"Conquering the drawbacks of democracy"

[Sionnach Glic]

While browsing another site I stumbled upon this article.
Words cannot express my contempt for this guy, but I thought it might generate a bit of discussion over here.

Be aware that this post contains incredible amounts of idiocy, read at your own risk.

Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007

While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable - for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome - thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming "ex-president" Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

Source.

I did warn you it was stupid. I leave it to you to laugh at it.

[Captain Seafort]

Hmm. Let's break this insanity down shall we.

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

Yes, Bush is widely hated. Is this a result of democracy or a result of Bush being a idiot? Given that he's got the US army stuck in a quagmire, has set up an extra-legal judicial system to try people he doesn't like, has vastly expanded the powers of US intelligence agencies WRT domestic surveillance, and is currently ignoring Congressional orders for his staff to testify regarding some extremely fishy sackings of US attorneys I'd say it's the latter.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable - for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

Wrong. The purpose of democracy is to elect representatives of the majority to safeguard the interests of the nation to the best of the ability. It is not to implement ideas based solely on their popularity. If the population feel that the incumbent is failing to adequately guard the nation's interests he gets voted out.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The issue of whether Bush genuinely believed that Ba'athist Iraq posed a threat or whether he was floundering about looking for excuses is a tricky one I'm not going to get involved in. Regardless, the reason for the current chaos is not the fact of the invasion but the manner in which it was carried out. Firstly, Rumsfeld's insistence on invading with minimal forces prevented the envelopment of the Iraqi Army, and rather than surrendering on-mass as had been expected, they disappeared off home, leaving hundreds of thousands of armed and trained men throughout the country. Secondly, the Iraqi armed forces, police, and government were summarily disbanded. This act of stupidity not only left the coalition having to bear the full weight of providing security and administration in-post war Iraq, but also left the previously mentioned hundreds of thousands of men out of work, and understandably hacked off with those responsible. The results were predictable.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

Yes great idea - if someone annoys you nuke them. I don't know why people don't do this, it would improve international understanding no end.[/sarcasm] Maybe this joker thinks that bilateral relations between countries happen in a vacuum, but if some country started randomly nuking my neighbours I'd get twitchy. The reason people don't nuke everyone they fall out with is that it'll make the rest of the world extremely nervous as to who's going to be next, and there's a good chance they'll do something extreme to make sure it isn't them. The Russians, for example.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

So, because Bush is unpopular due to making a horlix of Iraq, democracy is a bad thing. Or maybe it's a good thing because it's very likely to force Bush or his successor to pull out of Iraq in the near future and restrict the place to "just" a civil war, instead of a three-way war between the Shias, Sunnis and the coalition.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome - thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

So, Caesar brought his army from Gaul, everyone quieted down, and all was sweetness and light. Not only is this idiot a genocidal maniac but he doesn't know history. Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in early 49 BC led to near-continuous Civil War from then until 30 BC, in the middle of which Caesar was assassinated. Great success that was.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestige while terrifying American enemies.

The solution to Iraq - mass genocide on the scale of the Cultural Revolution to gain lebensraum. That's really going to make America popular He thinks it'll cow people into submission, whereas it will only succeed in making America a pariah state.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his new found popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

Very Cromwellian. The difference being that, for all that he was an unpleasant individual, Oliver Cromwell was an intelligent man. He was able to run a country without the vast bureaucracy that is Congress. Bush, to put it mildly, couldn't.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming "ex-president" Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

Words fail me.

[Mikey]

As an American who has always been against the entire Bush family, I have to say how idiotic this article seems to be. It is always the mode puerile argument that says, "This is how it is NOW, so it must be the fault of the system."

In other words, Bush is mismanaging a democracy. How can we say that this is the fault of the democratic system, rather than the fault of Bush?

[Captain Seafort]

As an American who has always been against the entire Bush family, I have to say how idiotic this article seems to be. It is always the mode puerile argument that says, "This is how it is NOW, so it must be the fault of the system."

In other words, Bush is mismanaging a democracy. How can we say that this is the fault of the democratic system, rather than the fault of Bush?

It's a lot more than that - it's arguing that Bush should abolish US democracy, adopt a policy of genocide and lebensraum towards the middle-east and nuke anyone who might pose a threat to these ambitions. The similarities to German foreign policy of 1933-45 are frightening.

[Mikey]

It's scary to think how slippery that slope is - considering that the Bush administration already took it upon itself to ignore the law concerning wiretapping and other illegal surveillance when done in the name of "homeland security." I am a Jew of Polish descent, and my wife is a Catholic of Ukrainian descent, and we both have relatives who have suffered the ministrations of the Schutzstaffel, or Stalin's equivalent - groups which have claimed the necessity for what they were doing in the name of the greater patriotic good.

You can't take a referendum on every single piece of legislation or government action - the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy, because a true democracy would be impossible on the scale about which we are talking. However, to check that, we have ELECTIONS and term limits. Although these checks may lead to politicians being motivated by political need rather than convictions, at least it forces them to somewhat follow the will of the people. Is ridding the world of one extremist threat or another worth destroying the power that I have over the direction of my government? I think not.

[Aaron]

As an American who has always been against the entire Bush family, I have to say how idiotic this article seems to be. It is always the mode puerile argument that says, "This is how it is NOW, so it must be the fault of the system."

In other words, Bush is mismanaging a democracy. How can we say that this is the fault of the democratic system, rather than the fault of Bush?

I'd say it's partially the fault of the US presidential system. In a parliamentry system such as Canada's the option to remove Bush via a no confidence vote in the government is always a possibility and probably would have arisen by now if the country was being as horribly managed as the US is presently being.