Is democracy actually alive in the USA?

Is there actually any hope left for this country?
They all spent years preaching about how awful communism was, promising us democracy if we just switched gears... and now that we've got it, what's the point?
Does a place like this honestly need a dictatorship just to function?
I’m dropping this here because I’m looking for some actual substance—I want to hear from the philosophers, the thinkers, the people who don't just loop back to the same tired excuses of "it's not our fault" every single time.
I just want to find the most objective take possible on all this.

Sure, some kind of democracy exists here in America. But for us, this whole way of running a country is still relatively new territory, and it’ll probably take a century or so before we actually get the hang of it. Take the concept of a modern rule of law—most people can give you the textbook definition, but I don't think they truly grasp the essence of it, or maybe they just don't want to. At the end of the day, we're still operating with socialist mindsets that are slowly trying to learn how to act democratically. It might be easier for the younger generations, and even easier for their kids, but just because there's hope doesn't mean everything is going to turn out fine in the end.

Richard Thompson2 said:Is there actually any hope left for this country?
They all spent years preaching about how awful communism was, promising us democracy if we just switched gears... and now that we've got it, what's the point?
Does a place like this honestly need a dictatorship just to function?
I’m dropping this here because I’m looking for some actual substance—I want to hear from the philosophers, the thinkers, the people who don't just loop back to the same tired excuses of "it's not our fault" every single time.
I just want to find the most objective take possible on all this.

ha... you know what they say... hope dies last, so I guess there's still a glimmer for this country somewhere...🤷
but honestly, looking at how much of a sham our "democracy" really is... you can see the problem itself...
If you want an objective take on politics, stick to the textbooks. Once you read what those authors actually say democracy is supposed to look like, try comparing that to the mess we're living in right now...☕

It exists—sadly...

I think there’s a thread over on the politics subforum discussing whether people should actually pass an intelligence test before they’re allowed to vote. If you sit back and really think about that concept—and then consider who actually holds the right to vote here in America—you’ll realize exactly why I said "sadly" lol

If we’re talking about the philosophy sub, I feel like the questions should be framed a bit differently.

Like, take a question like "is there hope for our country?" That kind of assumes we actually know what "our country" is supposed to be hoping for. But is that even clear? I mean, wouldn't it be better to ask, "what can our country actually hope for?" Or maybe, "what kind of future would be good for us, and which ones should we avoid?" Or even, "how can 'we' decide on a direction if nobody can agree on what the best outcome actually looks like?" Something like that.

Or, instead of asking "is democracy alive in America," why not start with things like "what even is democracy?" or "does democracy exist anywhere at all?" or "is it even a good thing for democracy to exist somewhere?" or "should it be everywhere?" or "is it actually a good thing for it to exist here in the States?"... Because the way people usually ask it, they're just assuming it's obvious that democracy exists elsewhere, that we all know what it is, and that the whole point is just whether we have it or if it's better than some dictatorship or communism. Honestly, those assumptions are pretty questionable. 🤷

Frank Chase6 said:It exists—sadly...

I think there’s a thread over on the politics subforum discussing whether people should actually pass an intelligence test before they’re allowed to vote. If you sit back and really think about that concept—and then consider who actually holds the right to vote here in America—you’ll realize exactly why I said "sadly" lol

🙏 🙏 🙏 but I totally agree...👍

Frank Chase6 said:It exists—sadly...

I think there’s a thread over on the politics subforum discussing whether people should actually pass an intelligence test before they’re allowed to vote. If you sit back and really think about that concept—and then consider who actually holds the right to vote here in America—you’ll realize exactly why I said "sadly" lol

I don't think that's really specific to just "🤷us.
"
A similar topic popped up over on the philosophy board too, and the poll results were pretty wild.

Frank Chase6 said:It exists—sadly...

I think there’s a thread over on the politics subforum discussing whether people should actually pass an intelligence test before they’re allowed to vote. If you sit back and really think about that concept—and then consider who actually holds the right to vote here in America—you’ll realize exactly why I said "sadly" lol

...but how many people would actually end up voting under those rules? You’d basically be killing off the whole democratic ideal right at the starting line.

driftingangler6 said:...but how many people would actually end up voting under those rules? You’d basically be killing off the whole democratic ideal right at the starting line.

and who’s to say democracy was handed down by God or anything?
(look, don't get me wrong, I'm not some anti-democracy nutjob, but maybe some other setup would actually work better for everyone involved)

honestly, even Churchill said democracy is flawed, but it's the best thing we've got right now, so we might as well stick with it.... he and I are on the same page there...☕

driftingangler6 said:...but how many people would actually end up voting under those rules? You’d basically be killing off the whole democratic ideal right at the starting line.

