回複 'ShalakoW' 的評論 : Well, history HAS REPEATEDLY REPEATED itself so...
ShalakoW 發表評論於
neshershahor : Touché! You should elaborate your argument.
***
That would be a book full of repeated words.
They chose democracy not because they loved it, they hated and distrusted it. They chose democracy because they had no other options. Starting from there, their focus had always been on how to diminish the bad parts of democracy. As for the good parts out of a democracy (such as correct the wrong only after the wrong is made), they let the game play out by itself.
They took the chance to believe that most people would feel the pain after they had been hurt, even by themselves, which is all of what is required from the public for a democracy to work: people can choose right over wrong when right and wrong are clearly laid out before their eyes.
Yet, MAGA movement seems to have shaken this fundamental belief, for now at least.
ShalakoW 發表評論於
neshershahor: 畢竟Plato的Republic認為,“民(主)製會被民粹（多數人的暴政）顛覆，最後建立Tyranny”——...
****
I suppose what you meant to say was "...民主製度可能被民粹取代(顛覆)，成為(多數人)的"暴政"。
就是基於這樣的擔憂，聯邦(共和國)的締造者們設計出一套憲法，來"製約民主選舉結果"， 以避免民選政府成為"暴政"。
就是我文章題目的意思。
The Framers of the US Constitution distrusted democracies. Commenting on the dangers of assemblies, James Madison famously opined that “had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” He felt that governments needed some shelter from the impetuous passions and partisan anger of the people. Without protections, he felt, democracies were “as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.”
As such, the word ‘democracy’ is absent in both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. ....Ironically, Constitutions, by their very nature, are anti-democratic.
美國憲法的缺陷已經顯露出來啦，一篇短文肯定無法理清，不如看書。Steven Levitsky和 Daniel Ziblatt 又推出一本新書 ，將於2023年10月發行。《少數暴政：美國民主的臨界點》（Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Came to the Breaking Point）. 這裏有詳細的介紹：http://hx.cnd.org/2023/06/12/%e8%b5%b5%e6%98%8e%ef%bc%88%e7%bc%96%e8%af%91%ef%bc%89%ef%bc%9a%e7%be%8e%e5%9b%bd%e6%98%af%e5%90%a6%e5%a4%84%e4%ba%8e%e5%8d%b1%e6%9c%ba%e4%b9%8b%e4%b8%ad%ef%bc%9f/。
曌: US Constitution is to regulate power because power corrupts.
*****
紙麵上你可以這麽說，但現實中，權利是民主選舉的結果。
美國總統的權利不僅是一個概念，也是真實。直到某人贏了總統大選並開始使用這個權利的時候，總統權力才變得真實。競選時，此人須向大眾承諾要"如此這般"來贏得大選，然而，一旦進了白宮，憲法會告訴他/她，"等等，你無法做"如此這般", 如果你運氣好，你或能做"如此""。這樣一來，民主選舉結果的效應就被消去一半。
因為政客總不能兌現競選承諾，大眾總覺得覺得被愚弄了。盡管他們有權力這麽做，指責政客說話不算數，但這常常是憲法發力的結果，憲法阻止政客這麽做。
ShalakoW 發表評論於
曌: US constitution is to regulate power because power corrupts.
****
In theory you may say that, yet in reality the power is the result of a democratic election.
Presidential power is not just a concept, it is a real thing. That real thing cannot become real until a person who has won the presidential election and starts to use the power. The person will have to promise the public that he/she would do such such things to win the election, but once in While House, the Constitution will tell him/her, "wait a minute, you cannot do "such such" things, you may only do such thing, if you are lucky. " In reality, the effect of the result of an democratic election is cut in half.
That's why often the public feel cheated, since the politicians cannot deliver the promises they have made in their campaign. While the public may have every right to blame the politicians for their failures to make the deliveries, but oftentimes it is the result that the Constitution has been at work to have stopped them doing so.
