Please Help keep FR Independent!!
Posted on 07/07/2013 9:06:59 AM PDT by nuconvert
Just hours after the Egyptian army deposed Mohammed Morsi on July 3, President Obama expressed "deep concern" at the ouster of Egypt's first democratically elected leader and reiterated U.S. support for "the democratic process and respect for the rule of law." He instructed the State Department to re-evaluate more than 1 billion dollars in aid earmarked to Egypt.
Now is not the time to punish Egypt, however. If democracy is the goal, then the United States should celebrate Egypt's coup.
Morsi may have won an election, but he despised the democracy which propelled him to power. Rather than consult and build coalitions, he sought to dominate.
Last November, just five months into his presidency and with deliberations over a new constitution deadlocked, Morsi seized dictatorial power. As guardian of the revolution, he argued, his power should trump the judiciary. If the Egyptian people wanted constitutional order, his allies suggested, they should approve the constitution the Muslim Brotherhood drafted in the absence of any quorum.
(Excerpt) Read more at michaelrubin.org ...
Perhaps our goal should be good government, with democracy one of many possible means to that end.
Britain has problems, but it an island of good government compared to elsewhere in Europe, probably wouldn’t be improved by electing their head of state.
Morsi’s actions sound amazingly like king Obama’s ideology...oh well, brotherhoods who dictate together, stay together...
Obama has a of of Chutzpah.
He speaks of the rule of law, when he mocks it every day with his Executive Orders. Making up his own laws as he goes along. Ignoring the Constitution.
Of democracy when he shoves Obamacare down the throats of a people who don’t want it.
Why are we sending Egypt a Billion dollars in the First Place, when we are broke?
Obama a Dictatorial half with a following of half wits.
That goes for Egypt's Morsi as well.
At the end of the day what we’ll end up with is Elbaredai who is little more than a globalist “moderate” muslim who can paint the lipstick on the same old caliphate hog.
I think that remains to be seen. I certainly celebrate the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood but whether the result will be true democracy is far from settled.
Most here are to afraid to utter the name of our muslim brotherhood problem. (Grover Norquist)
Our own lack of moral courage is our downfall.
Hmm... Sounds familiar.
Democracy is not the issue. In all liklihood, the Muslim Brotherhood would win a democrat election today.
The issue is personal liberty, which protects the minority. Democracy and tyranny are not mutually exclusive. Democracy only insures that the majority gets to be in charge.
I would rather live under a king who respected personal liberties than in a democracy that did not.
“In all liklihood, the Muslim Brotherhood would win a democrat election today.”
Doubtful. I believe they are supported by about 25% of the population.
In the article....
“Too often, policymakers equate democracy only with elections. Hence, George W. Bush’s administration blessed elections in Palestine and Lebanon, never mind that Hamas and Hezbollah maintained military wings to seize by force what they could not win at the ballot box.
The broader truth — elections are just one pillar of democracy. The others are protection of human rights, equality under the law and active public participation.”
See I disagree with how you are defining democracy. Democracy is majority rule and nothing more.
This is a very important distinction, because so many people consider any majority vote to constitute a solid moral outcome. That is not the case.
If 90% of the populace votes to liquidate 10% of the populace it is both democratic and tyrannical.
It is not by accident or innocent oversight that the MSM only ever talks about democracy when they mean a legitimate government. They do not accept the premise of an unchanging constitution (commonly accepted unquestionable rights). They are rather warm to the notion of a living constitution that bends to the will of the majority (them).
Instead of trying to redefine democracy to be something more encompassing than it is, it is better to educate people that democracy is a tool for making decisions that are not already taken off the table by a commonly accepted constitution.
Why would you think that? They won the las election, and I don't think they did anything that their voters didn't expect them to do.
“He speaks of the rule of law...”
I estimate half of what Odumbo speaks he says only for the sake of appearing credible, with absolutely no belief behind it.
I would go you one better and say 85%.
“I would rather live under a king who respected personal liberties than in a democracy that did not.”
Democracy certainly does not mean that freedom and liberty will be respected. We have too much democracy in the United States now as witnessed by the election of Obama. I believe we need to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and the Electoral College. The President should then be chosen either by a vote of two thirds of the state governors or a two thirds vote of the House of Representatives with each state having only 1 vote.
Once chosen, the president would be subject to yearly review and could be fired by a simple majority of the body that elected him. Allowing people to elect a president is lunacy when half the electorate is ignorant and dependent on government for their livelihood.
YES! You know what you are talking about!
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.