Posted on 02/07/2011 6:30:52 AM PST by Repulican Donkey
A little bit of democracy can be a dangerous thing
I’m a slave, and I hate it. However, I would never be the lone firestarter lest I be labeled a “whacko.”
That’s the difference between the left and the right when it comes to these public displays of violence: the leftists truly think that by martyring themselves they’ll make a difference. The right knows it won’t make a damn bit of difference and will be waiting in the weeds for when the Feds come looking for them. These are obviously hyperbolic extremes, but I think they demonstrate the patience of the right vs. the self-important, over-indulgent idiocy of the left.
Why does anyone think that a revolution, with today's ignorant and apathetic populace would result in anything but a more corrupt tyranny?
Even an orderly Constitutional Convention would be attended on by the SPLC and Clintonites and ACLUers at best who would delete the 2nd Amendment and add "right to healthcare, housing and self-esteem."
Our nukes are useless with a potus like Obama, because he won't use them.
Our guns are useless against tyranny in our homes because we are isolated and fractured.
We cannot even align behind a 85% conservative, much less commit our lives and families' lives to a final defense of liberty....so if it comes to that, the tyranny turn off the internet and will pick off the patriots one by one just like at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
And even if an "armed revolution" united behind a common leader, it would splinter immediately into Huckabee fundamentalists and Romney progressives and Lord knows what else. What kind of idiotic fantasies do people harbor about "real Americans" rising again? It can't happen folks.
Sam I respectfully disagree with you! I think it not only CAN happen but IS happening as we speak and none of us can afford to stand on the sidelines!
It’s not a n ARMED revolution, at least not yet, but a revolution it is!
At the time George Washington was wanted by the country to run again (and again.)
Back to your Machiavelli readings....who would have presided over a more just, libertine government:
George Washington in a totalitarian dictatorship, or Barack Obama in the current kleptocracy we have now?
Washington would have kept the Federal Government limited and checked. Obama uses the complexity of the federal system to constrain liberty.
Put simply, it is not the form of government, but the character of the people comprising the government.
And that means in a representative republic, the people. Granted, our Constitution has done more to restrain the evil exploits of bad character, but I disagree with this old saying:
The Constitution CAN BE a suicide pact if "we the people" become too depraved.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, esp. the part that I bolded.
Violence is the only thing that despots understand. Attempting a "peaceful" revolt is tantamount to spitting at a tank. Sure it'll clean off some of the grime, but in the end, you're still staring down the barrel of a turret.
Ruby Ridge and Waco is where we're headed on a massive scale. Until they start putting up "re-education camps" around the country, most Americans will continue on their complacent journey through life tethered to the Facebook accounts and Twitter.
Just to clarify, are you missing a “not” somewhere?
You state that it is the character of the people, but then you say you disagree with the Constitution becoming a suicide pact if the people become too depraved.
It is for us, fellow citizens, to watch over the sacred legacy of our venerated Fathers, and, when necessary, ‘to provide other guards for the future security’ of ourselves and our posterity. To restore, when impaired, our free institutions to their original strength and purity, and to guard them in future against the open or covert assaults of their enemies. To preserve those institutions pure and uncontaminated, amidst the dangerous and corrupting influences of those who, guided not by the spirit of virtue and patriotism, seek only their own personal interests and personal aggrandizement is a sacred and solemn duty which we own to ourselves, and to those who are destined to walk after us.
Nathan Smith
We have ignored his sage advise for FAR to long!
Don’t list your personal shit as news!
I’m suggesting that the Constitution is only as good as the people who wield it.
For example, we’ve set ourselves up for the possibility with the Vinson ruling that SCOTUS could make a single ruling now on a 5-4 decision and forever change the accepted meaning of the Constitution to force people to buy healthcare...or whatever.
Well, ok. So what if George Washington was the President and the SCOTUS ruled in such a way? He would de-commission HHS and whatever he could in his executive powers as being inconsistent with his understanding of liberty and the Constitution.
Point is, even in the best case, we are already down to 535+9+1=545 people controlling every last element of our lives within the constraints of the Constitution.
The Constitution very well can become a suicide pact at some point.
Thanks for clarifying.
Ummmmmmmmmmm........Hitler was never elected by anyone. He was appointed Reichkanzler by a largely senile President Paul v. Hindenburg in 1933. As for the NSDAP, yes, they were the largest political party, but the only reason Hitler ended up in his position was through a shabby political deal by Kurt von Schleicher and Franz Papen, both cronies to President Hindenburg, and both previous RK’s as well. Mussolini essentially staged a coup d’etat and was also appointed to his position by the King of Italy (Victor Emmanuel the 3rd) after staging the infamous March on Rome (1922), which is probably the greatest political strategic bluff of the 20th Century.....he and the National Fascist Party bamboozled the King into thinking that unless Mussolini were appointed as PM, the Fascisti were going to overthrow the government by force. General Franco didn’t exactly hand over power to anyone....he stayed on in his position, not only suriving Hitler, Mussolini and WW2, but stayed in power as head of state from 1936 until his death in 1975. Not exactly the poster child for a democratic republican leader. Remember folks, history books are your friends.
While I generally sympathize with the author's point of view (I also oppose democracy in Egypt), this isn't actually true.
Hitler was never elected to any office, nor did the Nazi party ever win a national election.
Aided by a significant amount of brownshirt voter intimidation, the Nazis won a plurality (but not a majority) in the Reichstag in 1932. However, no party wanted to form a governing coalition with the Nazis, so Hitler had to be appointed Chancelor by President Hindenburg. In 1933, under duress from a mob of Brownshirt goons, the Reichstag voted to give Hitler dicatorial powers.
However, the fact that the Nazis managed to come to power without actually winning an election actually helps the author's argument.
A violent, totalitarian party need not actually win any elections to take power in a democracy. All it needs is significant minority support. It can then use violence and intimidation to leverage that minority support into power.
That's exactly what the Nazis did, and that's what Hizbollah did in Lebanon, and what the Mullahs did in Iran.
That's why countries in which a significant minority of the population supports a totalitarian party cannot be trusted with democracy. Period.
The best we can hope for in such countries is a secularist, enlightened military dictatorship, or at least a democracy whose choices are restricted by the military.
Let's hope that's what happens in Egypt.
Thank you for your eloquent and witty reply. As all postings are approved prior to being listed, I will continue to post my ideas so long as the FR allows. Again, thank you for your input and for demonstrating to us all the limits of your vocabulary and the precision of your critical thinking skills.
Yes!
No. With all due respect; All 'Democracy' is dangerous. That's why our Founders avoided it like the plague. And why we are a Constitutional Republic with a Representative, (small d) democracy, form of government.
'Democracy' is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Obama ignores the Constitution as presidents before him have.
Congress routinely ignores the Constitution. It is now a tradition to do so.
Over a period of many years the Supreme Court has ignored the contitution, misinterpreted it and avoided tough constitutional questions by refusing to hear certain cases.
Then, when we have a crisis because of their lack of fidelity to their oath of office, the same people blame it on a faulty. outmoded, old fashioned constitution.
Further, the Founders DID NOT give us a pure democracy. They gave us a Democratic Republic AND wisely limited the legal ability to cast a vote to citizens with certain, enumerated qualifications.
As to the pitfalls of unfettered democracy forseen by the Founders and other insightful intellects, we have seen self serving majorities elect destructive and/or incompetent people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Cynthia McKinney, Hank (tipping islands) Johnson, Sheila (flag on Mars) Jackson Lee, Barney Frank and on and on and on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.