Democracy in Decline
By Tony BlankleyThe broad, sneering European-elite response to the plucky Irish vote to oppose the further centralization of governmental power in the European Union and the emerging opinion in China suggest that from Brussels to Shanghai, democracy may be losing its appeal.
Democracy, broadly understood as government by the people being governed, has been the upward aspiration of Western civilization for about 1,000 years -- and of the rest of the world for about 100 years. Certainly since the Magna Carta in 1215; arguably going back another millennium to when the Germanic tribes selected their chiefs through a more-or-less popular rather than hereditary method. The pace quickened in our Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789, advanced further with Woodrow Wilson's call for the self-determination of nations after World War I. The democratic urge gained further rhetorical support in the post-World War II United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21: (Read Full Article)
(Click Here to Comment on All RCP Articles)
Join the Discussion | 31 Comments | | | Post Comment |
|
Sep 09, 11:31 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
tony what did DEMOCRACY do for athens ? thousands slaughtered in syracuse stone quarries that's what ! democracy didn't work then, and it's barely afloat today.
|
|
Aug 07, 02:53 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I think what Mr. Blankley needs to do is read a dictionary and find out what democracy means, or he may read wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org].
|
|
Jun 21, 01:32 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I'm not sure that this article reflects anything more than a true believer's shock when the rest of the world finds flaws with his preferred system.
Kleptocracy in Russia did not stop when the state privatized business (as the Free Marketers believed). The kleptocrats simply went private. Putin's re-nationalization of the oil industry is, from a perfectly ruthless economic point of view, the best thing that happened to the stability of the Russian state and currency, perhaps ever. Russia's debt is gone. The ruble is stable and appreciating. This would not have been possible under the pure, unrestrained capitalism of Yeltsin, and the Russian public knows it.
It would be foolishness to use this as proof that every industry in every nation ought to be nationalized. Private ownership and entrepreneurial spirit are two of America's greatest strengths. However, they MUST be inculcated at the individual level nationwide, as opposed to simply among oligarchic power elites of massive business (or government!) hierarchies.
This is what Reagan / Goldwater conservatism is about, and what Bush / Delay conservatism had forgotten (along with a lot of it, frugality and the like, that they never practiced). Conservative values (enterprise, private ownership, resolve in war, etc) practiced by only by a small minority of Americans will never make the nation as strong as conservatism distributed throughout the population.
China's rise (any 3rd world country's rise, at this point) is also a special case. They are following in the footsteps of the West, with Lessons Learned from 500 years of European and American economic history. They are using the advances the Free Markets stumbled upon, by virtue of their being a giant chaotic free experiment.
Once China catches up, and they're simply making things up as they go like the rest of us on the cutting edge, they won't have any choice but to open things up to a freer system. Though in many ways, their success at this stage shows the strength of conservatism -- learn the lessons of the past, and you will be prosperous and successful in the present, and your future will be brighter than your present.
Conservatism must be taught in the schools again... and not some "Rah Rah Republican" nonsense like we get from Rush or Fox News. Self-control. Hard work. Thrift. High standards. Literacy. Common courtesy. Dedication to causes larger than yourself. Standing up for yourself. Education itself. Measuring your behavior against outside standards, rather than measuring those standards against fads and whims. The fact that traditional institutions are essential. The fact that the government can't pull you along, you need to stand up and pull too.
Forms of government only work when those who are supposed to have power actually have power, independent of what the form of government says the structure is supposed to be. Tyrannies only occur when tyrants have power (think Louis XIV vs. Louis XVI.) Aristocracies occur when aristocrats are powerful (see the Magna Carta). Democracies are powerful when Individuals are powerful... and that only occurs when they nurture their power through attention to sound principles, rather than squandering it by attempting to force unsound principles to work because they "feel groovy".
The Greatest Generation had sound principles, learned in the twin grinders of Depression and War. In the prosperity that followed from those principles, the Baby Boomers went off chasing bad ideas that only worked while they had Daddy's money (and now MY money, through the black magic of debt) to throw at the inevitable problems that cropped up. My own generation, following the Baby Boomers, is facing a future saddled with massive debts, critically weakened infrastructure and institutions, and a popular culture whose principles are wildly unsupportable.
The only thing we can do is look back to the Greatest Generation, remember what made them Great, and as individuals practice and spread those values until we as individual citizens are powerful again.
At that point, freedom and democracy will revive because we will make it happen. Until then, things will only darken.
Kleptocracy in Russia did not stop when the state privatized business (as the Free Marketers believed). The kleptocrats simply went private. Putin's re-nationalization of the oil industry is, from a perfectly ruthless economic point of view, the best thing that happened to the stability of the Russian state and currency, perhaps ever. Russia's debt is gone. The ruble is stable and appreciating. This would not have been possible under the pure, unrestrained capitalism of Yeltsin, and the Russian public knows it.
It would be foolishness to use this as proof that every industry in every nation ought to be nationalized. Private ownership and entrepreneurial spirit are two of America's greatest strengths. However, they MUST be inculcated at the individual level nationwide, as opposed to simply among oligarchic power elites of massive business (or government!) hierarchies.
This is what Reagan / Goldwater conservatism is about, and what Bush / Delay conservatism had forgotten (along with a lot of it, frugality and the like, that they never practiced). Conservative values (enterprise, private ownership, resolve in war, etc) practiced by only by a small minority of Americans will never make the nation as strong as conservatism distributed throughout the population.
China's rise (any 3rd world country's rise, at this point) is also a special case. They are following in the footsteps of the West, with Lessons Learned from 500 years of European and American economic history. They are using the advances the Free Markets stumbled upon, by virtue of their being a giant chaotic free experiment.
Once China catches up, and they're simply making things up as they go like the rest of us on the cutting edge, they won't have any choice but to open things up to a freer system. Though in many ways, their success at this stage shows the strength of conservatism -- learn the lessons of the past, and you will be prosperous and successful in the present, and your future will be brighter than your present.
Conservatism must be taught in the schools again... and not some "Rah Rah Republican" nonsense like we get from Rush or Fox News. Self-control. Hard work. Thrift. High standards. Literacy. Common courtesy. Dedication to causes larger than yourself. Standing up for yourself. Education itself. Measuring your behavior against outside standards, rather than measuring those standards against fads and whims. The fact that traditional institutions are essential. The fact that the government can't pull you along, you need to stand up and pull too.
Forms of government only work when those who are supposed to have power actually have power, independent of what the form of government says the structure is supposed to be. Tyrannies only occur when tyrants have power (think Louis XIV vs. Louis XVI.) Aristocracies occur when aristocrats are powerful (see the Magna Carta). Democracies are powerful when Individuals are powerful... and that only occurs when they nurture their power through attention to sound principles, rather than squandering it by attempting to force unsound principles to work because they "feel groovy".
