"The U.S. system of presidential primaries are contrary to democratic values"

The Republic has quite a bit more to it than Plato's opinions of Democracy. I was offering him as an example as to why Athens matters. Aristotle's own work, On Politics is quite worth the read should you ever have the time. Plato himself was quite arrogant, and had many reasons to be unsatisfied with Democracy considering that one of his friends, colleagues and teachers had recently been put to death by a very large Athenian jury. Of course, Plato might not be taking into account that during the sentencing trial, Socrates basically argued that he should be put to death by pointing out how wonderful it would be for the state to continue feeding him. More jurors voted to put him to death than voted to convict him of his crimes against Athens and the Gods. His opinions on Democracy should not matter much. I also don't think Democracy is the greatest way of conducting government, but for different reasons. I'm often amused when the proponents of Democracy quote people like Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, expect for all those others that have been tried." The idea of asking a head of state of a Democracy about forms of government, and expecting a non-bias answer is pretty humorous. Plato also introduced to Political Thought the concept described as the "Divine Lie." Its represented in the Republic as the Myth of Metals. "Socrates" offers the excuse to the man who invited him to dinner to explain why people would accept an order of government where certain folks were considered to be of a leadership class, others of a soldier class, and others of a labor class. Obviously, the leadership class had more gold in them, the soldier class more silver, and the laboring class more bronze. These distinctions were to be used to justify the classification to the "common folk." (Those deemed too stupid to be worthy of influencing their own government) Socrates and Plato were both Atheists, so the typical argument that special status is derived by a god didn't sit well on their shoulders. Yet for some reason, most Atheists really like Enlightenment and Liberalist thought that specifically depends on a divine influence to render us all equal by equal creation. So, the idea of a government system based off of perpetuating an intentional misunderstanding of the way that the government actually works is hardly a new one. A leadership class will always propagate whatever attitudes that they must in order to remain in control. A talented leadership class will propagate ideas that will allow them to retain control as well. This can be found within our own group as you observe the actions of think tanks over the last thirty years, like the Cato Institute, which have derived may policies and then sold them to politicians. Much of the Neo-Conservative movement was born out of these think thanks. With the creation of primaries in the early days of the 20th century came on the backs of great advances in technology. Communication became more rapid as the postal service became faster, telephones were incorporated, and radios became very common. At the same time, the rise of organized labor, women's organizations, and the construction of other political groups effectively forced those in power to relinquish a portion of their direct power to the people. If primaries had not been implemented, it is unlikely that "the people" would be satisfied with a candidate. At the time of socialist upheaval in other parts of the world, it'd just be foolish to not give them the pretense of power and influence. This lie doesn't have to be ill intended. I'm sure many individuals don't even realize how often they propagate a mistruth about their government, nation, and the philosophies behind them. When you learned about these "Democratic Values" in school, I suspect you just soaked them up like a sponge before giving them any thought or analysis. The person who taught them you like wise probably just accepted it, because the thing is… They just sound nice. Who wouldn't want to live in a society with all of those values? When we're taught them, they sound so nice that we seldom question them. For instance, how many times in a high school government class do you see a teacher making sure that the students understand that the Constitution is not an entitlement to citizens, but a limitation of government powers? How many times do you see a discussion about whether or not the first amendment affords a person any worthwhile rights as none of those actions actually threaten a government? Blindly accepting any political philosophy is basically to consent to tyranny.