, Steve King, our new teabagger governor in N.M. and on and on and on, was elected by the majority of voters... The majority of voters (not ALL, but the majority) have returned the republican party to power in the House of Representatives and numerous Governorships etc. Without being forced to....This was my point; that ultimately it IS the responsibility of the voters who have chosen to put dangerous right wing extremists in positions of power nationwide.

[virtus_contagiosa]

68. I understand streeter....

I know what mean. Im just soooo disillusioned by Obama and what has transpired these last 2 years and even more depressed by what I think is going to happen in the next 2.

I dont want o make enemies...I appreciate your reply. Ive been a long time reader of DU but only recently (after Obama declared war on the poor by taking away energy subsidies) joined to voice my opinions.

Somehow we need to wrestle this nation back from the hands of the CorpoRats. We need to stick together!

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

[abq e streeter]

74. Hi and back at ya for your thoughtful and civil reply to me too.

:hi: and welcome.
I rarely (almost never ) start threads, but my journal here contains a lot of what I thought were some of my better (???) replies over the 3 and a half years I've been posting. Some won't make sense without seeing what they were replying to, and some are about music. Sometimes they get repetitive with similar points being made and even similar terminology. But if you're ever bored enough to do so, you can see a sampling of my many posts bemoaning the selling out of the poor and the middle class by the Corpo-Dems,as well as their stupefying refusal to stand up to the republicans since, well, the days of Ronnie Ray-guns (and just worse and worse since then) and my wariness about Obama from the git-go for his obsession with 'bi-partisanship". (even though I kept hoping I was wrong and acknowledged the possibility that I was ...sadly, it appears I was right)... There are also, I believe, others where I make a similar point to the one above, that ultimately you can only blame the Bachmann's, Gingrich's, Boehner's etc so much; as I've put it numerous times here: they are the only the symptom; those people that continue to vote for them are the disease.
Again, welcome, and glad you're here adding to the discussion.

[Raksha]

114. Sad but true: Obama was/is a liar.

I've never put it that way before, but I read your post and immediately repeated what you said on another forum. After all, what other conclusion is possible?

Oh yeah...and welcome to DU! :toast:

[Jester Messiah]

32. We're fucked. [nt]

[ProSense]

33. "Koch brothers...worth an estimated $35 billion...feel as though society has treated them unfairly."

That's the problem in a nutshell.

<...>

When the game is rigged in your favor, you win. So despite the worst economic downturn since the Depression, the big corporations are sitting on mountains of cash, the stock markets are up and all is well among the plutocrats. The endlessly egregious Koch brothers, David and Charles, are worth an estimated $35 billion. Yet they seem to feel as though society has treated them unfairly.

As Jane Mayer pointed out in her celebrated New Yorker article, “The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry — especially environmental regulation.” (A good hard look at their air-pollution record would make you sick.)

It’s a perversion of democracy, indeed, when individuals like the Kochs have so much clout while the many millions of ordinary Americans have so little. What the Kochs want is coming to pass. Extend the tax cuts for the rich? No problem. Cut services to the poor, the sick, the young and the disabled? Check. Can we get you anything else, gentlemen?

The Egyptians want to establish a viable democracy, and that’s a long, hard road. Americans are in the mind-bogglingly self-destructive process of letting a real democracy slip away.

<...>

At least Herbert is bringing attention to the Kochs.

[defendandprotect]

100. "At least Herbert is bringing attention to the Kochs" --

"that's the problem in a nutshell" --

Wow -- I agree with you -- !!

We also shouldn't ignore the collapse of arts/theater in America for the average

person, that is --

It is theater which mirrors the reality of our society back to us and too few

Americans have been seeing anything like the reality of the Koch Bros. portrayed

on any stage. Certainly they are freaks. Wealth freaks. Sociopaths.

And they deserve a portrayal for all America to see --



By the way, my son mentioned to me tonight that HBO had done a fantastic expose

of Ronald Reagan for his 100th -- hope to catch up with it!!

