Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Extremely well writting response, Jason, and I agree entirely with your hopes that the changes our political system needs to make to address long term problems are peaceful. We must find solutions to geo-political instability, WMD arms proliferation at least to the point of not threatening all life on earth, and making the wealthiest nation a nation with the least povery, and the highest access to both quality education and medical care, and jobs.

We differ on our view as to whether democracy still exists in the U.S. but, we both have defensible reasons for our views. I do stand corrected and I thank you for pointing out an oversight on my part that indeed many non-voters are in fact, affiliated with one or the other of the two main parties. Good observation.

Jason,

Revolution can take many forms, all of which can be non-violent in nature. The Civil Rights movement was a revolution perpetrated by those American citizens who tired of being treated like second class citizens. Could such a popular non-violent, grass-roots movement by middle and under-privileged Americans server to wrest control of our government from the modern day robber barons?

I am the last person to call for armed insurrection or rebellion against my government; no, like David, I too call for a Revolution at the ballot box. And I call for the formation of a real Third Party. In act I am laying the ground work and writing the Constitution and platform statement for just such a Party, one whose central theme will be the preservation of the American Republic and a restoration of the principles that made this country great. Armed conflict will not get it done, vision and leadership will.

If you take a look throughout our Country’s history, more often than not the Revolution that occurs is more on the social side. Granted violence does occur in a number of examples, Social revolution gets far more accomplished. The Suffragettes, Civil Rights movement, The ERA movement, Gay Rights, etc. If we’ve learned anything it’s that violent revolution only breeds more violence. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that our current system only works to a certain extent. Once it reaches that point people like Son of Liberty feel the need to take up arms.

I don’t think “Son of Liberty” was being literal about it, and to take it as such is a cheap rhetorical trick that others will see through.

I think Bush has managed to divide this country as no other president has done, or should ever have done. In a time when greater national unity could have been achieved, your people chose the path of demagoguery and opportunism, blaming 9/11 on liberals and cosmopolitan thinkers. You pushed conservative agendas on them, without compromise, until they could no longer honestly stand shoulder to shoulder with you. We could have put aside our differences and made America a bright shining beacon of the best that can come from a country so threatened, but instead, you have led us down a path of ideological fanaticism, belligerence towards friend and foe alike, and fiscal irresponsibility. The Democratic party had already shifted closer to center. If the Republicans had done the same, decided to serve public interests instead of simply the special interests, great things could have been done.

All I’ve seen since is the Republican party checking off items from their agenda’s wishlist, using the support gained from the fear and the anxiety created by 9/11 to fuel the party’s dominance, even in the face of the needs of this nation going unfulfilled.

So go on handing more power to those who already have enough, instead of those who have little. Go on telling us that we need tax cuts while we run the largest deficits in history, and are setting up a new department for our cabinet. Go on doing these things because you have already proven what your party does in times of crisis: serve the interests of the select few, and not the many.

I was being literal. This is not insurrection, this is self-defense. I’m sure I’ve roused a few feathers of those who would like to silence me, so I’ll get to the point. It’s already happening, but it’s unorganized and easy to keep out of the news. But no more, for generations we have watched as the looters have looted, while the nihilists wring their hands and gnash their teeth. There are those who do not want redemption from their self-imposed slavery, and it is not given for free.

I have stood beside you and penned on this very blog, thinking that it makes a whit of difference. But it does not; the time of informing and alliances is past. Soon is the time for death and a unchaining of slavish bonds.

You have chosen to be either a nihilist or a looter, but soon you will have a choice to be free.

Son of Liberty, your perspectives and predictions and opinions are welcome here. This is a forum for political discussion and exchange of informaton, news, and perspectives.

I would ask however, that you refrain from categorizing other writers here personally. Your last sentence above is an invitation to a personally defensive response. We observe a guideline here which applies to all editors and visitors, Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. It serves us well in preserving a civil discussion between persons. The topics of political violence, revolution, or insurrection are appropriate subjects for discussion. But personal combativeness or denigration is not permitted here.

I look forward to your views and perspectives, but, respectfully ask that the interaction between writers here remain civil. I appreciate your cooperation in this regard.

