| Tuesday, January
20, 2004
The media created Dean, and is now busily crushing him like a bug.
Interesting. =========================
Consider the following. I
have comments below. Jerry
Fred just elaborated on
what you wrote today:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/DemocracyText.shtml
I can't say that he's wrong at all, and that is more
than a bit scary.
Ed
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
Here is the latest from Fred. In his usual obnoxious
manner he starts out trying to see how much of his potential audience he can
offend. For those who stay the course, he has something to say. I don't
always agree with all, or sometimes even with any of it but he always hits
close enough to the truth to make very uncomfortable reading. like you, he
makes me think.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/DemocracyText.shtml
Patrick A. Hoage
Fred in his usual manner goes to the heart of issues. The
essay on "FAKING IT" (meaning on faking democracy) begins:
While the United States is freer and more
democratic than many countries, it is not, I think, either as free or as
democratic as we are expected to believe, and becomes rapidly less so.
Indeed we seem to be specialists in maintaining the appearance without
having the substance. Regarding the techniques of which, a few thoughts:
(1) Free speech does not exist in America. We
all know what we can’t say and about whom we can’t say it.
(2) A democracy run by two barely
distinguishable parties is not in fact a democracy.
A parliamentary democracy allows expression of
a range of points of view: A ecological candidate may be elected, along with
a communist, a racial-separatist, and a libertarian. These will make sure
their ideas are at least heard. By contrast, the two-party system prevents
expression of any ideas the two parties agree to suppress. How much open
discussion do you hear during presidential elections of, for example, race,
immigration, abortion, gun control, and the continuing abolition of
Christianity? These are the issues most important to most people, yet are
quashed.
All of which is true, and all of which is cause for concern.
But: do understand that the Republic was intentionally set up to "fake it"
in the sense that it wasn't intended to be a Democracy. The old John Birch
Society had most things wrong, but their slogan was correct: "This is a
Republic, not a Democracy." That was intended by the Framers, and their
intention was defended in The Federalist Papers, a series of letters to the
editors of newspapers, written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay under the
pseudonym "Publius", and intended to persuade voters to ratify the
Constitution of 1789 as drafted in the Convention of 1787. It
is a commentary on American public life and the quality of public schools
that most students in our schools have never heard of the Federalist Papers,
and most colleges consider The Federalist too difficult to be assigned to
undergraduates (upper division political science majors sometimes excepted).
Letters to the editors of newspapers, intended to be persuasive to voters,
are now arcana, impossible for high school students, and too difficult to be
assigned to college students.
Left to me, I would make it mandatory to have at least a
rudimentary knowledge of The Federalist a requirement for admission to
college. Left to me I would make it mandatory to have a rudimentary
knowledge of The Federalist before you could register to vote in a Federal
election. But that's an aside and not what this comment is about.
The Framers rightly feared direct democracy, and rule by "faction" which is
to say by political parties. They also understood there would probably be no
way to suppress parties as such, although they did manage to keep them from
being organized for a number of years. The notion of federal laws governing
the establishment of political parties, and federal tax money being paid to
political candidates, would have been enough to make most of the Federalists
revolt, possibly to bring back King George as the lesser of the evils
visiting the Republic. But: while they feared direct
democracy, they also understood that government should address the real
problems of the Republic as seen by the citizens: the notion that two
parties could suppress all comment and debate on the most important issues
facing the Republic: immigration, citizenship, government hostility to
public religion, an armed citizenry, would have sent the Framers back to
their Committees of Correspondence concerning the Public Safety, and the
militia into the streets to bring down a foul tyranny in blood; and I don't
think I exaggerate. "The important thing is that every
citizen be armed." Is that debated now? "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free
exercise thereof" in a nation that had tax-supported established churches in
7 of the 13 states at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted did not mean
that federal courts would intervene to take down a manger in the public
square. God save the United States and this honorable court.
In Los Angeles the police are forbidden to interfere with the activities of
gang members who have been convicted of crimes and deported and are now
illegally back in the country: the policeman who arrested this criminal
whose "parole" was contingent on his being deported, cannot arrest him on
sight as an obvious criminal, because the LAPD is not allowed to have any
enforcement powers in immigration matters. If they did it might interfere
with the illegal immigrant's rights to public largess, education, health
care, and welfare. And I wish I were making this up. Now
perhaps this is as it should be, but it is not that way due to any debate
and election. Indeed, California voted to deny illegal aliens public
benefits, but the Federal Courts have ruled that unconstitutional under
reasoning that strains the imagination. California must collect taxes and
pay benefits to people who are criminals under Federal Law but who will not
be interfered with by Federal officers -- and this on orders of Federal
Courts.
Perhaps this is as it should be, but shouldn't some of this
be debated? How many candidates for public office have you heard commenting
on these matters? Fred puts things bluntly and strongly, and
I would argue that direct democracy is a cure worse than the disease; but
the Republic the Framers created is pretty well gone now, and the Imperium
isn't paying much attention to the people either.
===================== We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or
to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on
such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for
light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that
mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
Guards for their future security
======================= I doubt those words are studied much
in schools today, nor is Federalist 10, nor most of what I learned in 8th
grade civics in rural Tennessee. So it goes.
Tuesday TOP
Current Mail
|
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
