The Democracy Worshipers

[John81]

The Democracy Worshipers
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday - September 16, 2011

"Your people, sir, is ... a great beast."

So Alexander Hamilton reputedly said in an argument with Thomas Jefferson. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Hamilton explained:

"Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

In his column, "Democracy Versus Liberty," Walter Williams cites Hamilton, James Madison and John Randolph, who wrote of "the follies and turbulence" of democracy, and John Adams:

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Yet what our fathers feared we embrace. For it may fairly be said of this generation that it worships democracy. Indeed, the fanaticism of this faith in democracy as the path to worldly salvation causes many to hail any and all revolutions against any and all autocrats.

One wonders: How is it that this childlike faith endures?

After all, the French Revolution gave us the Terror and Napoleonic wars. The Russian Revolution gave us Lenin, Stalin and 70 years of totalitarian horrors. Mao's revolution put 30 million Chinese in early graves.

Cuba's revolution gave us an end to freedom and 50 years of Fidel's cult of personality. Iran's revolution that took down the Shah raised up the Ayatollah.

One would think we would have learned a little skepticism.

Yet no sooner had the crowds in Tunis turned out their autocrat and the throngs taken over Tahrir Square in Cairo than our giddy elites were proclaiming the "Arab Spring" and demanding the United States get on the side of the Arab street against all autocrats.

Yet Hosni Mubarak, though a ruthless ruler, had been our man in Cairo since the assassination of Anwar Sadat, fighting alongside us in the Gulf War, keeping the peace with Israel, allying with us in the war on terror.

But as soon as the tide turned against him, we ditched him and cheered on the crowd in Tahrir Square, a few of whom celebrated the downfall of despotism with a sexual mauling of Lara Logan.

What our democracy-worshipers, our "power-to-the-people" lovers of revolution fail to understand is that revolutions unleash all the forces in a society, including the most noxious. Indeed, especially them.

To understand what revolutions and popular democracy are likely to produce, we need to understand the fires in the minds of the men who create or capture those revolutions.

And neither Africa nor Arabia offers much in the way of hope.

The overthrow of Ian Smith's government in Rhodesia brought to power Robert Mugabe and his Mashona, who proceeded to massacre the Matabele of rival Joshua Nkomo, rob the whites of their property, drive them out of their country and create the hellhole that is Zimbabwe.

Yet such is the power of democracy worship, this secular religion, to blind people to the evidence of their own eyes that virtually every Western leader favored one-man, one-vote democracy in Rhodesia.

As we see in Julius Malema, that admirer of Mugabe and 30-year-old firebrand of Mandela's ANC, just convicted of a hate crime for his singing of the anti-apartheid ditty "Shoot the Boer!" who wants to expropriate South Africa's mines and confiscate white farms, racism and tribalism are alive and well in liberated Southern Africa. And democracy is their enabler.

To know what the Arab Spring is likely to produce, one needs to look not only at the Kerenskys who lead the Facebook-Twitter revolutions, but the Lenins and Trotskys who stand silently behind them.

The Arabs of Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain want new leaders to reflect the popular will. And what is that will?

In the most recent elections, an Islamic party took power in Turkey. The Muslim Brotherhood advanced dramatically in Egypt. Hezbollah and Hamas were vaulted to power in Lebanon and Gaza.

Democratists who demand we distance ourselves from the kings of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and Bahrain, who do they think will replace these monarchs?

Do they care, or is democracy the right way, results be da**ed?

In liberated Libya, reprisals are being perpetrated against the black Africans Moammar Gadhafi brought into the country, and the Islamists are surfacing.

In liberated Iraq, it is Muslim vs. Christian, Sunni vs. Shia, Arab vs. Kurd. In Sudan, it was Arab Muslim against African animist and Christian that tore the country in two. In Ethiopia, it was the ethnic Eritreans who seceded to establish a country of their own.

Looking at Africa and the Middle East, men seem willing to march for a better life and to demonstrate for democracy. But when it comes to fighting and dying, the calls of race, religion and tribe alone seem capable of compelling the ultimate sacrifice.

