End of Democracy

[midcan5]

Is the republican party today a threat to democracy ?

Politics is moving right based on cultural issues that separate us. The conservative foundations and think tanks (Bradley, Smith Richardson, Scaife, CATO, Heritage, AEI) provide money and training for those who accept and propagate their point of view. Their point of view rewrites history and is primarily about anti-liberalism and what they perceive as its faults. Liberalism's faults can be summed up as big government and cultural openness. According to conservative think tanks (CTT) big government wants to control our lives and resources. Its main tools for control are taxes and law. Government stands in the way of corporate freedom by regulation and requirements. Corporate freedom or the free market is the god of the new right. Inherent in this juxtaposition of business and government is a tension that allows propaganda to maintain focus: if something works business was responsible if something fails government caused it. CTT goal is to reduce or remove government except to maintain the states' internal and external security. Government today protects the new corporatism.

How it happens:

Moderates will be removed from political office in favor of a candidate who better follows the new corporatism. Bush rather than McCain. In Pennsylvania Specter was labeled a liberal but still won, this will change as labels become more fixed. Santorum represents the new right, notice it is not what he does but what he says that matters. This distinction will not be understood in the future.

Moderates are removed from court appointments at all levels. Consider Thomas and Scalia's narrow interpretation of the constitution. Many idealogues have been blocked but some have passed into the system. The function of law shifts from attempts at justice to laissez faire market and religious guidelines.

History is revised. History is forgotten. He who controls the present controls the past he who controls the present controls the future. All the positives of liberalism are removed, negatives are assigned instead. What follows does not matter, if a new policy fails it is the lingering remains of the past and that past needs constantly to be countered. History never stabilizes as the growth of the corporation must always attain new markets and new powers.

Diversity will not be recognized except in class structures and then only tacitly. The CTT support the further dissolution of the new deal and great society to strengthen and increase their power. With no cushion workers are forced to accept any wage. States vie for corporate offerings and modify tax codes and environmental polices to support corporatism.

The Press remains neutral or is owned by the right wing corporate powers. In an effort at fairness and balance all news is presented without criticism, while this gives the appearance of truth it allows a confusion of priorities so that primary spokesmen can define the issues. Constant repetition of policy statements or supporting doctrine becomes standard. Terrorism becomes the background for all actions until a replacement foe is required. The vagueness mutes any criticism.

Generational knowledge and shared values are lost, education and emigration no longer function as unifying tools. As history is revised the base of youth change and they do not learn or know the past. Schools become more conservative as funding goes to voucher systems and schools with diverse points of view are marginalized. Students learn revisionist history. Already today conservative youth repeat the CTT interpretations. Recent examples, the Great Depression was caused by government control. Joseph McCarthy was unfairly castigated by the left. Conflicts were lost because of opposing ideologies.

Tax structure changes so that only the rich can maintain and improve their positions in society. Statistically you already stay pretty much where you start, that diminishes more as the separation between rich and poor increases. Faith based initiatives are tax supported but linked to cultural requirements further stifling dissent. Help is marginal as the workforce is still required for corporatism and the lack of support feeds into common economic fear and insecurity.

Religion is introduced into politics through a change of law and a prohibition of cultural freedoms. Abortion, porn, and offensive language are prohibited. Of course these taboos are never conquered and the fight is modeled after the war on drugs or terror. This war remain essential to thought control. Organizations such as the ACLU are weakened but left intact as the enemy. Demonization of the other must remain as part of religion and its new political control.

Dissent is further diminished but should never be totally defeated. As an example consider the liberal media of today, it does not exist but it is essential that the myth be maintained. This creates a tension between what is reported and what should be reported. If the news is good it is accepted if the news is bad it is the liberal media. Bad news or truth can then be ignored.

International relations are based on laissez faire and fear. While this sounds contradictory it offers corporatism the flexibility to shift and change. If negative change is required, say loss or shift of jobs, reasons can easily be derived from conditions. Conditions and knowledge are controlled so reasons can be hidden. Fear and security, good and evil become the dichotomies of all thinking for the public. Obviously they can easily be switched when information is controlled.

Religious and Corporate elements blend finally and work becomes duty and honor. Unions are totally abolished as they stand in the way of corporate/religious dictates. Finally work becomes a blessing and a gift so that belief comes to manage the work force as it manages the far right today. Job is grace not a right of citizens. Poor pay is no longer considered unfair.

Government ceases to function for its citizens and functions marginally for security and primarily to serve Corporatism.

American democracy is lost

Is there a future. What stage are we in? Those who lived through Reagan/Bush in Corporate America recognize the beginnings of this scenario. I would imagine that had you lived through the great depression you may have questioned your country's ability to work. But liberalism in the form of the FDR and a bipartisan group of people who cared more about America than about money came into power and used their abilities to make it work again. Otherwise the disparities grow and eventually the supporting structures will become that of a second rate nation. The tension will still exist but without a diverse education steeped in History it is difficult to know who is to blame. The rich, of course, will move, they care only for money and banks are international. And let's face it if you can afford a house anywhere the French Riviera is beautiful.

