Jimmy Carter Is Correct that the U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy

| |

freedom liberty

On July 28th, Thom Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the very end of his show (as if this massive question were merely an aftethought), asked him his opinion of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision, both decisions by the five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. These two historic decisions enable unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns. Carter answered:

“It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for President or being elected President. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. … At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.”

He was then cut off by the program, though that statement by Carter should have been the start of the program, not its end. (And the program didn’t end with an invitation for him to return to discuss this crucial matter in depth — something for which he’s qualified.)

So: was this former President’s provocative allegation merely his opinion? Or was it actually lots more than that? It was lots more than that.

Only a single empirical study has actually been done in the social sciences regarding whether the historical record shows that the United States has been, during the survey’s period, which in that case was between 1981 and 2002, a democracy (a nation whose leaders represent the public-at-large), or instead an aristocracy (or ‘oligarchy’) — a nation in which only the desires of the richest citizens end up being reflected in governmental actions. This study was titled “Testing Theories of American Politics,” and it was published by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page in the journal Perspectives on Politics, issued by the American Political Science Association in September 2014. I had summarized it earlier, on 14 April 2014, while the article was still awaiting its publication.

The headline of my summary-article was “U.S. Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy Says Scientific Study.” I reported: “The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it’s pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation’s ‘news’ media).” I then quoted the authors’ own summary: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” 

The scientific study closed by saying: “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.” A few other tolerably clear sentences managed to make their ways into this well-researched, but, sadly, atrociously written, paper, such as: “The preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of ‘affluent’ citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.” In other words, they found: The rich rule the U.S.

Their study investigated specifically “1,779 instances between 1981 and 2002 in which a national survey of the general public asked a favor/oppose question about a proposed policy change,” and then the policy-follow-ups, of whether or not the polled public preferences had been turned into polices, or, alternatively, whether the relevant corporate-lobbied positions had instead become public policy on the given matter, irrespective of what the public had wanted concerning it.

The study period, 1981-2002, covered the wake of the landmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo, which had started the aristocratic assault on American democracy, and which seminal (and bipartisan) pro-aristocratic court decision is described as follows by wikipedia: It “struck down on First Amendment grounds several provisions in the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The most prominent portions of the case struck down limits on spending in campaigns, but upheld the provision limiting the size of individual contributions to campaigns. The Court also narrowed, and then upheld, the Act’s disclosure provisions, and struck down (on separation of powers grounds) the make-up of the Federal Election Commission, which as written allowed Congress to directly appoint members of the Commission, an executive agency.”

Basically, the Buckley decision, and subsequent (increasingly partisan Republican) Supreme Court decisions, have allowed aristocrats to buy and control politicians.

Already, the major ‘news’ media were owned and controlled by the aristocracy, and ‘freedom of the press’ was really just freedom of aristocrats to control the ‘news’ — to frame public issues in the ways the owners want. The media managers who are appointed by those owners select, in turn, the editors who, in their turn, hire only reporters who produce the propaganda that’s within the acceptable range for the owners, to be ‘the news’ as the public comes to know it.

But, now, in the post-Buckley-v.-Valeo world, from Reagan on (and the resulting study-period of 1981-2002), aristocrats became almost totally free to buy also the political candidates they wanted. The ‘right’ candidates, plus the ‘right’ ‘news’-reporting about them, has thus bought the ‘right’ people to ‘represent’ the public, in the new American ‘democracy,’ which Jimmy Carter now aptly calls “subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors.”

Carter — who had entered office in 1976, at the very start of that entire era of transition into an aristocratically controlled United States (and he left office in 1981, just as the study-period was starting) — expressed his opinion that, in the wake now of the two most extreme pro-aristocratic U.S. Supreme Court decisions ever (which are Citizens United in 2010, and McCutcheon in 2014), American democracy is really only past tense, not present tense at all — no longer a reality.

He is saying, in effect, that, no matter how much the U.S. was a dictatorship by the rich during 1981-2002 (the Gilens-Page study era), it’s far worse now.

