No, this is not the key question. The entire point of democracy is to let the people choose their leaders and who they believe should have power. To accept unelected, unaccountable, and unofficial leaders as having power over that of the democratically elected branches is to welcome the death of democracy in America. The American people chose their leader, and now, for better or for worse, he has to be allowed to actually lead. To allow any other outcome is a complete subversion of the entire democratic process.
That is NOT the point of our democracy. The people have power every two years where congress and 1/3 of the states are concerned; and distant power every four years as they vote for electors to the electoral college. The people have little power where Congress is concerned, less where the President is concerned, and none where the Judiciary is at issue. The Federal Reserve, FTC, FBI, etc. are likewise far removed from the will of the people. Its almost as if the framers had very little faith in the people to govern themselves.
>That is NOT the point of our democracy. The people have power every two years where congress and 1/3 of the states are concerned; and distant power every four years as they vote for electors to the electoral college.
You don't think that during a congressman or president's term, they need to at least appear to have acted in the best interests of their constituents, or risk losing their next election? Doesn't this give the people some amount of power over the people they elect during their term?
>The people have little power where Congress is concerned, less where the President is concerned, and none where the Judiciary is at issue.
Presidential candidates often include supreme court appointments in their campaign promises, and it's implicit that they'll fill other judiciary appointments with ones that align with their values. You don't think this is an example of elected officials being beholden to their constituents? If a president appointed to the supreme court a judge that didn't align with the values of his constituents, wouldn't it reflect poorly on him and his party?
>The Federal Reserve, FTC, FBI, etc. are likewise far removed from the will of the people. Its almost as if the framers had very little faith in the people to govern themselves.
Right, well, how is having less transparency and accountability going to give more power to the public? Doesn't that just exacerbate the problem?
I don't see how that refutes my point. Most people will agree that we have a democratic process for a reason. The existence of institutions outside of the democratic process that have power over our democratically elected institutions undermines this. This has nothing to do with word semantics about what "democracy" means, or how that word applies to America.
It really depends on what leverage people outside the democratic process have on folks inside the process. If I can coerce government into actions the benefit me, actions destructive to the general welfare, then democratic process is deeply broken.
