Why American Democracy Is In Decline [One Man's Opinion]

[@POODLEBITES]

Trying to do my part by providing new content to the Zappa community. And, hopefully, add to the existing enthusiasm for all things Zappa related. I so enjoy finding interesting Frank Zappa interviews and songs that help serve to shed light on the topic of Conceptual Continuity. wiki.killuglyradio.com/wiki/Category:Conceptual_Continuity Subscribe if this sort of thing appeals to you

[@dirkfrohling7948]

Wow. A great collage. I wish you luck for November.

[@fredgarvinMP]

I think Zappa would have hated this.

[@POODLEBITES]

Zappa, in my opinion. was a curmudgeon. He hated virtually everything.

[@POODLEBITES]

Luck is what we'll need.

[@welplast2812]

you can vote for the elephant party or the donkey party. what kind of democracy is that?

[@brianjacob8728]

it's not. it's a republic, and therein lies the problems. all republics are protofascist by design.

[@POODLEBITES]

it's a choice.

[@brianjacob8728]

@@POODLEBITES no it's not

[@marcocardia3960]

@@brianjacob8728 it is now more than ever, it´s a choice between fascists and non fascists

[@anarchy_79]

Using AI generated content for a Zappa piece? Sits ill with me

[@POODLEBITES]

Agreed. But, there isn’t any AI generated content. I do use any AI tool to upscale smaller resolution photos so that they don’t appear blurry. That, imo makes the viewing more enjoyable.

[@DoncampbellUSMC]

RIGHT ON THANKS ✌️

[@POODLEBITES]

You bet

[@45vinyljunkie]

Frank must have been clairvoyant because he said all this more than 30 years ago. It would be interesting to hear him speak if he were still alive today. A sit-down, one-on-one conversation between Frank and Trump would be gold!

[@goodcitizen3780]

Except that Zappa clearly has no idea what a democracy is and no idea that America has never been a democracy, that it was never supposed to be a democracy, that a democracy is the enemy of a constitutional Republic.

[@fredgarvinMP]

The government censorship has gone off the rails since Frank fought to keep parental advisory labels off album sleeves.

[@POODLEBITES]

Except that Trump veers off in tangents. It's hard to get him to answer questions directly and succinctly. Even with professionally trained interviewers doing the asking. IMHO.

[@POODLEBITES]

🙄

[@zooziz5724]

You have no idea how big of a favor you've done for me. I'm from little country that seems to be heading the way of USA and we do have couple of talking heads and it just so happened that one of them loooooves Zappa. Sam guy keeps giving excuses for most idiotic usa policies and preach for usa as great economic power. I'll try to send this to him. And huge thank you to Google for reading my minds and breaching my privicy, since I havent even typed or spoke about anything even remotely close to any of what I've said anywhere on the internet. Thanks Google.

[@POODLEBITES]

thanks for watching

[@SpaceyMonkey75]

Love the channel name. "Come on, Frenchie!"

[@POODLEBITES]

The Poodle Bites...

[@fredgarvinMP]

Well since everyone can vote by mail now, Frank can rest easy.

[@POODLEBITES]

Right? It's about time.

[@AndrewLoukidis-jr2bp]

As brilliant a philosopher as a musician

[@POODLEBITES]

agreed. thanks for watching.

[@tfm362]

Frank was a Profit.

[@POODLEBITES]

He def had some forward thinking ideas

[@quandt4847]

This guy resembles John McAfee in appearance and mindset

[@POODLEBITES]

or, is it the other way around?

[@jonnyd9351]

So a man who was against formal education, who dropped out of college after a year, who didn't want his children going to college and pulled them out of high school, is talking about how the country wasn't educated enough? Sounds like the ramblings of a pseudo-intellectual who only has the confidence to say this because he was an admired musician and then assumed he must be smart.

[@bjc2]

No, it’s the ramblings of a man who understood that there are many different ways to become educated.

[@POODLEBITES]

It's my understanding that he railed against what was taught and what was valued. Sports over the arts. Consumerism over critical thinking. One could say that he was consistent by pulling his children out of a system he felt did more harm than good.