When you really sit down and think about it... if I've pointed out a fundamental flaw that could cause democracy to fail, then logically speaking, the way we have it set up right now isn't exactly the perfect solution either. (just my two cents responding to my older sister's post)

stormystag16 said:and who’s to say democracy was handed down by God or anything?
(look, don't get me wrong, I'm not some anti-democracy nutjob, but maybe some other setup would actually work better for everyone involved)

honestly, even Churchill said democracy is flawed, but it's the best thing we've got right now, so we might as well stick with it.... he and I are on the same page there...☕

Exactly. I'm talking about a system where your "vote" carries weight proportional to your actual IQ—you know, meritocracy meets logic—and where "democratic decisions" stay local. Instead of one massive, sweeping set of mandates dictated from D.C. that applies to the whole country, decisions would only affect the specific community that actually made them.

Beyond that, we need a political structure driven by genuine enthusiasm rather than raw ambition. In my experience, ambition tends to move in inverse proportion to actual ability—it’s almost a rule. Ambition itself usually stems from some kind of inferiority complex, which, let's face it, has a devastatingly corrosive effect on anyone caught in its orbit.

actually, even Churchill said democracy is imperfect, but it's the best we've got right now, so we should stick with it... he and I see eye to eye on this...☕

Actually, Churchill's point was:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

...which is a pretty significant departure from how you're interpreting it 🙄

At its core, democracy is just a system where every four years you get to pick which group of politicians is going to fleece you, and where you have the right to an opinion even if you haven't put a single thought into it.

Edward Flores4 said:Exactly. I'm talking about a system where your "vote" carries weight proportional to your actual IQ—you know, meritocracy meets logic—and where "democratic decisions" stay local. Instead of one massive, sweeping set of mandates dictated from D.C. that applies to the whole country, decisions would only affect the specific community that actually made them.

Beyond that, we need a political structure driven by genuine enthusiasm rather than raw ambition. In my experience, ambition tends to move in inverse proportion to actual ability—it’s almost a rule. Ambition itself usually stems from some kind of inferiority complex, which, let's face it, has a devastatingly corrosive effect on anyone caught in its orbit.

actually, even Churchill said democracy is imperfect, but it's the best we've got right now, so we should stick with it... he and I see eye to eye on this...☕

Actually, Churchill's point was:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

...which is a pretty significant departure from how you're interpreting it 🙄

At its core, democracy is just a system where every four years you get to pick which group of politicians is going to fleece you, and where you have the right to an opinion even if you haven't put a single thought into it.

honestly, I feel like an aristocracy would be a much better call, but then again, the whole idea of being ruled by the "best and brightest" seems pretty impossible to pull off in reality☕

stormystag16 said:honestly, I feel like an aristocracy would be a much better call, but then again, the whole idea of being ruled by the "best and brightest" seems pretty impossible to pull off in reality☕

Look, the issue isn't about "discovering" a superior way of doing things—we actually figured out exactly what a better system would look like pretty quickly and without much trouble. It’s always been clear. The real bottleneck, the actual hurdle we keep hitting, is simply whether there's any genuine will to actually step up and put that system into motion.

I honestly think there’s some truth to what Henry Ford was getting at when he said that every nation gets the kind of government it deserves. It’s a heavy thought, I know—and maybe a little blunt—but if you look at how things play out in America, it really makes you stop and think. It’s like when you see a neighborhood where nobody bothers to maintain their yard; eventually, the whole street starts to look a bit rough, right? A government isn't just this abstract thing floating above us—it’s essentially a reflection of the collective mindset, the habits, and even the apathy of the people living under it. If a society stops valuing accountability or loses its sense of civic duty, you can't really act surprised when the leadership reflects that exact same lack of integrity. It’s all connected. ☕

Edward Flores4 said:Look, the issue isn't about "discovering" a superior way of doing things—we actually figured out exactly what a better system would look like pretty quickly and without much trouble. It’s always been clear. The real bottleneck, the actual hurdle we keep hitting, is simply whether there's any genuine will to actually step up and put that system into motion.

I honestly think there’s some truth to what Henry Ford was getting at when he said that every nation gets the kind of government it deserves. It’s a heavy thought, I know—and maybe a little blunt—but if you look at how things play out in America, it really makes you stop and think. It’s like when you see a neighborhood where nobody bothers to maintain their yard; eventually, the whole street starts to look a bit rough, right? A government isn't just this abstract thing floating above us—it’s essentially a reflection of the collective mindset, the habits, and even the apathy of the people living under it. If a society stops valuing accountability or loses its sense of civic duty, you can't really act surprised when the leadership reflects that exact same lack of integrity. It’s all connected. ☕

yeah, I'm with you there...😉

but, we haven't actually nailed down what the best system is... we've just pointed out which ones suck and which ones are totally impossible...🤷

stormystag16 said:yeah, I'm with you there...😉

but, we haven't actually nailed down what the best system is... we've just pointed out which ones suck and which ones are totally impossible...🤷

Unfeasible???

