About the demographic of Americans who don't think democracy is

[no_hypocrisy]

Last edited Tue Jun 9, 2026, 08:49 AM - Edit history (2)

necessary for this country.

I have a sister who wanted to convert from Judaism to Catholicism almost 50 years ago. Not that she was a practicing disciple. She was 20 and desperately wanted to marry her boyfriend after graduation from college. And he was Catholic and not likely to convert to Judaism. She imagined that converting to his religion would seal the deal.

And so, she started taking Catechism lessons at college. And going to Mass without her boyfriend.

Unfortunately (for her), she knew she wouldn't have the consent and support of our parents. And when they discovered her "betrayal of the faith," they blew up.

And here's my point: They asked the most logical question for her motive for wanting to convert. Instead of being perfectly candid and telling them she wanted to get married to get out of their house, she gave another (credible) response: She didn't want to make her own decisions. The Church would tell her what to do and what not to do. No mistakes and no responsibility for mistakes. No choices.

And by extension, those "Americans" who really don't want democracy and want an autocratic leader to tell them what to do, to think, etc., follow my sister's "logic". They don't want to be bothered to think (critically or otherwise). And they don't want the rest of us to have a choice. Just sit down and shut up while Dear Leader(s) decide for us. If anything, the entire concept of democracy scares the bejeezus out of them. Instead of not trusting Dear Leader(s), they're suspicious, skeptical, and fearful of the rest of us. We're going to "ruin it" for them by getting Dear Leader(s) mad at all of us. Can't have that. Better to let Dear Leader(s) decide for all of us.

Epilogue: My sister didn't convert. Didn't marry the Catholic guy. Married a nice Jewish boy. Still is an airhead.

If the non-democracy crowd wants to stop participating in democracy, they can start by staying home and not voting for MAGA candidates.

[OldBaldy1701E]

1. "If the non-democracy crowd wants to stop participating in democracy..."

They should reap the rewards.

Like, not getting any representation at all. Like, not receiving the benefits of having a strong democracy.

I am a big proponent of FAFO. We need to apply this to the situation.

[mopinko]

2. wouldnt it b fun if

federal aid was distributed based on the % of ppl who bother to vote?

[OldBaldy1701E]

7. I feel I would include other aspects of civic duty as well...

But, that would be interesting.

[Johonny]

3. Plenty of non-democracies to move to

Why ruin our fine country.

[harumph]

4. Interesting. There's a slight quibble I have with this.

"...they're suspicious, skeptical, and fearful of the rest of us."

THEY | THEM | THOSE PEOPLE

You appear to imply that Catholics are all authoritarians.

I'm quite suspicious of authoritarians - and rightfully fearful. Stable democracy needs an educated population to succeed. That is especially the case with our type of democracy which is flawed, on its last legs and in need of structural reform (like getting rid of the electoral college) However, that won't serve the money interests, so it likely won't happen anytime soon. Couple that with millions of citizens lacking a basic knowledge of civics, ignorant about the scientific method, who don't read, and you have a population easy to manipulate. When you see people voting in a democratic election to put into office an ostensibly "anti-democratic" politician like Trump, that is still democracy in action - but maybe we should call it zombie democracy?

If to have a better more stable democracy that equitably served all citizens would you support employing undemocratic means to get there? In other words, what if the flaws in our democratic system are so entrenched that we are doomed to authoritarian rule by corporations and billionaires unless we break the rules to get power, to change the fundamental rules of the game? There are countries where people participate in democracies that are so flawed that nothing ever changes. Democracies in name only. Rich get richer, poor stay poor. Is violence ever a solution to a democracy in name only? Many on this board opine it isn't. Some will concede that violence may be a last resort. When do you get to the last resort?

Also, I'm a lapsed Catholic. Lapsed because of the rightward tilt the American church has taken in recent decades. Even so, there are both liberal and conservative strains within the church. While Roman Catholicism has its dogma and lays out guidelines and ethics to live by, it does not have the hold on the imagination that you seem to imply. There is a healthy debate in Catholicism on an wide range of topics. I was into Liberation Theology - the opposite of authoritarianism. You might look that up if you're at all curious. Most of the Jewish posters on DU, I would guess come from a background of non-practicing or Reform Movement, with a smattering of Conservatives and that is the viewpoint reflected. Really, if your sister wanted to be a part of a religion that tells a woman what to think and how to act, she could have converted to an ultra orthodox branch of Judaism. It is projected by 2065, the Haredi population in Israel will make up about 40% of the total population. My point is we should be careful broad-brushing certain religions as leaning authoritarian because the accusing finger points both ways.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Noted. Not all Catholics are monolithic.

My sister gave this answer to our parents as her excuse. She didn't understand or want to adopt the tenets of the religion. She just wanted to get baptized, get married, and get out of our house.

That was my point.

[keep_left]

6. Many decades ago, Erich Fromm...

…noted these antidemocratic and authoritarian tendencies in both Europe and the US (as well as the USSR, which still existed then). He wrote about the problem of a population using democratic means to extinguish an open society in his book Escape From Freedom. It’s as relevant today as it was during WWII when it was first published.