The Racism of Hillary Clinton

[SpyridonOCA]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7201709.stm

Watching the Democratic debate last night, I felt disgusted by Hillary Clinton's overtly racial comments against Barach Obama, accusing him of being an Uncle Tom on Martin Luther King Day. I thought the personal attacks in 2004 were bad, but the Clintons have taken dirty politics to a new low. Remember, Hillary claims her husband's foreign policy experience as her own. Then I guess she also gets credit for bombing Serbian Orthodox Christians on Pascha Sunday.

[rusmeister]

"Look at that mote in Hillary's eye! Holy cow!"

"I can't. There seems to be something in my own..."

[SpyridonOCA]

I want to know why we can't have a fundamentally decent person as our national leader. Where is St. Constantine when we need him?

[Dorothea]

I want to know why we can't have a fundamentally decent person as our national leader. Where is St. Constantine when we need him?
The US is a democratic republic, not a theocracy or a country run by a religious leader.

[SpyridonOCA]

The US is a democratic republic, not a theocracy or a country run by a religious leader.

That's exactly the problem. Our government is built on Freemasonry and secularism, rather than Christian principle.

[Khaleas]

This just about sums it up.... :sick:

[rusmeister]

The US is a democratic republic, not a theocracy or a country run by a religious leader.
Have to disagree with you, Dorothea...

The US, like pretty much all western countries now, is democratic in name and mechanism (elections) only. A republic? Yes. But elections have little to do with who really holds the power. The key thing for the government is that it have its people believe that they have power via elections, when in fact the office holders elected invariably find that their ability to change things is essentially nil. At best they have a slight influence on them. But things are going to keep going the way they've been going since the Civil War. Lincoln was the last president, in my opinion, who was hoestly elected by a democracy and had real power to run the nations affairs as envisioned by the founding fathers. From the ending of state's rights to run their own affairs differently from other states, to the adoption of corporate personhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate), the gradual increase of business control over government via lobbying, and of course, the veto of the electoral college over the popular vote have all eroded the power of offices to the point where there is no connection between the mechanism of elections and who actually has the most influence in determining the country's policy.

So people will keep on speaking of 'democracy' as they were taught to do in school (and student elections perfectly mirror this situation, right down to the real power a student body has in determining school policy - on unimportant things, yes, on the important ones, no) and as the media keeps parroting, repeating a lie until, as Lenin is alleged to have said, it becomes the truth (at least in people's minds).

So I do sympathize with all of your points of view, but your basic premise (that elections actually allow "we the people" to wield power) is flawed.

[Xpycoctomos]

Have to disagree with you, Dorothea...

The US, like pretty much all western countries now, is democratic in name and mechanism (elections) only. A republic? Yes. But elections have little to do with who really holds the power. The key thing for the government is that it have its people believe that they have power via elections, when in fact the office holders elected invariably find that their ability to change things is essentially nil. At best they have a slight influence on them. But things are going to keep going the way they've been going since the Civil War. Lincoln was the last president, in my opinion, who was hoestly elected by a democracy and had real power to run the nations affairs as envisioned by the founding fathers. From the ending of state's rights to run their own affairs differently from other states, to the adoption of corporate personhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate), the gradual increase of business control over government via lobbying, and of course, the veto of the electoral college over the popular vote have all eroded the power of offices to the point where there is no connection between the mechanism of elections and who actually has the most influence in determining the country's policy.

So people will keep on speaking of 'democracy' as they were taught to do in school (and student elections perfectly mirror this situation, right down to the real power a student body has in determining school policy - on unimportant things, yes, on the important ones, no) and as the media keeps parroting, repeating a lie until, as Lenin is alleged to have said, it becomes the truth (at least in people's minds).

So I do sympathize with all of your points of view, but your basic premise (that elections actually allow "we the people" to wield power) is flawed.
I think it might be best if you give the definition of a democracy that you adhere to and then state your points as to why our nation has no semblance of that definition. You make interesting points, but I don't know if you and (for example) Dorthea are discussing the same thing.

Most of your post I found interesting. The school thing was pretty weak though. I didn't get your point, because no one seriously thinks that gives the student body real power. Nor should it. So, you lost me there, but I can be slow.

However, I am not saying I fully disagree with your point you make time and time again about "American Democracy" but I would like to know what your premise is; that is, what's a Democracy for you?