How can you label a system as impossible when we haven't even attempted to put it into practice yet? You can't really call something "impossible" until you've actually given it a shot and seen how it holds up.

A system like that is absolutely possible—and frankly, it’s probably inevitable—because none of the other models are going to keep our civilization hanging on this planet indefinitely. Systems built entirely on cutthroat competition and raw ego are basically on a slow march toward collapse. That decay might drag on for decades, centuries, or even millennia, but in the long run, any lasting system has to be rooted in actual capability—otherwise, it simply won't exist at all.

It reminds me of that old saying an Indigenous leader once told the Mayor of Sydney:
"Once you've eaten the last sheep from the pasture and the last fish from the sea, you'll realize you can't eat your money."

Just because people are terrified of disrupting the status quo doesn't mean a "rule by the capable" is impossible; it just means people don't *want* it. To them, the current setup is "best" simply because they aren't ready to let go. But calling something "the best" is pure subjectivity—it’s a loaded term. "Best" doesn't necessarily mean sustainable, fair, functional, or even viable in the long haul. Right now, the current system is labeled "best" only because everyone gets a vote, which feeds that individual sense of being "important," even if it comes at the expense of competence, efficiency, ethics, and actual long-term survival.

In other words... the question doesn't really land. It's a bit like asking which animal is the "best," or which internal organ is the most important. Either everything functions perfectly, or the moment one part fails, the whole process of dying begins. If your heart "breaks," you die pretty quickly; if it's a kidney, you might manage to limp along for a while. But looking at the big picture, the universe only sustains systems based on mutual, reciprocal responsibility among all their parts. Anything else is just caught in some stage of its own extinction.

Edward Flores4 said:Unfeasible???

How can you label a system as impossible when we haven't even attempted to put it into practice yet? You can't really call something "impossible" until you've actually given it a shot and seen how it holds up.

A system like that is absolutely possible—and frankly, it’s probably inevitable—because none of the other models are going to keep our civilization hanging on this planet indefinitely. Systems built entirely on cutthroat competition and raw ego are basically on a slow march toward collapse. That decay might drag on for decades, centuries, or even millennia, but in the long run, any lasting system has to be rooted in actual capability—otherwise, it simply won't exist at all.

It reminds me of that old saying an Indigenous leader once told the Mayor of Sydney:
"Once you've eaten the last sheep from the pasture and the last fish from the sea, you'll realize you can't eat your money."

Just because people are terrified of disrupting the status quo doesn't mean a "rule by the capable" is impossible; it just means people don't *want* it. To them, the current setup is "best" simply because they aren't ready to let go. But calling something "the best" is pure subjectivity—it’s a loaded term. "Best" doesn't necessarily mean sustainable, fair, functional, or even viable in the long haul. Right now, the current system is labeled "best" only because everyone gets a vote, which feeds that individual sense of being "important," even if it comes at the expense of competence, efficiency, ethics, and actual long-term survival.

In other words... the question doesn't really land. It's a bit like asking which animal is the "best," or which internal organ is the most important. Either everything functions perfectly, or the moment one part fails, the whole process of dying begins. If your heart "breaks," you die pretty quickly; if it's a kidney, you might manage to limp along for a while. But looking at the big picture, the universe only sustains systems based on mutual, reciprocal responsibility among all their parts. Anything else is just caught in some stage of its own extinction.

am I sensing a little too much idealism in your post?🤷

Edward Flores4 said:Look, the issue isn't about "discovering" a superior way of doing things—we actually figured out exactly what a better system would look like pretty quickly and without much trouble. It’s always been clear. The real bottleneck, the actual hurdle we keep hitting, is simply whether there's any genuine will to actually step up and put that system into motion.

I honestly think there’s some truth to what Henry Ford was getting at when he said that every nation gets the kind of government it deserves. It’s a heavy thought, I know—and maybe a little blunt—but if you look at how things play out in America, it really makes you stop and think. It’s like when you see a neighborhood where nobody bothers to maintain their yard; eventually, the whole street starts to look a bit rough, right? A government isn't just this abstract thing floating above us—it’s essentially a reflection of the collective mindset, the habits, and even the apathy of the people living under it. If a society stops valuing accountability or loses its sense of civic duty, you can't really act surprised when the leadership reflects that exact same lack of integrity. It’s all connected. ☕

In its pure theoretical form, Democracy isn't a bad setup; it just leaves room for debate on how to actually run it. I’m with Ford on this one—government is usually just a mirror held up to the people, it doesn't just drop down from Mars. If 85% of the population quietly tolerates corruption because they love to judge it but refuse to live by any actual morals themselves, then you’re going to see plenty of corrupt officials in office. It’s just basic math. Naturally, the whole country ends up in the gutter because there simply isn't enough critical mass to sustain any sense of justice or true democracy on a national scale.

