I pledge allegiance ... to the republic for which it stands.
A TPM Cafe piece on "democracy not being a suicide pact" had some good stuff including this:
To paraphrase Jefferson, successful Democracies are based on a well educated populace. A strong middle class and a commitment to the rule of law are also essential elements to keep the Democracy functioning. What else can we throw into the mix that has been well documented, let’s see, how about a commitment to country and a true belief in the free rights of others; including freedom of religion.
The best policy for promoting democratic freedoms in these countries is a long term commitment to expanding economic policy that only builds a strong middle class. This necessarily requires the development of a secular education for all citizens.
Until the roots for democracy have been built there is no chance for social development of a commitment to democratic values. The US Bush manifest destiny to create a democratic world through force must be eliminated.
Where
is the connection to this board in particular? Clearly, part of this
involves rule of law and other matters touching upon jurisprudence. Tax
equity, (federal and state) government involvement in education, separation of church and state, etc., are all legal/constitutional matters in some fashion.*
Also, the "suicide pact" deal, h/t a comment there, was discussed here.
Whenever I see an article about the perils of majority rule (what if a
fundamentalist majority wins?) or the dangers of protecting rights over
and above what a majority accepts/votes in, it is ever so clear that we
are a republic. Fittingly, Jefferson's party is often
known -- if confusingly to some today -- the Democratic-Republican
Party since it promoted republican ends with a broad based appeal.
We aren't just concerned about majority rule here, though Bush v. Gore
suggests that is not ensured. It is true that we commonly speak of a
"democracy," but its a misnomer except to the degree it means we each
have some degree of personal sovereignty. So, I guess it is correct,
but it has to be qualified -- a republican democracy, one in which mere
50% +1 rule is not enough. So, there is religious freedom, and
separation of church and state, or at least some degree of religious
equality ... even if some want religious favoritism, sponsored by the government.
It means open government. The "investigating power" of Congress has a prime role here. The importance furthers the basic philosophy of an open society:
His philosophy of
open society sort of came home to me because he made the point that
there is a similarity between a Nazi regime and communist regime
because they both believe that they have the ultimate truth. And since
nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth, if you have a dogma like
that, you have to impose it by force. And that`s what they have in
common.
And
he proposed the alternative, which is an open society, which is based
on the recognition that nobody has -- is in possession of the truth,
and therefore you need a critical process. And you have to respect
other people`s opinions and interests and find a way for people with
different views to live together, which is, of course, democracy. And
that`s the society we live in.
One would hope so, though some here disagree. They want to continue to
defend the Bush approach, which in some fashon is in no way limited to
"Bush" in particular ... in a fashion many have been part of the
conspiracy to deprive us of our fundamental values.
Even if bipartisan support of removal fails,
changing the mind-set of this country to underline just what is wrong,
and that it cannot get this far again ... power given will not be given
up, and "good" people will abuse it too ... will hopefully seep into
our national consciousness. But, we should fear an ancient truth that
was raised at our very beginnings, even though it ended with a reminder
of its proper limits:
accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long
train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government
-j
* Some note that certain judges appear to promote the views of a certain political party, thus crossing the line of law and politics. It should be noted, however, that most parties have a core constitutional underpining ... they support certain constitutional principles which are promoted by the judges their party reps appoint. Thus, Lincoln judges would find likely find Dred Scott bad law etc.
[This was posted by me elsewhere in a somewhat different form.]
