disqualification

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

JB, you have a very broad definition of lib and progressive. I don't recall lib or progressive being social conservatives

Originally Posted by John Bull

No, you're correct about that IMO. And he was a social conservative up to a point but when a President can willingly and with a big smile on his face, tell the people whose liberties he just eroded (The Patriot Act) that he only did it for their own good, that smacks of pure liberal thought to me.

Actually, the term that was coined for him (don't know which PR person came up with it) was "compassionate conservative." The only compassion he was talking about was himself. Anyone else got screwed.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I don't think Schumer's proposal is going to get any traction and I don't think that it's necessarily a good idea.

Hopefully you are correct.

@ DFW5Traveler FYI

Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms. – This quote is by Aristotle and not Socrates. I liked all three quotes, but I always check to see if such quotes are real and correctly attributed before I use them or pass them along.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms. – This quote is by Aristotle and not Socrates. I liked all three quotes, but I always check to see if such quotes are real and correctly attributed before I use them or pass them along.

So, I guess you're saying all governments naturally wind up controlled by a despot.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

So, I guess you're saying all governments naturally wind up controlled by a despot.

The more power the central government draws unto itself “in the name of protecting the people,” the higher the probability, e.g., Hitler.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The more power the central government draws unto itself “in the name of protecting the people,” the higher the probability, e.g., Hitler.

Then how do you account for Kemalism?

Atatürk ruled Turkey with an iron fist - all in the name of transforming it into a modern, secular, democratic state. Many historians believe that Kemalist reform policies are the only way to overcome the grip of a religious aristocracy. Just look at Iran and Pakistan for the concept that democratic ideas have a hard time taking root in the face of religious dogma.

Atatürk seized secular dictatorial powers in order to eliminate religious dictatorial power and ultimately lead his country to democracy. If you think the middle east is a cluster fuck now just think what it might have been like if Turkey hadn't moved as far as it did under Kemal.

Sometimes dictatorial power is the only solution to an even more fucked-up situation.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Just look at Iran and Pakistan for the concept that democratic ideas have a hard time taking root in the face of religious dogma.
Cheers,
Mazo.

Actually, I believe this to be the result of thousands of years of tyrannical rule (regardless of religion) rather than the existence of religious dogma. The Shah of Iran ruled with an iron hand, as do the royalty of Saudi Arabia, and the tribes of Afghanistan (see James Michener's Caravans). I think peoples become accustomed and comfortable with a tyrannical gov't (no matter the form) and will resist democracy b/c they won't be "comfortable" with the seeming chaos in a democracy (we know it as an organized chaos).

I've seen nothing to support my theory, but then, I'm not a political scientist. I just think turning centuries of culture around in the blink of an eye is extremely difficult.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Then how do you account for Kemalism?

Atatürk ruled Turkey with an iron fist - all in the name of transforming it into a modern, secular, democratic state. Many historians believe that Kemalist reform policies are the only way to overcome the grip of a religious aristocracy. Just look at Iran and Pakistan for the concept that democratic ideas have a hard time taking root in the face of religious dogma.

Atatürk seized secular dictatorial powers in order to eliminate religious dictatorial power and ultimately lead his country to democracy. If you think the middle east is a cluster fuck now just think what it might have been like if Turkey hadn't moved as far as it did under Kemal.

Sometimes dictatorial power is the only solution to an even more fucked-up situation.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Actually, your example supports the theory that the more centralized a government is, the easier it is to overthrow: 1) Atatürk’s rebellion first and foremost ended the Ottoman sultanate which had autocratically (highly centralized) ruled Turkey for over 600 years. 2) Atatürk rebelled against European domination of Turkey following WWI. So your example consists of one despot being over thrown by another despot who led a revolt against foreign despotism.

Are you suggesting that a dictator is the solution to the U.S.'s fiscal problems?

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Actually, your example supports the theory that the more centralized a government is, the easier it is to overthrow:

I'm not sure how that comes into what you were saying - and I also don't think it's true. Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and China being just a few current examples - but that's a whole new thread if you want one.

What I was responding to was your comment that centralizing power inherently leads to despotism. The point is that it clearly doesn't. Sometimes you have to centralize or re-centralize power in a more benevolent entity before you can redistribute it back to the people. It's a common thread from Oliver Cromwell (with obvious reservations) through today.

It's exactly what Kemal and the Young Turks did - and it's exactly what the US is currently doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are very few parallels that you couldn't draw between the social and and economic reforms put in place under the "dictator" Kemal and the US efforts in the gulf. We went in, forcibly took complete power, imposed absolute rule under a strict police state, and then gradually relaxed the grip as the reforms we instituted took hold to the point that social equilibrium, economic independence, and democratic government could safely emerge.

