Why Do the Democrats Hate Democracy?

[DarkCloud]

Well, it's what happened with Kennedy... he had to play hardball after he screwed up the Bay of Pigs.

The Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't great diplomacy on his part- it shouldn't even have gotten to that point... He either should have gone ahead with the Bay of Pigs or not sent the guys at all.

That fiasco, coupled with US warheads in Turkey, gave Khruschev legitimate right to do what he threatened to do... and Kennedy almost destroyed the world because of his arrogance and attempts to prove he could play hardball and that he had a spine.

No wonder non-American leaders want Obama as US president- they want to see how far they can push him.
And he'll push back... and they'll be shocked.

I think the rest of the world fails to realize just how angry and warlike Americans can get when they feel they are being assaulted.

Whoever pushes too hard will be punished... to both their AND America's detriment.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
The conservatives have set up the parameters for the discourse once again, and the democrats (equally conservative on just about everything) will play within these parameters since they don't actually stand for anything.

bingo

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Zevico
Oppose Democracy=Hate Democracy.

No. Opposition can be a philosophical stance. Hate is an emotion. One may oppose something without necessarily hating it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

I think the rest of the world fails to realize just how angry and warlike Americans can get when they feel they are being assaulted.

There is no need to include the temporal qualification. Americans are angry and warlike per se. It's what they do.

[Zevico]

Originally posted by Agathon


No. Opposition can be a philosophical stance. Hate is an emotion. One may oppose something without necessarily hating it.

Thank you for confirming your principled opposition to democracy.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Zevico

Thank you for confirming your principled opposition to democracy.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[DarkCloud]

There is no need to include the temporal qualification. Americans are angry and warlike per se. It's what they do.

I dunno if it's helpful to say that Americans are usually "angry and warlike" since it's difficult to see how other countries would act in a similar situation of world hegemony and leadership.

A better statement would be Americans are "nationalistic" which often leads to "warlike" behavior since indeed, nationalistic tendencies often descend to fear that one's country will be hurt by some 'outsider' and thus needs to be preemptively protected.

If America's nationalism could come from an inner patriotic "US is good, and possibly the best" rather than "others are terrible", it would be quite healthy.

the question is... which nationalism is more predominant in America?

[Ben Kenobi]

I see how it is. I attack the GOP and everybody wants to comment on how the GOP sucks. I attack the Democrats and I'm nobody's friend.

You are just noticing this now?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Zevico
Wait a sec-did you want to restrict voting rights on political lines? Or was that only Agathon and Kid? Cos I would argue that at least 2 of the 3 communists on this board 'Hate Democracy', to use that wonderful phrase. Of course I have no idea if that's indicative of all or most American communists. Maybe they're the exception to the rule.

Must have only been Agathon and Kid. I prefer loosing democratically than winning undemocratically (although if the opportunity to make the revolution occurs, I won't hesitate to take it--the punishment for not making the revolution when you have the opportunity is fascism). Unlike Biden, and apparently Seedle, I trust people to make the right decision when they have good information. Problem is, we don't have good information.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

I dunno if it's helpful to say that Americans are usually "angry and warlike" since it's difficult to see how other countries would act in a similar situation of world hegemony and leadership.

Not really. The British ruled much of the earth and had a similar sense of moral righteousness. What they also had was a genuine interest in the places they were running, because the British were not fundamentally isolationist. They also tended to leave institutions that looked a lot like theirs in place when they left. India, for example, is the world's largest democracy. These places had a pretty big effect on British culture, as one can see in the works of Kipling, for instance.

Americans have very little interest in any of the places they dominate. Most of them can't even find them on a map. Americans are only really interested in themselves, and aren't a very cultured people (the British weren't and still aren't by European standards - to be fair, neither are the Australians or NZers).

A better statement would be Americans are "nationalistic" which often leads to "warlike" behavior since indeed, nationalistic tendencies often descend to fear that one's country will be hurt by some 'outsider' and thus needs to be preemptively protected.

The US is extremely aggressive. We just haven't seen this because western news media tended to downplay it during the Cold War for obvious reasons. In the Cold War, the Soviet Union was supposed to be the aggressor, but a simple record of military deployments gave the lie to that.

