next »

[daurousseau]

The discussion seemse to be slipping away from one of the terms in the original post: democracy.

Is democracy an idea or a reality? If it's just an idea, e.g. the idea and praxis that better to have majority rule than minority rule, that's one thing. If it's a reality, i.e. embodied, then what else could it mean other than rule of the people as they are, physically, today, here? If the people here and now speak a bunch of languages, then the democratic way is..."So be it."

[mrdissertator]

I think you're right. I wouldn't mind a confirmation of English as the official language of the country but, at the same time, I think it's important to acknowledge the importance of other languages in the history and the recent configuration of the US.
I agree that English should be the "lingua franca" (as it is, in fact), but why not respect the fact that Spanish is an equally American language for a very substantial quantity of Americans?
 The status of Spanish is not comparable to other very important foreign languages in the US (German, Italian, Chinese), because the point is that these speakers melted in the American "melting pot", while Spanish speakers present a strong resistance to lose their first language. I don't think it's a case of inherent "anti-americanism" or "refusal to be integrated in the US"; I think is a clear case of bilingualism: a linguistic community strong enough to preserve their language and cultural heritage in spite of being a minority.
 That, as limited as my knowledge of American history goes, is something quite new in the US, and should be accepted, aknowledged and cherished.

[minnesotan]

I don't agree with the assumption that democracy strengthens the U.S.  Yes, as 1/3 of our republican system, it should play its (limited) role, but let's not get carried away here!  Sanity is not statistical.

[daurousseau]

I don't agree with the assumption that democracy strengthens the U.S.  Yes, as 1/3 of our republican system, it should play its (limited) role, but let's not get carried away here!  Sanity is not statistical.

What about when the issue is restated this way: Who should rule? The majority or a minority?

[husqvarna]

I don't agree with the assumption that democracy strengthens the U.S.  Yes, as 1/3 of our republican system, it should play its (limited) role, but let's not get carried away here!  Sanity is not statistical.

What about when the issue is restated this way: Who should rule? The majority or a minority?

This oversimplifies matters.

[minnesotan]

I don't agree with the assumption that democracy strengthens the U.S.  Yes, as 1/3 of our republican system, it should play its (limited) role, but let's not get carried away here!  Sanity is not statistical.

What about when the issue is restated this way: Who should rule? The majority or a minority?

This oversimplifies matters.

Agreed.  The point of the republican system is to allow us freedom from tyrants, as well as freedom from a "tyranny of the masses."  It is a system that precariously balances monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy; to emphasize a single aspect of this blend of governments is to deny the very purpose of its creation.

The U.S. of A. is not a democracy, and people who claim it is are unaware of its glorious history. 

[daurousseau]

The people who don't want democracy try to obscure that stark choice that confronts every society: majority rule or minority rule? The two folks above do so by changing the subject to a third-person descriptive stance toward their own society. Nothing wrong with that if all you are doing in life is being a professor. After all, everyone has to make a living.

In real life, however, our history can be an encumbrance better sluffed off, just as hvernon's desire for more complexity is the elitists' verbal fog machine. No one would be suspicious of democracy unless they believed themselves to belong to a particular minority that does or should benefit from power skewing toward themselves.

[minnesotan]

So nice of you to put this dualistically, so we can all see who is right and who is wrong, who is good and who is evil, in our polite discussion.  Rather than allow you to put more words in my mouth, words you've carefully crafted to support your own argument, I will express my own opinion and deflate your presumptuous summations of arguments I have never made. 

I prefer the idea of compromise in politics.  I realize that this is an unpopular sentiment, prone to discourage the holier-than-thou rantings of dogmatists, but there it is.  Some people want to be led by the largest body possible (or not be led at all).  Other people want to be led by a select few educated elite who are accountable to the people.  Others still want a single ruler to watch over them.  Why is your personal choice somehow morally superior to anyone else's?  You seem to work under the assumption that you're right because this is how you feel.