Iraq is the Young Turk revolution in a nutshell exercised by a benevolent foreign power rather than a benevolent domestic one. We just don't like calling ourselves "despots" in the way that we like to apply that term to people like Kemal. People just don't like telling their children that daddy's over in Iraq being a "military despot" for the good of the Iraqi people. "Fighting for Iraqi freedom" or something such sounds a lot better to the kids.

Are you suggesting that a dictator is the solution to the U.S.'s fiscal problems?

I don't know how to fully respond to this as I have no idea how the financial climate crept into it or the context that you're bringing it up.

However, I will say that one general tenant of governance that I have always held is that there has to be a balance between public and private authority in just about everything that a government does. For me too much regulation is just as great an evil as too little regulation. Public and private power need to be weighed against each other in order to check the natural tendency of governments to seize absolute control with the natural tendency of human beings to consume and destroy every single thing they touch. Cross-checking the ambition of the government with the greed of the market keeps both of them too busy to fuck you over.

So I guess my general answer to your question is no, I don't believe that we need a "dictator" to solve our financial issues.

But I do believe that our financial issues were in large part due to an imbalance between government and private power in the market that allowed the private sector to do what it does best - gorge on every crop in the field until a famine set in.

Now we'll probably respond (as we always do) by swinging the pendulum too far the other way and choking off economic potential with overly-strict reform. Then it will swing the other way, then the other way, then the other way, etc, etc, etc, until finally after a few decades we'll settle things down to where they should be and move on to the next crisis.

That's the Mazo theory of two-party government in a nutshell. I hope that answers your question.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Actually, I believe this to be the result of thousands of years of tyrannical rule (regardless of religion) rather than the existence of religious dogma.

Interesting point CT and it's not without some support. Social inertia can be a powerful thing.

Just look at, say, Alabama - who's official state motto is "We do it that way because that's the way we always done it."

"Segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever!" That's the way they like it in Alabama.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Fastcars1966]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

You are correct that it doesn't affect ones patriotism, but it does affect ones ability to function, react, or make critical decisions. The only thing binding someone is a contract agreeing to uphold the standards of the UCMJ which states zero tolerance. Would you really want someone who habitually uses to work on or even fly military aircraft that flies over your house and/or loved ones?

Don't be so naive half the VN Vets that flew helicopters were stoned. I guess I might consider it as well if my life expectancy was so short. I know many vets that were either sent to rehab, or discharged for drug use good soldiers though. I also know that when Clinton was in office information had to be declassified before his advisors could see it because of their past indiscretions. Now that is a shame and makes you wonder who is actually running this country when top secret info is being with held from our presidents staff. I guess the last president we had in office with true top level security clearance was the first Bush because of his ties to the CIA.

[Fastcars1966]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

One last item. Only about 27% of today's youth are eligible to enlist (http://w3.newsmax.com/popunders/mainpop.htm). Lack of physical fitness disqualifies most, followed by the inadequately educated and then by those with prior legal issues—such as drug use. Even after being screened, one in ten recruits washout (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...asicattrit.htm). Lack of physical fitness disqualifies most, followed by the inadequately educated and then by those with prior legal issues—such as drug use. Even after being screened, one in ten recruits washout (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...asicattrit.htm).

I had know idea it was that high. Very sad.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Hopefully you are correct.

@ DFW5Traveler FYI

Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms. – This quote is by Aristotle and not Socrates. I liked all three quotes, but I always check to see if such quotes are real and correctly attributed before I use them or pass them along.

Thanks I B! I was refreshing myself on a lot of quotes

Originally Posted by Fastcars1966

Don't be so naive half the VN Vets that flew helicopters were stoned. I guess I might consider it as well if my life expectancy was so short. I know many vets that were either sent to rehab, or discharged for drug use good soldiers though. I also know that when Clinton was in office information had to be declassified before his advisors could see it because of their past indiscretions. Now that is a shame and makes you wonder who is actually running this country when top secret info is being with held from our presidents staff. I guess the last president we had in office with true top level security clearance was the first Bush because of his ties to the CIA.

I wasn't refering to VN, I was refering to the modern military, which is currently, zero tolerance. Having a stoned pilot may have been a major factor in the life expectancy of a door gunner, @ 6 secs, in a fire fight. Thank you, though, for sharing your opinion.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I'm not sure how that comes into what you were saying - and I also don't think it's true. Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and China being just a few current examples - but that's a whole new thread if you want one.

These are all examples of dictatorships emerging from preexisting autocratic—or sometimes dictatorial—rule. They are not former republics that have succumbed to dictatorial rule.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

What I was responding to was your comment that centralizing power inherently leads to despotism. The point is that it clearly doesn't. Sometimes you have to centralize or re-centralize power in a more benevolent entity before you can redistribute it back to the people. It's a common thread from Oliver Cromwell (with obvious reservations) through today.