[Xpycoctomos]

To the OP. Did Hillary really call barak an uncle Tom? Can you link me to a news article? I find that hard to believe. That sounds like political suicide to me.

[rusmeister]

Simple, Xpy,

A democracy is a government where the people participate in the actual governing of their own land.

Ancient Athens qualifies as a democracy under this heading.

I would even concede that America, at least up to the Civil War, functioned as an actual democratic republic. By the 20th century, though, it's clear that people had less and less power over their representatives and the relative power of business and special interests grew more and more.

If you want any proof of that, just look at how banks change terms on credit loans - or many other things - unilaterally (unless you specifically opt out). Now tell me why popular action can't change that (not that it 'theoretically could', but that it in practice does not).

The student body was just an analogy that does pretty much what the adult system does in practice. It provides an appearance of democracy (of course, ostensibly to teach the kids about 'democracy') while in fact policy and decision making on anything of import is determined by the structures outside of 'student government'.

We are increasingly invited to vote on every imaginable issue - from internet polls to TV talk show call-in votes. The key point is that all of these outlets for voting never let us touch the decision-making processes. You can vote on who gets to survive or become an American idol, but you can't vote on eliminating the privileges of banks and financial institutions over ordinary citizens (should underline the ordinary part, or Alan Greenspan-type people will be calling themselves 'ordinary').

Why can't you or I become president? Why don't any of us have a realistic shot? Why is it that Bushes and Clintons get multiple repeated shots and turn the Oval Office into family affairs?

But much more importantly, why does nothing change, no matter who is in the White House?

[Khaleas]

I think a lot of the voting (esp now with all the online polls, blogs, focus groups, leadership for the Hairy Dog club, etc...). Everyone feels like they get an input, it becomes a feel-good situation. People feel like they do something for the situation, feel like they have made themself heard. Unfortunately very few follow up with what they just did, most couldn't even care less.
Paris Hilton might say that the dumb act isn't cute anymore, well, I'd say many, many Average Joe and Jane dumb themselves down because they just simply don't want to care about the issue. To them Sunday Football and a beer is more important than what goes on in their country... and for all their care they pressed that button online on that site that has all that weird stuff about what is going on in the world... World?? I got me my Walmart and my Bud... who cares...
So when voting day comes around, they saunter off to the polls because Grandpa Mack said it's their civic duty. They vote for someone because their name looks similar to the neighbor's dog and go home... drink their beer and watch their football and that's it... until the next time they do their 'civic duty'. Other than that they couldn't give a rats....
Then there are those who concern themselves with what's going on, what is happening in this country and the world, and wonders why the hineyhoppysquirrel no one does anything about it... well, unfortunately we're still outnumbered by beer drinking, football watching Jane and Joe...
This is a big country, for a lot of people the street with Walmart and Denny's and 7eleven is enough... they don't want more, cuz they don't know there is more. It's their little safe heaven. And when they venture out of there there's still a whole lot of country to go see...
The attitude change that the US is the biggest, baddest, most glorious place on earth is going to take a long time to change... it's not going to happen overnight. As a comparison...when Estonia became independent from Russia, service at restaurants STUNK. It was the typical mid 90s Russian mentality. Not my problem! If you ordered something and you got something else, oh well, tough luck, at least we brought you something. Waiters/Waitresses were rude and short. Things are slowly changing as the generation working these jobs is changing... but it didn't happen overnight, nor can most changes in attitude do. However, the problem in the US is exactly that people do not have the feel that their voice matters (and most don't even care) and how we could change that? On the other hand, tell me a country where the one persons voice matters.... Even town square meetings in Switzerland are majority rule even if every person living in the town can be present.
Honestly, I'm not so sure there would be much difference in a multi party system. I find that in countries with multi party systems the parties tend to be much more alike (one grey mass) than they are here in the US (with the exeption of some small radical parties who fall out of the general mix after a few terms). What I find with most of my European friends is that they don't even have a clue what the US parties stand for, they just scream and holler based on something they think they know.

[Khaleas]

Why is it that Bushes and Clintons get multiple repeated shots and turn the Oval Office into family affairs?


See comment on the neighbor's dog...

Name recognition is a HUGE factor in elections. Whatever that movie was called, as silly as it was, it's true. Old folk vote a lot because they see it as a civic duty, not because they follow politics and know the candidate. Many vote for someone because on how it makes them feel or because they've voted for that name since 1956...
One of my profs always said that you could elect Woof-Mutt Kennedy if you wanted because people just stare blindly at the name Kennedy.

[ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs]

I believe that would be The Distinguished Gentleman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Distinguished_Gentleman) with Eddie Murphy. He was a con-man who shared the same last name as the recently deceased incumbent congressman. So, he ran on the platform of "vote for a name you know" and won.

[Xpycoctomos]

BUt, the US is as much a democracy as it can be considering the greed gluttopny and selfishness our society is built on nad the sheer number of people that Ancient Athens never came close to (I can't believe we are talking about them). It is a representative democracy according to the dictionary. I agree that the electoral thing is stupid... but actually I think it's importance is more psychological.. but still it's dumb.

Now, if it's a revolution you're looking for, then come back home and fight for one because all you can do from Russia is write a blog... and vote. A blog won't inspire anyone to revolt and a vote has nothing to do with revolution becuase it's part of the system. It would probably take blood or some kind of significant loss.

However, I don't honestly think it is important for you to come back to the US to change anything. I don't think you are cowardly for being somewhere else (actually I don't even know why you are in Russia, but I am merely saying that even if it were out of protest of the American sham, I think that is totally great and fine).
The very fact that I would much rather live in this joke of a democracy than raise my family in China is enough for me to say that I am not going to die for a cause that no more furthers or delays my future children's salvation. I don't need a revolution. All governments now will be corrupt. I don't believe in the utopia of Constantinople that is rumored by many Orthodox nor do I beleive that such can be re-created.

However, despite my complete distrust and that fact that I do not base any of my hopes on the decisions of my government (or my people), I will vote on the off chance that the next supreme court judge won't support legal euthenization of severly disabled newbornes or so that my property taxes won't keep going up to support a liberal education I don't intend on sending my kid to and so on. It matters, even if just a little.

THat's my point of view.

Xpy

[Khaleas]

BUt, the US is as much a democracy as it can be considering the greed gluttopny and selfishness our society is built on nad the sheer number of people that Ancient Athens never came close to (I can't believe we are talking about them). It is a representative democracy according to the dictionary. I agree that the electoral thing is stupid... but actually I think it's importance is more psychological.. but still it's dumb.

Now, if it's a revolution you're looking for, then come back home and fight for one because all you can do from Russia is write a blog... and vote. A blog won't inspire anyone to revolt and a vote has nothing to do with revolution becuase it's part of the system. It would probably take blood or some kind of significant loss.

However, I don't honestly think it is important for you to come back to the US to change anything. I don't think you are cowardly for being somewhere else (actually I don't even know why you are in Russia, but I am merely saying that even if it were out of protest of the American sham, I think that is totally great and fine).
The very fact that I would much rather live in this joke of a democracy than raise my family in China is enough for me to say that I am not going to die for a cause that no more furthers or delays my future children's salvation. I don't need a revolution. All governments now will be corrupt. I don't believe in the utopia of Constantinople that is rumored by many Orthodox nor do I beleive that such can be re-created.

However, despite my complete distrust and that fact that I do not base any of my hopes on the decisions of my government (or my people), I will vote on the off chance that the next supreme court judge won't support legal euthenization of severly disabled newbornes or so that my property taxes won't keep going up to support a liberal education I don't intend on sending my kid to and so on. It matters, even if just a little.

THat's my point of view.

Xpy
Right along the lines of 'the lesser of the evils'...

Finland used to have an electoral system but it was tiny bit more fair than here. Mainly I think because the areas were smaller - a state bears so much more power than a county. Each delegate was to vote for whoever got the majority of votes in the county, however, they were not legally bound to do so. There was a few cases where a delegate did not vote for the candidate selected by their constituents if his loyalty laid elsewhere. Talk about political suicide and Finns have a LONG memory so there is no such person who has gotten reelected (at least not in the same county). Each ballot was read out loud on TV and I still remember listening to that when I was little...
Now they have a two round, direct voting system (which can be just one round). All candidates who want to be president run in the first round. If someone gets more than 50% of the votes it ends there. If no one gets that, then the top two goes for the next round and whoever wins becomes president. Still, while the voting percentage over there is a bit higher than it is here in the US and people vote directly for the president (or whatever) they still don't feel like their vote counts (and the lobby is pretty non-existent). So we might think our system is broken but there is no guarantee another system would be any better...

