I'm confused...

I understand (I think) what James was saying, although I don't know that Bush has made 9 of the 10 steps Ms. Wolf has described... I could only count 6, and those only to varying degrees. His question is a valid one, especially about the way in which we view "terrorism" as a society. I will address that post in my next... uh... post.

I want to know if Baddboy is actually saying he thinks a democracy can only exist for a limited time. If we follow the example given and go with a round number like 200 years before a democratic society implodes... then there are more than enough examples in history to refute that. Great Britain has been a democratic society for more than 350 years, and a mild argument can be made that the democratic process does, indeed, date back to 1215 in England. Iceland has maintained its democratic nature for more than 1,000 years, and Switzerland isn't far behind them. The only actual "direct democracy" that I know of as an institutional government lasted for more than 600 years in the city-state of Athens, beginning in 510 BC.

Now, we (the USA) are the largest democratic society that nears the 200 year mark with a population of 303 million. The UK is older, but only has 61 million. India is far bigger at 1.1 billion people, but has only existed as a free democratic society for about 60 years. China isn't as democratic as I guess any of us would wish... but at 1.3 billion they have been having "elections" since 1933, a little longer than India.

Anyway, we have existed as a nation for more than 225 years... and people like Niomi Wolf (sp?) or Pat Buchannan can write book after book detailing the end of our culture and society, but any rational, right-minded observer will have to admit that we are far more functional than most democratic states on the block. We maintain the highest standard of living, our health care is unrivaled on the entire globe, and our economy dictates the cast majority of the rest of the world's economies... if you doubt that, just look at the global indicators for 1929, 1977, 1984 and 2000.

Don't get me wrong... I still feel that there are very compelling arguments about the benefits of a monarchy in keeping a society together across vast differences of culture, language, religion and race. History is replete with examples of dynasties that have rule vast multi-cultural empires for ages (literally)... but it is the word "dynasty" that brings to mind the failure of the monarchical system of rule, even with a Constitution in place (as in Britain). People from George Lucas to Frank Hebert have all made valid defenses of the imperial-monarchical system, but it is the dynastic nature of most monarchies that is their undoing.

But... we don't live in a monarchical society. We live in a republic, a republic that maintains a free-market economic system and has instituted a representative government built on very well-placed checks and balances. The Founding Fathers did one thing right, if they did nothing at all... they KNEW they didn't know EVERYTHING, so they left enough room in the Constitution for the fledgling Republic to grow and develop as it needed to over the intervening 225 years. They based their assumptions on what I firmly believe... to the core of my being... are UNIVERSAL truths concerning MAN and the SOCIETIES he creates:

All MANKIND is created EQUAL by GOD.

ALL PEOPLE should expect EQUAL treatment under the LAW, at ALL times.

The Nation and its Government is instituted BY the People, FOR the People, and OF the People.

The failure of a society as it falls into tyranny, as far as I can determine from my meager knowledge of history, is not because of greed (as stated by Marx and Baddboy's sources) and the want of a "free ride" (as stated by Pat Buchannan and Ann Coulter)... it is because of ignorance.

The German people elected a party in 1933 whose ONLY platform was one based on hatred and intolerance... the National Socialists. The failure of nearly every single democratic society in Central and South America is because the people vote with almost no knowledge of what the long-term goals of their parties are, and thus you get Pinochets and Chavezes, either through direct election or inevitable coup d'etats.

It is almost never acknowledged, but I do think that one of the greater advances that the Founding Fathers accomplished was in limiting the franchize to educated land-owners. This limitation may be seen as an injustice by most liberals, but it has shown to have been a strong piece of a very successfull nation-building effort. To this day, the simple fact that less than 44% of eligible voters actually VOTE is undoubtedly a good thing... far too many people vote with no concept of what they are voting for, or why. At no point in this nation's history has it ever been more evident that too many people take the vote completely for granted. Instead of being the somber and solemn task that it is... it is portrayed as something "cool" and "trendy" to be accomplished for status and position in society. "Get out the Vote" is an excellent example of this.

Anyway... society here in America has seen this kind of trend "left" many times in the past, and it is always followed by a trend "right" with a rapid move back to center. This swing has existed since the 1840's, and has never stayed to one side of the "idle" for more than 15 years yet... and it won't this time either. The nation saw its "ruin" projected with the boat-loads of Irish in the 1840's... and survived quite nicely. The "crisis" of the 1860's was one of the toughest ever... but we survived and were stronger than ever for living through it. The moral "bankruptness" of the Roaring '20s idn't kill America, and neither did the 1960's. The "Yuppy" movement lasted all of 4 years... and brought us nothing more damaging than Bill Clinton for 8 years.

That's why I say...

Naomi Wolf and Pat Buchannon... go FUCK youselves!