We have a middle-of-the-road democracy, Benjamin.
True, there are many benefits. Yet also true is that our democracy first empowers the middle of society, and next has that centrist game play out for all.
Important to note is that it plays out as follows for the two sections that are not part of the middle of the road.
To one side, we find the socioeconomic elite. Let's put a percentage of 5 - 15 percent on this group. These folks have the financial and connective means and opportunities to insert themselves into our mainstream democracy, partly as candidates, partly by inserting themselves behind the scenes with both political parties.
To the other side, we find the socioeconomic impoverished group, also 5 - 15 procent of society.
These folks have no means to insert themselves into the political process, while they are also excluded from the middle of the road. These folks are not included in our democracy, and this has nothing to do whether they vote or not vote. It has all to do with our voting system not needing them. They are unimportant. They are thrown out with the bathwater.
The socioeconomic elite is also unimportant for the political process, yet they are very successful inserting themselves into the process (and benefiting from the process), so we need not worry about the rich; they are heard and they are heard well.
—
As example, folks in the bottom 10% tier in the USA get 1.8% of this nation (in wealth, income, consumption), per the World Bank.
Folks in the bottom 10% tier in Denmark get 3.8% of that nation.
This should make it obvious without any doubt, Benjamin, that the United States mutes, censors folks in the 5 - 15% found at the bottom of society. They are not even at the table of representation, while in Denmark they are represented by people of their own choice.
Denmark is therefore not a middle-of-the-road democracy, but rather is a round-table democracy. All are sitting at that table, and this shows in the outcomes. Their poor may not end up in the majority — ever — but they are always heard. They can speak up whereas our poor can’t speak up in our rooms of democracy; they do not matter for the middle of the road, and get handouts valued at 1.8%, not anything close to 3.8%.
While 3.8% is not what you and I would like to receive for our work and participation, the bottom 10% in our society would love to get that increase from the 1.8% they have now.
We are not a libertarian nation, because if we want to use that term then we have to accept as well that our political system has a fascist aspect to it that undermines our being a libertarian nation.
The word fascist must be declared, because I use that term for any situation in which a single group dominates the direction for an entire nation. In the USA, that single group is extremely large (let's say 75% or more), but this group does not include all people in the USA. As such, it is fascist light. We have an exclusive democracy, not an inclusive democracy.
With that, we can then also say that our culture is libertarian light because it is only in the economic realm that we are truly libertarian. In the democratic field, we are slightly fascist.
Groups are muted in the United States, not represented. And they are not a little, negligible group. The political system created an outcome exactly as the game of basketball will exclude folks five feet tall, while folks six feet tall are present in the game but still not the average height of the players.
For you and your otherwise excellent writing and reporting, this means you must consider the foundation underneath our feet, and I see that you are not always doing that. Our nation is built on a slanted political platform (of winners and losers), while you write as if nothing is wrong with that.
You go with the middle of the road as the truth, and you are not looking in the rearview mirror. I hope you can hear this and perhaps do something with this.
