You were defending "Democracy," yet here seek to oppose it, by setting up our Constitutional Republic, which was specifically designed to prevent Democracy. (See Madison's discussion in No. 10 of the Federalist Papers. I do not want to insult you, but fear that you are as confused as is the President.)
Incidentally, the Scandinavian countries are roughly on a par with, not higher in IQ than the rooted American Caucasian population. And, incidentally, they are starting to move to the right in Denmark and Norway.
Your other comments show a total confusion between how the Government is chosen, and what the Government does. Governments elected can be as disasterous--or more disasterous for their people--than those unelected. You are focusing on procedures rather than substance, and are confused even there. Democracy in a land with relatively low average IQ and less educated people, simply permits decision making by the less qualified. Would you run a business on such a fromula?
And how many democracies have we been to war with? Was Saddam's Iraq one? Were the N. Vietnamese communists or democrats? Did Adolf Hitler tolerate dissent once in office or did he usurp the power to the Nazi machine?
Hitler did indeed usurp power, just as Roosevelt, LBJ, Clinton and Bush II have ururped power. But he was a product of the Weimar Republic, which was a Democracy, persuading enough of the Electorate to make his party the largest in Germany, with well over 40% of the vote. (They had about the same percentage as Clinton, when he won in 1992, or Nixon in 1968; more than the 38% Lincoln polled in 1860.)
Your quoting from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence further reflects your confusion. A statement of self-evident facts is not a call for one-man/one vote. If you read the actual Declaration, and do not get stuck in the Preamble, you might clarify your understanding of what was afoot. The idea of even universal White male suffrage was not even popular in America until the 1820s, it was certainly not the norm in 1776 or 1787 or 1800. (See Declaration Of Independence, With Study Guide.)
The President's policy can only be justified by leaving the most significant details out of his mental calculations. It is at best intellectually undisciplined, wishful thinking; at worst actually delusional. In either event, it is extremely dangerous. It is a revival of the Dean Rusk policy from the 1960s, which has caused enormous misery in Africa and elsewhere.
William Flax
Sorry about the typo inversion in the last line of my third paragraph.
No it is you who is confused. Democracy is a broad term. And is only effective if the democratic institutions are able to support it. For example, a constitution, an impartial judicial system, a police force capable of enforcing law and order. Our Constitutional republic is a form of democracy, just as Britains parliamentarian system is and just as the Swiss federal system is. The same applies to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, etc, etc. Regardless of the particulars, each is a form of democratic rule. Elected representatives that are anwerable to the people and that can be voted out of office.
No one is arguing for a pure democracy, and no one with any intellect ever has.
So the question remains, which countries are we more likely to be at war with? Those with democracies or those with tyrannical rulers who cannot be defeated by the will of the people? The answer is obvious, yet you want to get into an arcane discussion about the particular features of governance that all falls under the rubric of democracy.
Hitler usurped power, therefore he became a dictator, at no risk of being tossed from office other than a coup. Rossevelt won each election he was in, therefore he stayed in power. Apples and oranges, and pointless to the discussion.
Are we at loggerheads with Peru or with Venezuela (currently being run by an tyrant who is doing his best Hitler immitation)? With South Korea or North Korea? With Israel or Syria? With Turkey or Iran?
And has the realpolitik you subscribe to been effective over the last 30 years to stop the growth of the islamist terrorists? Answer no. The Bush doctrine will end it.
And you notion that "Bush II" usurped power is amazingly delusional. Maybe you might want to try the DU for like minded individuals.