The Greatest Generation had sound principles, learned in the twin grinders of Depression and War. In the prosperity that followed from those principles, the Baby Boomers went off chasing bad ideas that only worked while they had Daddy's money (and now MY money, through the black magic of debt) to throw at the inevitable problems that cropped up. My own generation, following the Baby Boomers, is facing a future saddled with massive debts, critically weakened infrastructure and institutions, and a popular culture whose principles are wildly unsupportable.
The only thing we can do is look back to the Greatest Generation, remember what made them Great, and as individuals practice and spread those values until we as individual citizens are powerful again.
At that point, freedom and democracy will revive because we will make it happen. Until then, things will only darken.
|
|
Jun 19, 08:07 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Mr. Blankley's is right to suggest that democracy is not a universal notion (though "freedom" in a generic sense, I think, is). His analysis of Russian public opinion, however, misses the mark historically. Though it was nearly 17 years ago, most Russians with political opinions continue to be affected by Soviet-era thought and education: Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev all decried capitalism as unjust crime and democracy as a capitalist idea. This mode of thought has been perpetuated by Putin, an ex-KGB officer and Soviet politico, whose strongman image has won him considerable clout. Russia is further an inaccurate example for Mr. Blankley's point due to its blatant authoritarian past. Since the days of Muscovy and the House of Romanov through the Soviet-era and the Cold War, Russia's political climate has been marked by gross oppression and a noted lack of public involvement in the political process. The country was the last to end the system of serfdom (it was the late nineteenth century when this finally happened), it was the last European country to industrialize (not doing so on any significant scale until Stalin), and has only recently (since 1991) claimed to be "democratic." If there was ever a country not socially or historically fit for democracy, it is Russia.
As for China, it is NOT democratic and IS a totalitarian state. Economically, the country has begun to open up somewhat within the last decade or so but it is still a markedly closed political state. There is very little public participation in the political process, the Chinese Communist Party maintains a vice grip stranglehold on power, its human rights record continues to be miserable, and it maintains a large population of political prisoners not to mention the one-child policy or the fact that the vast majority of Chinese live in a state of forced poverty. The country DOES continue to try to change human nature and actively oppresses its people. Go read a book... I recommend Jonathan Spence's "The Search for Modern China."
Democracy per se may not be a universal notion but freedom is. Using these countries to illustrate that democracy is not universal is historically problematic and contextually ignorant.
As for China, it is NOT democratic and IS a totalitarian state. Economically, the country has begun to open up somewhat within the last decade or so but it is still a markedly closed political state. There is very little public participation in the political process, the Chinese Communist Party maintains a vice grip stranglehold on power, its human rights record continues to be miserable, and it maintains a large population of political prisoners not to mention the one-child policy or the fact that the vast majority of Chinese live in a state of forced poverty. The country DOES continue to try to change human nature and actively oppresses its people. Go read a book... I recommend Jonathan Spence's "The Search for Modern China."
Democracy per se may not be a universal notion but freedom is. Using these countries to illustrate that democracy is not universal is historically problematic and contextually ignorant.
|
|
Jun 19, 01:25 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
The reality is that China and most of Southeast Asia are far more democratic today then they were 30 years ago. In my experience Chinese people tend to simultaneously promote the ideals of democracy while attacking the idea of it because, in their imagination, "democracy" equals American hegemony, but that doesn't mean you aren't far more free to criticize the government, have a right to a fair trial, organize and associate freely and generally do and go where you please in China in a far greater way then ever before there. Not that it's perfect, all these things still come with their risks, but China is no longer a really a totalitarian state, not really. I'm not sure exactly what it is, and I think the Chinese are with me on that one, but I'm fairly sure it's not totalitarian. It certainly doesn't try to change human nature anymore. I think Puritan Massacheutsets might be the best comparison: generally very free, but there's always a risk a witch hunt will occur.
Now Russia, that's a different case in point. It may have partially something to do with a Russian respect for sheer power and partially to do with one very successful dictator (Putin).
Now Russia, that's a different case in point. It may have partially something to do with a Russian respect for sheer power and partially to do with one very successful dictator (Putin).
|
|
Jun 18, 11:35 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
You ask "Is the world getting ready to give up its birthright to self-govern for a mess of pottage?"
It's already happened because democracy was always an illusion, anyway. What we've always had is state capitalism - under various types of governments and political systems. Soviet style capitalism is dead - although still spasmodically jerking; American style is choking on its own excesses; Asian style is cooking but not yet burning; European style is...where is it?
For a modern perspective about what's wrong read Escape From Freedom by Erich Fromm.
It's already happened because democracy was always an illusion, anyway. What we've always had is state capitalism - under various types of governments and political systems. Soviet style capitalism is dead - although still spasmodically jerking; American style is choking on its own excesses; Asian style is cooking but not yet burning; European style is...where is it?
For a modern perspective about what's wrong read Escape From Freedom by Erich Fromm.
|
|
Jun 18, 10:44 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I enjoyed reading the article, however, I think the author missed a key point when discussing China's economic resurgance. The Chineese government started giving people more control over their businesses, their property, and even started allowing people to own their own home. These changes sparked competition because people now have a stake in their future and a purpose for hard work and achievement. While these changes have only been made for a few (a few out of 1 billion is a lot) the effects are an astounding endorsement of free trade, open markets, and capitalism. They are not, as I understood the article to infer, a product of communism or central planning.
As for democracy in America, it is clear our government leaves a lot to be desired. Leadership in Washington is like water in a desert, you can find it but it will not be easy. Contray to the rantings of the liberal elites and emotionally driven voters, America remains the greatest nation on earth. Whatever your political persuasion, in the last 7 years you have lived through what most economist would call an economic boom; despite what Obama says, the mortgage crises and high gas prices are not the product of George W. Bush. Under the Bush Administration the economy enjoyed 57 consecutive months of economic growth. Presidents, Democrat or Republican, do not "manage" (to quote Hillary Clinton) economies, they set economic and tax policies that lay the ground work for growth (i.e.: lower taxes, trade agreements, etc). Clinton cannot be blamed for the recession that started at the end of his term and Bush should not be blamed for the current recession. The economy has a natural ebb and flow, unfortunately, this is part of that cycle.
