[dropit_sphere]

It feels insanely presumptuous to hear this stuff.

Democracy? Since when are we a democracy? Oh, because it's a popular term used in media and vernacular? So are Fruit Loops, who cares?

Let me try an alternate framing: democracy is a brand, a feel-good term for political rhetoric. This is what democracy looks like: https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-...

What is actually (though unpopularly) valuable in our society is not democracy, but the Bill of Rights, high trust, and rule of law. Democracy gets the applause, but they do the heavy lifting.

By all means, cover elections, blow the whistle on crap. But if you're scratching your head wondering why the media's popularity is at an all-time low, maybe it's because there's this onanistic self-regard that places the media above the citizen.

Tucker Carlson just broke the record for most-watched month of any cable news show ever. If that offends you as a journalist, it's probably time for some introspection.

[throwawaygh]

Election of representatives via an accurate count of cast ballots is the Law of the land. Undermining that would erode both the rule of law and societal trust. And without those two things, your bill of rights is just a scrap of paper and your court is just a set of 9 frail people with no army to back them.

Small-d democracy -- the orderly selection of representatives via a vote of the enfranchised citizens -- is absolutely the bedrock of the American political system and its best bulwark against political violence.

Tbh I thought the article's autocratic fear-mongering was overblown bullshit, but the top comment on this story lauds a pro-Trump commentary show and insists that ending democracy isn't really such a big deal after all. So, here we are, I guess.

[whatever1]

"What is actually (though unpopularly) valuable in our society is not democracy, but the Bill of Rights, high trust, and rule of law"

All of these mean nothing if the people in charge are not held accountable for their actions/policies. And people who stay in power for long periods of time, tend to not be huge fans of accountability when it comes to their practices.

[Fjolsvith]

47 years is pretty long.

[tehjoker]

Those things you mentioned are pieces of paper and phantasms. Only an engaged populace can hold elites in check. Why would they do anything except what benefits them otherwise?

[postpawl]

How is “the Bill of Rights, high trust, and rule of law” doing any lifting? You have to vote for people to implement those things.

Ideally you’d have a well educated populace and a functional media to make sure the best people get elected though... Is there a better system for making politicians accountable to citizens?

[tathougies]

> You have to vote for people to implement those things.

Not really. We didn't vote for Amy Coney Barrett, or anyone else on the supreme court, but ultimately, they -- and the myriad other judges -- are the ones who protect the populace, via rule of law, from a government of any political party interfering in the fundamental rights -- as outlined in the Constitution -- over which the government has no authority to legislate over.

EDIT: That is to say, I am not someone who feels super-well-represented by any political party or candidate. Despite the fact that I prefer Trump over Biden, I don't like everything about the man, by any means. But honestly, whether he wins or not, I don't really care, because I trust our Constitution via the judiciary (and legislation, when necessary) to guarantee to me what I care most about... the freedom to practice my religion and to speak what I think.

[throwawaygh]

The Supreme Court and what army/purse? Brown v Board wouldn't have had teeth if Wallace was the president, for example.

[harimau777]

I'm not sure I understand what changes you are advocating. Can you explain?

It seems to me that people like Tucker Carlson are precisely those who are a threat to rights and trust.

[pelliphant]

? Sure, america isn't very democratic compared to other democracies, but what are you actually saying?

That since the american democracy is already weak, it should be abandoned?

Sure, more people watch some crazy person on fox rather than actual news, but is that a reason to stop with news altogether?

The TLDR of this would be: this is a call to action for people who value democracy to stand up for it. If you dislike democracy, then this is obviously not for you...