And, would be good if they now worked on the Koch Bros!

[glinda]

125. Masses need to protest at their doors. Throw them out.

[tpsbmam]

35. My thoughts exactly. K&R nt

[MasonJar]

37. The voices are out there. First William Rivers Pitt and now Bob Herbert.

Will we listen? And if we on DU don't listen, will anyone? If not, our fragile democracy will fall. Perhaps the sooner the better. If it is only for the rich, who needs it?
Are we in any better shape than the Egyptians, relatively speaking? Will we eventually take to the streets and stay there? It is what the Egyptians did. They would not compromise and relent.
I personally am sick to death of paid for politicians, and now with the Supreme Court rulings it will be worse than ever. Now not only are corporations individuals, they are also allowed unlimited contributions. The last thirty years of oligarchy has been subtle, but it has paid off for the robber barons. Now it need no longer even subtle.

[roamer65]

38. The degradation of democracy usually leads into fascism.

Sound familiar?

[Enthusiast]

43. K&R.....nt

[BzaDem]

45. Sorry Mr. Herbert, the strength of our democracy isn't defined by how many people agree with you.

He acts like the election of people with views opposing his is somehow a signal of a weakened democracy. Seriously.

[dbmk]

51. Thats missing the point in a rather spectacular fashion

His point is that what should be a direct choice of the people becomes a choice between those preselected by those with enormous wealth.

Are you denying that money controls the elections to very, very, very large degree?

And that the allocation of money is not necessarily indicative of the peoples choice before said money is introduced into the election?

[BzaDem]

53. Kucinich ran. The problem for Herbert wasn't that he wasn't on the ballot -- it was that no one

voted for him (at least, no non-negligible portion of the electorate voted for him).

"Are you denying that money controls the elections to very, very, very large degree?"

It depends on what you mean by "control." Anyone who wants to can easily (and in a short period of time, with negligible expense) get all the information they need to know about any candidate on the primary ballot (and qualifying for the ballot is not difficult).

Now, many people choose not to do this. And for people who are lazy, and don't spend half an hour looking up candidates in the primary before they vote, money can sway these low-information voters.

But I'm not about to pretend that the existence of a lazy portion of the electorate (that can be influenced by money) is a signal that our democracy isn't a democracy. In any democracy, this lazy portion of the electorate gets the government they deserve. That is not a signal that our democracy is broken.

I support efforts to root out money from politics as a policy matter, since I support incentives for everyone to do their own research (rather than rely on 30 second sound bytes). I support it, but not because the existence of money means we do not live in a democracy. I support it as a policy matter.

[MasonJar]

55. If elections were publicly financed I can guarantee you different people would

win than do now. Our politicians are bought and paid for, for the most part. It's how they stay in power. And to answer your point about lazy people. Unfortunately the majority of the voting public falls in this category, which is why the money talks. It makes it very hard on the rest of us to have to put up with the media driven elections. (That is, those who are elected because they have the most to spend on sound bytes.)

[BzaDem]

57. I would agree the winners might be different. That doesn't mean we dont' have a democracy.

"Unfortunately the majority of the voting public falls in this category which is why the money talks."

Not everyone who doesn't vote for someone like Kucinich is lazy. First, obviously there are a large number of conservatives who will never vote for a Democrat, no matter what. Money isn't going to sway them, nor is anything else. The same is true of many independents, who will simply never vote for someone they consider extreme on either side (regardless of the policy). Second, even of the Democratic primary electorate, plenty of people watched plenty of debates with Kucinich in them. Kucinich made it perfectly clear how different he was than the remaining candidates in the debates. Yet the people who watched these debates still didn't vote for him.

But I would agree with you that the number of people who will allow themselves to be swayed by money is uncomfortably large. But this is the case anywhere, in any democracy. And it isn't just money -- even in countries with public financing, high level elections are much more often determined based on the temporary state of the economy than on particular policy views.