Apparently, Carter is correct: The New York Times front page on Sunday 2 August 2015 bannered, “Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving,” and reported that:

“A New York Times analysis of Federal Election Commission reports and Internal Revenue Service records shows that the fund-raising arms race has made most of the presidential hopefuls deeply dependent on a small pool of the richest Americans. The concentration of donors is greatest on the Republican side, according to the Times analysis, where consultants and lawyers have pushed more aggressively to exploit the looser fund-raising rules that have fueled the rise of super PACs. Just 130 or so families and their businesses provided more than half the money raised through June by Republican candidates and their super PACs.”

The Times study shows that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly advantaged by the recent unleashing of big-corporate money power. All of the evidence suggests that though different aristocrats compete against each other for the biggest chunks of whatever the given nation has to offer, they all compete on the same side against the public, in order to lower the wages of their workers, and to lower the standards for consumers’ safety and welfare so as to increase their own profits (transfer their costs and investment-losses onto others); and, so, now, the U.S. is soaring again toward Gilded Age economic inequality, perhaps to surpass the earlier era of unrestrained robber barons. And, the Times study shows: even in the Democratic Party, the mega-donations are going to only the most conservative (pro-corporate, anti-public) Democrats. Grass-roots politics could be vestigial, or even dead, in the new America.

The question has become whether the unrestrained power of the aristocracy is locked in this time even more permanently than it was in that earlier era. Or: will there be yet another FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) to restore a democracy that once was? Or: is a President like that any longer even possible in America?

As for today’s political incumbents: they now have their careers for as long as they want and are willing to do the biddings of their masters. And, then, they retire to become, themselves, new members of the aristocracy, such as the Clintons have done, and such as the Obamas will do. (Of course, the Bushes have been aristocrats since early in the last century.)

Furthermore, the new age of aristocratic control is not merely national but international in scope; so, the global aristocracy have probably found the formula that will keep them in control until they destroy the entire world. What’s especially interesting is that, with all of the many tax-exempt, ‘non-profit’ ‘charities,’ which aristocrats have established, none of them is warring to defeat the aristocracy itself — to defeat the aristocrats’ system of exploitation of the public. It’s the one thing they won’t create a ‘charity’ for; none of them will go to war against the expoitative interests of themselves and of their own exploitative peers. They’re all in this together, even though they do compete amongst themselves for dominance, as to which ones of them will lead against the public. And the public seem to accept this modern form of debt-bondage, perhaps because of the ‘news’ they see, and because of the news they don’t see (such as this).

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Eric Zuesse of Washington’s Blog.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • the US was never a democracy…read the Constitution. It guarantees a Republican form of government.

    • FollowDaMoney

      Representative Republic.

      • Gene

        Constitutional Republic with representatives.

      • That is a redundancy.

    • Nexusfast123

      You need to go back to school and understand that a ‘republic’ is a form of government and ‘democracy’ is a form of representation. Therefore the US is a Constitutional Republic and a Representative Democracy. Amazing how many Americans don’t understand their own system.

      Of course the system is hardly democratic as the will of the people has been subverted for decades by the comical parade of preselected/pre-approved presidential puppets and the lack of political plurality as evidenced by a two party system.

      • Democracy is a method of making decisions.
        A republic is a form of government where the rights of the people are not subject to the vote.

        • Gene

          You guy’s are clueless. Republic=Rule of Law. Democracy = Mob Rule, not the same thing. The rest are arguing semantics. The U.S. set up by our forefathers is a REPUBLIC AND NOT A DEMOCRACY, the two cannot co-exist.

          Here’s one of the founders on the subject. Read your history books people, it’s not that hard……..

          “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
          ― Benjamin Franklin

          • In a democracy the laws and individual rights are subject to adjustment by the voting public.
            In a republic, not so much.
            You have a strange way of insulting people who basically agree with you, even if you let the semantics get in the way.

          • Gene

            I’ve just explained what our forefathers meant by democracy. They hated it, but they didn’t hate the process. Two different things, the insults were merely a with general purpose to wake people up. It seems to be a great motivating factor in conversation, I use it, sue me.

          • Democracy is fine as a process, but it sucks as the basis of a civil government, particularly for those who lack the power to defend themselves against it.

          • Gene

            “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

            ― Benjamin Franklin

          • Gene

            Democracy the government is different from the democratic process. I wasn’t specifically pointing anyone out, just calling the conversation as stupid. None of this matters now anyway, the U.S. is an oligarchy not a Republic nor a Democracy. But are forefathers wanted a Republic and mocked Democracy for stupid people, well documented. Not every one agreed of course, but the majority voted for a Republic by democratic means.

          • Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it, “If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.”

          • Gene

            Thomas Jefferson is one of my favorites, if not my favorite patriot.

          • Jefferson was probably thought, by King George, to be the most heinous criminal and traitor to the British empire in the american colonies, and so he was, along with all of the others in favor of secession from Great Britain, but the king did himself no favors attacking when he couldn’t effectively project power across the Atlantic Ocean with wind-driven warships and poorly quartered sailors.
            Jefferson was no typical Christian, he and his close friend, Thomas Paine, were philosophical and intellectual soulmates, and together were the most effective intellectual weapon the colonists had, in addition to setting the standards for deist thought.

      • Gene

        You’re being arrogant. The confusion comes in what our forefathers thought of democracy. They hated it and wanted nothing to do with it. The word democracy had a different meaning back then (mob rule). The word has changed it’s meaning a bit since and that’s were the confusion comes in. People that read and know the Constitution will know that Democracy isn’t even mentioned and they wanted nothing to do with it. A lot of people to this day agree with them, I do, Democracy will eat it’s own young. In a true Democracy the people would vote on everything. Do you? No. We use the democratic process to determine individuals whom will interpret our laws on which you don’t vote, not a Democracy, but we do use it’s process to determine the representatives and NOT THE LAW. Got it? Republic= Rule of law in which we live, nothing else needs to be said, you’re the type confusing everyone. When was the last time you voted. or anytime that is, on the income tax? You would in a Democracy. Congress decided it without the peoples vote, there goes your democracy.

    • Gil G

      Read the U.S. Constitution and you’ll see it’s a Representative Democracy.

      • glamdeluxe

        Wrong. The founders considered democracy mob rule, which it is.

        • Gil G

          Who cares what a bunch of rich men thought in the 1700’s? What the Constitution says matter.

          • glamdeluxe

            WOW. Rarely do I find someone so ridiculous as this. The constitution was written in the 1700’s by the same bunch of old rich white men some of which owned slaves. The federalist papers are the argument for the constitution. But what do you care for. Just enjoy being you.

          • Gil G

            The Constitution has been modified since a bunch old rich White men wrote the first parts.

          • glamdeluxe

            Now were talking. Most importantly with the 16th and 17th. WORST AMENDMENTS EVER.

          • Since most American’s have never heard of, let alone read, the Federalist Papers, why confuse the ignorant with the facts?

          • Gene

            That guy has mistaken this planet as his own, clearly he’s living in an alien land.

        • “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
          Winston Churchill

      • Then why did all of the signers say decidedly bad things about democracy? I guess you read anything except the Constitution, huh?

        • Gene

          It’s not in the Constitution, he just pulled that out of his butt. It doesn’t appear in the U.S. Constitution or Declaration of Independence. He is nothing but a ignorant citizen and absolutely clueless. We must fight this ignorance.

          • I have always held the purpose of this website is to assist in that fight, but sometimes I have to wonder if it is anything more than a commercial vehicle to its operators.

      • Gene

        You’ve not read it.LOL> Most people, including most Americans, would be surprised to learn that the word “democracy” does not appear in the Declaration of Independence (1776) or the Constitution of the United States of America (1789). You have no clue what country live in our what government you have, please educate yourself.Sheep…smh.

        Our forefathers wanted a Republic, today it’s on oligarchy. Catch up and stop spreading government lies. You’re nothing but a pawn for people smarter than you. WAKE UP!

    • SovereignPatriot88

      This is a republic. Why hasn’t this caught on yet? I know it has only been 240 years or so, but you would think that people could remember what kind of political system we have.
      I think it’s all the democracy that we try to spread around the world.

  • Grim Fandango

    The US is no longer a democracy, because it never was a democracy.

    We were a Constitutional Republic, and that’s a far cry from a democracy.

    And of all people, an ex President should gully understand that

    • Nexusfast123

      Wrong the US is theoretically both a Constitutional Republic and a Representative Democracy – only in theory as that is not reality.

      • whattabunchacrap

        Theoretically means in theory of.. Do you not see the irony in your statement?

