Bloodless Coup

And just when we've swallowed our gorge and regained the composure to deal with the most recent wet "pop" as another noxious bubble of scum of corruption breaks the surface, two more rise around us, and we find out that it was even worse than we thought.

At this point, it's bad enough to bring adolescent jokes about farting in a hot tub to mind.

I know it infuriates you guys when I do this, but compare the personal politics to the political system. In a democracy/republic, we give liberty because generally a state does better that way, it's more creative and adaptive because the people who live there are more creative and adaptive, they practice it in their daily lives. But what is it we don't do? We don't give liberty (generally) for citizens to harm each other or destroy themselves, in any way that will bring about a death that takes less than forty years, generally. We let people by law eat fattening foods, smoke in some places, drink their livers away. But we don't let them speed up the process too much with certain types of drugs or outright actions of self or other destruction (with some exceptions in cases where death is inevitable). That's the personal political system. Of course in the state political system, we don't usually intervene in matters of self destruction (civil war) because it is a kind of self reorganization as well, and because there's not always a hell of a lot we can do to get another state to stop destroying itself. We can confront it, but as it is with a suicidal person, if they want to kill themselves long enough, they will probably find a way. But what of the case with a state that destroys others? Of course this would be the case with Hamas, they've supported mass murder after mass murder of Israelis. If this were a person, one person responsible for all these deaths who lived in our country, something tells me they'd get the death penalty. So in a world where the Palestinians have gained their liberty and their voice and if they use it to support the destruction of others, what would give them the liberty to continue to do this, where does it come from? And what is it going to look like, the full picture, as opposed to the picture of finding a balance between liberty and prosperity?

Ok, I have no idea the point of the first part of your response - Who/what is "giving" liberty? Liberty certainly isn't only "given" for that reason if it's given by the state. We don't give liberty so that people can destroy themselves? Huh? Well, we don't mind if that's what happens - look at the ills that stemmed from declaring all sorts of labor/environmental protections were unconstitutional prior to the 1930's.

But in any event - and back onto the Palestinians - isn't it a matter of perception? HAMAS thinks Israel is the actor standing in the way of "liberty" - so they fight and kill Israelis. Israel thinks the same of HAMAS, so they fight and kill them. [Or both groups have acted that way, there's something of a truce at the moment.] Who's to say who's really protecting liberty? I've got my opinion - but others disagree.

In any event, there's no possible way to reconcile this with the notion of allowing people to actually choose to do what they want. Either you have faith in democracy, or you don't. And from actions like this it looks like the president doesn't either - so it would be nice if he'd stop acting like a saintly principled actor all the time. Because clearly his actions don't match his words.

Not that that's entirely a bad thing. Popular sovereignty was a vile cover for monstrous policies in the US in the 1800s. There's no reason not to expect similarly awful election outcomes (on occasion) around the world today.

Bro,
Your response bristles with black and white, rigid thinking. "Either you have faith in democracy, or you don't." Either you're with us, or you're against us. Either you're good, or you're evil. Isn't this something for which you've criticized the President, for that kind of black and white thinking? Given global history, we tend to prefer democracy because democracy's problems tend to be a lot easier to take than the problems of a totalitarian regime. Yes, the Palestinians perceive Israel as standing between them and what they want. In this same way, racial and national hatred has been justified throughout history. The answer isn't surrender. The answer isn't opening borders to all the horny Palestinian adolescents who want to get it on with a bunch of virgins. The answer is standing up for a world in which all people and nations can peacefully coexist, all seeking their own prosperity, as long as they respect the rights of other people and nations to do the same. Of course, this is ideal and reality doesn't look exactly like this, because what did the Palestinians ever do to have their land taken away from them? And why should they suffer just because they didn't have an education that emphasized the beauty of the Israelis? Welcome to life, welcome to solutions with problems to match the problems some see as solutions. But Palestine has the ability now to determine its own destiny, and if they choose to risk the opportunities that are available to them in order to destroy the Israelis, that is their choice. But it's our choice to let that happen or to influence and intervene if we can, to protect Israeli children from getting blasted to pieces just because they wanted some ice cream.

You're last phrase is just ridiculous - they are NOT getting blasted to bits for wanting ice cream. Palestinians do not hate ice cream.

Moving on ...

I used the word "faith" for a reason. B/c, as you note, the president seems to constantly say that if we let the people decide all will be well. It's a lot of horseshit, and this shows it's a lot of horseshit, so it would be nice if the president stopped that nonsense. Can democracy be good? Sure. But that's not the way he talks about it, so it seems entirely appropriate to point out that what he wants isn't elections, it's elections that produce the outcomes he personally wants.

Bro,
Thankyou for clearing that up, but I didn't actually say Palestinians hated ice cream, I said Israeli children got blown up for nothing more than wanting ice cream.

