"...in the West, people talk rightly about Iran as a guided democracy. There are some democratic freedoms, but it’s under tight control. The Guardians Councils, for example, selects the candidates. But what happens in the West? In the United States, for example, it's obvious for anyone who studies the system, the candidates are selected by concentrations of private power. Elections are basically bought. So we also have a kind of guided democracy. Well, we should be protesting against that, too. I am not saying that the United States is Iran; of course it’s not. But there are repressive features in every society I know of, which should be protested."
What do you think?
We've talked about campaign finance reform previously on here, but this goes much deeper. It extends to lobbyist and possibly as far back in time to when the frame work for our democracy was first being considered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Welcome to my depression. I've been waiting for one of you guys to stumble across something like this so I didn't have to say it and sound crazy. This is why I had to start reading Story of Civilization. I needed a complete and comprehensive account by someone who isn't afraid to think like we do. On some level, most of us simply assume that the US is benevolent and countries like China are evil. I've never read anything about Chinese culture or history so why do I think this? You quickly realize Fight Club is probably the most important movie/book of the '90s (for that genre) and that corruption is rarely so easy as the man with the slippery mustache and the dark suit who walks around in the shadows. It's people with credentials, awards, and most importantly, a respect that commands deference (think the guy in Inside Man). And I was wrong to Rosh: culture DOES matter (with notable exceptions of course).
ReplyDeleteThis is also why I hate the idea of the 2-party system. If you want to talk about going back to the founding fathers, we should talk about this one. Why do we use the pluralistic voting? I have never heard this discussed on tv, inside forums, or even by Chomsky. And the other thing I always am saying to Jarrod. Federal legislators and the president should be considered special citizens subject to different tax laws. We can control money as a corrupter so why don't we? Doris Kearns Goodwin I believe (but I might be thinking of Richard Beeman who I know even less about) recently wrote a book about the Federal Convention. Anybody read this? From what I've seen of Goodwin (she routinely is called on by The Today Show as an expert in historical matters), I was less than impressed but in fairness I've never read any of her work.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, it was Richard Beeman, the book is Plain, Honest Men. If this is the title of the book and it's not being ironic, doesn't it seem like he's already biased?
ReplyDelete"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community;"
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington's farewell address 1796.
This entire thought avenue is very disconcerting. The empetus of a revolutionary revolt is almost as much luck of historical timing as it is actual merits for doing so. So alternatively, what are Chomsky, Hitchens, etc. doing here? What would our congressman say about this?
I doubt our congressmen have read much of this, let alone understand it. You have to realize, maybe 5% of people even bother doing the necessary reading. Again, on principle I'm against almost nothing but consolidated power is one of them. The goal always has to be to spread out power, political (in this case) or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteBtw, it's 'impetus.'