This is... Well, it's something. Let's see... Nice things to say about this guy.... Um, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Uuuuhhhh, I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.
The American Security Foundation released a story by a guy named Philip Atkinson called "Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy," which I would like to share with all of you. It is astonishing. Or, you can skip to the end, where I will summarize & rant.
By Philip Atkinson
President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.
When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.
This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.
As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.
However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.
When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.
Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming "ex-president" Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
So, if you're just now joining us again (having opted for the shortcut), here's what you missed: This charming man, Atkinson, thinks Democracy is a horrible form of government subject to the whims of the masses, and that there is only one solution for how America can be made better. The solution - Bush should take the military, conquer as much of the Middle East as quickly, completely, and mercilessly as possible. Then, he should repopulate the area with Americans Then, he should turn the military forces on America itself, allowing him to become America's first "permanent president," and "end[ing] the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court."
In Atkinson's opinion, these actions would " boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies." He also thinks that most Americans are chicken shit because we don't want to bust out our nuclear arsenal and wipe our enemies off the planet in one fell swoop.
So, ways in which I agree with our little crazy boy - democracy does act to create a tyranny of the majority. And, it's not the government style the ofunding fathers wanted, they were republicans. Not republicans like Dubya, republicans like they wanted a republic, not a democracy. They recognized that some people are dumb & maybe shouldn't be put in charge of major decisions affecting the whole country. (What? Fine, I'm a little elitist. But, to you really want to mouth-breather with the mullet in Wal-Mart deciding financial policy?)
Now, ways in which I don't agree with boy-o. The nuking. The permanent presidency. The idea that Dubya should be that permanent president. Really, everything else he says.
And, just for fun, let's look at the banner used by the group that published his opinion piece...
Lookit the cute little Aryans! I think their picture of the American ideal is just adorable. However, looking at this, I wonder if they really like big cities, or if they're the types that put down the "East Coast Intellectual" types. Or, even better, the Rush Limbaugh types that have lots of money, live in big cities, and talk trash on city folk.
Either way, I laughed, I cried, I hurled.
Love for everyone!