If that were the case we would let leaders rise up to take the lead instead of calling on representatives to carry our messages to the central meeting place. It may be your dream to be able to sit back to not have to speak with your representative frequently – and fair enough, democracy is unquestionably hard work! – but that sentiment is not at all reflected in the democratic societies that I'm familiar with. Most definitely not the USA, which HN is skewed towards. American society as a whole is quite clear about the importance of hiring public servants to represent the people, to not have rulers take over. There is no liberty held more dear. Indeed, there are always outliers who don't align with the rest of the society. Hence why we have government to clean them up. Unquestionably there are Americans who don't believe in, or at least don't wish to participate in, democracy, but the individual does not a society make.
There are societies that do expect leaders to take the lead. It is not an unheard of concept and you might even stay it is historically common. But those are not democratic societies.
However looking from the outside, it does look like democracy is failing in the US.
The problem appears to be that it's money, not the people, who have the largest influence on who is elected.
The large amount of money swirling in the system, and the pretty much unregulated use of very powerful persuasive tools - has corroded the US democracy.
Today the technology allows you to surround each and every person in their own advertising bubble online - all data driven to get the outcome the payers want.
And then the effect of the candidates needing money to get elected - and them having to sign up to stuff just to get the money.
Take sensible gun reforms - something that poll after poll suggests there is broad support - is effectively blocked by the arms lobby.
> Take sensible gun reforms - something that poll after poll suggests there is broad support - is effectively blocked by the arms lobby.
Is it blocked or has society not needed to bring the outliers in line? (Democratic) government isn't there to lead. Government is there only to clean up after society recognizes that some are not falling into line. Society must lead. Saying "Yes, I support gun reforms" in a random poll isn't the same as action, of course. Also looking in from the outside, I don't see any real societal movement on this front.
Funnily enough, in my country where we do find clear societal movement that pushed to move away from guns in our history, and a government that stepped in to clean up the outliers who still tried to wield guns afterwards, it was rooted in society wanting to protect their money from the poor and aboriginals. If it is such that American society is driven by money above people, it is curious that there isn't the same kind of interest in protecting that money from people.
Perhaps money in the USA isn't as important as it appears to those of us only looking in?
I believe you over complicating it - I think there is a simply a disconnect between what most people want and what the politicians are prepared to do on this issue, because fundamentally a lot of American politicians are more dependent on money than people to be elected.
> representatives to carry our messages to the central meeting place
Public servants carrying out messages? Really? Like a post office? Is the society which lives up to this noble standard aware of the more modern versions of these servants, such as, gee I don't know, TCP/IP?
Or maybe society doesn't want a constant referendum mode (fine by me, I'd expect it to be a spectacular disaster), and prefers servants to have a bit of built-in intelligence? But it causes behaviors which make them indistinguishable from leaders, e.g.: coming up with new ideas, influencing others, attempting to shape the future. I don't see anyone arguing for dumber representatives (I mean... not explicitly!), so seemingly the majority agrees.
> American society as a whole is quite clear about the importance of hiring public servants to represent the people, to not have rulers take over. There is no liberty held more dear.
False dilemma. The liberty held dear is the liberty to fire the representatives. A "leader" is not a synonym of "ruler". There is surely a lot of options between "servants" and "rulers taking over" (whatever the latter is supposed to mean).
If that were the case we would let leaders rise up to take the lead instead of calling on representatives to carry our messages to the central meeting place. It may be your dream to be able to sit back to not have to speak with your representative frequently – and fair enough, democracy is unquestionably hard work! – but that sentiment is not at all reflected in the democratic societies that I'm familiar with. Most definitely not the USA, which HN is skewed towards. American society as a whole is quite clear about the importance of hiring public servants to represent the people, to not have rulers take over. There is no liberty held more dear. Indeed, there are always outliers who don't align with the rest of the society. Hence why we have government to clean them up. Unquestionably there are Americans who don't believe in, or at least don't wish to participate in, democracy, but the individual does not a society make.
There are societies that do expect leaders to take the lead. It is not an unheard of concept and you might even stay it is historically common. But those are not democratic societies.