    • That said, Carter pretty much summed up what happened when the neo-cons got a hold of it.

  • sharonsj

    You two commenters are just picking on semantics–but Carter is right. Our government is controlled by big business and the very rich. The Middle Eastern wars have been for the benefit of the oil companies and the military/industrial complex.

    We’ve overthrown democratically elected presidents in South America and in the Middle East in favor of dictators just so corporations could get rich. Meanwhile, Geo. Bush was not elected by the people–he was put into the presidency by the Supreme Court, by hacked voting machines, and by his friends in various states throwing Democrats off the voter rolls.

    And you might ask yourself why it is only Republicans who claim voter fraud (which is virtually nonexistent), institute voter I.D. to prevent people from voting, and throw tens of thousands of legal voters off the rolls?

    • Mike

      Voter fraud is not virtually non-existent, and demonrats love voter fraud which is why they support the illegal invaders so much. But to be fair, voting accomplishes nothing any longer. As Mark Twain said ‘if voting made a difference we would not be allowed to vote.’

      • Reverend Draco

        Yet the Republicrats commit most of the voter fraud, according to a few articles back.

        • Mike

          If they commit so much voter fraud, then why on earth would they be pushing voter id laws?

          • Gene

            DUH! Because mostly the elderly and minorities are the ones without ID and they don’t vote Republican. How naive are you? Am I wasting my time talking to a government zombie? I wonder, sure sound like one.

          • Mike

            most elderly people I know have id, and most minority folks I know have id, that is how they buy their beer, wine, liquor, and pick up their drugs at the pharmacy or drive a car, so evidently it is I who am talking to a total moron.

          • Gene

            You got some facts to back that up? You might be surprised, if you go digging for the truth. Why is it so hard for you to believe that people that have the hardest time getting ID, are the ones with least amount of valid IDs.Does logic elude you, LOL, you called me a moron, I’m doing something right. If you agreed with me? I’d kill myself.

          • Mike

            You do realize that in order to pick up your prescriptions you have to have ID right? In order to drive you have to have a license which is by the way a photo id. Certain doctors offices and hospitals require you to have id to go along with your medicare and Medicaid cards to verify you are who you say you are. But let’s not let common sense and facts get in the way of the leftist argument that asking for id suppresses the vote. The only vote it suppresses is the ILLEGAL INVADER VOTE.

          • Gene

            You do realize not everybody is able? You live in some fantasy land, you young? Besides…lol. you think you know everything…lol…..eye glasses prescription (legal form of ID)will get you most of the things your list there partner. Think you got the world figured out, should of been my first clue you might have mental issues. We all do, not that big of a deal.
            Slow down a bit, lots of variables in life and it’s impossible to know it all. You’re wrong. First I’m asking for facts and all you give me is your opinion. Do you even know how to debate?

          • Mike

            You evidently don’t know how to debate or look at life in the real world, you know, beyond the world the liberals and regressives paint for you. Most things in this world today require a picture ID of some kind, from entering schools to buying alcohol, cigs, prescriptions and the like, from writing checks to using a credit card. I choose to live in the real world, not your liberal regressive fantasy land.

          • Gene

            Your refusal to look up the facts tells me everything I need to know….
            You’re in Denial:
            : a statement saying that something is not true or real : a statement in which someone denies something

            psychology : a condition in which someone will not admit that something sad, painful, etc., is true or real

            : the act of not allowing someone to have something

          • Mike

            You define yourself quite well.

          • Gene

            Let’s trade facts using the scientific method using only papers reviewed by their peers. Grantee you lose in a court of law, but you’ll always revert to DENIAL. Good day to you sir.

          • Mike

            Yes, let’s you would lose on the first one and that would be that, but deny it all you like, liberal regressives are good at that.

          • Gene

            One other thing. I’m not a liberal more libertarian. I don’t believe in either party. They are both part of an oligarchy making fools out of people like you and I. Your constant ASSumptions of what you think you know, make me question your intelligence. How did ,out of thin air, you make me out to be a liberal? That’s a sign of mental illness, you fantasize and then believe it to be real? Then use it in your argument? You’re a strange duck, maybe get some help! Can you see how wrong you can be and not realize it? I’m only trying to wake you up partner, take it for what it is or stay in denial.

