The general decline in standards today

[John in Covina]

It's a fact that the U.S. government supported the Shah of Iran. It is also a fact that the U.S. government supported Mubarak. And countless others.

It is also a fact that these individuals willingly killed and tortured their own citizens for basic dissent.

Politics are a matter of opinion and choice that can be debated. Facts are not politics. Having a personal view on murder and torture is not taking a political position.

Politics is also about compromise, it was what was needed to get things passed in the legislature.

In many areas of the world there is a belief that the people are not ready for democracy. For those areas the first world governments look for stability overall, especially when that area provides strategic items - like oil.

Murder is bad unless it's bad guys getting murdered.

 

[Edward]

Murder is bad unless it's bad guys getting murdered.

Very subjective. Murder is murder - if those who pose as good do what is evil... evil triumphs.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Politics is also about compromise, it was what was needed to get things passed in the legislature.

In many areas of the world there is a belief that the people are not ready for democracy. For those areas the first world governments look for stability overall, especially when that area provides strategic items - like oil.

Murder is bad unless it's bad guys getting murdered.

In the arena of geopolitics one unfortunately cannot always have the kind of friends and allies that one would like to have. To defeat Nazi Germany during WWII we had to side with the likes of Stalin who proved to be an even bigger murderer than Hitler. If we restrict our choice of allies to only those who are good democratic boy scouts we'd hardly have any allies, especially in parts of the world where we need them. As they say, an enemy of an enemy is a friend (at least for the time being).

 

[Gin&Tonics]

Hmmmmmm sounds like this thread has slipped into the realm of political discussion...methinks I read somewhere that it's not allowed on FL...just sayin.

Personally I don't mind political discussion, just that it's against the rules here is all.

 

[jamespowers]

As they say, an enemy of an enemy is a friend (at least for the time being).

Better yet:
Winston Churchill stated that, "if Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons," in support of British aid to Soviet forces.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Better yet:
Winston Churchill stated that, "if Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons," in support of British aid to Soviet forces.

"He may be a ba***rd, but at least he's our ba***rd."
...Franklin D. Roosevelt on Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, Sr.

 

[p51]

You, too, will get old. And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders.

-from "Wear Sunscreen," By Mary Schmich

 

[Edward]

"He may be a ba***rd, but at least he's our ba***rd."
...Franklin D. Roosevelt on Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, Sr.

An awful lot of peope said much the same thing about Churchill too.

 

[John in Covina]

Very subjective. Murder is murder - if those who pose as good do what is evil... evil triumphs.

Pragmatic - it does no one any good to have higher morality when ones nation is conquered.

There is a time to fight fire with fire.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Indeed. The globe is littered with the bones of dead pacifists.

 

[sheeplady]

Politics is also about compromise, it was what was needed to get things passed in the legislature.

In many areas of the world there is a belief that the people are not ready for democracy. For those areas the first world governments look for stability overall, especially when that area provides strategic items - like oil.

Murder is bad unless it's bad guys getting murdered.

Strange how the "places" that some think are not ready for democracy are often filled with who the same people in our culture would consider non-whites: South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East...

 

[William Stratford]

Strange how the "places" that some think are not ready for democracy are often filled with who the same people in our culture would consider non-whites: South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East...

Given how rife with demagoguery democracy is, and how much it is defined by politicians selling themselves to the lowest common denominator whilst the Murdoch-"educated" electorate/mob lap up the shiny bribe in return, is any country "ready for democracy"....or perhaps more accurately, given its nature to promote chaos by enshringing whim, is democracy ready for us?

 

[1961MJS]

Strange how the "places" that some think are not ready for democracy are often filled with who the same people in our culture would consider non-whites: South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East...

Hi

I think that you're wrong (maybe not ENTIRELY wrong) about the "Not ready for Democracy" being equivalent to being racist. In order to fully, correctly embrace Democracy, you also have to fully embrace the Christian concept of forgiveness. Note that we don't put out last president in prison, or execute him when he leaves office. Many less forgiving countries only change administrations when the last guy either dies or is killed. Other places that govern at the lower levels using a hereditary system (tribal) have a similar problem of bloodshed during administration changes.

After the Berlin wall fell, in many respects, East Germany and Russia were not ready for Democracy. My example of why not is based on an interview with an older woman who, when told that he Communist party had gone under asked "Now who will tell me how to vote?"