In the end, the hallmark of a democracy is the ability for a determined majority to eject the incumbent out of power (or to elect a favored candidate into power). 2008 is a perfect example of this, even considering the large numbers of people who allow themselves to be swayed by money. The reason why Herbert is angry isn't because we don't have democracy -- it is because within our democracy, there is not a determined majority of people that agrees with him.

[MasonJar]

60. Are you a mind reader? I have seen Bob Herberft interviewed many times and

I find your assessment way off base. You think Herbert thinks we don't have a democracy because people don't get elected who think like he does? Balderdash. Money, honey. Money is undermining our democracy. If our democracy isn't down for the final count yet, it soon will be. And what has Kucinich got to do with it? We didn't get Gore or Kerry and they both did win. Gore beat Bush by more popular vote than anyone has ever accrued (except Reagan election number two.) He still lost because we had a Bush in Florida and a Supreme Court installed by GOPers like George Bush and Ronald Reagan. That is not democracy. And I for one am still mad about it. Putting George W Bush in office changed the world. Ask all those dead Iraqi children who should have been alive 80 years from now. My daughter is a lawyer and she said that the Supreme Court should have never gotten involved in Bush/Gore. You may remember the Court itself declared its decision would not be a precedent.

[BzaDem]

64. I'm not reading his mind -- I'm reading his columns over the past 2 years.

He is upset with Obama because Obama isn't liberal enough for him. He would similarly be upset at Gore because Gore wouldn't have been liberal enough for him.

[pacalo]

145. He's not upset at Obama for not being liberal, as you stated. He's upset with how the system

has been corrupted & is controlled by the rich & mighty. Then, at the end of the article, he offers what may be the only solution in fixing the problem.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. Mind reading and predicting the future are big aspects of many

posts here. They know the future, they read the hearts of men and women like a Kindle.

[dotymed]

151. Sure, Kucinich was "on the ballot."

He was included in one debate with the other candidates. He did well and so the American people were not allowed to hear any more of his ideas. He was marginalized by the MSM.(Reagan claimed to have seen two UFO's.) He was forced to drop out of the race by an unexpected, extremely well financed (by who?)opponent for his House seat.
Besides the MSM, he was marginalized by both parties.
The PTB made sure that Dennis was not a viable candidate.
To say that "we" had Kucinich as a viable choice in the Presidential election is being disingenuous at best.

[tekisui]

62. Our democracy is defined by the ones who can acquire half a trillion dollars

for a dog and pony campaign.

[BzaDem]

65. Money only influences people because people let it.

It is seriously not hard for anyone to look up the policies of any candidate who qualifies for the ballot, and elect the one they favor.

The fact that some don't do that does not mean we don't live in a democracy. Democracy is defined by the ability of the people to do that. If they choose not to, that does not mean we don't live in a democracy.

[tekisui]

67. It is impossible to get on the ballot with out the big bucks backing them.

It limits the debate and policies to a very narrow range.

It is a sham democracy. Own by big money interests.

[BzaDem]

70. That is factually false. There are often huge numbers of candidates on the ballot.

There were certainly enough candidates on the Democratic presidential primary ballot that reflected the views of DUers.

[tekisui]

71. And those without the backing of big money were pushed out of debates

and never had a chance. You can't deny that it is dependent on big money.

[BzaDem]

72. Kucinich didn't have big money, but he was in many debates.

Of course, in the latter debates (after several have already taken place), they are going to have some limits based on how much support the candidates have (such as limiting it to people who get at least 5%). But if Kucinich actually got a non-negligible portion of the vote in any of the primaries, he would have been in more debates.

[tekisui]

73. The length of the campaign and the frontloading of primaries

make it impossible for a candidate without big money backing to be competitive. It really is ALL about the money. Candidates have to run for a year (or more) before the first primary, and have to have offices and personnel across half the states.

