https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/08/republican-us-senator-mike-lee-democracy

“Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.”

Shakinthedust quoted that earlier. I take the liberty of copying my reply here since we are on the same page.



----------------
> Democracy isn’t the objective;

Hah! Spoken like a true cult believer.


-----------------
> liberty, peace,
> and prosperity are. We want the human condition
> to flourish.

That's some Vanguard-of-the-Proletariat shit right there. Democracy isn't the answer because sometimes it produces results that differ from what I want. Everyone would be so much better off if they just let me and other right thinkers run society.


--------------------
> Rank democracy can thwart that.

Wait--what? Aren't you a Strumpet, a populist follower of a populist leader?

I guess you aren't so confident of the next election anymore. You are afraid that your people are going to lose and hence ready to denounce the democratic institutions you have until now used and praised.

Give me democracy when I am going to win. But when I am going to lose, give me liberty!

I remember hearing or reading once (I can't remember which nor from whom or where) that George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson were very concerned about the followers of another revolutionary fighter, Patrick Lee. According to what I've read or heard, the concern was that Mr. Lee, a devout Christian, was less concerned about government with checks and balances and more concerned with the spreading of the gospel and making the U.S. a righteous nation. It now looks as if those concerns were justified.

And Franklin said, "we've given you a republic. . . if you can keep it."

Toqueville saw, and decried, a latent totalitarianism in American culture. A century later Hans Morgenthau, Leo Strauss, and Hannah Arendt, refugees from Nazi Germany, saw the same alarming potential. Huey Long, Eugen McCarthy, George Wallace: those are the craggy tips of a cultural iceberg.

I hope you meant Joseph McCarthy, the guy that conducted the hearings on Un-American Activities in the 1950's and not Eugene McCarthy, the progressive candidate for President of 1968.

Being half Norwegian, I would pose the Scandinavian democratic monarchies as practical systems of governing that meet & serve the needs of the citizens;

Not practical for the U.S.A. or Canada, but they have elements of efficiency & loyalty as long as the rulers aren't despots.

Yep. You're right. I had a junior moment there.

I should also note that Mr. Lee's comments about the "U.S. not being a democracy" echo comments I heard on Rush Limbaugh's show back in the 1990s (yes I listened to him then and I once held many of these views). Such comments are both childish and dangerous for all of us.

He's talking about something deeper and more important than democracy. What he said is actually correct. This is what John Winthrop said and why he led the exiles out of a decaying Stuart England. It was to build that shining city on a hill, a place where individuals would could live in a more advanced situation, something closer to zion. It wasn't to have liberty or democracy. It was to create a society that could better obey the Bible (as they interpreted it) than the Stuart court was allowing them to do. "Better to live among the noble savage than to raise a cockney" as the Puritist saying goes.

The founders were certainly suspicious of free democracy. Rule by the mob they called it. They saw what happened in France how they murdered their nobility, for the sin of being rich, or something... "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" all tend to be democratic sentiments, but not good if pushed too far.

The public can't be trusted, In fact this is why John Adams was so emphatic to have the electors college choose the president. The commoners weren't capable of understanding complex government problems hence we elected representatives who are more inclined to understand things better than the rest of us.

Mike Lee is right.

You just explained the logic behind theocratic tyranny. That pretty much proves the point we are making.

>The founders were certainly suspicious of free democracy. Rule by the mob they called it. They saw what happened in France how they murdered their nobility, for the sin of being rich, or something

The founding fathers were not influenced by the French executing their nobility when they wrote the constitution.

The US Constitution was ratified in 1787.
The French revolution started in 1789.
Louis XVI wasn't executed until 1793.

I guess macaromney slept through history class except when they were talking about manifest destiny.

Thomas Paine was spinning in his grave!

While MaCaromney got his timelines wrong (and hence the influences), he did get something very right. Quoting from his above response:

"The public can't be trusted, In fact this is why John Adams was so emphatic to have the electors college choose the president. The commoners weren't capable of understanding complex government problems hence we elected representatives who are more inclined to understand things better than the rest of us."

That, I'm afraid, is how most of the founding fathers thought of democracy. Keep in mind that under the original U.S. Constitution, not only was the president elected by an electoral college, but U.S. senators were chosen by state legislators instead of directly by the electorate. And don't forget that under the original U.S. Constitution only white male landowners could vote.

All of these things (save the electoral college) have been done away with through constitutional amendments and these amendments reflected the fact that much of the population did wish to see democratic reforms, especially in areas like voting for senators and who is allowed to vote.

And this brings me to where I strongly disagree with MaCaromney and pretty much all conservatives. The U.S. Constitution is a document that can be amended and interpreted in different ways. If one does not allow for constitutional amendments or for the reinterpretation of the Constitution with changing times and norms, then one is condemning all future generations to live in a very Calvinistic society with no, or little hope of escape until death. And that does not sound like a recipe for a successful long-term country to me.