 

[lolly_loisides]

Given how rife with demagoguery democracy is, and how much it is defined by politicians selling themselves to the lowest common denominator whilst the Murdoch-"educated" electorate/mob lap up the shiny bribe in return, is any country "ready for democracy"....or perhaps more accurately, given its nature to promote chaos by enshringing whim, is democracy ready for us?

What a depressing representation of the democratic system. If you believe that democracy isn't ready for us, what system of government do you suggest we follow instead?

 

[William Stratford]

What a depressing representation of the democratic system. If you believe that democracy isn't ready for us, what system of government do you suggest we follow instead?

Although there is no 'perfect' approach, a Constitutional Republic is superior to a democracy, and a Constitutional Aristocracy is superior to a Constitutional Republic, as both offer the stability of a constitution being favoured over voter whim but with the Constitutional Aristocracy offering greater protection than does the Republic (as the republic is still staffed by people driven by ambition, whilst the aristocracy is staffed by people who's position is independent of ambition). The point being to give the greatest stability and protection against arbitrary rule (whether by the mob or an oligarchy) whilst still being open to question and alteration (just not on anything remotely resembling whim).

 

[lolly_loisides]

Although there is no 'perfect' approach, a Constitutional Republic is superior to a democracy, and a Constitutional Aristocracy is superior to a Constitutional Republic, as both offer the stability of a constitution being favoured over voter whim but with the Constitutional Aristocracy offering greater protection than does the Republic (as the republic is still staffed by people driven by ambition, whilst the aristocracy is staffed by people who's position is independent of ambition). The point being to give the greatest stability and protection against arbitrary rule (whether by the mob or an oligarchy) whilst still being open to question and alteration (just not on anything remotely resembling whim).

I could tell from some of your previous posts you were alluding to this, but I'm still surprised that anyone could seriously propose that the rule of the few (and even worse the idea that people are "born to rule") over the many is preferable to the current democratic systems of government in western worlds.

I think you'll find that there aren't many people on the lounge that agree with you.

 

[William Stratford]

I could tell from some of your previous posts you were alluding to this, but I'm still surprised that anyone could seriously propose that the rule of the few (and even worse the idea that people are "born to rule") over the many is preferable to the current systems of government in western worlds.

Except that it isnt "rule of the few" (Oligarchy) but "rule of the law/constitution".

I think you'll find that there aren't many people on the lounge that agree with you.

That would be strange, considering that America was created to be a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.

 

[Drappa]

I can not believe what I'm reading. And this would be why politics is actually banned on here.

Hi

I think that you're wrong (maybe not ENTIRELY wrong) about the "Not ready for Democracy" being equivalent to being racist. In order to fully, correctly embrace Democracy, you also have to fully embrace the Christian concept of forgiveness. Note that we don't put out last president in prison, or execute him when he leaves office. Many less forgiving countries only change administrations when the last guy either dies or is killed. Other places that govern at the lower levels using a hereditary system (tribal) have a similar problem of bloodshed during administration changes.

After the Berlin wall fell, in many respects, East Germany and Russia were not ready for Democracy. My example of why not is based on an interview with an older woman who, when told that he Communist party had gone under asked "Now who will tell me how to vote?"

 

[lolly_loisides]

Ok then Loungers, how do we feel about a system of government where any form of democracy is done away with & our ruler is decided purely on birthright?

Any takers?

 

[William Stratford]

Ok then Loungers, how do we feel about a system of government where any form of democracy is done away with & our ruler is based purely on birthright?

Any takers?

No one has suggested that "our ruler [should be] based purely on birthright". What is it with people misrepresenting what is put on here? The rule should be based upon Law/Constitution (which is the principle that the US was built upon) whilst what amounts to the guardians of that should not be based on ambition (and the best way to do that is through inheriting the position, which is one of service and not power/rulership/reward-for-ambition).

When you attack the hereditary principle you attack the authority of parents (as, by the argument against hereditary principle, professionals (or the community as a whole) should have the key authority over children rather than such being in the hands of hereditary parents) and by doing so you attack the essence of family....the result being much of what we see today in the general decline in standards.

The job of "rulers" is to enact and protect a constitution, which is utterly different from the arbitrary nature of either democracy or oligarchy. The more we distance that from whim and ambition, the better.