[rusmeister]

BUt, the US is as much a democracy as it can be considering the greed gluttopny and selfishness our society is built on nad the sheer number of people that Ancient Athens never came close to (I can't believe we are talking about them). It is a representative democracy according to the dictionary. I agree that the electoral thing is stupid... but actually I think it's importance is more psychological.. but still it's dumb.

Now, if it's a revolution you're looking for, then come back home and fight for one because all you can do from Russia is write a blog... and vote. A blog won't inspire anyone to revolt and a vote has nothing to do with revolution becuase it's part of the system. It would probably take blood or some kind of significant loss.

However, I don't honestly think it is important for you to come back to the US to change anything. I don't think you are cowardly for being somewhere else (actually I don't even know why you are in Russia, but I am merely saying that even if it were out of protest of the American sham, I think that is totally great and fine).
The very fact that I would much rather live in this joke of a democracy than raise my family in China is enough for me to say that I am not going to die for a cause that no more furthers or delays my future children's salvation. I don't need a revolution. All governments now will be corrupt. I don't believe in the utopia of Constantinople that is rumored by many Orthodox nor do I beleive that such can be re-created.

However, despite my complete distrust and that fact that I do not base any of my hopes on the decisions of my government (or my people), I will vote on the off chance that the next supreme court judge won't support legal euthenization of severly disabled newbornes or so that my property taxes won't keep going up to support a liberal education I don't intend on sending my kid to and so on. It matters, even if just a little.

THat's my point of view.

Xpy

When you say that the US is as much a democracy as it can be, that is tantamount to saying nothing, or anything at all. I can say that Russia is as much of a democracy as it can be, or that I am as thin as I can be (which is not very).

It is absolutely necessary to talk about the ideal before you talk about the practical. If you wish to accomplish something (say, holiness, or democracy), you need to have an idea of what that thing is (read any GKC lately?). Democracy means literally, 'rule of the people' - the people rule. This is an ideal, and it IS impossible on the scale of nations that claim to practice it today. Thus, Athens becomes relevant. Each step taken away from this ideal makes it less of a democracy, be it the problem of huge numbers of participants in direct democracy or the failure of representatives to represent the people that elect them rather than a banking or corporate lobby in 'indirect' or republican democracy. If you have too many representatives than their ability to do anything becomes severely limited; too few and the government becomes more directly oligarchic or autocratic. A corollary is that the larger the scale becomes, the less your vote means.

I'm not looking for a revolution - I believe it to be impossible in practical terms as you have noted, nor is it really why I left America. I agree of course on voting.

As long as (a general) you don't fall under the illusion that we can have a global impact, by voting or political action, as long as you see that our only impact, in the end, is quite local, you'll be OK. It's do-what-you-can and don't-worry-about-what-you-can't.

[Xpycoctomos]

When you say that the US is as much a democracy as it can be, that is tantamount to saying nothing, or anything at all. I can say that Russia is as much of a democracy as it can be, or that I am as thin as I can be (which is not very).

It is absolutely necessary to talk about the ideal before you talk about the practical. If you wish to accomplish something (say, holiness, or democracy), you need to have an idea of what that thing is (read any GKC lately?). Democracy means literally, 'rule of the people' - the people rule. This is an ideal, and it IS impossible on the scale of nations that claim to practice it today. Thus, Athens becomes relevant. Each step taken away from this ideal makes it less of a democracy, be it the problem of huge numbers of participants in direct democracy or the failure of representatives to represent the people that elect them rather than a banking or corporate lobby in 'indirect' or republican democracy. If you have too many representatives than their ability to do anything becomes severely limited; too few and the government becomes more directly oligarchic or autocratic. A corollary is that the larger the scale becomes, the less your vote means.

I'm not looking for a revolution - I believe it to be impossible in practical terms as you have noted, nor is it really why I left America. I agree of course on voting.

As long as (a general) you don't fall under the illusion that we can have a global impact, by voting or political action, as long as you see that our only impact, in the end, is quite local, you'll be OK. It's do-what-you-can and don't-worry-about-what-you-can't.
Well, you make some excellent theoretical points and you definitely caught me in my words. Before I go on, I was wondering if there are any relatively large modern-day countries (say, the size of Italy or more) that claim to be democratic that you would say are democratic. If so, which one(s) and what differences are there between that country and the US? If not (and I don't pretend that that proves any point on my part), what still tells you that a democracy a la rusmeister is still at all possible in this day and age.