Gary James88 said:In its pure theoretical form, Democracy isn't a bad setup; it just leaves room for debate on how to actually run it. I’m with Ford on this one—government is usually just a mirror held up to the people, it doesn't just drop down from Mars. If 85% of the population quietly tolerates corruption because they love to judge it but refuse to live by any actual morals themselves, then you’re going to see plenty of corrupt officials in office. It’s just basic math. Naturally, the whole country ends up in the gutter because there simply isn't enough critical mass to sustain any sense of justice or true democracy on a national scale.

I don't know, I think you can look at this from a few different angles... honestly, I think there's plenty of critical mass, and we're seeing more and more rebellions popping up, which is actually what happens when you have real freedom of speech. The tricky part is how you view democracy through that lens, though. Like, is a system truly "democratic" if people feel forced to hit the streets and start throwing bricks just to make their voices heard? And usually, they don't even get much traction in the end, which is frustrating.
Then there's the other side of the coin—how our democratic system, especially when it shakes hands with hardcore neo-capitalism, has basically conditioned everyone to just mind their own business and look out for number one, totally ignoring everyone else. If we're talking about raising the collective fitness level of the human race, democracy hasn't exactly been winning any gold medals so far.

It looks like someone finally stepped up as a better moderator, 🙂 and they actually caught what needed fixing right when it mattered:

James Lee77 said:If we’re talking about the philosophy sub, I feel like the questions should be framed a bit differently.

Like, take a question like "is there hope for our country?" That kind of assumes we actually know what "our country" is supposed to be hoping for. But is that even clear? I mean, wouldn't it be better to ask, "what can our country actually hope for?" Or maybe, "what kind of future would be good for us, and which ones should we avoid?" Or even, "how can 'we' decide on a direction if nobody can agree on what the best outcome actually looks like?" Something like that.

Or, instead of asking "is democracy alive in America," why not start with things like "what even is democracy?" or "does democracy exist anywhere at all?" or "is it even a good thing for democracy to exist somewhere?" or "should it be everywhere?" or "is it actually a good thing for it to exist here in the States?"... Because the way people usually ask it, they're just assuming it's obvious that democracy exists elsewhere, that we all know what it is, and that the whole point is just whether we have it or if it's better than some dictatorship or communism. Honestly, those assumptions are pretty questionable. 🤷

I totally agree, though I did let the thread play out for a bit to see where it went, even if the original post was a little lacking—but you’ve basically fixed it by adding the very questions that should have been there from the jump. I mean, what is democracy, anyway? And how can we even begin to answer if there is any democracy left in America without knowing that first?

I’ve come across plenty of definitions for democracy, but I really love the idea that for any given people in any era, democracy is a unique and specific challenge. Since it's the people who choose their government, it stands to reason that this task includes taking responsibility for choosing a government that reflects the will of the majority.
Now, determining whether a country is truly democratic isn't just about looking at its formal system based on free expression; it's about whether the actual democratic values exist and how much they are respected within a system that is only democratic on paper.
If the whole point of any democratic constitution is to ensure the dignity of every individual, then perhaps it’s easier to look through that lens to judge how much democracy—in terms of its core values—actually exists in a country with a democratic structure.
We could also look at it through this definition of a democratic community:

A democratic community can be defined as one that, by recognizing human dignity as the primary and ultimate value of the individual, aims to ensure all citizens an equal freedom to develop their personalities and responsibly manage their own lives, while creating the social conditions that make that possible.

So, is there any hope?

Edward Flores4 said:Exactly. I'm talking about a system where your "vote" carries weight proportional to your actual IQ—you know, meritocracy meets logic—and where "democratic decisions" stay local. Instead of one massive, sweeping set of mandates dictated from D.C. that applies to the whole country, decisions would only affect the specific community that actually made them.

Beyond that, we need a political structure driven by genuine enthusiasm rather than raw ambition. In my experience, ambition tends to move in inverse proportion to actual ability—it’s almost a rule. Ambition itself usually stems from some kind of inferiority complex, which, let's face it, has a devastatingly corrosive effect on anyone caught in its orbit.

actually, even Churchill said democracy is imperfect, but it's the best we've got right now, so we should stick with it... he and I see eye to eye on this...☕

Actually, Churchill's point was:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

...which is a pretty significant departure from how you're interpreting it 🙄

At its core, democracy is just a system where every four years you get to pick which group of politicians is going to fleece you, and where you have the right to an opinion even if you haven't put a single thought into it.

Alright, it's your turn to weigh in! 🙂 I was thinking about exactly what you mentioned regarding enthusiasm—though, if I'm being honest, I don't think enthusiasm has to be completely stripped of ambition, provided those ambitions are actually aimed at the greater good. What's your take on that?