Before we endorse the right of all peoples to have what they want, perhaps we should know what they want. For in the Mideast, it appears that most would like to throw us out and throw our Israeli friends into the sea.


SOURCE: http://buchanan.org/blog/the-democracy-worshipers-4876

[Wilchbla]

I believe that the government of the Antichrist will be a democracy.

[swathdiver]

Buchanan has taken the Founder's quotes WAY out of context. Is he ignorant or lying by ommission to promote his views?

The Founder's in these instances were comparing Democracies to Republics. Democracies they said are Mob Rule compared to a Constitutional Republic based on laws.

[Covenanter]

The essential of a democracy - or monarchy, republic, theocracy or dictatorship, etc, is that EVERYBODY should trust the system, AND be fairly treated by the elected powers or other powers that be.

The moment the ruling party rules for it's own benefit & suppresses or ignores the minorities it has failed.

[John81]

I believe that the government of the Antichrist will be a democracy.

That is very possible. It's easy to give the masses an illusion of freedom so they will "elect" and support those who build up this illusion and fall in line with "their choice".

[John81]

Buchanan has taken the Founder's quotes WAY out of context. Is he ignorant or lying by ommission to promote his views?

The Founder's in these instances were comparing Democracies to Republics. Democracies they said are Mob Rule compared to a Constitutional Republic based on laws.

I'm not sure what your complaint is...I see nothing quoted out of context. The Founders studied various forms of government as they set out to create a new government. While doing this study they determined that a democracy was the worst and chose to establish a Republic. We were warned to guard our Republic and keep it if we could but we failed.

The idea that if all nations embraced democracy there would be world peace and harmony is the mantra of liberal-socialists, as well as neo-cons.

Buchanan has always upheld the concept of the original Republic and has denounced the loss of such and it's replacement with a socialistic-democracy.

[John81]

The essential of a democracy - or monarchy, republic, theocracy or dictatorship, etc, is that EVERYBODY should trust the system, AND be fairly treated by the elected powers or other powers that be.

The moment the ruling party rules for it's own benefit & suppresses or ignores the minorities it has failed.

Man was never meant to rule man. We were meant to be under the headship of God. Any system man comes up with and/or governs himself will be imperfect and soon filled with corruption.

[swathdiver]

I'm not sure what your complaint is...I see nothing quoted out of context.

The quotes are out of context. If one reads the original writings where those quotes came from they'll learn that what Founders were talking about was different than what Buchanan was talking about.

[John81]

The quotes are out of context. If one reads the original writings where those quotes came from they'll learn that what Founders were talking about was different than what Buchanan was talking about.

Buchanan is talking about the dangers of democracy and the fact the Founders determined it was the worst form of government, which is why the Founders settled upon a federated republic. I've read these things and I don't see what you believe is out of context.

[Invicta]

Buchanan is talking about the dangers of democracy and the fact the Founders determined it was the worst form of government, which is why the Founders settled upon a federated republic. I've read these things and I don't see what you believe is out of context.

The papacy has also, always been against democracy.

[John81]

The papacy has also, always been against democracy.

The RCC has always been for puppets that allow the pope to rule behind the scenes.

[JerryNumbers]

I firmly believe there have been a few presidents, if they thought they could, would have taken over this country.

Mr. Buchanan makes lots of sense. Our country meddling in other governments is making it worse, not better.

Of course I'm glad Mr. Hitler did not succeed in taking over the world.

[John81]

I firmly believe there have been a few presidents, if they thought they could, would have taken over this country.

Mr. Buchanan makes lots of sense. Our country meddling in other governments is making it worse, not better.

Of course I'm glad Mr. Hitler did not succeed in taking over the world.

Americans would not tolerate other nations interferring in our affairs the way America does in others.

