Tony Snow was called up to Rummy's office this morning.
Rummy passed him the 'candy tin.' "Take one," he said. Tony selected a red one, in honor of the red states. It was, of course, a viagra.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Who lost Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, Iraq?
Who lost Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, Iraq? Why the enemy, of course. And who is that enemy? Us
After starting a war to find WMD's, depose a tyrant, and spread democracy, what have we got to show for it? Lots of democracies flowering in the poorer nations of the world. In Brazil, Venezuela, Chile; in Iran and (perhaps) in Iraq. But wherever democracy flourishes there is a rise in anti-americanism. Do we ask why? We could do that, but as Nixon said, it would be wrong. You might get answers you don't like. So instead we do what leaders of our democracy have often done in the past - we undermine democracy.
Too bad. If only we could pay more than lip service to democracy.
It is a disgrace that our far right leaders respect the outcome of an election only when our guy wins. If Chavez, Amadinijad, Hamas, Ortega or (to go back in history) Allende win, our rightists try and subvert the will of the people who voted these guys into office. We claim to want the spread of democracy, but we support any tyranny that is friendly to our interests, and oppose any elected head of state who pursues the interests of his own nation.
It's a cop out to spout the "one man, one vote, one time" argument when we are the ones who killed Allende, tried to kill Ortega and Chavez, undermine Hamas (instead of working with them and allowing the practical demands of governing to drive them to the center), etc.
The self-centered poicies of our rightist leaders are why the world hates us more and more. Chavez, Ortega etc. seem to respect democracy and their obligations to the democratic process and "the people" a lot more than North, Bush, and the far right have ever demonstrated in their actions.
After starting a war to find WMD's, depose a tyrant, and spread democracy, what have we got to show for it? Lots of democracies flowering in the poorer nations of the world. In Brazil, Venezuela, Chile; in Iran and (perhaps) in Iraq. But wherever democracy flourishes there is a rise in anti-americanism. Do we ask why? We could do that, but as Nixon said, it would be wrong. You might get answers you don't like. So instead we do what leaders of our democracy have often done in the past - we undermine democracy.
Too bad. If only we could pay more than lip service to democracy.
It is a disgrace that our far right leaders respect the outcome of an election only when our guy wins. If Chavez, Amadinijad, Hamas, Ortega or (to go back in history) Allende win, our rightists try and subvert the will of the people who voted these guys into office. We claim to want the spread of democracy, but we support any tyranny that is friendly to our interests, and oppose any elected head of state who pursues the interests of his own nation.
It's a cop out to spout the "one man, one vote, one time" argument when we are the ones who killed Allende, tried to kill Ortega and Chavez, undermine Hamas (instead of working with them and allowing the practical demands of governing to drive them to the center), etc.
The self-centered poicies of our rightist leaders are why the world hates us more and more. Chavez, Ortega etc. seem to respect democracy and their obligations to the democratic process and "the people" a lot more than North, Bush, and the far right have ever demonstrated in their actions.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Evolving Democracy
There was an interesting article by Bartlett on Townhall.com. The gist of it is that we've got too much democracy in this country. Our institutions have evolved into a gerymandered creature that would repell our founding fathers.
Well, whenever you talk about the evolution of anything, including evolution, all real conservatives know you are entering into a swamp of liberalism and error. And so it is, apparently, with the evolution of democratic institutions in America. As God created the world, so did'st the founding fathers create America: fully formed to perfection. A shining city on the hill which none can tarnish. At least not until the filthy rabble of squabling, self interested members of the electorate express themselves by seeking an even more perfect union.
That the "errors of 1913" can be considered erroneous at all is unbelievably laughable. Can anyone really think that if the states had MORE power that government would be less parocheal? Anbody observed the behavior of their own state legislature lately? State legislatures across the country are the primary governments of, by and for special interests. If you think differently, try to find an anti-casino legislator. You'll have to look hard. State legislatures make the US House look like... um, the Senate.
There is no doubt that a lot of our nation's deliberative bodies seem to lack the capacity for disinterested deliberation. But that is a fault of the electorate as much as the politicians we elect. Our culture is one that elevates and justifies self interest. We say that "greed is good". We argue that the sum of all self-interested action yeilds the public good. The focus of our culture is not disinterest and passionlessness, but interest.
My point being that our institutions are fine, and the trend for expanding democracy is good. What we need to address our faults is not a return to the institutions of the good old days, but a return to the values of those days. A government of by and for all the people is what we need; not a limited government of educated (and wealthy) elites ruling over the crude and filthy rabble. We need more direct democracy, not less, and we need more civic minded citizens and politicians.
Well, whenever you talk about the evolution of anything, including evolution, all real conservatives know you are entering into a swamp of liberalism and error. And so it is, apparently, with the evolution of democratic institutions in America. As God created the world, so did'st the founding fathers create America: fully formed to perfection. A shining city on the hill which none can tarnish. At least not until the filthy rabble of squabling, self interested members of the electorate express themselves by seeking an even more perfect union.
That the "errors of 1913" can be considered erroneous at all is unbelievably laughable. Can anyone really think that if the states had MORE power that government would be less parocheal? Anbody observed the behavior of their own state legislature lately? State legislatures across the country are the primary governments of, by and for special interests. If you think differently, try to find an anti-casino legislator. You'll have to look hard. State legislatures make the US House look like... um, the Senate.
There is no doubt that a lot of our nation's deliberative bodies seem to lack the capacity for disinterested deliberation. But that is a fault of the electorate as much as the politicians we elect. Our culture is one that elevates and justifies self interest. We say that "greed is good". We argue that the sum of all self-interested action yeilds the public good. The focus of our culture is not disinterest and passionlessness, but interest.
My point being that our institutions are fine, and the trend for expanding democracy is good. What we need to address our faults is not a return to the institutions of the good old days, but a return to the values of those days. A government of by and for all the people is what we need; not a limited government of educated (and wealthy) elites ruling over the crude and filthy rabble. We need more direct democracy, not less, and we need more civic minded citizens and politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)