Until we reform campaign financing and we go to public financing, we will not have free and fair elections. Period.

[BzaDem]

75. Well now you are saying something different.

Before, you were saying it required mega bucks to qualify for the ballot and enter the debates.

Now, you are saying it requires mega bucks to simply "be competitive."

I'm not even sure that's true, considering McCain's campaign was out of money months before the primary and he still won the nomination.

But to whatever extent it is true, that reflects the number of people who are lazy and allow money to influence them (rather than spend a little time before each election looking up the candidates). But that is not a signal that our democracy is broken -- it is a signal that the population is apathetic. The population can change if it feels like exercising its rights and responsibilities.

I support full public financing, but not because we wouldn't have a democracy without it. I support it as a policy matter. Public financing is one solution to deal with the apathetic-people problem (who let their votes be swayed by money). Another solution is for the people to not be so apathetic. Ideally we should have both. But the strength of a democracy is determined by whether the people have the power to pick a candidate that approximates their views (or run for office), and the people in this country easily have the power to inform themselves briefly before every election.

[markpkessinger]

90. If President Obama's actions matched candidate Obama's representations, maybe

ALL candidates must currently rely on massive amounts of money from corporate interests to be able to mount an effective campaign. Because of this, their stated policies during an election campaign (which is the only time they really need to appear to be responsive to voters) often bear little relation to their actions once in office (where they must do the bidding of corporate interests in order to secure enough funds to run for re-election, at which time they will again revert to statements of lofty purpose). IF you really don't see that, I submit you are either blind or very, very naive.

[BzaDem]

91. So you think if Kucinich was elected, he would sell out to corporations? n/t

[markpkessinger]

113. Depends on how determined he would be to get a second term

[treestar]

97. +50 million

[WatsonT]

48. Really getting annoyed with these comparisons

The US is nothing like Egypt.

Democracy isn't 'on the ropes' here.

People need to develop a sense of perspective.

[dbmk]

52. Oh?

How did Bush get elected again?

[MasonJar]

56. Oh, then how did Gore lose and Kerry? Not because they didn't win.

[BzaDem]

58. Herbert's problem in this article isn't that a 50-50 election was stolen.

That is of course an outrage, but that isn't what Herbert is complaining about.

He is complaining that we don't have a government full of people who agree with him (to enact his favored policies). He uses this to pretend we don't live in a democracy.

But that is transparent foolishness. Herbert wouldn't have been any more satisfied with Gore than Obama. (He probably would have been less satisfied.) His problem is that the vast majority of the country won't vote for the people he wants. He isn't talking about 50-50 situations -- he is talking about 95-5 situations, where a candidate that best approximates his views (such as Kucinich) gets around 5% of the vote.

[tekisui]

63. You misread it.

[WatsonT]

163. The point is

everyone is happy with our democracy . . . when the guys they support are voted in to office.

When the other fellow wins it's because we're on the verge of a fascist dictatorship and the people have no voice!

That of course changes back the second an election turns in the authors favor.

How dare candidate A win? I voted for candidate B! This is an outrage, we're basically living in Nazi Germany here!

[WatsonT]

161. Yeah because Mubaraks tenure

hung on an extremely close election decided in the courts.

:eyes:

[KoKo]

81. Democracy has been "On the Ropes" here for over 30 years.

Perhaps you are too young to have "on the ground" experience. But, we are at a crossroads...because the s**t is finally hitting the fan here.

[WatsonT]

162. And this is where the

perspective bit comes in to play.

Go visit some of these places then come back and see if the comparisons are accurate.

[RufusTFirefly]

54. Interesting evolution for Krugman and Herbert

Both men started out with very different beats. But as the country's downhill spiral became increasingly evident, they found they could no longer stay silent.

Once upon a time, I used to pass over Herbert's column because my sense was that he tended to cover local New York issues. Not any longer.