You say no one would be suspicious about democracy unless they were members of the elite.  Well, I guess I exist to prove you mistaken.  I do not benefit a jot from oligarchy, but I understand that pure democracy is impossible to implement.  The closest we've come was in Athens, where the enfranchised population stood at about 25% of the whole.  Representative government, which I am assuming (I apologize) is your idea of how to overcome this problem of getting millions of people to the polls every day, is not democracy either.  It merely forms a democratically elected oligarchy to appease the masses, to make them think they have a voice.  How many of those rich fat cat senators really represent more than a small minority of their constituents, do you think?  Democrat, Republican -- they're all in it for the same reasons.  The political parties have been clever enough to cater to our love of issue bifurcation, and have adopted platforms appropriately.  Honestly, if you want a democracy, or even a semblance of democracy within the 33% of our republican system it has been allotted, you will first have to cut out the political parties.  In this effort, my friend, I am happy to support you.  If we must have representative government, at least allow us to vote on issues, not on parties.

[cat_on_track]

I live in New Mexico and most of the younger people here can't speak Spanish fluently.  Well, to be fair, they can't speak English fluently, either.  They tend to have a strange Spanglish-text messaging thing going so that no one understands them.

Being multilingual can be a good thing, but everyone doing a separate blending of multiple languages into one big hash doesn't lead to anything good.

I just moved to New Mexico last summer. Speak German (native), American English (fluently; will switch to British English when I hear it long enough or when I don't pay attention to the spell checker), and, unfortunately for my kittens, understand enough Greek to know when they're being mean. And now I can annoy pleasantly surprise folks in town by getting into Spanish conversations, too (still not back to past fluency, but working on it; mine is mostly European Spanish with some Catalan pronunciation and Costa Rican Spanish). Plus I can swear fluently, enthusiastically, and for a very long time without repeating myself, in four languages, plus the occasional French swearword just for the spice. The benefits of this are priceless.

[husqvarna]

The people who don't want democracy try to obscure that stark choice that confronts every society: majority rule or minority rule? The two folks above do so by changing the subject to a third-person descriptive stance toward their own society. Nothing wrong with that if all you are doing in life is being a professor. After all, everyone has to make a living.

In real life, however, our history can be an encumbrance better sluffed off, just as hvernon's desire for more complexity is the elitists' verbal fog machine. No one would be suspicious of democracy unless they believed themselves to belong to a particular minority that does or should benefit from power skewing toward themselves.

You seem to think you know a lot about me.  I prepared a reply saying where you were wrong, but I'm kind of a freak about my anonymity so I deleted it. 

I don't see how my response to you sounded like elite, academic obfuscation... all I said was that you oversimplify matters.  The only thing I changed "to a third-person descriptive stance" was your comment.  And really, WTF?!?!  Your parsing out the grammar we use to talk about society, ours or any other, strikes me as more of an "elitist verbal fog machine" than anything else that's been said here.  I mean, I understand your point, but mere use of the third-person when talking about society (which, I assume, you'd like us to use the first person plural for?) really isn't all that damning an offense in comparison to stuff that goes on in the "real world", now is it?

We know, we know... you like to play the revolutionary.  Well, keep playing- the forums are open.  But let's cut the broad-brush characterizations of the issue and sit down and talk about it.  That would be really revolutionary, really democratic.  Otherwise you're just toppling The Man and setting another one in his place.  That doesn't seem like much of a help to me.

... I'd also add that I just jumped in yesterday- haven't read the thread recently, and I know we're getting off-topic.  I do enjoy your posts, daurousseau.  I find the way you think a lot of fun to interact with.  So don't allow me to get you too worked up!

[oldadjunct]

So nice of you to put this dualistically, so we can all see who is right and who is wrong, who is good and who is evil, in our polite discussion.  Rather than allow you to put more words in my mouth, words you've carefully crafted to support your own argument, I will express my own opinion and deflate your presumptuous summations of arguments I have never made. 

I prefer the idea of compromise in politics.  I realize that this is an unpopular sentiment, prone to discourage the holier-than-thou rantings of dogmatists, but there it is.  Some people want to be led by the largest body possible (or not be led at all).  Other people want to be led by a select few educated elite who are accountable to the people.  Others still want a single ruler to watch over them.  Why is your personal choice somehow morally superior to anyone else's?  You seem to work under the assumption that you're right because this is how you feel.

