French troops 'came close to shooting down Israeli jets'

[Sirotnikov]

Even when a high approval rating is real, and comes from a well-informed public, it tends to lead toward dictatorship when it continues too long.

Ah.
So it was eventually meant to prod the US

[KrazyHorse]

It wasn't meant as an insult to the US.

People backed away from Bush, and he's had to finally start acting like he's not the reincarnation of Christ. Americans came to their senses (somewhat)

In the year or two following Sept. 11, however, there were worrying signs. There were not enough questions being asked.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
On the contrary, I think that the high approval ratings Bush enjoyed at certain points in his presidency were erosive of American democracy. If he had continued to hold 70 or 80% approval for 5 years I would have been extremely frightened of the possible consequences.

name me ONE long established democracy that became a dictatorship by the simple hardening of presidential(or executive) power. One.

Established democracies are resilient. The only case of a long established democracy becoming a dictatorship at all that I can think of off the top of my head is Chile, whose polital history is much more complicated - a long economic decline, rising class tensions, an electoral shift to the left, and then a reaction.

There's France, but under foreign occupation. And its France, afterall.


We of course should remain vigilant - thats HOW democracies stay resilient, through the vigilance of their people. But our friends neednt worry overmuch.

As for Mr. Putin, his approval ratings wouldnt bother me at all were it not for a variety of other policies he pursues that impact the Russian political system. And none of them is that bad seen in isolation - its the pattern. And even the pattern doesnt make Russia a dictatorship yet (its a compromised, limited democracy - how limited depends on whom you believe about the real pressures on the opposition - an empirical question which unfortunately its fairly difficult to get our Russian posters to discuss calmly) it merely hints at problems ahead.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It wasn't meant as an insult to the US.

People backed away from Bush, and he's had to finally start acting like he's not the reincarnation of Christ. Americans came to their senses (somewhat)

In the year or two following Sept. 11, however, there were worrying signs. There were not enough questions being asked.

I dont know who you hang with in Baltimore, but i dont think at any time other than maybe the first few months after 9/11 many people had real deep Bush love. If you recall the 2004 election campaign the GOP spend most of their time talking about what was wrong with Kerry and the Dems. As someone who was here for 1984 and "Morning in America" I can tell you the contrast couldnt have been more striking. Talk about deification.

and then theres the song we can never forget

"Nixon now, Nixon now, America needs him, we need him Nixon now"

Nixon now. More than ever.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


name me ONE long established democracy that became a dictatorship by the simple hardening of presidential(or executive) power. One.

Established democracies are resilient. The only case of a long established democracy becoming a dictatorship at all that I can think of off the top of my head is Chile, whose polital history is much more complicated - a long economic decline, rising class tensions, an electoral shift to the left, and then a reaction.

We of course should remain vigilant - thats HOW democracies stay resilient, through the vigilance of their people. But our friends neednt worry overmuch.

I wasn't overly worried that the US would become a dictatorship. I think you're reacting to a hysteria which I was not expressing. And I agree that established democracies are resilient. Which is why public opinion tends to turn back against a politician who uses his high popularity to cover for undemocratic moves. The longer strongly positive opinion of a politician lasts the more chance he has to suppress dissent. The longer he does so without reaction, the more normal such suppression seems to the citizenry. And so forth. My faith in established democracies' resilience is based on a belief in the electorate, not on the institutions.

On the other hand, I do believe that the US government started engaging in several undemocratic practices during the aftermath of September 11th, and I believe that if the public had allowed this to go unnoticed or unreprimanded for a while it would have led to further degradations of civil liberties.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I wasn't overly worried that the US would become a dictatorship. I think you're reacting to a hysteria which I was not expressing. And I agree that established democracies are resilient. Which is why public opinion tends to turn back against a politician who uses his high popularity to cover for undemocratic moves. The longer strongly positive opinion of a politician lasts the more chance he has to suppress dissent. The longer he does so without reaction, the more normal such suppression seems to the citizenry. And so forth. My faith in established democracies' resilience is based on a belief in the electorate, not on the institutions.

On the other hand, I do believe that the US government started engaging in several undemocratic practices during the aftermath of September 11th, and I believe that if the public had allowed this to go unnoticed or unreprimanded for a while it would have led to further degradations of civil liberties.

Whether those practices were good public policy or not, whether they were correct readings of the US constitution or not, many were not inconsistent with the practices of many long standing democracies, not all of which have the same limits on wiretaps, or the same protection for habeas corpus that we do. And certainly less far than other democracies have gone in times of war. And yes, were largely limited to non-citizens - not that non-citizens shouldnt have rights, but their is less danger of it being being abused to limit the political process. It may be argued that getting used to such practices for non-citizens would make it easier to apply to citizens. Except that not only were such policies opposed by some even for non-citizens, but many who approved did so BECAUSE they were applied to non-citizens and were on the watch for misapplication to citizens (which is why there has been especial concern about those few cases involving citizens) basically not only was their opposition to each measure, but every controversial measure had a large share of its supporters who were vigilant about extension or abuse.

and yes, its not just the electorate - the congress and the courts and the press have all played roles, so yes it IS the institutions.

[KrazyHorse]

many were not inconsistent with the practices of many long standing democracies, not all of which have the same limits on wiretaps, or the same protection for habeas corpus that we do

Those who do not have such protections are not as fully democratic as the United States.

[KrazyHorse]

and yes, its not just the electorate - the congress and the courts and the press have all played roles, so yes it IS the institutions.

The institutions are often more easily corrupted than the public.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

many were not inconsistent with the practices of many long standing democracies, not all of which have the same limits on wiretaps, or the same protection for habeas corpus that we do

Those who do not have such protections are not as fully democratic as the United States.

wheres Molly Bloom when we need him to defend the superior democracy of the United Kingdom?

[KrazyHorse]

The democracy of the UK is inferior to that of the US in certain important ways. You can, however, make an argument that greater access to the means of mass communication by a larger cross-section of the general public renders the UK more democratic.

But yeah, when it comes to trampling on civil liberties the US wins (in a good way, I mean).