And this is not exactly Bush's idea, it goes back thousands of years. The Tao Te Ching talks about how the best government is one in which the people believe they govern themselves. Are you trying to say that the repressive governments of the Middle Ages and the decline in artistic, technological, and humanistic endeavors at that point were just coincidental? Democracies do tend to be better, democracy has brought about great advancements in compassion, knowledge, and beauty. That's reality, so it's our expectation based on experience that it should happen again. Does it happen every time? Of course not. But to argue that the exceptions mean we should stop pursuing democracy is like saying that you shouldn't take a certain medicine because one person out of ten thousand died from it. The alternatives are worse. Letting our international policies continue to allow hatred for the US to foment as weapons grow more powerful is not a better solution. Mass destruction of the people of the Middle East when we have a plausible alternative is not a better solution.

Morris:

1) What is it about Israeli biology that leads little kids to suddenly explode when they want ice cream?

2a) Have I said that democracy is a menace that must be stopped 100% of the time? No. I'm merely asking the president not to be two-faced about his behavior. Are you with me on that?

2b) Are we really pursuing "democracy" when you have ouf fingertips (or fists) on the electoral scales?

2c) You seem to want us to pursue democracy - and doing that will give us 1000's of virgins in heaven apparently - but have no compunction about the US stepping in and blcoking the popular will when it doesn't match our short-term aims. I ask again, when we do that, are we really backing "democracy"?

Bro,
The better question is, what in the world possesses Palestinian trying to make a political point with the idea that they can make that point by blowing themselves up in front of ice cream parlors? How can they think that somehow the right way to punish the Israelis who've taken refuge in their land is to kill babies who don't exactly have much part to play in the political process? These Palestinians are of course intent on inflicting terror, that's why we call them terrorists.

I see a President who supports and believes in democracy, who believes in the power of humanity under free, democratic conditions to reach their capacity for compassion.

If I understand you right, you would in the President's inauguration speech be talking about:
"We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right."

The question as far as this particular thread becomes, would the rule of hamas be one characterized by freedom or oppression? But the answer is not simply found in democracy, in the choice of Palestinians in governing themselves, it lies in the choice of Palestinians to make choices for (oppress) the Israelis.
You may remember Bush also said:
"Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self."
(the right of a person or government to govern itself depends on how a country governs itself)
and...
"We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events."
(human choices, such as the choice of the Palestinians to support terrorists, will affect the progress of freedom in the world and in their country).

Human choices affect events - well, duh.

You didn't answer 2a 2b or 2c directly - but I take from your answer that no, you don't like democracy either, not if its results don't fit with your particular lofty conceptions of freedom - whatever those might happen to be.

I don't exactly mind the lofty words about morality and freedom or whatnot - I'd just like you and the president to be honest and straightforward - and it looks like neither one of you has much interest in treating a democractically elected government as the government that represents the will of the people if, if that government, elected by the people, doesn't conform to your personal views of "freedom".

Kind of odd since in many other threads you've given the will of the majority positively obscene oppressive powers.

Morris,

You write:

The better question is, what in the world possesses Palestinian trying to make a political point with the idea that they can make that point by blowing themselves up in front of ice cream parlors? How can they think that somehow the right way to punish the Israelis who've taken refuge in their land is to kill babies who don't exactly have much part to play in the political process? These Palestinians are of course intent on inflicting terror, that's why we call them terrorists.

You do understand "terrorism", right? You blow up the kid in front of the ice cream store in order to make all the parents across the country fearful that their kids might get blown up, so they pressure their government to do what the terrorists want. It doesn't work very often, but it is a political process.

You write:

I see a President who supports and believes in democracy, who believes in the power of humanity under free, democratic conditions to reach their capacity for compassion.

Uh, what the heck does democracy have to do with compassion. It's certainly possible that democratic societies are more compassionate (you'd have to define what you mean by "compassion"), but not logically connected. You do know what "tyranny of the majority" means, right? There may not (or may) be compassion in that.

Has anyone asked Morris to define what he means by "democracy"? I'd be curious for an official Morrisian definition.

The party George Bush wanted to win lost.

I seem to recall the president recently going out in front of the cameras and saying it was a great day for freedom and democracy in the world when people in the Middle East could freely go to the polls, turn out in huge numbers, and take charge of their own destiny.

Think he's going to do that today?

Morris wrote: "The question as far as this particular thread becomes, would the rule of hamas be one characterized by freedom or oppression?"

Guess we get to find out, eh?

Or, if the IRA can do it, can Hamas?