[@StevenDykstra-u3b]

Of course, Frank Zappa was completely correct. Our republic is not a complete democracy, but one through representatives to express the common will that also safeguards against democracy, in that certain fundamental rights will be held against a tyranny of any fleeting majority. However, this conservative citizen, when examining the context, can appreciate Zappa's stance. By the numbers across many studies (i.e., meta analysis,), there is no correlation between voting (or opinion,,) and the outcome of legislation, which is oft written by the interests involved themselves. I could go on. "Democracy" was a dirty word even amongst our Founders. In pure form, it never worked. We had a mixed form, which has grown to divorsevitself from being represented [almost as if by Ra's press(impressment) sentarives], so it does not operate for we the people. Lincoln said "lest it perish from the earth," and America being "the last best hope" for mankind. If this is based upon what we claimed to be, can we claim that anymore? Avant-garde as he was, Zappa also held quite some substance. Perhaps he and William F. Buckley would have found common ground regarding government. Buckley, who was considered my many as the intellectual father of modern conservatism, once said it would be better to pick names at random out of the phone book for representatives than to proceed down the track we're on. Whethwr by that he was seeking a stronger executive is anyone's guess.

[@venum17]

Buckley was a piece of shit and i have no respect for anyone who seeks to hold back democracy with crap like “we’re a republic 🤡”. Republics fail because they can’t answer to the needs of the people and instead cater to the whims of the powerful.

[@POODLEBITES]

thanks for the post

[@raymondjensen4603]

There is no benefit to absorbing the ramblings of a fanatic.

[@POODLEBITES]

🙄

[@aglimmerofhope5321]

I believe it vitally important to distinguish between a democracy, a state ruled by it's citizens, and a 'democratic state', where the citizens are allowed to elect those who actually rule that state. With this understanding we can then go on to separate true majority rule, the apparent will of the citizenry, from the oligarchic forms of government posing as democracies, the Few pretending to be the Many. 🤨 #AMoreDirectDemocracy 👍👎👍 Power to the People (for real this time) ✌🙂

[@goodcitizen3780]

This country was never intended to be a democracy. Zappa is entirely ignorant of the subject. You don't want democracy. You want a constitutional republic, as our Framers intended.

[@POODLEBITES]

thanks for posting

[@goodcitizen3780]

Because America was never a democracy. Lol Democracy was never an issue until Lincolnianism ousted Jeffersonianism in one of the most disgusting coups in history. Stop thinking this place is a democracy. It was never intended to be a democracy. It was always a constitutional Republic. You have, in this video, a monument to Zappa's ridiculous ignorance and complete lack of understanding of some very basic tenets and vocabulary.

[@Gorilla_Jones]

Wrong, The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot.

[@haggeoromero]

If it is a constitutional republic, how are things going any better? He was exactly correct about religion moving into the political sphere and ruining our political system whichever one we have. He’s right about a lot of things in this video and pointing out the we’re not a democracy doesn’t change that.

[@goodcitizen3780]

@@haggeoromero "If it is a constitutional republic, how are things going any better?" They aren't. That is because, since the radical Lincolnian revolution overthrew Jeffersonianism, the country has been increasingly democratized. It will only get worse as democracy strengthens its position. People like Zappa help to cement the idea and aid it in taking a physical form. "He was exactly correct about religion..." I don't necessarily agree with that premise. I'm not sure that you could show me, with objective observable evidence, how exactly religion has ruined, or is ruining, the political system that we operate under. Increasingly, religion becomes less and less of a deal breaker as the generations go by. "He's right about a lot of things..." Being right about the wrong things can mean being wrong about the right things. If anyone starts an argument on a false premium, in contradiction to, and complete ignorance of, the reality of the situation, I cannot be faulted for rejecting the argument which presents false on its face. That is to say, if you are arguing shoes when the subject is socks, and you can't even tell the difference between the two, your entire argument may be rejected out of hand with cause. And guiltlessly at that. Any point which you may have made may be thrown out on that justification and you might need to restructure and resubmit when you've come to grips with what you are actually talking about. Arguing how a democracy that doesn't exist is being disrupted and undermined is simply ludicrous. It doesn't exist. It can't be disrupted or undermined.