National Popular Vote

The bigger issue is that macaRomney doesn't know enough history to realize how dangerous Lee's and his own ideas are. Everyone agrees that it would be nice to have heaven on earth, or Zion, or whatever. But time and again--in fact, without exception--every attempt to legislate and enforce a higher law has resulted in tyranny.

The genius of the US constitution was the founders' realization that inside every aspiring leader is a petty dictator; and inside every vision of the ideal society is a negation of individual liberty. So rather than pave the way for a French Revolution, the separation of powers was designed to prevent anyone from attempting anything like what macaRomney proposes. And it worked. For 200 years, with more doubt overshadowing the US today, individual liberty has been more respected for more people (not Native Americans, nor African Americans, or women, or gay people) than in other countries. That was a great achievement.

Since then the other groups with visions of heaven on earth have all followed the old path. "I understand the truth (whether Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Nazi or Marxist) better than you, so I get to form the vanguard of social change and if you get in the way you will be imprisoned or executed." That always results in an elite and the subjugated.

So yes, macaRomney, what you and Lee and Trump advocate sounds great--until you put it into practice. Then things go south fast and you end up living an Orwellian nightmare. That is something you should know; if you do not, there are history and social studies teachers who should be guillotined in the proto-totalitarian state to which your naive optimism leads.

The glory of America was not Exceptionalism or Manifest Destiny: it was the profoundly skeptical genius of the founders, men who designed a system for human flaws rather than the pursuit of the Kingdom of God on earth.

macaRomney:

"They saw what happened in France how they murdered their nobility, for the sin of being rich..."

Not exactly for "the sin of being rich".

More like due to the absolute monarchy the people lived under, and the feudal system, as well as inequitable economic policies which kept the majority of people poor. Also, major issues such as long-lasting drought and poor harvests, along with high food prices, all of which caused prolonged periods of widespread hunger. Then there were the punitive taxes. As well as a system where the few ruled over the many, without representation.

So, it was a little more complex than overthrowing the monarchs because they were rich.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2020 04:31PM by Nightingale.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. The founding fathers wanted a republic because a democracy can become the tyranny of the majority. A constitutional republic protects the minority in theory.

Please explain for me (us?) what the practical difference - on-the-ground type - of how this 'republic' thing is described & works day-to=day?

A constitutional republic is a polity in which the head of state is not a monarch but rather a leader chosen by election and subject to limitations enshrined in a constitution with a separation of powers and checks-and-balances. In other words, the republic is the framework within which the democracy functions.

Using the two wolves and a lamb analogy, a republican democracy is one in which the wolves are prevented from selecting the lamb for dinner. The US constitution is full of such provisions, things designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Indeed, there will be but one election after the republic is eviscerated because whoever wins will enshrine himself as ruler for life.

That is the issue at stake today.

All hail Caesar!

Caesar? There are so many more modern examples.

Take for instance, the greatest populist in the Americas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD_1Z8iUDho

Since outdone? No, I don't think last week's exhibition was as impressive.

I hate to break it to you, but democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive terms. It is possible to be both at the same time.

There are various types of republics. The representatives can achieve office by heredity, or by appointment by the king or some other group, or by the people.

If by the people, then it is a democratic republic. Or a republican democracy. Take your pick. The claim, usually made by someone who is terribly exercised and squeezing their crayon way too hard, that "this is a republic, not a democracy", is nonsense. It is both.

Of course we also have direct democracy. All those referendums on the ballot are direct democracy. The Utah legislature really hates them, because they think they should tell the people what to do, and not the other way around. They make direct democracy as difficult as they can get away with, but they can't do away with it altogether. It is right there in the state constitution. D'oh!

TY, BOJ.

I believe relatively few people are focused on any possible distinction, An exception would be extremists of either ilk.

I hope the people of Utah show him out the door at the next election.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2020 11:21AM by GNPE.

And it does relate to mormonism

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2020/10/09/benjamin-e-park-mormons/

The electoral system ("college" isn't in the constitution!) is a remaining vestage of minority rule, previously there was:

- only property owners could vote

- only caucasian people could vote

- only males could vote


I hope most of us are glad those conditions have been repealed - replaced!!

If I recall correctly, the old Freeman Institute (located just at the edge of BYU) was dedicated in part to the idea that the constitution (original + bill of rights only) was divinely inspired and could not be changed. Therefore, no blacks or women get to vote. W Cleon Skousen was teaching this in religion classes at BYU back in the day, a lot of Mormons were John Birchers, and I believe E.T. Benson was in on it as well.

I think the idea was to use the Constitution to create a theocracy where we would be ruled by righteous white men (priesthood), which is kind of what Joseph Smith was spouting when he ran for president.

Maybe Mike Lee thinks the White Horse prophecy applies to him?

Lee was always a totalitarian thug. Why does this move surprise anyone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2020 04:22PM by Dave the Atheist.

Bruce's ghost needs to kick Mike's butt.