Ideal Democracy

I’m having a hard time trying to answer the question, in what ways does the U.S. Presidency support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy?

To even try to answer that question we would have to ask the question of what an ideal democracy looks like.  My ideal democracy is at odds with the ideal democracy of what the current administration envisions.  The ideal democracy would be one with little to no government intrusion on the lives of people.  It should be the people telling government what to do, not the other way around.  If the government gets in the business of telling people how to live, what to eat, what to drive, what light bulbs to use, what to keep their heaters up to, what to keep the air conditioners down to, then they are no friend of democracy.  To me democracy is about freedom.  Not just freedom of speech and freedom of the press and the right to bear arms, but also freedom to fail and freedom to succeed.  When the government starts using its power to pick winners and losers, then how is that democracy.  Minimal government involvement leads to an ideal democracy.

Now I know the question is about the Presidency and how it can support and limit the formation of a democracy and I have been talking about nothing but the government.  Well the two go hand in hand.  It’s scary to see how things get done in government.  When the President has put together backroom deals, with his own party that cost tax payers billions, so that he can get passage of a $1 trillion health care plan, without listening to the other side, he is limiting democracy.  Where are the options?  Option A:  You have to have health insurance.  Option B:  Look back at Option A.  This is limiting choice and limiting freedom and because of that it is limiting democracy.

Another way that a sitting President can support democracy is by supporting it all around the world.  When people, that have been held hostage by corrupt dictators that run their countries, rise up and attempt to overthrow the dictators, they need backing and support of the leader of the free world.  How does it look when hundreds if not thousands of people are being slaughtered by their tyrannical dictators, who bring out tanks, planes and the military and uses them on his own people, and the leader of the free world, the leader of the largest and most successful democracy in the world just sits by and lets it happen for seven or eight or nine days without saying a word?  This is another way that democracy is limited.  When democratic nations stand by and don’t do anything, but publish strong worded papers, then democracy fails.