[maryf]

59. k&r nt

[Safetykitten]

66. "The poor, who are suffering from an all-out depression, are never heard from."..yup that's about it

[jp11]

78. So many calls for 'free and fair elections' for Egypt but how fair or free are our own?

Don't mistake my message, I welcome the people of Egypt shaping the future of their country and getting rid of their dictator through their valiant efforts as well as those of their military for getting their backs or at least not stomping them down. It is too soon to tell how much the people have ultimately accomplished or if they'll have to go back to the streets to get what they really want.

The problem is our country pretends it has a patent on democracy and is the 'shining example' of all that is democratic, free, etc when it isn't perfect and has corruption, as well as inequality that is glossed over, ignored, spun, and simply played down.

Free and fair elections for Egypt, I say great they should have that, but shouldn't we have that too before we sit in judgement of what is fair and free, if what we've got is what we want for Egypt then the people might not be celebrating thinking they've accomplished a revolution and instead realize all that they just made some progress over what they had before, hardly a 'revolution'. Instead of a handful of people stealing their money and ruining their country they'll open the ranks to include hundreds if not thousands of little dictators to rob them, that isn't much better for the people.

[KoKo]

80. K&R... Herbert gets it...always has.

[Yavin4]

83. "democracy is on the ropes in the United States"? Really?

"On the ropes?" Ha! Democracy in America is lying in the middle of the ring, knocked out cold, with the crowd in hush silence as its being loaded onto a stretcher and carried out of the arena with no signs of life.

[BzaDem]

89. ... because the people don't vote the way you want them to. Got it. n/t

[tekisui]

99. You keep getting it wrong. We aren't given the opportunity to vote the way WE NEED.

[BzaDem]

101. So Kucinich was too far right for you? You "NEEDED" someone further left than him, that wasn't on

the ballot?

Just because you "NEED" someone doesn't mean other people do. The way we deal with our differences in what we "NEED" is by voting. Just because people don't agree with a candidate doesn't mean they didn't have the opportunity to agree with that candidate.

[tekisui]

103. We need someone who represents the interest of the people over the corporations.

And, no, we have not been given that opportunity. The game is rigged against it, for the many various reasons already mentioned in this thread and in the article linked in the OP.

Just because you are easily satiated doesn't mean that we have been given a real opportunity of true democracy representative of the needs of the people.

ETA: candidates like Kucinich and Edwards are systemically made non-viable to protect the status quo. Money rules the day.

[BzaDem]

105. How did you not have the opportunity to vote for Kucinich? Was he not on the ballot at your polling

place?

"candidates like Kucinich and Edwards are systemically made non-viable to protect the status quo"

If people actually wanted to vote for Kucinich, how would he have been "non-viable?" Would his name have been crossed out on the ballot?

And if people actually did NOT want to vote for him (or anyone else who you would consider representing the "people over the corporations"), how does a disagreement with YOU mean we don't have a democracy? Democracy doesn't mean everyone will win some of the time. In all democracies, there are people who's favored candidates will always lose -- each and every time. That doesn't in and of itself mean the system is any less democratic. If people physically weren't able to vote for said candidate, that would be a different story.

[tekisui]

106. Nope, Kucinich and Edwards were not on my ballot. Big money

pushed them out long before I had a chance.

The game is rigged. Obama spent half a TRILLION dollars to win. Tell me that is not fucked up beyond belief.

[BzaDem]

107. Did you vote before or after they dropped out, and voluntarily took their name off the ballot?

"Obama spent half a TRILLION dollars to win. Tell me that is not fucked up beyond belief."

As I said, I agree we should have publicly financed elections. But the lack of such elections doesn't mean we don't live in a democracy.

[tekisui]

108. The front loaded early billion dollar primaries ensured they weren't on my ballot

Obama spent half a TRILLION dollars to get elected. That is fucked up, no matter how much you want to polish this turd, we do not have a free, fair and open democracy.

