"Battlefield Earth"

Remove all ads!

For those of you who would like to know a little more about the present perilous state of one of the world's oldest (barely) functioning democracies, I suggest you read the comments Bill Moyers delivered upon receiving an award from the Center for Health and the Global Environment--who comes up with these names?--a couple of weeks ago. Moyers is a reporter for National Public Radio, as of this writing.

The speech can be found at http://www.alternet.org/story/20666/

ADDENDUM: This post is NOT about what is (or is not) the world's oldest functioning democracy; it's about Bill Moyer's speech, which has much relevant and frightening content which many of you may not be aware of. Arguing sbout which democracy is the oldest, in the context of Moyer's comments, is like deciding that your main priority is picking the lint off your shirt when your house is on fire.

[ December 18, 2004, 06:18: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

Not to nitpick to badly, but which oldest democracy are you refering to? All I saw was stuff about the US, and some stuff on Isreal.

If you mean either of those... then I have to ask. You do realise how old both of them are? or rather, how young?

 

It is about the US, as they are the oldest continued democracy on earth.

This is what I wrote when someone posted that article over at civfanatics:
People have been waiting for Ragnarök, judgement day, the rapture, the apocalypse you name for millenia. They always get disapointed when it dont come. The freaky thing is really that the fact of it not showing up doesnt discourage people from believing in it. The first Christians expected the second coming of Christ in the first decades after his death, then centuries and now millenia. Morons, idiots and fools is all I can say. Power in the hands of imbeciles.

 

Do you mean continued as in it has always been a democracy? I find it hard since many other nations had democracy before them. Depends also on your definition of democracy too I guess. The UK had a democracy, in that Parliament was much older than 1785. True the king also had powers to overrule, but then, it was hardly a dictatorship. The elected parliament always had most of the power since the times of the English civil war.

The house of lords wasnt elected, and yet was the UK considered anything other than a democracy?

 

I posted here once as a reply! But it got lost lost lost lost lost! Bah!

Yes, the US is hte oldest continued democracy. The UK was a monarch back then and still is and even if many of its processes were just as democratic as those of the US they didnt call themselves a democracy.

This entire discussion though is seriously off-topic, plenty of really interesting things to discuss in that article.

 

I believe San Marino is the oldest continued sovereign democracy.

Well, 1269 is the approximate date the law historians treat as the onset of the parliament rule. Granted, the Tudors had more power than the Yorks or the Lancasters, maybe even the last couple of Plantagenets, but the rule of parliament was mantained. After the Civil War, the king's powers suffered a great decline and after the so called Glorious Revolution in 1688, let alone the Act of Settlement in 1702, the parliament was clearly the real sovereign. After the American Revolution, the British parliament was stronger than the Congress and the king or queen had much less power than the president. Whether they called themselves a monarchy or a democracy isn't quite relevant. Today, it's still called constitutional monarchy or parliamentary monarchy, but pretty much no one says it isn't democracy.

 

Back on topic:
That is chilling reading, and I wish there was something that could be done about it. I'd like to blame Bush, but he's just a sympton, not the cause. Funny how people believing in something may actually come to bringing it about. (Apart from the rising of Christ & all that) How very Terry Pratchett.

 

The point of this post is not whether the U.S. is or is not the world's longest-running functioning democracy. That's quite irrelevant to the topic, and I'm sorry I mentioned it.

The point is that a quite sizable group of people with great influence in our present government believe the end of civilization would be a good thing, are working actively to bring it about, and further believe that very threatening problems like poverty and environmental destruction need not be solved because they are bringing us closer to the looked-for End Time. The lunatic fringe is now at the center, and the prospect is scary.

 

Who cares about this nonsense?

 

According to the article 59% of Americans sadly do not view it as nonsense. Which is the truly frightening thing.

 

Jefferson, Madison and other American "republicans" never considered that England had true representative government. Anything remotely British was labled "monarcy" or "monarcist" by them, so were any "tories" living in the US. The term was supposed to be inclusive of those who supported an "aristocracy." The notion of an aristocracy based on hereditary power was what they had the most contempt for.

