History will record Natan Sharansky as one of the world's great spokemen for human rights. History will record Buchanan as being a nothing.
They are in different leagues. Best indication is that apparently a society (and her prez) cannot simultaneously be realistic and idealistic.
The fact that a man suffers for his beliefs does not add anything to the logic of his position. It only attests to his courage.
Pat Buchanan has also suffered for his beliefs, and has gone from being one of the favorite spokesmen for Republican Conservatives to one isolated from many Republicans as a result of a vicious smear campaign against him in 1999. (See Fair Play For Pat Buchanan.)
Shransky's argument is platitudinous. Nowhere in the transcript does he even discuss the qualifications for suffrage in the future he envisions. The idea of turning much of the world over to an unknown class of decision makers--for that is the practical aspect of what he proposes--is looney-tunes. Can you imagine running a company by hiring people at random to take the major decision making positions? Of course not! This "Democracy" mantra is a form of cant that needs to be challenged, not genuflected before.
Democracy works in Switzerland, for the same reason that it works in a small New Hampshire town. It does not work in many Third World countries, where the same combination of factors are not present. In fact, it can result in some incredibly cruel results. (See Democracy In The Third World.)
William Flax