We have a very small subset of elites who call the shots. They are backed by the very rich. They work to ensure the 'viable' political spectrum is very narrow.

[BzaDem]

109. The existence of a candidate spending a lot of money does not imply we don't have free, fair, and

open elections. You keep citing the half a trillion dollar figure as if it implies what you are saying. It does not.

What WOULD imply a lack of free/fair/open elections, is if people wanted to vote for a given candidate but could physically not do it. Or, if the state blocked the ability for people to take an hour out of their time to research the candidates on the ballot.

But that does not happen (and you have not asserted that it does happen). Your argument seems to boil down to a) the existence of a candidate who spent a lot of money, and b) the fact that other people disagree with you, neither of which imply the lack of free/fair/open elections.

[tekisui]

111. I disagree, you cannot defend a candidate having to raise and spend

half a TRILLION to win. It will only go up and become more exclusive.

[BzaDem]

116. I'm not defending it! I AGREE WITH YOU on public financing. I'm just saying that it doesn't mean

in and of itself that we don't live in a democracy. Lots of things are both simultaneously awful, yet don't signal the collapse of our democracy.

In terms of money, the question is, why is money so important to winning elections? The answer is because there are people apathetic enough to allow money to sway their vote. But that has little to do with how democratic a nation is -- whether or not we live in a democracy depends on what citizens have the RIGHT to do -- not how many of them choose to exercise those rights and responsibilities.

[eomer]

137. Elections are necessary but not sufficient to be a democracy.

Even if we had elections that were fair and transparent enough (which we don't), that's not all that is required in order to be a democracy.

A public discourse is another requirement. And like elections, the public discourse must satisfy minimum criteria and rise to a minimum level of effectiveness or else a country is not a democracy.

Our public discourse doesn't and our country isn't.

[tekisui]

153. Well said.

[Yavin4]

157. In Addition To Public Discourse, We Need An INFORMED Republic

We have massive corporate media propaganda machines (radio, TV, Cable, etc.) pumping out massive propaganda and mis-information 24/7. We have a sizable percentage of our republic that still believes that Saddam had WMDs and we found them!

The MNCs have learned that mass communication technology can shape political outcomes.

[BzaDem]

158. There is nothing stopping liberals from starting their own network

and we already have plenty of liberal-leaning media in this country.

If a Fox viewer chooses to change the dial on their cable box to Fox, that does not mean we don't live in a democracy. A democracy is defined by the rights the people have. If certain people choose not to exercise the rights they have (by choosing not to inform themselves), that doesn't mean we don't live in a democracy.

[eomer]

165. Plenty of liberal-leaning media?

What's your list of media and which are liberal-leaning? I suspect yours must be different than mine if you believe that.

[BzaDem]

159. Elections are not sufficient in and of themselves. For example, if the state blocks all information

about opposition candidates (or really any information), it would not be a real democracy.

But that is not the case here. Anyone can inform themselves in a short amount of time on any candidate on the ballot.

You seem to be saying we don't live in a democracy because people aren't informing themselves. But that is obviously a bogus definition of democracy -- if people choose not to inform themselves (even though they have the right to do so and it is easy), that does not mean we don't live in a democracy.

[Yavin4]

115. If You Think That American Politics Is About Giving People A Real Choice

Then you are a fool.

[BzaDem]

117. People had a real choice in the Democratic primary of 2008. The fact that they might have picked

differently than you did doesn't mean they didn't have a real choice.

[defendandprotect]

129. As long as America is voting on computers, there is no real choice ...

[Yavin4]

152. Politics In America Is FAR GREATER Than Presidential Primaries

The real power in America lies in the Congress where they are bought and paid for by Lobbyists. Presidential elections are an after thought.

[BzaDem]

160. And there are large numbers of very progressive men and women in Congress.

Why? They come from safe districts.

