He made the point that the material that made up the image gradually decreased in value the further down the image you went. Nebuchadnezzar was the golden part of the image, his kingdom was an absolute monarchy. The empires that came after, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and eventually the revived Roman Empire are all weaker forms of government.
Well, to make a long story short(or is it to make a short story long?) he made the case that it would be a democracy that would make up the empire represented by the feet of clay and iron. It was his contention that God has a dim view of democracies.
Any thoughts about that? I know this had nothing to do with Tolkien so if you would like to take this conversation to The Neverending Story that would be ok with me.
-ksen
To answer your Tolkien-unrelated but interesting question, it would seem to me that God has a dim view of kings! After all, when the Israelites demanded a king, didn't Samuel warn them of all the bad things that would happen? And since I'm a stickler for semantics, I might add that a democracy is "mob rule", where the whole people decide every issue, and not practical on a large scale. What we practice is a representative republic, not a democracy. Which is why this site is called "Free Republic".
I'll be back for real Tolkien talk after second breakfast.