As for democracy in America, it is clear our government leaves a lot to be desired. Leadership in Washington is like water in a desert, you can find it but it will not be easy. Contray to the rantings of the liberal elites and emotionally driven voters, America remains the greatest nation on earth. Whatever your political persuasion, in the last 7 years you have lived through what most economist would call an economic boom; despite what Obama says, the mortgage crises and high gas prices are not the product of George W. Bush. Under the Bush Administration the economy enjoyed 57 consecutive months of economic growth. Presidents, Democrat or Republican, do not "manage" (to quote Hillary Clinton) economies, they set economic and tax policies that lay the ground work for growth (i.e.: lower taxes, trade agreements, etc). Clinton cannot be blamed for the recession that started at the end of his term and Bush should not be blamed for the current recession. The economy has a natural ebb and flow, unfortunately, this is part of that cycle.
|
|
Jun 18, 08:20 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I think Tony got it right... Yes, we are willing to give up our birthright freedom for a mess of pottage.
This is a Liberal year, young people do not know oppression, and old foolish ones do not teach them about it. The millenial generation will vote into office the most Liberal administration in history. And what will the Liberal Democrats bring?
We know that Liberals are all about control and oppression; in their world...
The State will tell us what can be taught in schools.
The State will tell us where we can practice religion, and when.
The State will hand down unvoted laws for all, laws that run against the grain of society's history.
The State will control the economy, dictating who can own a business, run it, and what prices we will pay.
All this will be justified because people will be convinced by the mass media that 'they can not cope' that things are so hard that it is too overwhelming, that the deck is stacked against them because of racism, sexism, homophobia, too poor, too old, too young.... Trade your freedom to succeed or fail, in exchange for security.
Ayan Rand had it right.
This is a Liberal year, young people do not know oppression, and old foolish ones do not teach them about it. The millenial generation will vote into office the most Liberal administration in history. And what will the Liberal Democrats bring?
We know that Liberals are all about control and oppression; in their world...
The State will tell us what can be taught in schools.
The State will tell us where we can practice religion, and when.
The State will hand down unvoted laws for all, laws that run against the grain of society's history.
The State will control the economy, dictating who can own a business, run it, and what prices we will pay.
All this will be justified because people will be convinced by the mass media that 'they can not cope' that things are so hard that it is too overwhelming, that the deck is stacked against them because of racism, sexism, homophobia, too poor, too old, too young.... Trade your freedom to succeed or fail, in exchange for security.
Ayan Rand had it right.
|
|
Jun 18, 01:31 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
What I found most interesting about Tony's article is his blessings on the Irish people for their support of democracy through their vote against the EU. I too am glad they have come to their senses since they remained neutral in WWII and in many cases sympathized with the Nazi's --including their prime minister's visit to the German embassy after Hitler's death to offer condolences.
To put it bluntly, the Irish greatly benefitted from their isolationism in WWII while other countries and the partisans battled against both the Nazi's and then the Soviet occupier and Japan.
I recall another equally interesting attempt to erase history, when in 2006 the distinctly Irish-American city of Boston dismantled a sculpture on the Boston Common dedicated to the heroic partisans that Tony referred to in his last paragraph. The Boston Irish community dumped the sculpture into a storage area surrounded by a barbed wire fence reminiscent of the the wire that was the last thing that many partisans saw after their capture and murder--that is, if they were not shot on the spot. To his eternal credit, the Greek-american head of the MTA found an appropriate spot for the sculpture outside the new trade center.
Bottom line: using the example of the Irish and the freedom loving partisans of WWII together doesn't sit well with those of us who actually read history and pay attention to those who have really served and sacrificed in freedom's cause.
To put it bluntly, the Irish greatly benefitted from their isolationism in WWII while other countries and the partisans battled against both the Nazi's and then the Soviet occupier and Japan.
I recall another equally interesting attempt to erase history, when in 2006 the distinctly Irish-American city of Boston dismantled a sculpture on the Boston Common dedicated to the heroic partisans that Tony referred to in his last paragraph. The Boston Irish community dumped the sculpture into a storage area surrounded by a barbed wire fence reminiscent of the the wire that was the last thing that many partisans saw after their capture and murder--that is, if they were not shot on the spot. To his eternal credit, the Greek-american head of the MTA found an appropriate spot for the sculpture outside the new trade center.
Bottom line: using the example of the Irish and the freedom loving partisans of WWII together doesn't sit well with those of us who actually read history and pay attention to those who have really served and sacrificed in freedom's cause.
|
|
Jun 18, 12:48 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
The U.S. Constitution was approved by state legislatures, not by a direct vote of the people. Was that elitist and antithetical to democracy?
|
|
Jun 18, 12:47 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
American democracy may be damaged—I don’t know about irreparably so—and Americans like most everybody else in the world for sure “want to make a buck.” And not knowing what a “true democracy” is, and there surely being all kinds of improvements that can be imagined for American governance and its democracy, I say American governance has to be looked at relatively, that is to say, compared to other states. On that basis it is inarguable to me, and really ought not to have to be said, that America has a functioning democracy where, again relatively speaking, Americans by and large representatively govern themselves. The recent Bouimidiene decision speaks to the vitality of the checks and balances and the protection of counter-majoritarian rights and values. The way to resolve the tension between democracy and liberty is to frame what is desired as liberal democracy and thereby to deepen the understanding of democracy as more than just the right to vote, a necessary but not a sufficient condition.
|
|
Jun 18, 12:41 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Based on some of the comments above (Jim Baker, Mike Manner, Jeanrenoir, and Bush Derangement Sydrome sufferers in general), it seems democracy isn't very popular with those in the minority. Methinks that'll change however the millisecond Obama gets elected. Democracy will be just grand then!
|
|
Jun 18, 11:54 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I believe that Democracy is not usually the friend of individual liberty, and I prefer liberty. I see the same geo-political trends in our world that Tony does, but at least he has some first hand experience on this subject. As long as Democracy sees as its goal an empowerment of the individual, democracy can be supportive of liberty. But it has been a long time since Democracy has meant the coercion of the individual for the supposed benefit of the collective. In the newer European republics, we see a semblance of the understanding of freedom, but we no longer have much of that here in the USA.
|
|
Jun 18, 11:43 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
The fact that the current Bush administration has not been held accountable for its' numerous lies and disregard for the law causes irreparable damage to American democracy. But, as the author states, people don't seem to care as long as they are making a buck. Also, the American system has never been a true democracy, rather a two party system which functions as a "Tyranny of the Majority," as Tocqueville observed in the 19th century. It has never been all that far to an even more authoritarian version of government - call it democracy or whatever you like. Truly functional democracies have three or more parties which demands debate and compromise; forming coalitions - pragmatic thinking. Sinclair Lewis was on top of all this 80+ years ago with his, "It Can't Happen Here." A novel depicting the overthrow of American government by a slickster politicianwho reminds me of Bush. Lewis also predicted that when facism comes to America it will be "carrying a cross and wrapped in the flag." But, hey, just keep that GNP moving up. Nooo problem! Come to think of it, an old Greek guy name Plato said much the same thing in his, The Republic. It's a repeating circle of human history.
|
|
Jun 18, 11:42 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
...I find it melancholy to consider that perhaps people aspire to self-government not because it is the natural and dignified condition of man to be free and self-governing, but merely only if it is likely to turn a quick economic profit...