Jefferson's thoughts were influenced by English "Whig" ideology - the notion that the Normans had corrupted the true Anglo-Saxon way of life before 1066. And that the Normans had put in place a landed aristocracy that was alien to true English law or customs. In fact, there is an argument that the Normans "French fried" England and permanently corrupted the English way of life that some people living there resent to this day. I've heard it argued that even Tolkien shared such feelings. But more to the point, the idea of "aristocracy" presiding in government is what was most hated by Jefferson and most of the Founding Brothers.

 

59% Hahaha

 

I wanted to expand on this because it used to be so important to American thought and how we defined ourselves; although I do admit in recent years things have changed, sadly.

Equality was the ideal which gave the Revolution its life. Jefferson gave this notion his voice in the opening of the Declaration as the reason for independence from Great Britain. But one man really gave voice to this in enough persuasion to sway the opinion of many colonists who would never have taken independence seriously at the beginning. The Englishman, Tom Paine had only been in America a few short months before he became editor of a small newspaper in Philadelphia. He used it as a vehicle to give expression for his concern for the oppressed and downtrodden, which he experienced first hand in England.

As the dispossessed gathered in the streets of London, Paine said he witnessed "ragged and hungry children, and persons of seventy and eighty begging in the streets." As the result of a "ridged class system workers were reduced to serfdom." The smallest crimes committed by hungry men, women and children could mean death by hanging or public stoning.

What Paine loved about America was there was almost no class distinctions. Everyone had a chance to make his mark, rather than being "marked" by inequality and the barrier of class. For him America was truly something different than what he had witnessed in England. As a fire-brand for independence, he poured out his ideas in "Common Sense," the work he is most known for:

And this:

This is how the Revolution changed Europe, and then the world. Paine and the rest of the Founders dared to question the notion that the hierarchy of class distinction was a natural circumstance for mankind.

In 1826, Jefferson was in poor health and dying. But he and John Adams were invited for the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration. But neither was well enough to attend. Jefferson wrote this in his last letter, as he declined:

That year, on the same day, July 4th, 1826, Jefferson and Adams both died within a few hours of each other.

 

I know you love these kinds of things Chandos but hasnt anyone read the article?

What I wrote which you quote was a condensed version of a post which got lost before I posted it and which was mostly written to put Takara's mind at ease so the discussion about the topic at hand could commence.

 

And you did indeed.

Whilst I might disagree that the US was the first continued democracy, as Chev has illustrated with his little bit on history, I will conceed that it depends on the term democracy.

The UK was still partly authoritarian, and not true democracy back then. Same goes for the majority of other European nations. As such I can see the point being made. As stated, this is , so I'll leave it be.

 

And I know there are some who don't, mainly Europeans who have a dislike of anything American. While it is off topic, this topic is consumed with an undercurrent of anti-American rhetoric, which I felt I needed to respond to.

As for the article, two points here: First, it depends on whether or not Bill Moyers is credible, or if he has become a bit of a crackpot. Some believe that he has kind of "lost it a bit" these days. And I must admit, I'm not a Moyers watcher, so I can't comment either way. Second, I doubt the 59 percent figure that is used in the article is really credible.

 

Ah this is what is meant to discuss, you bring up very valid responses which are worth pondering. Even "frothing anti-American" me doubted that 59% number. One should always keep in mind the saying of: 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I do find stories the early days of the American forefathers quite intriguing but the lectures you give here are way beyond what I know of about the dudes who had hand in early creation of Sweden and way way more than what I know about those who formed the Swedish democracy. So you shouldnt take any offence. The founding fathers seems to be your super special interest so I understand if you want to take every oppurtunity to talk about it.

Hmm, this might have been better in a PM.

 

I'd like to see at least one of our.... well, gee, don't know what to call them without beibng accused of bashing, so let's just call them "devout christians"... to comment on the article itself...

 

Joacqin - I was not as much offended by your comment as much as by the constant America bashing that has been going on here. There are still many of us (49 percent) who want to see drastic change in our leadership. Look, there are many wonderful things about this country still, and my rants, - you were kind enough to call them lectures - are designed so that everyone here (Americans included) can see how far we've gotten from having truly great men in government, to what we have today.

[ December 20, 2004, 06:59: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]