Hilter never had a plan to take over the world, and could not have even if he had such a desire. Hitler couldn't even take his forces across the few miles of the English Channel to attack Great Britain; there is no way they could have crossed the Atlantic to invade America. Another major factor is that Hitler's forces couldn't conquer the Soviet Union or even support and keep their forces in Northern Africa. While all these major problems were present there was also the problem of growing underground movments in the countries Hitler did conquer. Had America not sent it's miltary into the European conflict Hitler would have still been defeated. Had Hitler not honoured his treaty with Japan and declared war on America, it's possible FDR may not have been able to muster support for going to war with Hitler when only Japan had actually attacked America.

Of course it's all history now, but Hitler's Germany didn't have the numbers or resources to win or to even hold what they temporarily took.

[swathdiver]

Hitler wanted Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. In order for socialism to work, one state must bleed another dry of resources as socialist states drain resources and wealth and do not create them. He also had designs on South and Central America.

Without the assistance of the United States, the British in North Africa would've been driven out of Africa, it was the arrival of American tanks and materials to replenish their losses that allowed them to go on the offensive.

At the same time, Stalin forced Roosevelt to commit American forces to North Africa in order to relieve pressure on his armies. American generals wanted to invade Europe in 1943 but were overruled by Roosevelt/Stalin. This caused Hitler to divert tanks and materials destined for North Africa to the Eastern Front and Hitler ultimately made the decision to give up on North Africa.

German industry could not compete with the Allies because of their belief of producing complex, high quality equipment which resulted in low production rates. That view has not changed today. While the Allies produced 50,000 sherman tanks during WW2, the Germans could only field 1300 or so Tiger I tanks and about 5000 Panther tanks. The Soviets, using tooling and designs aquired from the USA, produced even more T34s than Shermans.

Hitler sustained his forces by making use of captured equipment and resources. Had he toppled the Soviets without military support from the USA, he would have used their slave labor to operate the American machinery sent their in the 1930s to sustain his conquests.

If the United States had not supplied the Soviets with any material support, both socialist states would have destroyed themselves, allowing our forces to quickly destroy the 3rd Reich. Just as important, the Soviets would not have had the materials either to supply the Chinese Communists who fought against Chiang Kai-Shek while having a loose truce with the Japanese who were also fighting the Nationalist Chinese against both invaders. Without the industrial base and natural resources of Manchuria in Japanese hands, they would not have had the power to mount an offensive against America.

Edited September 20, 2011 by swathdiver

[Invicta]

Hitler wanted Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. In order for socialism to work, one state must bleed another dry of resources as socialist states drain resources and wealth and do not create them. He also had designs on South and Central America.

Without the assistance of the United States, the British in North Africa would've been driven out of Africa, it was the arrival of American tanks and materials to replenish their losses that allowed them to go on the offensive.

At the same time, Stalin forced Roosevelt to commit American forces to North Africa in order to relieve pressure on his armies. American generals wanted to invade Europe in 1943 but were overruled by Roosevelt/Stalin. This caused Hitler to divert tanks and materials destined for North Africa to the Eastern Front and Hitler ultimately made the decision to give up on North Africa.

German industry could not compete with the Allies because of their belief of producing complex, high quality equipment which resulted in low production rates. That view has not changed today. While the Allies produced 50,000 sherman tanks during WW2, the Germans could only field 1300 or so Tiger I tanks and about 5000 Panther tanks. The Soviets, using tooling and designs aquired from the USA, produced even more T34s than Shermans.

Hitler sustained his forces by making use of captured equipment and resources. Had he toppled the Soviets without military support from the USA, he would have used their slave labor to operate the American machinery sent their in the 1930s to sustain his conquests.

If the United States had not supplied the Soviets with any material support, both socialist states would have destroyed themselves, allowing our forces to quickly destroy the 3rd Reich. Just as important, the Soviets would not have had the materials either to supply the Chinese Communists who fought against Chiang Kai-Shek while having a loose truce with the Japanese who were also fighting the Nationalist Chinese against both invaders. Without the industrial base and natural resources of Manchuria in Japanese hands, they would not have had the power to mount an offensive against America.

Hitler was no socialist but an ultra nationalist, just a bit more nationalist than you, and less socialist than the US is today.