> But it is precisely for these reasons that the working class is unlikely to be decisive in shaping politics for the foreseeable future. ...
This seems like an odd statement given that the American system of government was designed from its inception to insulate the ruling elites from the masses. The founders were terrified of mob rule. The term "democracy" was used at the time to mean something not far away from "mob rule."
The people don't directly elect the president, the Electoral College does that. The people don't vote on any pending legislation. The House and Senate do that. The people don't set foreign policy - the executive and legislative branches do that. The people don't strike down any legislation - the courts do that, members of which at the top level are appointed for life. The full legislature is never up for re-election specifically to prevent a popular uprising.
One wonders what the article has in mind here. The answer comes shortly:
> ... In countries like France, the working class might still be able to veto certain policies through public demonstrations, but such actions seem unlikely in the United States, and even the most heroic efforts of this kind show little prospect of achieving systemic reforms.
Even in France, that's an extra-governmental action. There's no mechanism to include popular dissent except for routinely scheduled elections in either France or the US.
What's more troubling though is the ubiquitous disengagement from the parts of American government through which people can effect (small) changes:
This seems like an odd statement given that the American system of government was designed from its inception to insulate the ruling elites from the masses. The founders were terrified of mob rule. The term "democracy" was used at the time to mean something not far away from "mob rule."
The people don't directly elect the president, the Electoral College does that. The people don't vote on any pending legislation. The House and Senate do that. The people don't set foreign policy - the executive and legislative branches do that. The people don't strike down any legislation - the courts do that, members of which at the top level are appointed for life. The full legislature is never up for re-election specifically to prevent a popular uprising.
One wonders what the article has in mind here. The answer comes shortly:
> ... In countries like France, the working class might still be able to veto certain policies through public demonstrations, but such actions seem unlikely in the United States, and even the most heroic efforts of this kind show little prospect of achieving systemic reforms.
Even in France, that's an extra-governmental action. There's no mechanism to include popular dissent except for routinely scheduled elections in either France or the US.
What's more troubling though is the ubiquitous disengagement from the parts of American government through which people can effect (small) changes:
- jury duty
- elections