I honestly have no idea which way you're going to answer and I am not trying to trap you with these questions. I just want to further learn where you're coming from.

So far, I am only convinced that we are an imperfect democracy, but still, a democracy. While I appreciated your analogy, my guess is that you are not thin and were I to meet you I would probalby not describe you as such. But I still would describe the US as a Representatvie democracy and despite the candidates for senate and the House being pretty ;much the same, there are still important differences on certain issues that DO make a difference in US policy on war, constitutional rights and the economy.

If voting matters (as it does not in Cuba, as it does not in CHina) then we would have to say that that is a type of democracy. It's not a direct democracy like Athens (and has never claimed to be) but a representative democracy which is a does inevitably create some dissassociation between the constituents and the powers that be. That's why I don't agree with the Athens analogy in part becuase I don't think that Athens was ever meant to be the ideal for this country nor should it be.

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

Right along the lines of 'the lesser of the evils'...

Finland used to have an electoral system but it was tiny bit more fair than here. Mainly I think because the areas were smaller - a state bears so much more power than a county. Each delegate was to vote for whoever got the majority of votes in the county, however, they were not legally bound to do so. There was a few cases where a delegate did not vote for the candidate selected by their constituents if his loyalty laid elsewhere. Talk about political suicide and Finns have a LONG memory so there is no such person who has gotten reelected (at least not in the same county). Each ballot was read out loud on TV and I still remember listening to that when I was little...
Now they have a two round, direct voting system (which can be just one round). All candidates who want to be president run in the first round. If someone gets more than 50% of the votes it ends there. If no one gets that, then the top two goes for the next round and whoever wins becomes president. Still, while the voting percentage over there is a bit higher than it is here in the US and people vote directly for the president (or whatever) they still don't feel like their vote counts (and the lobby is pretty non-existent). So we might think our system is broken but there is no guarantee another system would be any better...
I love your new system. Makes a LOT more sense than ours which I do agree is anti-democratic. It seems ridiculous that less than a majority can vote a candidate into the highest office of the US. (I made a mistake in an earlier post here when I talked about a mathematical but insignificant majority... it's not even a mathematical majority necessarily... only a lead ! lol).

I know some of what I am saying here about calling the electoral system anti-democractic seems to go against the fact I am saying that the US is a democracy, but I will qualifgy that later if necessary.

Xpy

[rusmeister]

Well, you make some excellent theoretical points and you definitely caught me in my words. Before I go on, I was wondering if there are any relatively large modern-day countries (say, the size of Italy or more) that claim to be democratic that you would say are democratic. If so, which one(s) and what differences are there between that country and the US? If not (and I don't pretend that that proves any point on my part), what still tells you that a democracy a la rusmeister is still at all possible in this day and age.

I honestly have no idea which way you're going to answer and I am not trying to trap you with these questions. I just want to further learn where you're coming from.

So far, I am only convinced that we are an imperfect democracy, but still, a democracy. While I appreciated your analogy, my guess is that you are not thin and were I to meet you I would probalby not describe you as such. But I still would describe the US as a Representatvie democracy and despite the candidates for senate and the House being pretty ;much the same, there are still important differences on certain issues that DO make a difference in US policy on war, constitutional rights and the economy.

If voting matters (as it does not in Cuba, as it does not in CHina) then we would have to say that that is a type of democracy. It's not a direct democracy like Athens (and has never claimed to be) but a representative democracy which is a does inevitably create some dissassociation between the constituents and the powers that be. That's why I don't agree with the Athens analogy in part becuase I don't think that Athens was ever meant to be the ideal for this country nor should it be.

Xpy
I can't say that there is any country today of significant size or military/economic might that is truly democratic, for the reasons I cited above.

America's fall has been gradual, and the problem with gradual is that people don't notice it, as in the frog-in-the-pot analogy. Just compare the triviality of the Nixon scandal compared with what goes on today. That was the last great hurrah of a press that is no longer free - when you can identify 5 or 6 ultimate owners of practically all media, then you don't have freedom or truth - but you do have an organ that will proclaim that you have freedom and truth (Pravda, anyone?).