You say no one would be suspicious about democracy unless they were members of the elite.  Well, I guess I exist to prove you mistaken.  I do not benefit a jot from oligarchy, but I understand that pure democracy is impossible to implement.  The closest we've come was in Athens, where the enfranchised population stood at about 25% of the whole.  Representative government, which I am assuming (I apologize) is your idea of how to overcome this problem of getting millions of people to the polls every day, is not democracy either.  It merely forms a democratically elected oligarchy to appease the masses, to make them think they have a voice.  How many of those rich fat cat senators really represent more than a small minority of their constituents, do you think?  Democrat, Republican -- they're all in it for the same reasons.  The political parties have been clever enough to cater to our love of issue bifurcation, and have adopted platforms appropriately.  Honestly, if you want a democracy, or even a semblance of democracy within the 33% of our republican system it has been allotted, you will first have to cut out the political parties.  In this effort, my friend, I am happy to support you.  If we must have representative government, at least allow us to vote on issues, not on parties.

Such a delightful invitation to compromise.  Who could refuse?

[minnesotan]

So nice of you to put this dualistically, so we can all see who is right and who is wrong, who is good and who is evil, in our polite discussion.  Rather than allow you to put more words in my mouth, words you've carefully crafted to support your own argument, I will express my own opinion and deflate your presumptuous summations of arguments I have never made. 

I prefer the idea of compromise in politics.  I realize that this is an unpopular sentiment, prone to discourage the holier-than-thou rantings of dogmatists, but there it is.  Some people want to be led by the largest body possible (or not be led at all).  Other people want to be led by a select few educated elite who are accountable to the people.  Others still want a single ruler to watch over them.  Why is your personal choice somehow morally superior to anyone else's?  You seem to work under the assumption that you're right because this is how you feel.

You say no one would be suspicious about democracy unless they were members of the elite.  Well, I guess I exist to prove you mistaken.  I do not benefit a jot from oligarchy, but I understand that pure democracy is impossible to implement.  The closest we've come was in Athens, where the enfranchised population stood at about 25% of the whole.  Representative government, which I am assuming (I apologize) is your idea of how to overcome this problem of getting millions of people to the polls every day, is not democracy either.  It merely forms a democratically elected oligarchy to appease the masses, to make them think they have a voice.  How many of those rich fat cat senators really represent more than a small minority of their constituents, do you think?  Democrat, Republican -- they're all in it for the same reasons.  The political parties have been clever enough to cater to our love of issue bifurcation, and have adopted platforms appropriately.  Honestly, if you want a democracy, or even a semblance of democracy within the 33% of our republican system it has been allotted, you will first have to cut out the political parties.  In this effort, my friend, I am happy to support you.  If we must have representative government, at least allow us to vote on issues, not on parties.

Such a delightful invitation to compromise.  Who could refuse?

So, to compromise one has to give up the right to defend oneself from people who put words into one's mouth?  I just don't see this as a realistic expectation.  Compromise does not mean one party gets to lash out while the other party grovels and begs for a middle way.  Both sides are expected to have strong feelings, otherwise why would compromise be necessary?

[oldadjunct]

I don't know.  Maybe I was too taken by your statement that you exist to prove another person is wrong.  Sort of distracted me from your invitations to debate and reason with someone in pursuit of a common ground.  Now that I take the time to re-read your post I see those invitations are.... well, they don't exist.

[minnesotan]

Oh, right.  That was a bit of wonky wording.  What I meant was that my mere existence disproves the theory that someone has to be x to believe y.  I believe y but am not x -- that's all I was saying.

[navelgazer]

Two thoughts.

* I am under the impression that bilingualism means to be fluent in two languages. So unless these languages are Spanish and Tagalog instead of Spanish and English, how does this diminish the common language? I assume the bilingualism is exactly NOT what the OP means. (

* Who are these Spanish speakers who refuse to learn English? Where are they? Where do they live? I've lived in several areas of the country with large Latino/a immigrant populations and never encountered this. I have encountered a mother of 5 (I was tutoring some of her children) who was illiterate in Spanish who spent a month refusing to speak to her children in Spanish as part of an attempt to learn English (through a state-sponsored program). In teenagers, I've encountered hostility to correct English, but it didn't feel different than hostility to algebra. (Several of these teenagers were brought here illegally as children and had younger siblings who were both citizens and much more fluent and comfortable in US culture than they were.)