I would emphasize the adjective "quick". Ultimately ecocomic development to endure needs a liberal model of government under which property rights and rule of law allow the market to operate and entreprenuerial genius to blossom. That model of government allowing the market to reflect individual choice and to disperse innumerable caches of expertise is inconceivable without individual rights and liberties. Centrally managed economies will collapse under their own weight in time as economic well being fuels individuals' aspirations for a better life as they see it. That is the theory behind the "end of history" trope and it still seems right to me. The transitions from managed economies to free market economies will take more time than we have yet allowed them, and we ought not confuse the deep human hunger for security and well being, which needs to be accommodated by a decent social safety net, for an absolute committment to heavily centralised and government managed economies.
I would emphasize the adjective "quick". Ultimately ecocomic development to endure needs a liberal model of government under which property rights and rule of law allow the market to operate and entreprenuerial genius to blossom. That model of government allowing the market to reflect individual choice and to disperse innumerable caches of expertise is inconceivable without individual rights and liberties. Centrally managed economies will collapse under their own weight in time as economic well being fuels individuals' aspirations for a better life as they see it. That is the theory behind the "end of history" trope and it still seems right to me. The transitions from managed economies to free market economies will take more time than we have yet allowed them, and we ought not confuse the deep human hunger for security and well being, which needs to be accommodated by a decent social safety net, for an absolute committment to heavily centralised and government managed economies.
|
|
Jun 18, 11:18 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Agoraphobic Plumber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leo P. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I'm frankly worried much more
> > about our democracy.We do not have a vibrant
> party
> > system;we have a mummified two "party"
> system.We
> > do not have such free and fair elections as we
> > wish to boast;we have increasingly
> incompetently
> > run voting,
>
> As a percentage of the total vote, the
> "problematic" situations represent a truly tiny
> proportion (Florida 2000 notwithstanding).
>
> > dominated by wealthy contributors
>
> I have the same vote as Bill Gates or George
> Soros. Thanks to blogs I can get all the
> information I desire on all candidates. I've
> never yet been influenced by the quantity of ads
> bought in any form, and I doubt most people are.
> It's what's IN the ads that turns elections. If
> you want to complain about inaccurate information
> in ads, I'm a little more sympathetic...
>
> > and
> > on the Presidential level an Electoral College
> as
> > likely as not now to frustrate the national
> > popular vote.It will be inevitably
> > discredited.
>
> That's a feature, NOT a bug. If you go strictly
> by popular vote, the metroplexes on either Coast
> will decide every single national election.
> Middle America might as well not bother going to
> the expense to vote. There would be few or no
> visits by candidates outside those two critical
> areas, either. And guess who mostly lives in
> those areas?
>
> > Local control is increasingly lost to
> > Washington.
>
> I'm right there with you on that one. Is it
> written in stone that the federal government can
> never shrink under any circumstances? Why do we
> need so many federal bureaucracies?
>
> > Finally,whatever the people even
> > get to decide is increasingly subject to an
> > overreaching and out of control Supreme Court-a
> > utterly liberal elite dedicated to thwarting
> the
> > will of the people.
>
> I'm not sure I agree that the Supremes are
> "dedicated to thwarting the will of the people".
> I think the majority of 5 has just bought in to
> the left-heading inertia that seems to have taken
> hold over the last 40 years in the judicial realm.
> The pendulum will swing back the other way, of
> course. And if they let the pendulum swing too
> far left, the swing back to the right might not be
> pleasant.
>
> > The courts made up abortion
> > rights and same-sex marriage.Simply made it up.
>
> Was it just me, or did we not even HEAR hardly
> anything (outside the fringe) about same-sex
> marriage? Suddenly it shot onto the national
> radar and now it's legal in California. Lefties
> are hailing it as a great achievement...but I
> suspect it could play out as not such a good thing
> even for them. Time will tell, I guess.
>
> > We
> > self-censor ourselves out of fear of political
> > correctness.There's nothing a "Putin" could do
> to
> > us to limit our freedoms that we haven't done
> to
> > ourselves already.
>
> The first time I heard the term "politically
> correct" was in the mid 80s as I was preparing to
> go to college. I was a raving Lefty at the time
> (as most teenagers seem to be) and even I laughed
> out loud, incredulous at the stupidity evident in
> the very expression. I'm not laughing any more.
>
> PC is the only thing short of multiple
> simultaneous nuclear weapon detonations in cities
> that I can see bringing down the US.
>
> >What is you want the world to
> > emulate?The undeclared wars?The seizure of
> private
> > property for private profit(Kelso)?California's
> > new judicial take on marriage?Maybe we deserve
> > Obama as President.The huckster P.T. Barnum
> would
> > have thought so.
>
> Maybe, but I don't think so. Defeatism is
> definitely NOT called for. There are a lot of bad
> things that have happened, true, but there are
> also some pretty cool things going on (witness the
> fact that you're able to read my thoughts and I
> yours on this board, which would not have been
> possible 2 decades ago).
With a log in name of "Agoraphobic Plumber" , I had to read what you posted. Does it mean you can only practice plumbing in your house?
In any case, I mostly agree with your assesments. A few comments, though, are in order.
-Items such as campaign finance reform restrict my right to voice my opinion (via television ads, for example) within 30 days of an election. And, effectively, only the rich can run for office. As a middle class member, I would have to beg thousands of people for contributions. The upper class begs no one.
-I couldn't agree more with keeping electoral college. Losing it would invite coastal tyranny. Those who are against the electoral college should also logically be against 2 senators for every state.
- The Court is finally, finally coming out with some moderation. In truth, most cases should be resolved not with a split vote, but unanimous. The law isn't usually unclear, idealism is what clouds their perspective. I don't wish to have judges apply the law with their "feelings."
- PC may ultimately be what brings down the U.S. Most advanced civilizations dance with the devil quite willingly to their peril.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leo P. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I'm frankly worried much more
> > about our democracy.We do not have a vibrant
> party
> > system;we have a mummified two "party"
> system.We
> > do not have such free and fair elections as we
> > wish to boast;we have increasingly
> incompetently
> > run voting,
>
> As a percentage of the total vote, the
> "problematic" situations represent a truly tiny
> proportion (Florida 2000 notwithstanding).
