Meta, I do wish you’d look past the stereotypical arguments.
you think proving that corrupt people can take advantage proves the ideal of democracy is bad.
Amongst other things. But I don’t think Bush was as horribly corrupt as the Rabid Anti-Bushers thought, just as I don’t think Obama is as corrupt as his greatest detractors claim.
However, the prevalence and existence of those Anti Sentiments provides the impetus for my claim that Democracy is Divisive socially. Its less about how the evil bad corrupt Bush got power, and more that you think he’s evil, bad, and corrupt to the point of still complaining about an even that took place a decade ago. Or how your campaigning about the inevitable and predictable Republican takeover of the House. Or how you will react if they reclaim the Senate in the next Senatorial election, in which 33 or 34 seats are open.
And yes I know that Republicans react the same way when Democrats get in, and they also claim that the Democrats are evil or corrupt, but that’s sort of my point to begin with.
Unity? Not so long as this system exists.
What do the brutal excesses of every monarchy that ever existed prove?
That you don’t know History.
This argument ceased to work on me when I actually took the time to study History. The claim that literally every Monarchy has brutal excesses is just laughably inaccurate, as many Monarchs have been kind, just, and fair, and despite the popular claim, the greater number of them have been either good or at least indifferent rather than Cruel and oppressive. The claim that most Monarchies have been bad is false.
The Vast majority of the time, Monarchy is not oppressive, and doesn’t enter into brutal excesses.
Meanwhile, the Heroes of Democracy who brought us Popular sovereignty in the name of the People, and who acted as mere Public Servants have nearly always been far, far, far more brutal.
George Washington surprised violently (And Hypocritically) Three separate Revolutions after the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson forced the Indians off their land which the King in his evil oppressive cruelty told the Colonist not to move into, which is one of the complaints against him set as an intolerable act in the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln, well known as a great American Hero and one of the greatest Presidents America has ever had silenced any opposition to his Administration or the war effort, closed down newspapers, arrested dissenters, and even deported one Senator to the South. Ironically Jefferson Davies allowed open criticism of himself and his Administration as well as the Confederate Cause as he believed in Free Speech and he’s the bad guy.
Kennedy created the Veit Nam war based on the American Ideal of Republicanism, and the thought that Americans wouldn’t want to support a Monarchy. They created a rigged election in which the people voted to abolish the Monarchy, and once they got their way installed who they thought would be a Puppet in president Deim. When Deim retained the Royal Customs and was seen as acting more like a Monarch than a President, and when he decided to solve Veit Nams problems his own way rather than allow America to take over, Kennedy agreed to a Coup, though was stunned when this involved an assassination. This rallied the Communists and brought about one of the longest and most bloody wars ever, all in the name of Democracy. And both sides fought “For the people”. Oh and what about modern America? Restrictions on Free Speech, Government wire taps, ect…
Internationally Democracy has brought us the excessive Violence and oppression of the French Revolution, which lead only to massive social purges, and “Peoples representatives” who were far worse than His Majesty the King. Or what about the Mexican hero Juarez? The Hypocrite who said the Death Penalty should be abolished only to shoot His Imperial Majesty Maximillian dead? What about the fact that Juarez also said term limits should exist but who ruled as President till he died of a Heart Attack 15 years later? And while Juarez is famous for being a Zapotec Indian, other types of Indians suffered under him.
Why do you think some supported the Hapsburg Emperor?
Modern Mexico by the way is far more corrupt than any Monarchy you can think of in the last 500 years.
The Soviet Union and the general communist Revolution was based entirely around the abolition of the class system and a creation of s Peoples republic, in which we are all Equal. Guess what? They’ve all been brutal dictatorships.
The idea that Monarchy is given to brutal excesses and Democracy is the best alternative because it allows people to be free and allows society to operate more justly is simply a Popularly believed myth. I would much rather Good Queen Bess than Ropesphere, and I should want it known that George the Third was no Tyrant, but Thomas Jefferson was a Land Thief. I can name more good Kings and more stable Kingdoms than good Presidents and Stable Republics.
And when you consider that the most common mechanism for the creation of Republics in the last 200 years has been international invasion, and that internally most Republics around the world are corrupt, filled only with Politicians interested in their own enrichment or their own ideals, I’d say that the argument that Monarchies are given to Brutal exc4ess is a weak one. Why should I think of Monarchies as being given to brutal excess, and Democracy as leading to a peaceful society, in light of how Republics actually are?
Monarchies are less brutal than Republics.
the electoral vote was so close the awarding of Florida (which was obviously rigged) is what swung it. Even though technically it was the electors who elected him they so often follow the popular vote that if the ballot theft hadn't occurred Gore would surely have won.
So you want me to look back in sorrow at the loss of President Gore form History? This may be an inconvenient Truth but Gore would not have been a good President.
That said, the Florida Election was itself contested, and the claim that Bush Stole said election is just poppycock. How is this any different than any other contested vote? Heck, the Vote in Minnesota that allowed the Saturday Night Live Comedian to get in was more suspicious but you never bother to complain about that, and lets face it the Florida Elections weren’t obviously overwhelmingly Gore. The claim that Bush stole the election is simply not something that is a proven fact. Its just a nice little claim that vindicates a Democrats longings, and adds extra reason to hate Bush, right form day one.