It was a wonderful experiment while it lasted.

[UncleVinny]

Wow, quite an insight!!!

But still, SOME people are smart enough to see through the manipulation.
Even now the bush hold is slipping as the disaster of the Iraq war hits home and people see their children sacrificed on the desert sands for bush's oil buddies.



story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20041228/ts_latimes/reelectionhoneymoonwithvoterseludesbushpollssay
A Gallup survey conducted for CNN and USA Today puts Bush's approval rating at 49% — close to his preelection numbers. That's 10 to 20 points lower than every elected sitting president at this stage since just after World War II, according to Gallup, which has been tabulating such data since Harry S. Truman won a full term in 1948.
Bush's Gallup rating echoed a survey published last week by ABC News and the Washington Post, which put his approval rating at 48%. That poll also found that 56% of Americans believed the Iraq war was not worth fighting. Time magazine also put Bush's overall approval at 49%.

[midcan5]

In case anyone thinks some of the ideas presented above are too far fetched I offer the following two links on education. The second is fascinating reading.

www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/28/academic.freedom.ap/index.html

www.commondreams.org/views04/1228-32.htm

[MO]

In case you think people are reading your long winded, boring crap and using your links, I'll tell you that they probably are not.

[UncleVinny]

Gee, talk about "End of Democracy" today Washington Post tells a story of how bush and the Pentagon now want to find ways to detain people for long periods of time and still remain OUTSIDE the legal system, outside the reach of courts or US law. They complain they need a way to imprison people that the CIA now has hidden, and not be forced to allow them access to attorneys, the Red Cross or any other monitoring agency. They need to do this because there is no way under the current system to hold so many people "WITHOUT EVIDENCE."

My question: Why do we not see people protesting this very apparent disregard for the US Constitution, which specifically forbits imprisoning people without "due process"??

When is someone going to arrest bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld as the war criminals they are?

Didn't bush lay his hand on the bible and swear to "Uphold the Constition of the US"?? So is he a LIAR?

[midcan5]

Mo, you are obviously reading it ? Do you not think it presumptuous to think for others? Freedom requires eternal vigilance.

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. Abraham Lincoln

You may think your actions are meaningless and that they won't help, but that is no excuse, you must still act. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest. Elie Wiesel

All that is essential for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke

The hottest seats in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crises, choose to do nothing. Dante Alighieri

The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

We are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. Dwight David Eisenhower

The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism.... It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn. . George Washington.

[midcan5]

This is from the Saturday NYT editorial page. Too long to post but fascinating piece. Check it out.

The Ends of the World as We Know Them By Jared Diamond

Published: January 1, 2005

Los Angeles — NEW Year's weekend traditionally is a time for us to reflect, and to make resolutions based on our reflections. In this fresh year, with the United States seemingly at the height of its power and at the start of a new presidential term, Americans are increasingly concerned and divided about where we are going. How long can America remain ascendant? Where will we stand 10 years from now, or even next year?

Such questions seem especially appropriate this year. History warns us that when once-powerful societies collapse, they tend to do so quickly and unexpectedly. That shouldn't come as much of a surprise: peak power usually means peak population, peak needs, and hence peak vulnerability. What can be learned from history that could help us avoid joining the ranks of those who declined swiftly? We must expect the answers to be complex, because historical reality is complex: while some societies did indeed collapse spectacularly, others have managed to thrive for thousands of years without major reversal.

When it comes to historical collapses, five groups of interacting factors have been especially important: the damage that people have inflicted on their environment; climate change; enemies; changes in friendly trading partners; and the society's political, economic and social responses to these shifts. That's not to say that all five causes play a role in every case. Instead, think of this as a useful checklist of factors that should be examined, but whose relative importance varies from case to case.

[midcan5]

Taking Market Ideology to Its Cruelest End by Matthew Rothschild

Here’s a story I thought was a hoax.

It came in by e-mail on Dec. 30 from the Ayn Rand Institute, and it had an Onion-type headline that read: “U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims.”<br>
So unsure of its kosherness was I that I called up the author, one David Holcberg at the Ayn Rand Institute.

He vouched for it, though.

The piece began by focusing on the “private organizations and individuals” that are helping the victims. “Such help may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of the affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own,” the piece said.

“May” be entirely proper? Is there a doubt?

And of the more than 133,000 who have died, did any die through fault of their own?

The thrust of the rightwing libertarian group’s piece was that the U.S. government “should not give any money to help the tsunami victims” because “every dollar the government hands out as foreign aid has to be extorted from an American taxpayer first.”<br>
The folks at Ayn Rand don’t believe in taxation.

And beyond that, they don’t even believe in altruism. All they believe in is the market.

Check this out: “It is America’s acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth,” the piece said.

It calls this altruism “a vicious morality.”<br>
What’s vicious is letting millions of people go hungry and homeless and without clean water or medical care.