>
> > dominated by wealthy contributors
>
> I have the same vote as Bill Gates or George
> Soros. Thanks to blogs I can get all the
> information I desire on all candidates. I've
> never yet been influenced by the quantity of ads
> bought in any form, and I doubt most people are.
> It's what's IN the ads that turns elections. If
> you want to complain about inaccurate information
> in ads, I'm a little more sympathetic...
>
> > and
> > on the Presidential level an Electoral College
> as
> > likely as not now to frustrate the national
> > popular vote.It will be inevitably
> > discredited.
>
> That's a feature, NOT a bug. If you go strictly
> by popular vote, the metroplexes on either Coast
> will decide every single national election.
> Middle America might as well not bother going to
> the expense to vote. There would be few or no
> visits by candidates outside those two critical
> areas, either. And guess who mostly lives in
> those areas?
>
> > Local control is increasingly lost to
> > Washington.
>
> I'm right there with you on that one. Is it
> written in stone that the federal government can
> never shrink under any circumstances? Why do we
> need so many federal bureaucracies?
>
> > Finally,whatever the people even
> > get to decide is increasingly subject to an
> > overreaching and out of control Supreme Court-a
> > utterly liberal elite dedicated to thwarting
> the
> > will of the people.
>
> I'm not sure I agree that the Supremes are
> "dedicated to thwarting the will of the people".
> I think the majority of 5 has just bought in to
> the left-heading inertia that seems to have taken
> hold over the last 40 years in the judicial realm.
> The pendulum will swing back the other way, of
> course. And if they let the pendulum swing too
> far left, the swing back to the right might not be
> pleasant.
>
> > The courts made up abortion
> > rights and same-sex marriage.Simply made it up.
>
> Was it just me, or did we not even HEAR hardly
> anything (outside the fringe) about same-sex
> marriage? Suddenly it shot onto the national
> radar and now it's legal in California. Lefties
> are hailing it as a great achievement...but I
> suspect it could play out as not such a good thing
> even for them. Time will tell, I guess.
>
> > We
> > self-censor ourselves out of fear of political
> > correctness.There's nothing a "Putin" could do
> to
> > us to limit our freedoms that we haven't done
> to
> > ourselves already.
>
> The first time I heard the term "politically
> correct" was in the mid 80s as I was preparing to
> go to college. I was a raving Lefty at the time
> (as most teenagers seem to be) and even I laughed
> out loud, incredulous at the stupidity evident in
> the very expression. I'm not laughing any more.
>
> PC is the only thing short of multiple
> simultaneous nuclear weapon detonations in cities
> that I can see bringing down the US.
>
> >What is you want the world to
> > emulate?The undeclared wars?The seizure of
> private
> > property for private profit(Kelso)?California's
> > new judicial take on marriage?Maybe we deserve
> > Obama as President.The huckster P.T. Barnum
> would
> > have thought so.
>
> Maybe, but I don't think so. Defeatism is
> definitely NOT called for. There are a lot of bad
> things that have happened, true, but there are
> also some pretty cool things going on (witness the
> fact that you're able to read my thoughts and I
> yours on this board, which would not have been
> possible 2 decades ago).
With a log in name of "Agoraphobic Plumber" , I had to read what you posted. Does it mean you can only practice plumbing in your house?
In any case, I mostly agree with your assesments. A few comments, though, are in order.
-Items such as campaign finance reform restrict my right to voice my opinion (via television ads, for example) within 30 days of an election. And, effectively, only the rich can run for office. As a middle class member, I would have to beg thousands of people for contributions. The upper class begs no one.
-I couldn't agree more with keeping electoral college. Losing it would invite coastal tyranny. Those who are against the electoral college should also logically be against 2 senators for every state.
- The Court is finally, finally coming out with some moderation. In truth, most cases should be resolved not with a split vote, but unanimous. The law isn't usually unclear, idealism is what clouds their perspective. I don't wish to have judges apply the law with their "feelings."
- PC may ultimately be what brings down the U.S. Most advanced civilizations dance with the devil quite willingly to their peril.
|
|
Jun 18, 11:05 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I'm a democrat, as well as a Democrat. Nonetheless, I recall Franklin's famous admonition about American democracy, "if you can keep it." A wonderful new book called Just How Stupid Are We? appropriately indites the American demos for its ignorance and sheer stupidity, and the disastrous fallout of both in the voting record of these morons. Democracy becomes a farce, as it was in America from 2000 to 2006 when we had a public so easily bamboozled by smear-tactics and fear-mongering that they ended up voting for supporters of the greatest debacle in the history of American foreign policy in Iraq, as well as domestic politics and economic policies which obscenely favored the very rich against the dumb mob they so easily manipulated at the ballot box to vote for government ever more inimical to the best interests of the mob itself. If the Republicans are somehow able to use smears and fears to win the votes of the stupid Archie Bunkers of America even when gas is $4 a gallon, house prices are still collapsing, and food is skyrocketing, while neocons are plotting to add war with Iran as dessert after the debacle they created in Iraq, then it may be time to give up on democracy and endorse the wary skepticism of Franklin, if the mob shows once and for all its inability to "keep it."
|
|
Jun 18, 09:19 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
We're at the point of the cycle, probably best described as, apathy. Face it-- there is a pretty sizable segment out there that is just, plain lazy. Hopefully, there are enough on the other side to keep things chugging along. The worst mistake that can be made is to keep with this never-ending expansion of centralized rule--which, of course, just feeds into the apathy.
|
|
Jun 18, 08:55 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
doesn't the Irish vote suggest that democracy is still pretty well understood by voters? I do agree that the Brussocrats suffer under an inferiority complex they believe can be cured if the European Economic Union could somehow find the moxy to be a political union under Brusslels, which has, for the record, great beer, moules, and frites.
I don't see the demise of democracy foreshadowed by differences of view or diversity. I do think a staleness of leadership which began in the U.S. in 1992 with the first of the baby boomer presidents has taken a terrible toll on Americans' belief that government can act in an enlightened, forward thinking way while respecting fully U.S. law and political institutions. Accountability for actions has been the price of stalled leadership in the U.S. and in the EU, and partly explains the popularity of a Putin, who got things done--good and bad.
