Why We Need Less Democracy... Peter Orszag, Obamas Past OMB Director

[megimoo]

In an 1814 letter to John Taylor, John Adams wrote that “there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” That may read today like an overstatement, but it is certainly true that our democracy finds itself facing a deep challenge: During my recent stint in the Obama administration as director of the Office of Management and Budget, it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing. If you need confirmation of this, look no further than the recent debt-limit debacle, which clearly showed that we are becoming two nations governed by a single Congress—and that paralyzing gridlock is the result.

So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.
snip
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democracy?page=0,0&passthru=MGU3YjMxNDdlN2UyMjM2MTNhZGZjNDE2MjE2NjE2Nj
COMMENTS:
The Second Liberal In a Row Calling For Less American Freedom ...

[CG6468]

In an 1814 letter to John Taylor, John Adams wrote that “there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

The United states is not a democracy. It is a republic. There are differences, which John Adams may have ignored.

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

(snip)

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

(snip)

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

Differences

[DumbAss Tanker]

It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic.

Nonetheless, drawing that distinction is NOT the purpose most people have in using the word, which nine times out of ten is as a less cumbersome way of saying "Democratic form of government, specifically a republic."  The writer is correct that the common usage is counterproductive in talking about the narrow topic of the distinction between a popular democracy and a republic, however very few people talk about that topic except to bitch at other people's choice of words. 

This is a pet rock of right-wing discussion boards, and about as pointlessly technical as the people who go apeshit on gun boards when some relatively-unsophisticated poster says "Clip" instead of "Magazine."

Since aside from the limited electorate in ancient Athens, there is virtually no historical example of a national popular democracy which even could have, as Adams put it, 'committed suicide,' it's rather obvious he was using it in the broader sense himself, and not in regard to the very narrow and rare issue of distinguishing a popular democracy from a republic.     

[DLR Pyro]

The DUmocrats just hate it when annoying little things like the will of the people they supposedly represent get in the way of their own agenda.