Do we really believe in Democracy?

[TheSage]

I agree in principle with this post. Democrat and Republican is tweedle dee and tweedle dum, with RARE exceptions.

Back when I was a newspaper reporter in New Jersey, the journalists (usually liberal) would joke that democracy was bad for the state, and that it really needed a "benevolent dictator." I always laughed because I see the truth of this. Democracy is too apt to lead to "rule by the lowest common denominator," which is a pretty shitty state of affairs. I realize monarchy, oligarcy, etc. have drawbacks, but...

I envision a dictatorship where freedom is mandatory, and there are no legislators to slowly strip away our freedoms.

[loosecannon]

Actual democracy gives us Cheez Whiz, Fox News, Danielle Steele, Oprah and animal-stripe NFL drawstring pants worn by adult men and women. Elitism gave us Bach, Van Gogh and Shakespeare, the Roman Republic, Aristotle and the crown jewels.

One of the most memorable posts i have ever read on a board.

That was a different elitism. That was pre industrial revolution elitism.

I actually do not mind or object to elitism. It isn't monarchy or oligarchy. It is a class dedicated to patronizing the arts and sciences for a variety of reasons.

Any meritocracy will create elites.

[diuretic]

I agree in principle with this post. Democrat and Republican is tweedle dee and tweedle dum, with RARE exceptions.

Back when I was a newspaper reporter in New Jersey, the journalists (usually liberal) would joke that democracy was bad for the state, and that it really needed a "benevolent dictator." I always laughed because I see the truth of this. Democracy is too apt to lead to "rule by the lowest common denominator," which is a pretty shitty state of affairs. I realize monarchy, oligarcy, etc. have drawbacks, but...

Actual democracy gives us Cheez Whiz, Fox News, Danielle Steele, Oprah and animal-stripe NFL drawstring pants worn by adult men and women. Elitism gave us Bach, Van Gogh and Shakespeare, the Roman Republic, Aristotle and the crown jewels.

If you knew anything about the struggle between democracy and rule by an elite you wouldn't be so dismissive and trivialise it in that manner. Anyway Aristotle would be offended. Not Plato, the later, older Plato would approve of your support of rule by elite but Aristotle, no, I don't think he would have seen eye to eye. The struggle between democracy and elitism, where democracy wins, gives people the right to choose between Oprah and Beethoven.

[diuretic]

I envision a dictatorship where freedom is mandatory, and there are no legislators to slowly strip away our freedoms.

I don't know about mandating freedom, if something's mandated it speaks of an authority which can issue a mandate but it seems you're in favour of a civilised form of anarchism.

[Hugh Lincoln]

If you knew anything about the struggle between democracy and rule by an elite you wouldn't be so dismissive and trivialise it in that manner. Anyway Aristotle would be offended. Not Plato, the later, older Plato would approve of your support of rule by elite but Aristotle, no, I don't think he would have seen eye to eye.

Don't you have this backward... Aristotle for elitism, Plato, not so much? Granted my classics could be better. But Aristotle went so far as to defend slavery, so I'm not sure he'd be offended by my post.

I don't think there has ever been a struggle in history between "democracy" and "rule by an elite." Rather, I think it's been struggles between elites. And the elites proposing to replace the other elites do so by appealing to "democracy." The story of monarchy's fall in Europe was basically the story of the rise of the just-under-royal class, as in the nobles v. King John at Runnemede. Democracy is just monarchy with better public relations. Consider: if Hillary is elected President, that will make a 24-year stretch in which America is controlled by just TWO FAMILIES. There are indeed monarchies with faster rates of turnover and more responsiveness to the popular will than that.

The struggle between democracy and elitism, where democracy wins, gives people the right to choose between Oprah and Beethoven

The "right" to "choose" between Oprah and Beethoven? Under democracy, Beethoven works at the Post Office and never gets the chance to compose. The sophistication of his arrangements is appreciated by too few to be commercially successful. So we get Billy Ray Cyrus, Ricky Martin and Paula Abdul, see?

Basically what I'm saying here is that the limitation of a large franchise is that the more you bring in, the lower the bar goes. Allow property-owning white males only the vote, and you get James Madison. Allow illegal aliens, felons, the illiterate and 18-year-old girls with an IQ of 83 to vote, and you get America today.

[Gunny]

Well, now that "story" is in the WP:

Iraqi Lawmakers Back Bill on US Withdrawal
By Joshua Partlow
The Washington Post

Friday 11 May 2007

Baghdad - A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews


As you will notice, there is support for this resolution among Sunnis, Shiite, and Kurds--not just "followers of Sadr."

So what exactly is your point? The Iraqi's want a gradual withdrawal of US troops and replacment with Iraqi troops. Why do I think that has been the plan from Day One?

If the government of Iraq wants to set its own timeline, it's their country and their business, and we should honor it.