This self-parody would be easy to laugh off if it did not represent the apotheosis of free market idolatry, idolatry that is worshipped at the highest levels of our government.

Published on Saturday, January 1, 2005 by The Progressive
www.commondreams.org/views05/0101-03.htm

[MO]

Commondreams? Please!

What you call altruism I call theft.Why is it more altruistic if the money is stolen and not given voluntarily?

[GregoryA]

As a Social Studies teacher, I go a little nuts when I hear people ranging from George W. Bush to Ted Kennedy state that we live in a democracy.

The fact is we live in a republic or representitive democracy. There is a huge difference.

So the fact is saying that something will cause the end of democracy is rather irrelevant, because we do not live in a democracy.

[TNRighty]

CORRECTAMUNGO, GregoryA

The United States is NOT a Democracy. Our founding fathers stated that implicitly. They believed Democracy was the predecessor of tyranny. If you haven't done it yet, read the Federalist Papers.

Democracy is based on majority rule, and our founders feared that concept. America is a Republic and was founded upon the principle of the rule of law, laws that are above the interpretation of man. They believed the freedom of Humanity is granted from a higher power and that those freedoms cannot be legislated by governments and thus sought to form a system of government that protected the rights of man, not defined them.

That's why they were so reluctant to give too much power to a centralized government, thus reserving the rights of the states. The central government in its constitutional form was created in essence to give the states an avenue in which to engage collectively in foreign trade and to unite militarily against a common threat.

If they knew we were paying more than 10, 20, and even 30% of our income in federal taxes there's nothing we could do to keep them from jumping out of their graves and going bananas.

[TNRighty]

To answer your question, Is the Republican Party a threat to Democracy, aka, our Republic (see previous post).

YES, and so are Democrats.

All forms of government are a threat to freedom because governments are made up of men who seek power. Freedom is not defined by a type of government, nor is it granted by government. Freedom is an inherent desire of mankind, endowed by our creator, and independent of government. In the history of the world, there has never been a government that did not look to expand its power, and there has not ever been a government that has not been overthrown. You see, mankind has a long history of living and fighting for freedom, be the threat from abroad or within. Man's instinct for freedom is like a dog's instinct for food. For as long as there is life on earth people will seek freedom from governments who want to control them. Man by nature will always seek power, but PEOPLE will seek to be free from man. The human spirit was born with a built in sense of sovreignty.

Money is power, but no amount of monetary wealth can equal the power that comes from controlling people. Why else would someone leave a job making millions a year to run for president where they'll make $250 grand? Some are called to lead, some are motivated by the power their money (or thier wife's money) can't buy. Its up to us to distinguish.

In America, we have for the first time in the history of mankind a constitution that outlines the God-given rights of man and protects them from government. If freedom (or Democracy if you want to call it that) is ever going to prevail, it will do so here. And it won't be because of our president, it will be because of our people. The president and our government serve at our pleasure, and if we are to be free we must never forget that.

Our constitution defines and protects the rights of our people, not the rights of our government.

[GregoryA]

Amen! Our system is based on the premise that the Creator, not governments, have given humans certain rights which are unchangeable. The main function of the government is to insure that those rights are maintained. If the government fails to perform this most basic function...it's time for a change.

We therefore must always be vigilant to the threat of the government overstepping its bounds.

[Ian]

This brings forth an issue that is before the Supreme Court today, that being the issue of the attempted separation of God from state.

If one is to believe that there is no God and that no one is endowed with certain God-given, hallowed rights, then one must come to the conclusion that the rights afforded to mankind are handed down by a governing body only. Thus, if a governing body has the power to bestow its citizens with rights, there can be absolutely no argument against the power of that government to remove those rights from any or all of its citizens.

Enter a seemingly ignored moral dilemma on the part of the left, that being their quest to secure the "secular rights" of terrorist combatants.

[TNRighty]

Good point.

The Supreme Court's responsibility is to uphold the word of the Constitution, not legislate policy.

The Supreme Court is responsible to the Constitution, not the whims of the masses. That's where the line between a Democracy and a Republic must be defined and defended. America is ruled by law, not the opinion of the majority.

This is exactly why Liberals are fighting George Bush tooth and nail on his Supreme Court nominees. When liberals fail to push their agenda through the ballot box they turn to the courts to legisltate their agendas.

I don't know if there were lines drawn between conservativism and liberalism during the time the constitution was written, but if you read the constitution today it is obvious that it falls to the conservative side of modern politics. Thus it makes perfect sense that liberals oppose Justices who view themselves as servants to the Constitution and support Justices who believe their personal opinions are above the Constitution.

A man who is driven to override, define, or redefine the laws of the land is a tyrant, even if his views appeal to the masses. That's how tyranny manifests itself, when the masses allow it. If we allow the rule of law to be circumvented by a man with a popular opinion we are inviting tyranny. We must always be aware of the fact that we don't vote for the man we want to rule us; we vote for the man we believe will uphold the laws by which we live.

In a representative republic, a leader is a servant of the people, not the other way around.