There's plenty of historical precedent
where the US democracy worked. E.g.,
we passed prohibition -- 2/3rds of
the House, 2/3rds of the Senate, and
3/4ths of the states. When we saw
how dumb it was, we repealed it.
Recently SOPA and PIPA were close to
passing. A lot of people in the
tech community raised hell, and
the bills went down in flames.
Sure, the Constitution doesn't
solve all the problems. Instead,
as Jefferson said,
"The price of liberty is eternal
vigilance."
So, to make the Constitution work,
citizens have to keep pushing.
You mentioned threats, and there
are threats, but they can be defeated.
Once public opinion polls rise
significantly over 50%, politicians
start to pay close attention.
The main issue, then, is just what
the voters want. Sure, the MSM,
political ad campaigns, lying
politicians, etc. can have
big effects, but in the end
the voters know a lot about
lying, duplicity, manipulation,
etc. I believe that the Internet
will be helping -- it seems to
have helped a lot with SOPA and
PIPA and to have gotten the
Snowden efforts front and center.
No doubt some cases are on the
way to the Supreme Court --
from Google, EFF, ACLU, etc.
I doubt that the Patriot Act
will come out whole.
Indeed, I believe that YouTube
is helping a lot: Once a politician
gives a speech, then due to YouTube
the politician can't assume that
the voters will easily forget.
And for text data on politics, the
Google/Bing keywork/phrase search
engines are terrific.
Look at the US efforts in Viet Nam:
Before WWII, Viet Nam was a
colony of France. Ho Chi Minh
was a dishwasher in Paris!
During WWII, Japan made Viet Nam
a colony. The US worked with
the Viet Namese 'nationalists',
e.g., to rescue downed US
pilots.
After WWII, the French got
one of the peace conferences to
let them back into Viet Nam,
and war broke out.
Then the US had just fought against
the Axis of Germany, Italy, and
Japan, and it looked like there
was another axis on the way with
Moscow, Peking, and Hanoi.
So, the US helped France in
Viet Nam. The French lost.
By then the US had been fighting
in Korea: The North was backed
by Moscow and Peking and wanted
the whole country. The US and
parts of the UN wanted to
'block' that effort. So,
there was the war in Korea,
really, still simmering.
So, when the French lost in
Viet Nam, the US wanted
to divide the country
and have the southern half
allied with the US.
Alas, whatever the Ho government
was, it was able to maintain
power. And the US couldn't
find a government to back
in Saigon that could maintain
power -- a Saigon politician
did not dare sleep in a
small village in the South.
So, the US kept backing
governments in Saigon
that kept losing.
In the US, the foreign policy
'wise men', Keenan, Dulles,
Rusk, Bundy, etc. kept screaming
that the US had to stop Hanoi
or "dominoes" would fall all
across the Pacific and land
in California or some such.
LBJ and Nixon really bought
into this stuff, big time.
So the US bent itself all out of
shape, inflated its economy,
lost the lives of 50,000+
US soldiers, etc. trying to
prop up loser governments in
Saigon.
Why? Because no US politician
wanted to see Hanoi take Saigon
and, then, suffer the charges
that they "lost Viet Nam" and
were "soft on the atheistic, international
Communist conspiracy about to
take over the world and
march into Washington, DC".
That sales pitch worked really
well in the US from the end of
WWII until the US finally
was run out of Viet Nam with
people hanging off the
parts of US helicopters
whenever it was in the 1970s.
In all of this, it was really sad
that Ho worked so hard to
go to Moscow and Peking and, there,
poke the US.
Actually, in the end, Hanoi
and the US really had no serious
differences at all. Indeed,
now the US couldn't be happier
with Hanoi. The US could have
been happy with Ho and Hanoi
at any time from WWII until
the US totally lost.
But for your point about US
democracy, what finally got the
US out of Viet Nam was
the US voters, e.g.,
many thousands of them
marching on DC. Finally they
made such a big noise that
even President Ford gave only
half-hearted support for staying
in Saigon, and we left.
The US voters long bought into
that Rusk, etc. "domino"
theory. Eventually nearly
every young person knew
someone in their high school
days who had died in Viet Nam.
The predictions of the hawks
never came true. It was clear
that somehow the US just did not
know how to build a government
in Saigon.
It took US voters a very long
time, decades, to see these points.
But, eventually the voters saw,
and then the US was out'a there.
The bottleneck was the US voters
voting for LBJ and Nixon
instead of, say, McGovern.
I voted for McGovern;
he wanted out as in 'leave
now' which is eventually just
what we did and what brought us to
the present which is just fine.
But McGovern lost, badly.
There were lots of people saying
that we should get the heck out
of Viet Nam. One book went
"Are not winning, cannot win,
should not wish to win". My
view is that we burned enough
oil, say, in B-52s from Guam,
to enable OPEC.
We blew it.
Then, Afghanistan -- same song,
second verse. There, still,
no US politician wants to say,
"Leave. Now.". Me? I'd
have bombed enough of Akrapistan
to teach them a lesson and then
left, without ever setting a
foot on the ground.
>There's plenty of historical precedent where the US democracy worked.
And at least as many where it didn't.
>Recently SOPA and PIPA were close to passing. A lot of people in the tech community raised hell, and the bills went down in flames.
Haha, no. A lot of big companies put their lobby dollars behind a position and that position got adopted. No one in the US government cares about a bunch of blog posts, email or online surveys.
