Democracy is controversial.

Here's the conclusion of the Los Angeles Times review of "Capitalism: A Love Story."

"At the end of the day, perhaps the most startling thing about "Capitalism" is that Moore stands revealed not as some pointy-headed socialist but as an unreconstructed New Deal Democrat who admires Franklin D. Roosevelt, believes in increased democracy and opportunity, and feels that the decades-long weakening of unions has fatally weakened America. The fact that this will be a controversial stance says as much about today's political culture as it does about Moore's place in it."

I echo that last sentence. I would add that democracy will always be "controversial," as long as those who are rich and powerful off the current system have an influence in the debate that is grossly disproportionate to their numbers. ("One person, one vote" makes little sense if the man over there is a media mogul who funds a conservative policy "think tank.") The manufactured controversy is simply repackaged as the years go by. In the past, the argument has been as vile as to say that the poor and working class are too crude to have a vote. Lately, the argument says basically that democracy is all good and fine but it shouldn't affect anything that has to do with the economy. "Let the market decide," they who own the market say. They might as well say, "Just sit still while we think up new excuses for why we few should remain in charge."

Democracy is always the enemy of those at the top of the pyramid, because democracy would dismantle the pyramid and use the stones for something useful.