          • Mike

            How did I make you out to be a liberal regressive? Every point you tried to make was leaning left, that is how. And yes, being a liberal regressive is a sign of mental illness that includes the inability to understand fact.

          • Gene

            We can throw the handicapped in there to. You can hate those people also, they can’t figh back, LOL.

          • Reverend Draco

            http://www.thedailysheeple.com/university-statistician-accuses-government-of-voter-fraud_092015

            “I don’t understand why those patterns are there, the patterns are
            very definitely real. But we don’t know what’s causing them or why
            they’re there. They do fit what would be expected if election fraud is occurring, and that’s very concerning.”

            “This is not just an anomaly that occurred in one place,” Clarkson said in April. “It is a pattern that has occurred repeatedly in elections across the United States.” She says the pattern routinely favors traditional Republicans — even over Tea Party candidates..

            Reading is FUNdamental.

          • Mike

            if patterns favored republicans, then why is there not one in the WH right now? Dems are the ones fighting voter id that would aid in curtailing voter fraud, the republicans are pushing it. Either way, until the dems and republicans voter fraud deal runs out, neither party will try to go after anyone committing voter fraud. Why would they have such a deal, because they both do it, dems just do more of it, and even that does not matter any longer because both parties are filled with the same lying criminals.

          • Reverend Draco

            Now you’re talking a bit of sense. . . both parties are filled with the same lying criminals.

            Why can’t you do this more often?

          • Mike

            why can’t you?

          • Reverend Draco

            I always do – don’t know how to do otherwise.

          • whattabunchacrap

            The story also says that it takes 42 boxes to hold a measly 385 feet of tape.. Don’t you find that odd?

          • So they can register all of the ignorants.

          • Mike

            like you?

          • Only if you will admit to being the pot calling the kettle black.

          • Mike

            you do that on a daily basis, so you first.

        • whattabunchacrap

          If that was true there would be no democrats in office

        • And since a republicrat and a demopublican are the same thing, it is everyone which is either doing the voter fraud?

          • Reverend Draco

            Yes.

      • Gene

        The facts don’t support you, there is very little evidence of voter fraud. Therefore, your post is fantasy, politicians are in your head, I suggest you get them out. Don’t bother arguing with me, I only deal in facts not your fantasy,
        The illegal invaders are the oligarchs. I suggest you get your head out of your ass and stop believing the propaganda the elite are feeding you at bedtime.

        • Mike

          You sir are a fool. There is plenty of evidence, folks like you just don’t want to do the research to find it.

          • What’s your excuse for not publishing it, then?

          • Mike

            I get sick of putting facts out there just to have people call them lies because they don’t want to look at the facts even when the source is given, That is why.

          • You don’t understand propaganda at all?

          • Mike

            and you do? bet not.

          • I spent several years in broadcast news, passing it along. We call it spin, so the ignorant like you won’t know it is propaganda.

          • Mike

            all news is propaganda you have to hunt facts down.

          • All news is biased. If it is biased to support an agenda, it is propaganda. The same thing is true of the “gospel truth.”

          • Gene

            lol

          • Gene

            WAIT! I can think of some voter fraud. When the Republicans are gerrymandering, that is defeintly defrauding the voter. So, in a way, you’re right 😉

          • Mike

            Buddy, they all screw with the system, D’s and R’s are all the same. lose the illusion that there is a difference and that might open your foolish eyes.

          • Gene

            I already know this. That doesn’t disprove my point. Hillary Clinton might be the biggest Republican on the ballot. She is a big business drone just like every/most politicians. Gerrymandering still exist.

    • glamdeluxe

      Fascism. Carter had a big hand in turning us into a soft fascist state. He expanded the power of the FED. Now big brother is everywhere.

  • Mike

    The US is supposed to be a republic. Carter as always is a moron.

    • Reverend Draco

      And there hasn’t been a better Prez since.

      • Mike

        You sir prove your low IQ every time you speak.

        • Reverend Draco

          You really need to quit looking in the mirror as you type – your borderline insane ignorance is showing again.

          • Mike

            Dude quit talking about yourself, your insanity is showing.

          • Reverend Draco

            LOL – nice comeback – you need to fire your joke writer. . . he sucks.