[@corahnihlost923]

1) Misunderstanding of "Democracy" vs. "Republic" The United States is often described as a democracy, but more accurately, it's a federal republic where representatives are elected, which can be considered a form of democratic governance. The terms "democracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive. This reflects a common misconception. A republic is a form of democracy. The United States was designed as a constitutional republic, where laws and representatives are chosen through democratic elections. The framers of the Constitution aimed to create a system that incorporates democratic principles while avoiding the pitfalls of direct democracy. 2) Misuse of the Term "Coup" A coup refers to a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. The transition from Jeffersonian ideals to those associated with Lincoln was not a sudden or illegal event but a gradual shift in political and social norms over decades, culminating in the Civil War, which was fought over profound disagreements, including slavery. The use of "Lincolnianism" and "Jeffersonianism" suggests a dichotomy between the ideologies of Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. While it's true that there are philosophical differences between Lincoln's and Jefferson's views on various issues, the characterization of the shift from Jeffersonian to Lincolnian ideals as a "disgusting coup" is a highly subjective and contentious opinion, not a widely accepted historical fact. 3) Ad Hominem Attack This statement makes a personal attack against Frank without addressing the substance of his arguments. It dismisses the his understanding without engaging in substantive debate or providing evidence to counter his claims.

[@goodcitizen3780]

@@corahnihlost923 I appreciate your annotations declaring your mistakes. It saves me effort picking them out. I agree completely with your conclusion, labeled, "1)". You have completely misunderstood the distinction between the defined terms, "Democracy", and, "Republic". I, as do you, reject the ideas that you cobbled together above and, as a matter of clarification and correction (to be sure), I submit the following objective empirical data which forms the basis of my position, known simply as, "the factually accurate position". Kindly observe and comprehend. By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution. Conversely, a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused by laymen and scholars alike, they are, in fact, quite different. The main and most glaring difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or, in our case, the constitution. The function of the charter, or constitution, is to limit power in a republic. These documents are created, more often than not, to protect the rights of the individual against the desires of the majority. This, from the US Mission Argentina (For the ignorant, that is the United States Embassy) "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? "Constitutional" refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers. "Federal" means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states. A "republic" is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power." To further isolate our definitions from suppositions I will include the following paraphrased excerpts from a lecture that I give from time to time as the need arises. ...To be sure, our Founding Fathers argued for republicanism because its principles guaranteed liberty to the states and the individuals by leveraging opposing, limited powers against one another. They knew that, in order to create and maintain stability and continuity, change should occur slowly. Many of the Framers were afraid that a "democracy" (by which they meant a direct democracy or, "pure" democracy, such as had been seen in ancient Athens) would allow a majority, which might exist at any time, to trample the rights and liberties of the minority. These men were well educated and well traveled and they knew that democracy could easily and readily take the form of mob rule. They knew how easily and instantly mob rule could be shaped by a single fanatic or agitator. To thwart the inevitability, they devised a written Constitution that could be amended only by a super majority. They preserved sovereignty in the individual and competing States. They gave control of the Senate (upper house) to the States. They created an Electoral College to select the president. They set up a House of Representatives to represent the people. As a matter of factual support and citation: The term republic appears in the constitution in Article IV which "guarantee [s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." • It must be noted that the term, "democracy", is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence nor is it even hinted at in the Constitution of the United States of America. • In 1849, The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden, declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" and refused to intervene. • In 1875 The Supreme Court did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank, the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of the republic. • in 1891, The opinion of the court from, "In re Duncan", held that the, "right of the people to choose their government", is also part of the definition of, "Republic". • Due to the 1875 and 1891 court decisions establishing basic definition, the first (1892) and subsequent versions of the Pledge of Allegiance which included the word republic, Article IV which refers to a Republican form of government, the basic definition of republic is implied and well understood amongst the educated and is even classified as a matter of law. If ever you find yourself, or any of your acquaintances or neighbors, to be confused about which form of government we possess here in America, you need not look far for a special hint. Look to the pledge of allegiance. "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands" Not, "to the democracy". Not , "democratic republic". "...to the REPUBLIC for which it stands" Would you like me to address your other points now, or would you first like to attempt to dispute the facts outlined above (and or their citations)?