> etc. can have big effects, but in the end the voters know a lot about lying, duplicity, manipulation, etc. I believe that the Internet will be helping
No they don't! And even if they did, I'm not sure they can stop it (in the same way that knowing you're taking a placebo won't alter its effectiveness). It's getting more and more documented about just how effective marketing can be.
Some have gone so far as to ban certain kinds of advertising [1].
>it seems to have helped a lot with SOPA and PIPA and to have gotten the Snowden efforts front and center.
What? Outside of sites like HN, pretty much no one cares about Snowden. The mainstream press was already over him the next day.
>Once a politician gives a speech, then due to YouTube the politician can't assume that the voters will easily forget.
Except they do forget, and sites like political compass help them forget by trying to look official but producing padded stats. You can probably find every one of Obama's speeches on youtube yet there are still people who claim he hasn't broken any big promises.
> historical precedent.
There's plenty of historical precedent where the US democracy worked. E.g., we passed prohibition -- 2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate, and 3/4ths of the states. When we saw how dumb it was, we repealed it.
Recently SOPA and PIPA were close to passing. A lot of people in the tech community raised hell, and the bills went down in flames.
Sure, the Constitution doesn't solve all the problems. Instead, as Jefferson said,
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
So, to make the Constitution work, citizens have to keep pushing. You mentioned threats, and there are threats, but they can be defeated.
Once public opinion polls rise significantly over 50%, politicians start to pay close attention.
The main issue, then, is just what the voters want. Sure, the MSM, political ad campaigns, lying politicians, etc. can have big effects, but in the end the voters know a lot about lying, duplicity, manipulation, etc. I believe that the Internet will be helping -- it seems to have helped a lot with SOPA and PIPA and to have gotten the Snowden efforts front and center. No doubt some cases are on the way to the Supreme Court -- from Google, EFF, ACLU, etc. I doubt that the Patriot Act will come out whole.
Indeed, I believe that YouTube is helping a lot: Once a politician gives a speech, then due to YouTube the politician can't assume that the voters will easily forget. And for text data on politics, the Google/Bing keywork/phrase search engines are terrific.
Look at the US efforts in Viet Nam: Before WWII, Viet Nam was a colony of France. Ho Chi Minh was a dishwasher in Paris!
During WWII, Japan made Viet Nam a colony. The US worked with the Viet Namese 'nationalists', e.g., to rescue downed US pilots.
After WWII, the French got one of the peace conferences to let them back into Viet Nam, and war broke out.
Then the US had just fought against the Axis of Germany, Italy, and Japan, and it looked like there was another axis on the way with Moscow, Peking, and Hanoi. So, the US helped France in Viet Nam. The French lost.
By then the US had been fighting in Korea: The North was backed by Moscow and Peking and wanted the whole country. The US and parts of the UN wanted to 'block' that effort. So, there was the war in Korea, really, still simmering.
So, when the French lost in Viet Nam, the US wanted to divide the country and have the southern half allied with the US.
Alas, whatever the Ho government was, it was able to maintain power. And the US couldn't find a government to back in Saigon that could maintain power -- a Saigon politician did not dare sleep in a small village in the South.
So, the US kept backing governments in Saigon that kept losing.
In the US, the foreign policy 'wise men', Keenan, Dulles, Rusk, Bundy, etc. kept screaming that the US had to stop Hanoi or "dominoes" would fall all across the Pacific and land in California or some such. LBJ and Nixon really bought into this stuff, big time.
So the US bent itself all out of shape, inflated its economy, lost the lives of 50,000+ US soldiers, etc. trying to prop up loser governments in Saigon.
Why? Because no US politician wanted to see Hanoi take Saigon and, then, suffer the charges that they "lost Viet Nam" and were "soft on the atheistic, international Communist conspiracy about to take over the world and march into Washington, DC". That sales pitch worked really well in the US from the end of WWII until the US finally was run out of Viet Nam with people hanging off the parts of US helicopters whenever it was in the 1970s.
In all of this, it was really sad that Ho worked so hard to go to Moscow and Peking and, there, poke the US.
Actually, in the end, Hanoi and the US really had no serious differences at all. Indeed, now the US couldn't be happier with Hanoi. The US could have been happy with Ho and Hanoi at any time from WWII until the US totally lost.
But for your point about US democracy, what finally got the US out of Viet Nam was the US voters, e.g., many thousands of them marching on DC. Finally they made such a big noise that even President Ford gave only half-hearted support for staying in Saigon, and we left.
The US voters long bought into that Rusk, etc. "domino" theory. Eventually nearly every young person knew someone in their high school days who had died in Viet Nam. The predictions of the hawks never came true. It was clear that somehow the US just did not know how to build a government in Saigon.
It took US voters a very long time, decades, to see these points. But, eventually the voters saw, and then the US was out'a there.
The bottleneck was the US voters voting for LBJ and Nixon instead of, say, McGovern. I voted for McGovern; he wanted out as in 'leave now' which is eventually just what we did and what brought us to the present which is just fine. But McGovern lost, badly.
There were lots of people saying that we should get the heck out of Viet Nam. One book went "Are not winning, cannot win, should not wish to win". My view is that we burned enough oil, say, in B-52s from Guam, to enable OPEC.
We blew it.
Then, Afghanistan -- same song, second verse. There, still, no US politician wants to say, "Leave. Now.". Me? I'd have bombed enough of Akrapistan to teach them a lesson and then left, without ever setting a foot on the ground.
The US needs to wise up.