WatchBlog Manager

As I said, my comments do not make a whit of difference. Those in charge have castrated common sense with the blade of political correctness and the need to be nice. Wake up from your hypo-gnomic illusion of grandeur and understand that the revolution started decades ago, there is simply the counter-revolution that seeks to restore the constitution. America is in decline and the corpse is being looted on it’s deathbed.

Selah.

Stephen,

Thanks for the acid, but it seems that I did not read Son of Liberty wrong. It was not a “cheap rhetorical trick” afterall. Son of Liberty was not the only one I was talking about. David Remer referred to friends who feel the same way and I have read others.

While we are on the subject of rhetoric, it’s time that liberals took a look at their own. Even if he was joking, how would I know it? Remer does not believe we live in a democracy anymore. Is he being literal? He sounds like it. V. Edward Martin brought it up by quoting the Declaration of Independence, which was not, as history buffs may know, a call for civil disobedience and teach-ins. It was a declaration of the beginning of armed struggle.

Elsewhere I’ve read that George W. Bush is the most dangerous person on the planet, and even the most dangerous person in history. They believe their own hyperbole. Once that happens, it’s a pretty short leap. If George W. Bush really is the most dangerous and evil man in history, why shouldn’t he be assassinated? Indeed it would be the responsible thing to do. My point is, the rhetoric from the left has been ratcheted up so high that it is impossible to tell hyperbole from a literal belief.

Manager,

You say, “The topics of political violence, revolution, or insurrection are appropriate subjects for discussion.” Agreed. But incitement to the same should not be appropriate should it? Son of Liberty is not “discussing” political violence. He is calling for it. He is threatening it.

Who said I was on the left? This is one argument that you can’t pigeonhole to party lines. I’m not here to convince anyone of anything or spew rhetoric laced with hyperbole, the liars and criminals discredit themselves enough on their own. As for your fear of being slain over a cup of $3.50 joe, either you’re succumbing to your own hyperbole and illusions of grandeur, or you’ve no idea what this is all about.

I would suggest you pick a side though, or get out of the way. We are not vindictive nor hellbent on revenge, but traitors to the Republic’s constitution have reason to fear the people.

Son of Liberty,

While part of me agrees with you and I at least empathize with you, I do believe that the way to fix things as of now is through the ballot box. At this point in time, the concept of a revolution is at once enchanting and damnable.

A revolution really requires mass public support, military support, or both. Your cause really has neither and I can only imagine the firepower our military could bring to bear on a minority of people. The end result would only be negative.

Truely, if it is necessary it will happen, but I do not see it coming into existence within the near future.

Adam, the U.S. military is not a concern, by the time it comes down to it, the forces on U.S. soil would be NATO and extreme loyalists. The rest are being deployed overseas. Again, this is not tomorrow, although things are and have already happened. You will know it is time because it will be obvious who the enemy is.

And this is all fiction… there is no counter-revolution. I am obviously some punk 14-year-old on a computer in Kentucky playing revolutionary. You are all doomed, there is no resistance.

Selah.

Violence is the means by which a very small minority forces their view on everyone else because they can’t accept that the majority disagrees with them.

rev_matt_y: based on your postulation, those who initiated the American Revolution were foolhardy men going against the majority (Britain). Would you have it that the USA was still a colony simply because a minority of men thought freedom was a novel idea?

Hmmmm.

Jason, if Son of Liberty is in violation of any laws in his remarks, it is up to the enforcement authorities and judges to make that determination. I am not educated nor trained in nuances of the law regarding freedom of speech, and therefore, could easily be in error of censoring a legal exercise by Son of Liberty if I were to delete his comments on the subject.

Now if he announced his intent to shoot someone or called out for recruits to contact him for the purpose of arming and organizing to overthrow the government with the force of arms, I am sure I would have legal cause to take action by making a phone call. Deleting his comments would be deleting evidence, wouldn’t it?

Jason, by definition, we no longer have a functional democracy. We have a constitutional democracy, but, no longer a functional one. In its place, we have government of the few, by the few, and for the few. That just doesn’t meet any definition of functional democracy I was ever taught.

On another subject, I want to thank you for writing an extremely stimulative and debate generating topical article. Your article and the discussion and debate it has generated is what makes WatchBlog a place to return to again, and again.

