Democracies end when they are too democratic.
This is a brilliant article, but all this talk of "democracy" makes me sick to my stomach; mob rule, lack of any sort of rational moral base and lets not forget...anything goes!
I think Rand Herself, was no fan - any comments on that?
Here is a great excerpt:
In Eric Hoffer’s classic 1951 tract, The True Believer, he sketches the dynamics of a genuine mass movement. He was thinking of the upheavals in Europe in the first half of the century, but the book remains sobering, especially now. Hoffer’s core insight was to locate the source of all truly mass movements in a collective sense of acute frustration. Not despair, or revolt, or resignation — but frustration simmering with rage. Mass movements, he notes (as did Tocqueville centuries before him), rarely arise when oppression or misery is at its worst (say, 2009); they tend to appear when the worst is behind us but the future seems not so much better (say, 2016). It is when a recovery finally gathers speed and some improvement is tangible but not yet widespread that the anger begins to rise. After the suffering of recession or unemployment, and despite hard work with stagnant or dwindling pay, the future stretches ahead with relief just out of reach. When those who helped create the last recession face no consequences but renewed fabulous wealth, the anger reaches a crescendo.
I think Rand Herself, was no fan - any comments on that?
Here is a great excerpt:
In Eric Hoffer’s classic 1951 tract, The True Believer, he sketches the dynamics of a genuine mass movement. He was thinking of the upheavals in Europe in the first half of the century, but the book remains sobering, especially now. Hoffer’s core insight was to locate the source of all truly mass movements in a collective sense of acute frustration. Not despair, or revolt, or resignation — but frustration simmering with rage. Mass movements, he notes (as did Tocqueville centuries before him), rarely arise when oppression or misery is at its worst (say, 2009); they tend to appear when the worst is behind us but the future seems not so much better (say, 2016). It is when a recovery finally gathers speed and some improvement is tangible but not yet widespread that the anger begins to rise. After the suffering of recession or unemployment, and despite hard work with stagnant or dwindling pay, the future stretches ahead with relief just out of reach. When those who helped create the last recession face no consequences but renewed fabulous wealth, the anger reaches a crescendo.
Although I agree with some of the comments about Trump, the conclusion sounds more like a plea for every voter to cast aside principle and vote for Hillary.
Just more lesser evil rubbish camouflaged with rhetoric, imo.
In spite of all the complaints about democracy, the author doesn't dare mention that the states united were designed to be a constitutional republic. He doesn't bother to list the changes made to circumvent it, nor the way to repair it. The only "fix" is to band together for Hillary to stop Trump.
Looter.
I saw no endorsement of hiltery nor bernski.
The brilliance I was referring to was his historical background and his descriptions of "Unbridled" freedoms that ignore the laws of nature at the micro level and the physical laws intended at the macro level, that ultimately brings down the demon-ocracy...The cosmos works because there is just enough resistance to make things run smoothly...without that resistance, chaos wins the day, with too much resistance it all blows up. Pretty clear our forefathers knew that.
"And if they fail in Indiana or Cleveland, as they likely will, they need, quite simply, to disown their party’s candidate. They should resist any temptation to loyally back the nominee or to sit this election out. They must take the fight to Trump at every opportunity, unite with Democrats and Independents against him, and be prepared to sacrifice one election "
I wouldn't throw out the value in his historical view point though...that's what attracted me.
I wanted a debate between Sanders, Johnson, and Trump (forget Hillary on that- who wants to listen to her evasions and lies anyway). I thought that kind of debate would bring out the real differences between the candidates for a change.
Allowing your adversary to judge a disagreement with government is insane. So is allowing statist political parties to set rules that eliminate their competition. Winner take all (electoral votes) election is another travesy against liberty.
F%^k the GOP! Looting for 156 years. (Ditto the dems.)
I did a spit-take!
The most benefit I got from this is the two book titles from Eric Hoffer and Sinclair Lewis. I will add these to my reading list.
And it definitely seems right now as if there is no way out. We are being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.
The more this election cycle go on, the more I think we're done with the America we once knew.
That's where it will take a generation or two to change the culture...you see it yourself...they will not even entertain a rational thought, never mind have a discussion.
I understand what your sayin...the left has done this on Our dime and Our time...I'd love to reverse the flavor...(yes, I said flavor)
Good. He would have laughed with you.
veeloved Granpa!
the Gulch not only has deep thinkers but erudite comedians as well.
It is so gratifying to receive some knowledge of what you never knew!
Just using the quoted paragraph above, the author does NOT want the reader to make any kind of connection that "The True Believer" is what put Obama in office twice and may put Clinton in office in 2016. Will anyone say Sanders supporters are not "True Believers"? Additionally, when the author says "When those who helped create the last recession face no consequences ..." I doubt very much if he is referring to the government meddling in the mortgage industry is what actually created the mess. I doubt if Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, or Chris Dodd, et al, will face anything for what they've done.
I found the article a very long and boring enumeration of the left's usual talking points and name calling. The only difference here is the author was able to pull up some unique appeal to authority references in an attempt to give the screed some veneer of respectability.
I wouldn't throw out the value in his historical view point though...that's what attracted me.
At this point I see Trump as the only candidate that has a chance of occupying the White House that MIGHT bring some responsibility and accountability to government. Clinton and Sanders have zero responsibility and Johnson has zero chance of being POTUS.
I would favor requiring a popular vote for major policy changes, provided it is in addition to, not instead of, legislative approval.