Bro,
In response to your first post above, it's a question of what is democracy. Does it truly support democracy for us to support a regime elected by its people who are committed to the repression or destruction of another regime? You're looking at democracy as simply a way of a government coming to power, rather than democracy as a government in which all people have some power to affect its government. Your looking at the one frame of a government within a country rather than viewing democracy as extending beyond borders of any government, democracy as all people having a voice. If we influence elections to prevent a party coming to power that would deny voices from being heard, then in the limited, micro-system view, we're acting against democracy. But because our influence would allow those voices to continue to be heard, we are in a macro-system view supporting democracy. The important thing in encouraging democracy to spread throughout the world, as you say, is that a government represents the will of people, not simply the will of its own people. And inevitably in a society, its members express their wishes about the construction of a society in a way in which some practices by some of its members are prohibited. Not everyone will agree on everything, this is inevitable. But if a society chooses to have a system of criminal law, that society has chosen that some things are to be prohibited. So of course there is disagreement on what behaviors are to be prohibited, what are to be allowed, all that taboo and more stuff from anthropology that modern societies tend to codify. But if all the people have a voice, have an equal measure of power, and they choose to prohibit or permit a behavior, then that behavior is to be prohibited or permitted, because otherwise those voices aren't heard.

As to your most recent post, he's probably not going to say that because the party that won is committed to another part of the Middle East (Israel) not being able to go to the polls and take charge of their own destiny.

Baltar,
I think I've covered your definition above, as well as your tyranny of the majority argument. The connection of democracy and compassion it would seem is linked to research on attachment. Now the reason I bring up research related to personal politics is I'm not familiar with research about compassion and government type on the larger scale. But as Moon talked about in regards to Oliver Stone the other day, people can see the government as a parent, a caregiver. So it would make sense that the same practices in parenting which tend to lead to a child's empathy for others (the child's opinion/voice is valued but decisions are ultimately made by what the parent believes is best), rather than a child's hostility (a consequence when the child's voice is not valued) or a child's defiant, anti-social behavior (a consequence when the child's impulses are affirmed and reason but not power is used to influence a child), may hold true for the practices of government as well.

paternalism, anyone? i'm pretty sure you're misappropriating the way i was speaking of stone, but whatever.

"The important thing in encouraging democracy to spread throughout the world, as you say, is that a government represents the will of people, not simply the will of its own people."

this is rich. i see a pro-Bush bumpersticker here. especially from a guy who supports the most provincial, anti-world consensus chieftain this country's seen in fifty years. for palestine, say, "the will of people" (meaning, of course, a few oligarchs atop the u.s. government) should trump "the will of its own people," but when it comes to the u.s, "the will of its own people," (meaning, of course, a few oligarchs atop the u.s. government), must be aggrandized even at the expense of "the will of people" (meaning, let's just say, the representative body for most of the nations of the whole freaking world, our historic allies, and pretty much anyone else who thinks there's a more judicious way to do things such as prosecuting old grudges when the press of recent events counsels rather sternly otherwise).

"And inevitably in a society, its members express their wishes about the construction of a society in a way in which some practices by some of its members are prohibited."

like, i don't know, voting? if you won't vote for good leaders, you're vote simply won't count. that's elitist, results-oriented, and counterdemocratic. sounds like a bush doctrine to me.

Morris there is so much to say about your last post, but I've got a class to teach, so I'll just note that this sentence - "The important thing in encouraging democracy to spread throughout the world, as you say, is that a government represents the will of people, not simply the will of its own people." - is flabbergasting, stunning and just plain weird. Governments aren't supposed to represent the will of their own people?!? I'm so taken aback I can't think of anything to say.

Moon,
I'll say it again. A democratic world is a world in which all people have a voice. The Shiites is Iraq are people, the Kurds in Iraq are people, and the Bush doctrine committed to and gave them a voice in their government. Ergo, a world in which they don't have a voice is not a democratic world. Ergo, we encourage a more democratic world to come into being when we give those people the ability to vote. The whole point of democracy is that no amount of people can conspire (as the UN did out of corruption) to keep certain people from having a voice in their government. You want to make a comparison I'm sure to the "tyranny (voice I would say) of the majority" in this country, that in our country certain taboos and mores are codified into law. But remember these mores and taboos don't take away a person's right to vote, a person's right to a voice in our government. That would be undemocratic. The only exception I can think of is when that person has in the past by their actions taken away the rights of others in their community. If a person chooses to oppress others, do we not value democracy by limiting their power to obstruct it?

If I had wanted to say, "if you won't vote for good leaders, you're vote simply won't count," I would have said it. Everyone has a voice, and everyone (even Marion Barry) can run for some public office if they don't like this world's direction, politically. Even people in jail can run for office.

Bro,
Governments can represent their own interests by standing for the ability of every person in the world to have a voice.

Morris writes - "Governments can represent their own interests by standing for the ability of every person in the world to have a voice."

Why on fuckin' Earth do you think that? Why/how would that be acting in a government's best interest? Americans are, what, about 5% of the planet? How does "giving a voice" to the other 95% of the world serve American interests?

Plus, you realize now that Justice Scalia hates you, right? :)