I don't know whether a preboomer Prez like McCain, who has never worked a day out of military or government service since 1954, except for a short stint working for Cindy's dad in 1981, has the requisite skills to lead an economic revival. And I don't know if the much, much, smarter post boomer Barack Obama can manage a government with the same skill with which he whipped the Clintons during the primary campaign. But that's the choice, Tony, our American democracy has produced this critical election year.
I don't see the demise of democracy foreshadowed by differences of view or diversity. I do think a staleness of leadership which began in the U.S. in 1992 with the first of the baby boomer presidents has taken a terrible toll on Americans' belief that government can act in an enlightened, forward thinking way while respecting fully U.S. law and political institutions. Accountability for actions has been the price of stalled leadership in the U.S. and in the EU, and partly explains the popularity of a Putin, who got things done--good and bad.
I don't know whether a preboomer Prez like McCain, who has never worked a day out of military or government service since 1954, except for a short stint working for Cindy's dad in 1981, has the requisite skills to lead an economic revival. And I don't know if the much, much, smarter post boomer Barack Obama can manage a government with the same skill with which he whipped the Clintons during the primary campaign. But that's the choice, Tony, our American democracy has produced this critical election year.
|
|
Jun 18, 08:48 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
While I understand the author’s sentiments, as well as those posted above, I hold a more optimistic view of democracy, and more importantly, classical liberalism. We should remember that when President Reagan took office, there were a handful of democracies, today there are roughly 120. They are of course in various stages of development, some more free than others, but democracies. The past 30 years has been described by some as a democratic revolution. What we often lack in our assessment of the state of affairs with respect to sociologic trends and governance is the resolution of time (particularly as Americans) to see transient oscillations and short term upheavals for what they are. I often use the analogy, though it seems silly, of an anthropologist from another planet who, in his/her/its study of our species and its development, is detached, emotionally uninvested, and objective. From this vantage point the alien anthropologist can fairly compare and contrast the state of human affairs not simply on a year to year basis as we are inclined, but across centuries, millennia. I suspect such an observer might, based on the totality of our history, suggest that with the abrupt fall of the Soviet Union which resulted in vastly unbalanced distributions of power and influence globally, combined with the dramatic rise in global economics blurring once clear allegiances and resulting in (hopefully temporary) extremes of wealth disparities, the rapid rise of progressive secularism in a shrinking world encroaching upon the long isolated territories of 14th century religious strongholds, and many other factors, should naturally lead to some form of transient upheaval and swings in sociologic trends. But taken as a whole, our history as a species would suggest there is, and has been, an inexorable march of humanity, albeit with countless transient detours, towards the fundamental principles of classical liberalism, specifically freedom and self-determination. It is unfortunate, however, that we, as a result of our teachings in the 20th century, tie freedom to democracy exclusively, and now have gone as far as using democracy as a surrogate for freedom as an absolute. This is not wise. Democracy is simply mob-rule if not bound by firmly entrenched underlying principles of liberty, supremacy of the individual over collectivism and inviolable restrictions on the powers of the state. It is a point of stark contrast between President Reagan for example and Presidents Clinton and Bush. President Reagan was a champion of freedom, while the latter two have been champions of democracy and privatization. This is not to suggest that they are necessarily wrong given their circumstances, but there is a very important distinction between the two approaches. Promoting freedom first assumes that the fundamental concepts of individual liberty are the seeds from which representative gov't will likely grow. Conversely, promoting democracy first, presumes it is from the concept of majority rule that freedom will emerge. I, personally, am inclined to prefer the former approach, viewing freedom, preserved and defended by any number of governing constructs is a preferable outcome to democracy taking the form of a strong-man inspired mob-rule at the expense of freedom, as is the case in Russia for example. Nonetheless, it can be said with certainty that democracies are less likely to attack one another, and there is definitely value in that. Ultimately, I am optimistic that the direction of freedom with the consequent emergence of representative gov't has been and continues to be humanity's general vector, though the magnitude and precise orientation of that vector wobbles at times. Though rarely invoked in political debate today, it is the American civil war and the singularly unique reconstitution of a strong democracy grounded in freedom afterwards that serves as the greatest testimony to the power of freedom over less enduring social constructs. Freedom has survived the crown, the Nazis, the Soviets, and, in my estimation, will survive the wahabists and jihadists as well, though it will never escape challenge, because ultimately freedom is hard and demands responsibility and adult adjustments rather than child-like dependency as is necessary for autocracies of all flavors to thrive.
|
|
Jun 18, 08:43 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Leo P. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm frankly worried much more
> about our democracy.We do not have a vibrant party
> system;we have a mummified two "party" system.We
> do not have such free and fair elections as we
> wish to boast;we have increasingly incompetently
> run voting,
As a percentage of the total vote, the "problematic" situations represent a truly tiny proportion (Florida 2000 notwithstanding).
> dominated by wealthy contributors
I have the same vote as Bill Gates or George Soros. Thanks to blogs I can get all the information I desire on all candidates. I've never yet been influenced by the quantity of ads bought in any form, and I doubt most people are. It's what's IN the ads that turns elections. If you want to complain about inaccurate information in ads, I'm a little more sympathetic...
> and
> on the Presidential level an Electoral College as
> likely as not now to frustrate the national
> popular vote.It will be inevitably
> discredited.
That's a feature, NOT a bug. If you go strictly by popular vote, the metroplexes on either Coast will decide every single national election. Middle America might as well not bother going to the expense to vote. There would be few or no visits by candidates outside those two critical areas, either. And guess who mostly lives in those areas?
> Local control is increasingly lost to
> Washington.
I'm right there with you on that one. Is it written in stone that the federal government can never shrink under any circumstances? Why do we need so many federal bureaucracies?
> Finally,whatever the people even
> get to decide is increasingly subject to an
> overreaching and out of control Supreme Court-a
> utterly liberal elite dedicated to thwarting the
> will of the people.
I'm not sure I agree that the Supremes are "dedicated to thwarting the will of the people". I think the majority of 5 has just bought in to the left-heading inertia that seems to have taken hold over the last 40 years in the judicial realm. The pendulum will swing back the other way, of course. And if they let the pendulum swing too far left, the swing back to the right might not be pleasant.
> The courts made up abortion
> rights and same-sex marriage.Simply made it up.
Was it just me, or did we not even HEAR hardly anything (outside the fringe) about same-sex marriage? Suddenly it shot onto the national radar and now it's legal in California. Lefties are hailing it as a great achievement...but I suspect it could play out as not such a good thing even for them. Time will tell, I guess.
> We
> self-censor ourselves out of fear of political
> correctness.There's nothing a "Putin" could do to
> us to limit our freedoms that we haven't done to
> ourselves already.