I would agree that there are differences, if you compare China or any other country, (as I said, the fall is gradual), but would say that the difference is not as great as people think.
One of the great things that I learned in living abroad as an adult is that societies that we would describe as totalitarian or not 'free' are actually freer in some senses than we are. Not having an absolute blind faith in law, they do not let this be used against them. They still use common sense (something nearly dead in the US climate that appeals exclusively to law. If you disagree, we can talk about litigation). For example, if a person in the US is afraid to build, say, an addition to their deck or veranda on their own property because of zoning laws, here, people go ahead and do what seems fit. (I am speaking only of what reason and common sense would not forbid, but that the law does.) My experience is that law-abiding Americans are actually much more afraid of doing things that common sense would dictate because of the importance they have placed on law than people of countries where this has not been the case - and indeed, how if this noble tradition of abiding by the law was turned against its own people? If the lawmakers cease to be connected to the people and begin to make laws that protect themselves, their friends and their class while restricting ordinary people, then being blindly law-abiding would be foolish.

From someone who lives in another one of those countries...

[Xpycoctomos]

I can't say that there is any country today of significant size or military/economic might that is truly democratic, for the reasons I cited above.

America's fall has been gradual, and the problem with gradual is that people don't notice it, as in the frog-in-the-pot analogy. Just compare the triviality of the Nixon scandal compared with what goes on today. That was the last great hurrah of a press that is no longer free - when you can identify 5 or 6 ultimate owners of practically all media, then you don't have freedom or truth - but you do have an organ that will proclaim that you have freedom and truth (Pravda, anyone?).

I would agree that there are differences, if you compare China or any other country, (as I said, the fall is gradual), but would say that the difference is not as great as people think.
One of the great things that I learned in living abroad as an adult is that societies that we would describe as totalitarian or not 'free' are actually freer in some senses than we are. Not having an absolute blind faith in law, they do not let this be used against them. They still use common sense (something nearly dead in the US climate that appeals exclusively to law. If you disagree, we can talk about litigation). For example, if a person in the US is afraid to build, say, an addition to their deck or veranda on their own property because of zoning laws, here, people go ahead and do what seems fit. (I am speaking only of what reason and common sense would not forbid, but that the law does.) My experience is that law-abiding Americans are actually much more afraid of doing things that common sense would dictate because of the importance they have placed on law than people of countries where this has not been the case - and indeed, how if this noble tradition of abiding by the law was turned against its own people? If the lawmakers cease to be connected to the people and begin to make laws that protect themselves, their friends and their class while restricting ordinary people, then being blindly law-abiding would be foolish.

From someone who lives in another one of those countries...
I definitely see your points. Having lived abroad (although not the extent you have, but not merely a summer vacation either) I do think it's a joke when American's claim we live in the most free country in the world yet I couldn't see how people were any less free in Western Europe or in Canada.

You make excellent points that are obvious to anyone who thinks about the state of the current situation. I agree that we are on a decline. I never stated otherwise. All I am stating are the following points 1) That won't be reversed save magic dust of Good Will falling on Capitol Hill and Wall Street or revolution and that 2) this is still a democracy. It's not the best-working democracy (or at least I don't know that it is, and I wouldn't be afraid to live in Canada, Spain or the UK), but it is clearly a representative democracy (never having anything to do with Ancient Athens). If it weren't, I would ask why in the world you still vote and why you even think that there is a chance that the US could be possibly changed into a "true" democracy through voting and other law-abiding tactics. If the people don't rule then that necessarily means that in order have a democracy, civil disobedience must occur (and for me this is a revolution). Now, I still believe for the things to change that you wish to change (other than the electoral system which I beleive can change through lawful tactics if the people want it bad enough) a revolution is needed, even though we have a democracy, but that's becuase I while I see those things (monopolized media, etc) as impediments to a good democracy, I don't beleive they have completely squashed out any semblance of democracy in our society... yet. A revolution would be needed, but not in order to restore democracy but to guard and/or make it better than it is. However, most certainly to change a non-democratic country (as you state we are) to a democratic country, a revolution is necessary. The only exception I can think of where a non-democratic country became democratic was in Spain after Franco died, but that is obviously unrelated to the American situation.

This is what I think. I think you are rightly dissillusioned with the current state of the US. The US is NOT what it claims to be. Especially at this time of PC rhetoric being thrown around about the US being the "Greatest Country" and the "Keeper of democracy" it gets to be a big joke after a while. The Media, as you stated, is controlled by a few elites who have political ties and in this way control the minds of the people because true information is not as accessible as it once was. All of this and more seems to support the idea that we are not a democracy. The People don't rule, the rich elites do and they just let us think we rule.