      • glamdeluxe

        He was a Nazi sympathizing southern jim crow kinda guy. So we know what a reverend looks for in his leader.

        • Reverend Draco

          Reagan was a moron and a criminal.
          Bush was a warmonger & a criminal.
          Clinton was a criminal and a pervert.
          Shrub was an idiot, warmonger, criminal.
          Obama is the worst of the prior four combined into one big shitheel.

          So, yes Carter was the last decent one. Not the best one by a long shot, but far better than any since. If you can’t understand that, you need stop wasting the air that thinking beings can use.

          • glamdeluxe

            So eloquent. There was nothing decent about Carter he is all the thing I mentioned in the previous post
            . Ike was the last relatively honest one with his speech on the Military Industrial Complex.
            But your so smart. What are you twelve reverend thing being? Your historical background appears to be as small as your intellectual one.
            No go attempt to insult someone else. No one well kill themselves because reverend untellectual wishes it.

    • Gil G

      The U.S.A. is a Republic – do you see a royal family?

      • Mike

        it is no longer a republic, it is an oligarchy. Hence why the politicians ignore their constituents and let the corporations tell them what to do and how to do it.

        • Gil G

          A Republic as it’s most simple definition means no ruling family hence the Soviet Union and Communist China were both Republics.

      • Rick E.

        Heck Gil, I see two! The Bush and Clinton Royal families. lol.

      • They don’t wear crowns, but the results of inbreeding are definitely evident.

  • USG is not a government. Demonocracy is accurate.

    USA is not the uSA. Never has been.

    • Demonocracy

      “USG is not a government.”

      Meaning that the U.S.G. is a corporation? Act of 1871?

  • the united States never was a democracy. The UNITED STATES has always been a corporation encompassing 6.8 miles square.

  • Nexusfast123

    I suspect that the US was never really a democracy as the ‘system’ has always afforded easy access by men in the shadows and lobbyists to the political system so they can craft taxes, expenditures, etc, to suite their needs rather than that of the people. This has increased over the decades as the morality and ethics of politicians declined – greed trumps all in the end. True of all so called democracies.

    C.W.Mills in his 1953 book ‘The Power Elite’ articulated the above very clearly. His analysis is probably even more relevant today and is a good study of how power and influence is deployed in the US..

  • Gil G

    The Founders would also be shocked and horrified their descendants freed the slaves and empowered women.

  • SovereignPatriot88

    Whatever it was, it’s about to become a dictatorship. An absolute ruler, probably Obama, will rule this land with an iron fist. All dissidents will be exterminated. The new constitution will be much shorter than the old one: Do as we tell you or die!
    Money should have nothing to do with politics. The poorest people should have just as much influence on political issues as middle-class and rich people. People who are elected to public office should not be allowed to accept money from anyone for any reason. The ability to give money to politicians insures bribery and corruption. I don’t see any way around it.
    When our country was founded, they had just fought for their freedom from a tyrannical king. They knew that it could happen again and worked to protect us from that. But that was long ago and we have always lived in a free society. The threat of tyranny has been forgotten. People do not fear losing something that they have always had. People are convinced that someone else will take care of it for them. But while they were sleeping, our government was corrupted by greedy politicians and our rights and freedoms were sold to the highest bidder. So now the rich control our future. Nothing short of a massive movement will put the control back into the hands of the people.

  • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

    The US toppled off the slippery slope a long time ago. Collectively, the citizenry has engaged in or allowed, revisionist history, moral abjuration and/or relativism, the muzzling of free speech and overtly failed to protect our right to freedom of religion, amongst others. Is it any wonder that now, these things are the norm? One must now wonder how much longer it will be before the citizens are convinced/tricked into offering up the 2nd Amendment to the oligarchs altar of submission? Or who will fire the first shot?

  • glamdeluxe

    We never were a democracy

    • Gil G

      The current Constitution makes the U.S. a Representative Democratic Republic.

  • Vows of Vengeance

    I prefer a REPUBLIC as it is.

  • Gil G

    The Union was freer under King George. Only a handful of rich men benefited from the American Revolution.

  • Gil G

    Wiki’s definition is straight forward:

    “A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a form of government or country in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. In modern times, the definition of a republic is commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.”