The first time I heard the term "politically correct" was in the mid 80s as I was preparing to go to college. I was a raving Lefty at the time (as most teenagers seem to be) and even I laughed out loud, incredulous at the stupidity evident in the very expression. I'm not laughing any more.
PC is the only thing short of multiple simultaneous nuclear weapon detonations in cities that I can see bringing down the US.
>What is you want the world to
> emulate?The undeclared wars?The seizure of private
> property for private profit(Kelso)?California's
> new judicial take on marriage?Maybe we deserve
> Obama as President.The huckster P.T. Barnum would
> have thought so.
Maybe, but I don't think so. Defeatism is definitely NOT called for. There are a lot of bad things that have happened, true, but there are also some pretty cool things going on (witness the fact that you're able to read my thoughts and I yours on this board, which would not have been possible 2 decades ago).
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm frankly worried much more
> about our democracy.We do not have a vibrant party
> system;we have a mummified two "party" system.We
> do not have such free and fair elections as we
> wish to boast;we have increasingly incompetently
> run voting,
As a percentage of the total vote, the "problematic" situations represent a truly tiny proportion (Florida 2000 notwithstanding).
> dominated by wealthy contributors
I have the same vote as Bill Gates or George Soros. Thanks to blogs I can get all the information I desire on all candidates. I've never yet been influenced by the quantity of ads bought in any form, and I doubt most people are. It's what's IN the ads that turns elections. If you want to complain about inaccurate information in ads, I'm a little more sympathetic...
> and
> on the Presidential level an Electoral College as
> likely as not now to frustrate the national
> popular vote.It will be inevitably
> discredited.
That's a feature, NOT a bug. If you go strictly by popular vote, the metroplexes on either Coast will decide every single national election. Middle America might as well not bother going to the expense to vote. There would be few or no visits by candidates outside those two critical areas, either. And guess who mostly lives in those areas?
> Local control is increasingly lost to
> Washington.
I'm right there with you on that one. Is it written in stone that the federal government can never shrink under any circumstances? Why do we need so many federal bureaucracies?
> Finally,whatever the people even
> get to decide is increasingly subject to an
> overreaching and out of control Supreme Court-a
> utterly liberal elite dedicated to thwarting the
> will of the people.
I'm not sure I agree that the Supremes are "dedicated to thwarting the will of the people". I think the majority of 5 has just bought in to the left-heading inertia that seems to have taken hold over the last 40 years in the judicial realm. The pendulum will swing back the other way, of course. And if they let the pendulum swing too far left, the swing back to the right might not be pleasant.
> The courts made up abortion
> rights and same-sex marriage.Simply made it up.
Was it just me, or did we not even HEAR hardly anything (outside the fringe) about same-sex marriage? Suddenly it shot onto the national radar and now it's legal in California. Lefties are hailing it as a great achievement...but I suspect it could play out as not such a good thing even for them. Time will tell, I guess.
> We
> self-censor ourselves out of fear of political
> correctness.There's nothing a "Putin" could do to
> us to limit our freedoms that we haven't done to
> ourselves already.
The first time I heard the term "politically correct" was in the mid 80s as I was preparing to go to college. I was a raving Lefty at the time (as most teenagers seem to be) and even I laughed out loud, incredulous at the stupidity evident in the very expression. I'm not laughing any more.
PC is the only thing short of multiple simultaneous nuclear weapon detonations in cities that I can see bringing down the US.
>What is you want the world to
> emulate?The undeclared wars?The seizure of private
> property for private profit(Kelso)?California's
> new judicial take on marriage?Maybe we deserve
> Obama as President.The huckster P.T. Barnum would
> have thought so.
Maybe, but I don't think so. Defeatism is definitely NOT called for. There are a lot of bad things that have happened, true, but there are also some pretty cool things going on (witness the fact that you're able to read my thoughts and I yours on this board, which would not have been possible 2 decades ago).
|
|
Jun 18, 08:14 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
But won't the EU eventually just become a large, nuclear-armed Muslim state? It's already referred to as "Eurabia" and will eventually be ruled under Sharia law. Democracy will be a memory - if it is not one already. And, of course, it is probably more efficient economically to run a dictatorshiop than a democracy because you can always simply murder your economic rivals. Ask Hitler.
The erosion of democracy continues on this side of the Pond too, if you've been following Mark Steyn's prosecution before Canada's "Human Rights Tribunal/Commission," as reported by David Warren and Jonah Goldberg. So, Sharia is coming to Canada as well.
My hope is that we get new leadership. The current crop - across the board - is quite obviously hopeless.
The erosion of democracy continues on this side of the Pond too, if you've been following Mark Steyn's prosecution before Canada's "Human Rights Tribunal/Commission," as reported by David Warren and Jonah Goldberg. So, Sharia is coming to Canada as well.
My hope is that we get new leadership. The current crop - across the board - is quite obviously hopeless.
|
|
Jun 18, 08:07 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
At least Tony's honest: He hates the West.
I had a professor in college who gave long, detailed lectures to support his theory that Western Civilization was less than 10 years from ruin. Then, he predicted that it would be Japan that would be the master of Europe and North America.
Well, Japan has been in a 15-year recession and that professor is in his grave. And Western Civilization continues.
Now comes Blankley to cry tears at an early wake for the late, great West.
The greatest threat to Western Civilization -- as it always has been -- is the West's flirtations with authoritarianism. Fascism, autocracy and totalitarianism are what will bring the West down, if anything.
In Blankley's home country, the greatest threat to the classically liberal features of American life are the efforts by the present Washington government to curtail the economy, speech and personal freedom. We see this manifest in the great, scripted whining over the decision by their Supreme Court that those indefinitely incarcerated by their government should at least get a quarter of an hour before a government-employed judge.
Blankley and his employer are complicit, then, in threatening the Western Civilization he claims to love.
The West is about freedom, but why does Blankley support those who would curtail it for a little security? His tears are a crocodile's.
OH AND INCIDENTALLY, Tony, you ought to brush up on your Western History. Magna Carta in 1215 was not some "birth of freedom" as you inaccurately put it. That document was not some sort of new constitution, it was the barons making King John agree in writing to the freedoms they had long enjoyed but he had abused. Men were free in England long before Magna Carta. The document was needed to correct a bad king. It only recorded what the rules had been for 300 years.
That would be akin to now having Bush read the 1789 U.S. Constitution and then signing a paper saying he read it and understood and would go and sin no more.
Good luck, Tony. We Westerners will be all right without you.
I had a professor in college who gave long, detailed lectures to support his theory that Western Civilization was less than 10 years from ruin. Then, he predicted that it would be Japan that would be the master of Europe and North America.