However, if you believe that we can change our country (back to what you suppose it was meant to be) through powers already granted to us without a revolution (which I do agree with THEORHETICALLY) then that means that we live in a democracy. A fledgling democracy? Sure. Not the great lighthouse of Democracy to the world that we like to think we are? I can definitely see that. In danger of losing our rights? Little by little, yes (probably already started). But still, starting with your premise that a revolution is not necessary to change this country but just the resolve of the people, then this does have to be a democracy as I demonstrated earlier.

I have never stated that we are not on a downhill spiral. In fact I beleive we are. But we are not going to change that and I would use your own words in various posts about our country and its lack of any kind of awareness of this loss (or perhaps more pointedly desire to be aware of this loss) to support my cynical position.

People here might wonder, then, if I am so cynical of my own country's future, why am I such a coward to not try to change it. Becuase I think it's like stopping a freight train. Governments willbe governemnts. The US won't always be here. The world goes through cycles and we will surely go through a cycle when democracy takes a back seat. I don't see democracy as any great savior to the people. Sure, I can't imagine living any other way, but I am not going to assume that the forefathers of this country were some how prophets for all humanity and time. It's what I know, it's what I am. I have no imagination to imagine anything better than what I know to be this democracy. But I am not going to be so arrogant (and I am not accusing you or anyone else of arrogance) as to imagine that THIS is what God prefers for the world.

I believe it was Fr Dimitri Dudko, a Russian priest under communism, who at one time spoke against the Communist regime very frankly. He later imprisoned for this and then, to the dismay of many (and to mine while I was reading this story the first time... my heart fell to my stomach), he wrote a letter to his people speaking against democracy. Now, no doubt there was coersion behind this letter, but at the same time, much of what I could read of his words rang true, and I believe he wrote what he best could, even if he wouldn't have written such a letter without the Kremlin's "encouragement". Reading about him was the first time I had ever thought about if "democracy" was really such a godly idea. That as a majority we could somehow be more assured of making more moral choices. As if freedom to make our own mistakes and do what we like was inherently a good thing.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't want it any other way for myself. And I think that I could make a pretty good case for democracy (even our crappy version of it) from a perspective of the faith. But, I don't claim to know everything and I don't suppose that it is easier to achieve theosis under a democracy (even an Ancient Athenian direct democracy) than in the oppressive state of Iran. God is a God that teaches and saves us through struggles and struggles can be found as much in "freedom" as in opression (but in which one do we actually recognize that struggle more?).

I think in the end, you and I don't disagree on much... or at least not as much as you may think. We have discussed the semantics of a democracy, but I contend that all that you have said about how this country is and how it could change describes what I consider to be a democracy. You don't call it that. Fine. Semantics.

We both agree that this country is slowly declining from its original ideals. Although I think you may have an overly optomistic concept of what our nation's forefathers' ideals really were for our country (Hamilton himself wrote in Federalist paper #68:“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities…proper to govern their choice.", That was in 1788, does sound like the most ideal of democratic possibilities... but that's what we've always been. However, that's beside the point really. Either way, their was a time when the country functioned as an informed democracy moreso than now (I assume... or at least the media was better for a time).
Where we do disagree is that you think things here can still change in a lawful way from a non-democratic country into a democracy. I don't. I think this is how it will be. If it does change, it will be some catastrophic event like a sudden revolution either forced upon us or started by us. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think so though.

By the way, I want to go back a bit to somethign that was bugging me. I had referred to your living abroad and then seemingly suggesting that perhaps you were abroad to "escape" or "protest" America (or something like that). I want to clarify that I only brought that up not as an attack on you but to say that, even IF that were the reason you were living outside of America were to do just that, I don't see that as cowardly. My guess was that that was not true about you... but my point was simply that I didn't care if it was. I jsut didn't want you to think that I was arrogant enough as to impose on you my imagined idea of... your reality. :)

God bless brother,

Xpy

PS: I reserve the right to go against anything I have said in this and all posts. I have a kid coming along the way and my guess is that it's going to change the way I approach many issues in my life. So, it will probably be interesting and even embarrassing at times to look back at my old posts :)