Saturday, February 12, 2011


Asked about the uncertainty ahead, especially with respect to the role of the [Egyptian] military, presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "I don't think we have to fear democracy."
How ignorant can one man be?  It's hard to measure with any precision, but can there be any doubt that Gibbs must be close to the maximum?  How can one finish a career in the White House and have no idea of the Founders' fear of democracy?  I imagine that living and working in DC, one would see the monuments every day that were erected to commemorate men who gave us a republic, to defend the rights of the individual, because they knew that democracies always defend the desires of the mob.  How does that not sink in? 

Democracy is the means by which the unproductive majority cloaks itself in legality while stealing from a productive minority.  Zimbabwe, former bread basket of Africa, now an economic basket-case, is a prime example.  Democracy, otherwise known as mob rule, is to be greatly feared. 


J said...

Democracy can be used for good or bad just like any other tool in man's hands. Just as in Mugage's case, Germany's elections in the 1930's were used as a tool to obtain power by AH. (Oh, and Gaza.)

So, while I believe that democracy itself is fundamentally a positive tool allowing each individual an opportunity to express himself, it can be subverted for evil purposes too.

Akin to a firearm I suppose. In the wrong hands, democracy is dangerous. The Muslim Brotherhood represents the wrong hands.

I welcome this opportunity to add that Gibbs is an arrogant, obnoxious, political ass with no redeeming qualities. I daresay he has never produced anything of value for this world, and never will. A tragic life wasted.

Steven Givler said...

Yes, but democracy holds a special potential for evil because it contains the means for accruing power, which the Founding Fathers were right to fear. Democracy gives the majority the legal power to take whatever it wants from a minority. That's why any politician, administrator, and certainly military person should be able to explain that a republic strictly limits the power of the government so it can't be used as a tool to steal benefits and confer them upon the majority.

We have become so distant from this idea that we accept without a thought the idea that government should "spread the wealth" even though that is exactly what the Constitution was written to prevent.

And yes, I concur completely with your assessment of Gibbs. I have no doubt that the child they've replaced him with will be even more arrogant and empty-headed, although I doubt he'll be as entertaining as old fumble-mouth.

J said...

Just one of the many means, including coup d'etat, revolution, etc. A lot of roads lead to dictatorship.

I agree that the Constitution was intended in part to limit the chance of centralization of power. Unfortunately, there is this persistent desire folks have for a daddy (judge, king, dictator) to just take care of things for them. And there are plenty of others who are willing to step right into that job and do just that! The old surrendering freedom for security and losing both.