Well, Japan has been in a 15-year recession and that professor is in his grave. And Western Civilization continues.
Now comes Blankley to cry tears at an early wake for the late, great West.
The greatest threat to Western Civilization -- as it always has been -- is the West's flirtations with authoritarianism. Fascism, autocracy and totalitarianism are what will bring the West down, if anything.
In Blankley's home country, the greatest threat to the classically liberal features of American life are the efforts by the present Washington government to curtail the economy, speech and personal freedom. We see this manifest in the great, scripted whining over the decision by their Supreme Court that those indefinitely incarcerated by their government should at least get a quarter of an hour before a government-employed judge.
Blankley and his employer are complicit, then, in threatening the Western Civilization he claims to love.
The West is about freedom, but why does Blankley support those who would curtail it for a little security? His tears are a crocodile's.
OH AND INCIDENTALLY, Tony, you ought to brush up on your Western History. Magna Carta in 1215 was not some "birth of freedom" as you inaccurately put it. That document was not some sort of new constitution, it was the barons making King John agree in writing to the freedoms they had long enjoyed but he had abused. Men were free in England long before Magna Carta. The document was needed to correct a bad king. It only recorded what the rules had been for 300 years.
That would be akin to now having Bush read the 1789 U.S. Constitution and then signing a paper saying he read it and understood and would go and sin no more.
Good luck, Tony. We Westerners will be all right without you.
|
|
Jun 18, 07:21 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I feel helpless. My government is reactionary at best, simply it seems, to regain imagined political leverage. I don't feel protected. I don't feel safe. Both major political parties have dropped the ball. I feel let down. Most of our "leaders" seem to have forgotten why they have the job. The press (online and print), TV, radio and movie media serve merely to distribute useless rants and sniping. Such a waste and abuse of the great opportunity to make a positive difference. My emails, comments like this and pleas to government representatives and members of "press" go nowhere. Doing good things, setting admirable examples and focusing on rebuilding some nationalistic pride in America just doesn't sell Iguess. In direct reference to htis article, I have had similar thoughts about how our way of life and reasons for being American have been in decay. I am sad and again, I feel helpless. Illegal immigrants get privileged treatment over American Citizens. Insurance companies gouge us under protection of our laws. Courts make law. Segments of society are purposely pitted against one another. Spin it how ever you want. From my viewpoint, we are a society that increasingly relies on the handout and quick fix, skirts the rules on purpose and is admired for it, can marry anything that breathes because it is our right, aids bad people in the world in the name of protection of sovereignty, glorifies tragedy for impact and ratings. Again, I am sad and feel helpless as I watch our country's greatness slip away.
|
|
Jun 18, 06:53 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Americans don't know democracy if they fell into it. Maybe Bush should invade to teach them?
And here's a shocker: 352 superdelegates and Al Gore are wrong.
And here's a shocker: 352 superdelegates and Al Gore are wrong.
|
|
Jun 18, 04:50 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Interesting generalization based on visiting two large authoritarian countries. It would have been good for you to have wandered into India after Russia and China. You would see that democracy is deeply entrenched in a country of 1 billion with so much diversity that it is amazing multiple centrifugal forces don't tear it apart everyday. This is not to say that all is well. There is a strong streak of authoritarianism within the political parties and in public and private life, and democracy still is largely electoral and not functional within political institutions, but you wouldn't find too many political scientists arguing that democracy is on the decline in India.
|
|
Jun 18, 03:09 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Read Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" for his seemingly accurate foresight in how democracy is destroyed by liberalism. It is happening now.
|
|
Jun 18, 02:19 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
The essence of Christianity and other religions is to wait for the day that a king type will take control and rule the world. This is not a Democratic instinct. People don't want Democracy, they want to be ruled, they pray for the day some great ruler will take over the world and make everything allright. Democracy is just an idealistic political tool, but it is the ideal of a few elites who benifit most from liberty. The masses want to be ruled by an ideal--an ideal king.
|
|
Jun 18, 01:18 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
When Ronald Reagan was elected America was the largest creditor nation in the world and the largest supplier of finished manufactured goods in the world. Back then, foreign ownership of American businesses was nominal-now $2 trillion dollars of "American" businesses have been sold off to foreigners. Today, we are plunging headlong into becoming a third world country with our major exports being natural resources and debt (with ever-declining dollars). We spend more on military expenditures than all the rest of the nations of the world combined. So is it any wonder the rest of the world is starting to beg askance of our alleged "democracy"? This selling out of America over the past 28 years should be appalling to any true conservative-just ask Ron Paul. Will so-called conservatives today choose to continue to remain in denial of this just because progressives feel the same way? Our future teeters in the balance.
|
|
Jun 18, 12:38 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Mr. Blankley you are a thoughtful man and obviously grateful to have become an American citizen.You should be most worried about American democracy.That the vast majority of Russians are content with their system makes it only for the truly stupid to contemplate more stupid confrontation over internal Russian affairs,i.e. McCain's openly stupid idea to toss Russia from the G-8.(and I'm voting for McCain as the lesser of two liberals).I'm frankly worried much more about our democracy.We do not have a vibrant party system;we have a mummified two "party" system.We do not have such free and fair elections as we wish to boast;we have increasingly incompetently run voting,dominated by wealthy contributors and on the Presidential level an Electoral College as likely as not now to frustrate the national popular vote.It will be inevitably discredited.Local control is increasingly lost to Washington.The population grows but the numbers in Congress are frozen-your vote does count less with each passing year.Finally,whatever the people even get to decide is increasingly subject to an overreaching and out of control Supreme Court-a utterly liberal elite dedicated to thwarting the will of the people.The courts made up abortion rights and same-sex marriage.Simply made it up.We self-censor ourselves out of fear of political correctness.There's nothing a "Putin" could do to us to limit our freedoms that we haven't done to ourselves already.What is you want the world to emulate?The undeclared wars?The seizure of private property for private profit(Kelso)?California's new judicial take on marriage?Maybe we deserve Obama as President.The huckster P.T. Barnum would have thought so.
|
|
Jun 18, 12:12 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Tony: I always enjoy your views on Left, Right & Center. But I'm confused by your point. You give us your inside-observation of the move away from democracy in Russia and China (two places where democracy has no history). And you indicate that democracy in the West (where it has a long tradition) may be an historical aberration. Yet you revel in the Irish choice to keep mom-and-pop democracy alive in Western Europe. Are these counter-trends or part of the same anti-democratic movement? Or unrelated, in which case I'm really confused as to your larger point. Perhaps you'll clear it all up on Friday's show. At least now I know where you've been! --Russell