|
|
|
August 19, 2007
A culture of dictatorship?
A number of blogs (both rightish, leftish and centrish) seem to be wising up to something that ought to concern everyone. The Democrats are either going along with or giving dictatorial powers to the very Republicans they claim should not have been given the dictatorial powers that they helped give them. I don't know what to say, but the last time I suspected a bipartisan power grab was shortly after 9/11. I saw freedom as threatened: Bad as it was to see our enemies bring down such a symbol of freedom as the World Trade Center, it was even worse to see ordinary Americans being told that it was their fault. Unbelievably, this message did not come solely from Osama bin Laden and his supporters. People here, on the left as well as the right, told us that we were to blame. Next, a chorus of voices declared that because our enemies had destroyed the Twin Towers, that we had too much freedom, and that some of it must now be taken away. That was too much for me. It has taken me some time to realize the connection, but I now see that our freedom is like the Twin Towers: seemingly strong and indestructible, but at the same time frail and delicate -- and quite mortal in the face of an evil threat.You might expect that in a time of national panic, bad laws would passed. (Like the Patriot Act, which is being utilized more for the drug war than the war against terrorism.) So what's up now? There's an election coming. "Bush the dictator" will be gone soon, right? Someone else will be sworn in on January 20, 2009. The "dictator" will be out. And what? Long live the dictator? Might it just be that the Democrats anticipate taking the White House, and want to have all this dictatorial power for themselves? Might they be greasing the skids? If you look at things this way, the Republicans aren't doing a very good job of planning ahead. Because, if Hillary Clinton gets caught up in the "culture of dictatorship," it'll be all too easy for her to simply turn around and blame the Republicans!
(Might want to put a capital "D" on it as a rhetorical aid....) UPDATE: Thank you, Glenn Reynolds, for linking this post. Welcome all! I'm especially honored to be linked right after Alan Sullivan's analysis of how much easier it is to destroy a nation than build one. I hope we're not doing the former, and I like the way Alan ends on a note of optimism: Fortunately our electorate is a little more complex than the ones that elevated Mugabe and Chavez.It's absolutely true. posted by Eric on 08.19.07 at 02:28 PM
Comments
This is what worries me. There's a quote from "A Man for all Seasons": Sir Thomas More: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? JayC · August 19, 2007 09:02 PM It's getting harder and harder for any intelligent human being to insist that we really do have a two party system rather than a single ruling party with two factions. The Democrats and Republicans work too closely together on issues that they shouldn't agree on for it to be otherwise. Granted, there will always be the cheerful, useful idiots who will enthusiastically say that you're just being paranoid for saying that they're two wings of the same party. Some people, perhaps too many people, don't let observation get in the way of what they've been told or want to believe. MikeT · August 19, 2007 09:03 PM They're still two parties. We are suffering from a single political philosophy: government intervention. The differences? The particular interventions, of course. Brett · August 20, 2007 08:02 AM They often don't even disagree on that, as witnessed by the way the Democrats cowtowed to the Republicans on the FISA bill. The "two parties" exist more on paper than in public policy. MikeT · August 20, 2007 10:09 AM Mike, you remind me of a great old quote by George Bernard Shaw (I think, but might be wrong). "The United States has only one political party, but in typical American extravagance, they have two of them." tim maguire · August 20, 2007 03:56 PM The political parties are generated from the bottom up, not the top down. It is true that those at the top of the parties are all about one thing: power. This is why you'll see them work together at times to increase the power of the state, or remove its accountability to the people, but this is NOT the same thing as having one party with two faces. Anonymous · August 21, 2007 09:16 AM The political parties are generated from the bottom up, not the top down. It is true that those at the top of the parties are all about one thing: power. This is why you'll see them work together at times to increase the power of the state, or remove its accountability to the people, but this is NOT the same thing as having one party with two faces. Lee · August 21, 2007 09:17 AM One of the things we do is continue thinking that the outcomes of our activities is inevitable. They are not and the actual viability of democracy itself has yet to be severely tested. Our own viability and legitimacy have fallen below that of Germany's circa 1932-3, although we have more *money* and *goods* we have less support of government and society. The outcome of that was seen clearly from the founding of the Nation and repulics and democracies were no sinecure against failure. They know that having seen failures of *both* in history before them. We have forgotten those lessons of history and what happens when democracies and republics slide from legitimacy and viability. Apparently we will now find a new and fun way of repeating failure... the failures we have been warned about. But paying attention takes time, as does supporting society. If we are too busy to keep democracy, then we will find ourselves with plenty of time on our hands when it fails as our lives will be going away with it. ajacksonian · August 21, 2007 07:05 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2007
July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Merry Prankster money
• Victimized by dog violence? • the end of violence • The Big Heat Pipe In The Sky • Freedom is violence! • Catching up with Philadelphia gun violence • Happy Blogiversary, Kesher Talk! • Self help books -- for those who hate self help books! • A culture of dictatorship? • So don't buy the sink, watch the video!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I wouldn't put it past them (Democrats).