Without taking a position, I will point out that in a pure direct democracy, it is possible for 49% of people to be enslaved.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson
And that percentage goes up to 99.9% for non-direct democracy and other forms of government.
Well, I don't think a representative democracy like the US has could really result in enslavement of 99.9% of people.
In any case, I am no fascist (or anarchist). I don't know who first said this, but the only thing worse than democracy is every other alternative.
And I don't think a direct democracy like California or Switzerland could result in enslavement of 49% of the people like you suggested in your comment.
the only thing worse than democracy is every other alternative
I agree, although I'm not sure if with democracy you're counting both representative and direct democracy as I am.
I really don't know anything about the economics of the Great Depression, but the opinion of two extremely outspoken economists does not (at all) serve as conclusive evidence of the failure of Roosevelt's policies.
I'll go ahead and link you to the only thing I've ever read on the subject, just to provide another opinion: http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=82c53220-7594-4ec...
Actually direct democracy seems to be working. Cutting spending is the right thing to do instead of increasing taxes:
How rich countries die http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2009/03/16/how-rich-count...
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonge...
On the other hand, I find chocking how a lot of libertarians say democracy and freedom aren't compatible (I'm thinking of an interview with one of the founders of Paypal that was recently in HN). You get actually the opposite: the more democracy, specifically the more direct democracy, the less oppressive a government can be.