American democracy is broken

The only disagreement we have is the degree to which the system is rigged - and that propaganda is in the eye of the beholder. In this respect it is you who is somewhat blind. That and you talked over many of my points.

Banding together does not change the fact that the system is rigged. Banding together could change this but for now - it is what it is. The forces working to prevent "banding together" are 1) active and 2) strong.

Propaganda is misinformation, deceit and/or lies. The effectiveness of this tool on the masses has been well studied and this is not some secret. The "eye of the beholder" claim is partially false and somewhat misinformed.

Once again - there is no functional democratic process without a fair and free media and an educated populous - educated in things detailed in my previous post.

 

I live in France which saw, from the US experience, how badly TV can warp public debate.

So, electoral TV-commercials are prohibited here in France. But each candidate gets free-time in the mornings* to convey their "platform".

America has always been (politically) a "show-business" country at election time, so it is going to be very difficult to change bad habits.The fact that political meetings are not outlawed in either country underscores both dedications to "free-speech", which (along with fair voting) is a cornerstone to any truly free-democracy ...

*And like elsewhere TV seems to share as much time amongst all the parties wishing to get across their POVs.

 

Elbridge Gerry was a founding father, and when he created the gerrymander he was promptly rewarded with the Vice Presidency alongside founding father James Madison.

 

You seem to NOT UNDERSTAND the basic unfairness of gerrymandering.

All Gerry did was invent the rot that has determined political outcomes in state-elections in America since 1812. Gerrymandering is a manipulation of the electoral voting-process and therefore dishonestly creates illicit voting-outcomes!

 

My point was that the founding fathers were inventors of the concept. They were pragmatic men who did not trust the masses. The last of the founding fathers merged with the founding uncles to control the masses (1828, 1840) and get less worthy men elected. Chameleon politicians (Tyler, Buchanan) followed immediately. Next came voter suppression (Jim Crow) and finally manipulation of politicians by outside interest and dumb voters through political manipulation.

 

ANTI-TRUST LAW

The "founding fathers" - all admirable individuals - had no concept whatsoever of "Free Markets". They had no idea even what constituted a Free Market. Particularly one manipulated by those participating in it. (That amazing-concept of market-manipulation became a key issue in the late 19th century and it led to the passing of Anti-trust Laws.

What is anti-trust law? - drill down to the definition:

How has BigIndustry got around Anti-Trust Law? By means of the complacency of the American Justice System. Starting with the Federal Attorney General. Howzzat?

As above stated regarding trusts in the American market-place at the end of the 19th century, the very same happened again at the end of the 20th century. Except in another place that was entirely unexpected. We call that place the Internet !

From here: Antitrust Enforcement Needs to Evolve for the 21st Century (FEBRUARY 27, 2019) - excerpt:

We could not agree more ...

 

THE NOTION OF FAIRNESS

Yes, because the masses, then, were mostly uneducated migrants from Europe.

Such is not the case today - or at least should be. What has happened nonetheless is that Americans are graduating from high-school without a proper education in Civics!

And what might that be? This: the study of the rights and duties of citizenship.

Get it? Both rights and duties ... !

Like the duty of voting!

I see no historical difference between then and now. The Prime Mover in both instances was Muney, Muney, Muney!

A nation can neither thrive nor survive based upon that one principle alone. There must exist as well - in any market-economy - the notion of "fairness*".

*And what might that mean? This: Income Disparity is the key measure of "fairness" by economists. That of Uncle Sam is not doing so well. (See the infographic here: The Mystery Of Income Inequality Broken Down To One Simple Chart)

 

Looking at that chart, what must we surmise?

Note how the the lines separate in that fateful year of 1981. Who was PotUS that year?

Yes, the Replicant Ronald Reagan! What did he do?

First and foremost, he reduced greatly upper-income taxation! Starting with JFK (of all people!), Reagan continued the descent in upper-income taxation in the US.*

See that historical evidence here ...

*And what has Donald Dork just done? Reduce upper-income taxation YET AGAIN!