Initially, I was merely commenting that I liked DFW5Traveler’s quote by Aristotle regarding republics. Then, in response to CT’s query, I added that highly centralized governments (not necessarily republics or democracies) are the ones most easily overthrown and subjugated. Some historical examples are Rome over Carthage and Egypt; Spain over the Aztecs and Incas; and the Allies over Germany, Italy and Japan during WWII. Other examples include, Czarist Russia and, eventually, the USSR; both Iraq and Iran (Iran several times in the 20th century), and there are others.

The Romans could defeat the less hierarchical (by comparison to Carthage and Egypt) Scottish and the German tribes in battle. Similarly, the Spanish conquistadors could on occasion best the Apache, Pueblo and Navajo, who were notably less hierarchical than the Aztec and Inca. Yet, Rome and Spain both failed to ever subjugate these less hierarchical cultures. Note, it took some 300 to 400 years for European’s (and Americans) to completely subjugate the native tribes of North America (north of Mexico). There was no one, individual ruler holding sway over the indigenous people, so each tribe had to be dealt with separately. Similarly, the tribal Afghans have been resisting Western domination since Alexander the Great.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

It's exactly what Kemal and the Young Turks did - and it's exactly what the US is currently doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And you might add Germany, Japan, and S. Korea—and I agree, it is much easier and cheaper in human lives for the U.S. to rebuild states as opposed to trying to occupy and keep former enemies subjugated. We learned that lesson after WWI.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

There are very few parallels that you couldn't draw between the social and and economic reforms put in place under the "dictator" Kemal and the US efforts in the gulf. We went in, forcibly took complete power, imposed absolute rule under a strict police state, and then gradually relaxed the grip as the reforms we instituted took hold to the point that social equilibrium, economic independence, and democratic government could safely emerge.

Iraq is the Young Turk revolution in a nutshell exercised by a benevolent foreign power rather than a benevolent domestic one. We just don't like calling ourselves "despots" in the way that we like to apply that term to people like Kemal. People just don't like telling their children that daddy's over in Iraq being a "military despot" for the good of the Iraqi people. "Fighting for Iraqi freedom" or something such sounds a lot better to the kids.

I agree with everything you’ve written here. BTW, my Patrick Kinross book on Atatürk has not arrived yet. I ordered it ten days ago, it’s coming in from the UK.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I don't know how to fully respond to this as I have no idea how the financial climate crept into it or the context that you're bringing it up.

However, I will say that one general tenant of governance that I have always held is that there has to be a balance between public and private authority in just about everything that a government does. For me too much regulation is just as great an evil as too little regulation. Public and private power need to be weighed against each other in order to check the natural tendency of governments to seize absolute control with the natural tendency of human beings to consume and destroy every single thing they touch. Cross-checking the ambition of the government with the greed of the market keeps both of them too busy to fuck you over.

So I guess my general answer to your question is no, I don't believe that we need a "dictator" to solve our financial issues.

But I do believe that our financial issues were in large part due to an imbalance between government and private power in the market that allowed the private sector to do what it does best - gorge on every crop in the field until a famine set in.

Now we'll probably respond (as we always do) by swinging the pendulum too far the other way and choking off economic potential with overly-strict reform. Then it will swing the other way, then the other way, then the other way, etc, etc, etc, until finally after a few decades we'll settle things down to where they should be and move on to the next crisis.

I made the off hand remark about the financial crisis because it is at the heart of most (not all) of this county’s problems. But my new fear is that the central government is grasping too much power (Patriot Act, Healthcare, etc.,) and this centralization is undermining the principal of federalism on which this country was founded. The Supreme Court preempted FDR’s attempt to gain extraordinary executive powers during the ‘30s, but the right set of circumstances coupled with a charismatic leader (another Huey P. Long?) could lead to a dictatorship because so much power is already concentrated in DC and not properly shared with the states as originally intended.

The Swiss have a model federal system, and they have been able to preserve their system for several centuries without succumbing to a dictator.

[Mazomaniac]

OK Hank, I'm going to take a flier here:

I'm going to take the location from your profile, add in the structure and content of your posts, put two and two together, and deduce that you've spent some time in Hyde Park.

Am I right?

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

BTW, my Patrick Kinross book on Atatürk has not arrived yet.

Kinross is excellent, but you'll find it dated now. It's also got a decidedly western slant to it. Follow it up with Mango's more recent biography and you'll notice a huge difference. There's a lot in the Kinross that doesn't make sense given what's happened in Turkey since Kinross died. Mango will fill in the gaps. Both are great. though. Enjoy.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[DFW5Traveler]

Let us not forget that true history shows that as soon as FDR lost the oval office, the people made sure there was term limits in the top executive position. If he was that loved, why on earth would they do that?

His, FDR, battles with the Supreme Court are never talked about any longer and a lot of people have no clue that a lot of his legislation was found unconstitutional.