Posted on 04/21/2002 7:46:09 AM PDT by Darth Sidious
And he's wrong about that, too. Julius Caesar was "elected" to the dictatorship only after marching his legions across the Rubicon and occupying Rome. Cromwell became "Lord Protector" only after taking up arms not merely against King Charles but against Parliament as well. Napoleon rose to power only after leading the Brumaire coup d'etat. Hitler was not elected to the chancellorship, he was appointed to it, and didn't have dictatorial power until after conducting a rigged election in March 1933. The common thread is that dictators, after seizing power by force of arms, generally try to legitimize themselves with elections. Such elections, invariably "monitored" by thugs from the dictator's faction, are hardly examples of democracy in action.
Pretending that George Bush and Adolf Hitler are cut from the same cloth—which is certainly Lucas' and TIME's subtext here, and presumably "Darth"'s as well—is not merely morally bankrupt but historically ignorant. Come talk to me after Trent Lott guns down Daschle, after Marc Rocicot burns down the Capitol building; then I'll acknowledge that our Republic is about to "become" a dictatorship.
Someday they will grow up and take a principled stand against BOTH crime syndicates and demand a return to the Constitution.Semper,But it may not be this generation.
Though I may not feel your precise frustration, I feel a share of it. You see corruption and power glomming clearly enough. But do you see to what purpose?
Those whom you wish to reach seem beyond reach don't they? One man foresaw this predicament in 1943.
Without expanding the quotes further, let me add the following.
From my understanding of Lewis, I think he says to you "somehow your conditioning to willingly accept contemporary mores didn't take, and now you feel isolated."
Even though your concerns are legitimate, you meet indifference. Lewis foresaw that circumstance too. He said it was inevitable. The majority have been conditioned to an "open mind," and, in so doing, have had their allegiance turned from our most important traditions, and their minds closed to the sacrifices and understanding from which the traditions were rendered. For those traditions you are grateful. To those traditions you still feel obligated. (As does first_salute, hence his inclusion above).
It's my observation that we've largely been conditioned by cynics (media and adversarial legal system) to, in the least, be skeptical about most everything, and particularly distrustful of our fellows. And if we recall DeTocqueville, "The despot rather cares less that you love him than that you are distrustful of your fellows," you've gotta ask the question why are we being misled so? Why is the accumulation of so much power so important for a few people?
So again, I ask you to consider in depth "To what end this power seeking?"
Lewis also answered that in part. However, he lacked the experience of his predictions. We've witnessed those experiences and so I think we can see the answer more clearly. As you know, my reading of what is that intended end is as grim as it gets.
--------------
* I think the "we" Lewis refers directly to is the educational establishment of which he was a part. However, he most certainly would mean to implicate society at large.
semper: Yes. The purpose is self-agrandizement. It is the sense of self-preservation run amok in an unfettered field of opportunity.
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.