Replies

No, the attitude of the English has traditionally been "deference" to authority. Although this is fading under the influence of and socialism, they still retain the forms. As regards "democracy," I do not "worship"it, even in the form that it appears in the United States. Let us not forget what has become of the Democratic Party in the United States, that in that party as in American elite circles it has now practically become identified with the Marxist critique of society and even the social democracy that we see everywhere enthroned in Europe.

I feel like King Agrippa or Festus or whoever it was that told the Apostle Paul "you much learning has made you mad". What in the H-E double hockey sticks you talkin' about?

Since this statement is causing so much confusion let's look at it. It seems to me that Robby is saying that democracy is not a cure all or perfection. He is saying that democracy, like our modern Democrat party, or the Social Democracies of Europe tend to eventually grow themselves into organized socialism, often at the expense of freedom and other worthwhile ideals.

No society can last very long as a pure democracy, there always need to be gatekeepers, some type of elite that looks out for the common man. The founders of this nation surely didn't intend for ignorant masses to be bussed to precincts to vote for leaders. No, the idea was that the landed gentry, the aristocracy would, as they always have, look out for the interests of all.

Granted there have been benefits to increasing the franchise, but there have also been drawbacks. The universal type we have now, the "motor voter" the MTV "get out the vote" etc is not doing this country any good. Even newspapers that should know better cheerlead for ignorant people to vote. If anything, the ignorant should be discuraged from voting.

In any event, democracy is the best thing we have come up with, like capitalism is, but unfettered versions can be disasterous. SD