Yea and those two books have far more in common with modern day US than Europe lol.
The hell they do. I am thinking you haven't read either or you just twist or leave out the inconvenient parts.
First off India, is the biggest democracy on the planet.
They may be the biggest, but that does not mean they are more democratic.
And they get higher turn out than the US for the most part.
Like I said, that is quite irrelevant to the level of democracy in a country.
Secondly, what do you base your claim that the US is more "democratic" than European countries? Considering that it is near impossible to get a nation wide political party up and running because of the 2 big parties, then one has to question how democratic that is.
You question it because you, like most people in the West, have been brainwashed with the absurd notion that more parties is better for democracy. Like I said, if you look at India you will see they have way more political parties running and winning seats but their system is undemocratic and restrictive of political freedoms in countless ways. They are not the only country in that position either. Look at many third world parliamentary democracies and you will find they typically have a large number of parties running and winning seats. None of that translates into more democracy or more political freedom.
Political parties are actually antithetical to democracy and in most parliamentary democracies like those of Europe this is especially the case. After all, political parties first emerged in Europe as factions among the elite nobility.
Considering the gerrymandering there is in defining your political districts based on race and party colour is highly undemocratic.
In every political system those in power try to find ways to preserve or consolidate power. That system of gerrymandering occurs because the tools for manipulation of elections and consolidation of power that exist in Europe do not exist here in the U.S.
Considering that you have had elections decided by courts and not the electorate makes your system highly undemocratic.
Many countries in Europe allow their courts a lot more influence over elections. Certain parties are banned outright based on their politics or otherwise restricted by the courts. It's endorsed by the concept of militant democracy, which is itself an oxymoron.
Considering you that you get voter participation at so low numbers, that makes it a highly undemocratic society to say the least.
Like I said, turnout isn't everything in a democracy.
in the 19th century, it was only white men of a certain age that could vote.. that something to be proud off? And it was YOU that claimed because we have more personal freedoms we dont care about our POLITICAL freedoms.. no mention of person's right.. so stop changing the subject..
I am not talking about just the first half of the 19th Century but even after non-whites could vote. Nowhere did I say the high turnout was something to be proud of either. I was noting that it did not mean anything relevant to the level of democracy in the United States. By the same token high turnout in India does not mean it is more democratic than the U.S.
So you claim that our "hedonistic" freedoms are bad for political discourse, seems to be .. totally wrong. In fact I could much easier claim the total opposite.
I did not say that they are bad for political discourse, but that such freedom is often encouraged by the State as a way of keeping the masses docile and subservient. Getting you to love your slavery and eagerly vote again and again to preserve and increase your enslavement is a far more effective method of building a fascist society than the use of violence.
What liberties do you have in the US that you believe we don't enjoy here in Europe?
Free speech and by that I mean all forms of speech, not just the kind of speech people like. Freedom of religion in most of Europe is not respected. Freedom of assembly in areas like those areas of restriction against free speech. Political representation is far more limited and regulated than in the U.S. Now, you may point to a few states where any one of these things is not the case, but there is a disturbing consistency in Europe as it regards these subjects.
You do know that Europe isn't a country, don't you?
There was a time when the answer to the question is an obvious "duh, silly" but now it really isn't that simple. I suppose one could still say it isn't since parts of the continent are independent, but a substantial portion of European "countries" are no longer sovereign states, except in the way states here are sovereign.