David,

I don’t think a legal opinion would be required to pull Son of Liberty comments. As managing editor of a blog with no posted guidelines (at least none that I can find) about what comments would be deemed inappropriate, it would seem completely up to your discretion.

With regards to whether or not this is a “functioning democracy” by “definition” I would ask what definition. The first defninition I found was, “government by the people, especially: rule of the majority”. In that case, we have not had a “functioning democracy” since the birth of this nation, since it was founded with a federal government, i.e. a form of government in which power is distributed between a central authority and a number of consituent territorial units.

You seem to rest your case largely on voter turnout. The most recent statistics I found on Iran had 88.11% voter turnout for the Seventh Presidency in 1997. Does that make Iran a better democracy than the U.S.? At what point in U.S. history would you say we were a democracy and what differentiates that time from today? Which democratic nations today are “functioning democracies” by your definition and what differentiates them from the US?

Sebastian, Note the U.S. is almost last on this list produced by the United Nations. (You do need to register to access the U.N.’s stats. Most of the world has functional democracy.

Participation per Reg. Voters
Turkmenistan 98.9
Malta 95.4
Tajikistan 93.7
Uzbekistan 93.5
Belgium 90.6
Cyprus 90.5
Denmark 87.1
Liechtenstein 86.7
Luxembourg 86.5
Austria 84.3
Iceland 84.1
Andorra 81.6
Italy 81.2
Sweden 80.1
Germany 79.1
Netherlands 79.0
Turkey 76.9
Greece 75.7
Norway 74.5
San Marino 73.8
FYR of Macedonia 73.5
Hungary 73.5
Latvia 72.5
Spain 70.6
Slovenia 70.4
Slovakia 70.1
Finland 69.7
Ukraine 69.4
Croatia 69.3
Azerbaijan 68.0
Israel 67.8
Georgia 67.6
Republic of Moldova 67.5
Bulgaria 67.3
Romania 65.3
Kyrgyzstan 64.4
France 64.4
Serbia and Montenegro 64.2
Bosnia and Herzegovina 63.7
Ireland 63.0
Kazakhstan 62.6
Portugal 62.3
Russian Federation 61.9
Canada 61.2
Belarus 61.1
Albania 60.0
United Kingdom 59.4
Lithuania 58.6
Estonia 58.2
Czech Republic 58.0
Armenia 51.7
United States 50.7
Poland 46.3
Switzerland 43.3

I’m still not clear on exactly what makes a country a “functional democracy” by your definition. None of the countries in your list has 100% turnout, so a candidate that gets a slim majority of the vote still does not have a majority of registered voters.

Of course, that doesn’t matter in the pinnacle of “functioning democracy”, Turkmenistan where the President enjoys nearly unanimous support. According to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which frequently monitors elections in Europe and Central Asia, “Officials and state newspapers are openly advocating for the next step toward the so-called Golden Age, where Niyazov is expected to be nominated ‘Great Leader of the Turkmen people’ for life, with powers to appoint and dismiss officials, parliamentarians and even the president, or make himself president for life.”

This list makes the point that voter turnout is a rather weak litmus test. You don’t have to look that closely. By your standard, Turkmenistan is a better functioning democracy than our own. So is Russia. That is not encouraging based on recent elections. Same goes for Georgia. Also note that Switzerland is an absolutely horrible democracy.

Now ask yourself which of these examples have more fraudulent elections. Ask yourself which of these countries would you rather live in. If voter turnout is the only measure of a “functioning democracy” then being a “functioning democracy” is not that big a deal.

Poor voter turnout could be due to any number of factors, not least of which is a general satisfaction with current quality of life combined with a lack of worry about it getting substantially worse no matter who is in office. (This is sometimes pejoratively called “apathy”.) But no matter what the reasoning, voluntarily abstaining is not the same as not having a right to vote. Are the 49.3% of registered US voters not turning out because they are being kept away by the ruling party? Are they being threatened or intimidated in some way? Are they worried that their secret ballot is not really secret and that retribution will follow if they vote against whoever winds up winning?

The RIGHT to vote is the ultimate freedom in a democracy, but voters are also free to not vote. If uninformed or dispassionate people think it’s too much of a hassle to get to the polls on election day, I say let them abstain. It doesn’t mean that the sky is falling.