Czuch:

> You make it sound like just having been voted in with a simple low majority
> gives him a blank check to do whatever he pleases, and we should know
> what to expect based on promises, no questions asked?

Every democracy suffers from the same problem. People elect a president (or prime minister or whatever) and once they assume office they do whatever they want. Election promises are often good only for a short time, and once the election is over things change. The "will of the people" counts only for as long as it is politically or economically convenient to those in power.

For this reason I see democracy as a process in which people vote to chose their dictator. There are three main differences between modern democracy and traditional dictatorship.

The first is that the dictator does not have absolute power. He must convince those that oppose him that his ideas are sound and viable. That is the point of congress, senate, parliament, etc.

Second, the dictator is not there forever but only for as long as he can be reelected. In some countries people curtail the length of the dictators stay in powere even more than in the US. For example, many Latin American countries do not allow reelection at all. Others, like Canada, allow as many reelections as possible as long as the political party in power obeys constitutional law.

Third, the dictator must at least pretend to make an effort to follow the people's will and avoid oppressing the people. The dictator does not have to follow the will of the people and more often than not external influences from wealthy and powerful individuals count more. (For example, lobbyists, special interest groups, etc.)

Modern democracy is at best a crude attempt to solve a very old problem. How do you give people power and say in the government without removing all power from the rich and powerful? Modern democracy was born in Europe after the French Revolution, as a response to the people demanding a say in the government and going into revolution if their demands were not met.

The war in Iraq was not imposed or shoved down the throat of the American people. Just before the war 64% of the American public supported the war, and George W. Bush had an approval rating of 82%, the highest in American history.

However, the war was imposed on the people of the UK. Over there over 80% of the population opposed the war. With under 20% support, Tony Blair's decision to go to war was entirely dictatorial.

In Canada 80% of the people opposed the war and Jean Chretien (the prime minister) refused to go to war. The Bush administration criticized him greatly, but he was merely following the will of the Canadian people.

As we can see, democracy is an imperfect system. A lot of people will dislike Obama now, but his actions are not different from those of many other presidents and prime ministers, both in and outside of the US. People who oppose him will feel he is imposing his will, but then many people felt the same way during the Bush administration.