Their method of war is also pretty nutty. It's been the case for a long time that the American way of war is to stand as far away from the enemy as possible and rain down insane amounts of ordnance with little or no concern for friendly fire or collateral damage. I've spoken to veterans of four wars who fought as allies of US troops and all of them without prompting said that they were often more concerned about being victims of friendly fire than they were about the enemy.

If America's nationalism could come from an inner patriotic "US is good, and possibly the best" rather than "others are terrible", it would be quite healthy.

the question is... which nationalism is more predominant in America?

Both. But Americans are too insular and ignorant to make any good come of it.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Unlike Biden, and apparently Seedle, I trust people to make the right decision when they have good information. Problem is, we don't have good information.

First, I agree with that lack of good information is a major problem in the U.S. But I think good information is hard to find because people don't want good information. (Once again, I'm not saying I've never demonstrated this behavior. But I at least recognize it as a character flaw to be worked on, rather than a virtue.) The U.S. has many people who want to teach Creationism in Science classes. It has an even larger people who don't necessarily actively want that, but don't see a problem with it happening. It has an entire political party that campaigns on the theme that knowledge is "elitism." The media are dominated by cooter shots of young starlets, and idiots ranting, rather than any effort at actual reporting. (Actually, I find I'm enjoying PBS's Frontline, but I don't know if it's actually any good, or if it just compares well to the schlock everywhere else.)

Getting good information is only valuable if you are willing to the think about that information and make decisions based on your analysis. And thinking is hard. Besides, when you get information, especially new information, you might find out you were wrong about something, or that something that you believe strongly in just isn't supported by the facts. And while some people may be fine with that, and may even enjoy the prospect of growing and improving their minds, most don't.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying I hate democracy. I'm saying that thinking the public opinion about a policy will necessarily correlate with the soundness of that policy is stupid. e.g., the Iraq war.

Besides, we elect leaders. Ignoring the will and thoughts of the public is both stupid and not leadership. But cravenly following the public's opinions on the issues isn't leadership either.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Seedle

First, I agree with that lack of good information is a major problem in the U.S. But I think good information is hard to find because people don't want good information. (Once again, I'm not saying I've never demonstrated this behavior. But I at least recognize it as a character flaw to be worked on, rather than a virtue.) The U.S. has many people who want to teach Creationism in Science classes. It has an even larger people who don't necessarily actively want that, but don't see a problem with it happening. It has an entire political party that campaigns on the theme that knowledge is "elitism."

And this is the whole point. Democracy is based on the idea that all human beings are equally rational autonomous choosers. Anyone who has surveyed the private life choices of a significant number of people knows that this is empirically false.

We also know that a significant portion of the population will simply turn over responsibility for their vote to authority figures and will vote for whomever the authority says they should vote for. We know this. We have made great strides in understanding human behaviour in the last 250 years, yet when it comes to politics, we still behave as if the Enlightenment view of the human person is true. We're prepared to apply our scientific knowledge to everything except ourselves, and so we are simply not, as a society, prepared to call a spade a spade. This is insane.

Both the left and right desperately want to believe that this is because of media manipulation, and that vast cartels of private power control what ordinary people think. It's not true. The voters are entirely to blame. It is a myth that education will substantially change this. Developed societies have had universal education of the likes which their forebears could never have imagined. Literacy is near universal, and yet people still make shockingly bad electoral decisions.

It's the worst kind of faith-based politics.

[Zevico]

(although if the opportunity to make the revolution occurs, I won't hesitate to take it--the punishment for not making the revolution when you have the opportunity is fascism).

Please develop your point. I don't really understand what you're saying.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Zevico

Please develop your point. I don't really understand what you're saying.

What he means is that we line up all the people and weed out the liberals and conservatives, who we then shoot, unless they meet the "hot babe" exemption (whereupon they become concubines of the revolution - you ever wonder why Mao was always smiling?).

You don't need to worry about whether you are or are not on "the list". That ship sailed long ago. The Party maintains agents to scour the web in search of enemies of the people (and hot babes). Unfortunately, on Apolyton only Tubs's wife made the "babe" grade, so the rest of you are basically for it... especially Ming for all his despicable crimes.

[fed1943]

Voters are not stupid.
Like politicians they make their decisions to fit their wills,
not their words.
Best regards,