Why don't they seem to exist in non-safe districts? Because those districts are not safe. They are much more evenly divided, with moderates picking the winner. This is not a signal that we don't have democracy -- it is a signal that we have a healthy democracy, even though I wish there were far more progressives in Congress. Democracy isn't defined based on how often a candidate wins that you like.

[Catherina]

142. +1 n/t

[defendandprotect]

93. We need a humanist in the White House ... and Obama certainly isn't it ...

We need a president willing to acknowledge and help the impoverished --

the homeless -- the unemployed --

and DAMN IT!! to talk about it every day ---

That's what I expect of a Democratic president -- and I'm not hearing

anything I think I should be hearing!!

[glinda]

126. A Green Humanist.

[midnight]

95. Isn't that the truth....

[defendandprotect]

98. Thank you --

and I read the article --

basically, it's ground breaking -- but I don't even think it's sufficiently

strong enough, still!!

I had lunch with the historian Howard Zinn just a few weeks before he died in January 2010. He was chagrined about the state of affairs in the U.S. but not at all daunted. “If there is going to be change,” he said, “real change, it will have to work its way from the bottom up, from the people themselves.”

I thought of that as I watched the coverage of the ecstatic celebrations in the streets of Cairo.

We need every journalist to be able to write their very strongest feelings about what's happening

in America and I'd love to see it! -- but at the same time, ironically, we can't have citizens

sitting around waiting for journalists or TV anchors to tell them that "something is wrong in

America!" --

IMO, it's the internet more than anything else which is getting people thinking for themselves.

We are confirming that reality that democracy depends on each of us every time we post and argue

a position -- or learn something from someone else's position!

After Egypt, I expect to see the elites giving very serious thought to the internet!!

[russspeakeasy]

110. Great post...thanks.

[wundermaus]

118. Americans are too domesticated to know they are the main course.

Our corporate masters whisper soothing lies into our ears while they slaughter us.
The American people are pathetic.
We do not deserve to even say the word Liberty.
Cowards, all.

[RandomThoughts]

123. Liberty.

[Smarmie Doofus]

140. YOU said a mouthful ( pun intended) :

>>>>>>Americans are too domesticated to know they are the main course.>>>>>

[earcandle]

119. I saw "Inside Job" tonight and I want Obama and his crowd OUT by 2012.

None of these people deserve the support of the American
people.  This is the second time they stole from us.  They
took away the regulations in place to protect us from this
robbery, and Obama says move on, nothing here.  Not true.
A repuke in dems clothing is what he is.  No way around it.  

We must pour into the streets, but first we need a google guy
to organize and manage us, methinks.
Or don't we count? 

[earcandle]

120. Plus his assinine bowing down to religion really sickens my heart. Those kind of countries go into

civil war when prompted by agitators (CIA) and the tea party
was an attempt. 

We are too smart here to be fully conned, or upset enough to
do violence.
We will use language like the Egyptians, won't we? 

[earcandle]

121. with the exception of the lone wolf crazy... lot of reasons to go crazy now... life sucks for a lot

of people. 

[glinda]

127. I am sick of the word God and pray and Christian being brought up in Government.

This is not what made our Country great. This makes our Country like ones run by oppressors.

[earcandle]

128. Yep!

[Paka]

122. Herbert is great.

He doesn't mince words. :applause:

[tavalon]

131. I hope it is only in danger

I fear it may already have died.

[Shining Jack]

133. +1

[Le Taz Hot]

135. Powerful article!

K & R

[Smarmie Doofus]

138. No, no, no. The *real* problems are Julian Assange and Bradley Manning.

Once we get those two under control.... i.e. locked away permanently... everything will be hunky!

I trust the current president... eyes on the prize as always.... has his justice dept. working on this full tilt.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

149. AG Eric "Place" Holder.

:argh:

[xchrom]

146. recommend

[WillyT]

150. HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[goforit]

164. Bada bing Herbert!