Oh, but you will not believe this…but if this article represents the overwhelming sentiment of the 24% of the population who still manages beyond a glimmer of working brain cells to support Dubya’s war games, then we are so totally screwed over….and not in the good way, either.
An outfit called Family Security Matters, which claims to be a right-wing thinktank which boasts the likes of Frank Gaffney, Monica Crowley, Laura Ingraham, and James Woolsey on its Board of Directors, originally published this magnificent tome to the outstanding leadership qualities of our President-Select and the inadequacies of our present system of democracy to match his greatness. Unfortunately, the original site decided that it was a bit too magnificent and pulled it from the site…but not before some of the liberal blogosphere cached it for posterity. Digby from Hullabaloo was one of them; she even felt so moved that she reprinted the whole entire article at her site; from whence I will borrow to post for your entertainment. As always, I’ll add my commentary and annotations within brackets where feasible.
Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007
While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.
Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson
President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.
[Let's just say that Dubya's not too well liked by the majority, shall we?? For some, that might be a natural outcome of his policies..but Mr. Atkinson has a slightly different perspective...]
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.
[Ohhhhhhh-kay.....so when this president was near 60-70% popularity right after September 11, 2001, that would indicate just as much the fickleness of the public...right, Mr. Atkinson??? Or does popular opinion and "democracy" only work well when your side controls all of the seats of power, as it was before November of last year?? (And considering the Dimocrats' record of caving in to all of Dubya's demands so far, even that minor glitch of losing the Congress doesn't seem to matter much anyway.)]
When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.
This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.
[Oh, yeah....those weapons of mass destuction that we know Saddam had that he was going to unleash on us any time back then.....if only we could have found them. And this notion of "the threat returning if the Army "merely returns to its home"....which threat would that be, Mr. Atkinson?? al-Queda (who hated Saddam with a passion and called him an "infidel" and a Communist)?? The Iranians?? bin Laden (whom apparantly wasn't enough of a threat in Afghanistan when your favorite government was supporting and financing him and his band of "freedom fighters" against the Soviets)??? Or was it really the real threat of Saddam cutting off the US from Iraqi oil and trading in euros instead of petrodollars?? Oh, but wait...I'm getting ahead of myself; onward ho....]
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
[Not to mention that the nuclear fallout would make it a bit messy to clean up and dig up all that oil....and there is that slight possibility of China and Russia aiming their nukes at us in response...but why let facts get in the way of a wonderful empire??]
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.
[Somebody probably needs to remind Mr. Atkinson that Israel has all the nukes in the region, while Iran has.....none. And, regardless of Iran's boasting, they probably won't be able to even get enough nuclear power for a power plant, if past reaction from Israel means anything.]
As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.
[Oh, but ye of little faith, Mr. Atkinson.....surely, you saw the President's stirring speech in front of the VFW, where he remains quite the optimist about absolute and total victory in Iraq; regardless of the public's disapproval.]
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.
However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.
When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.
Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
[Of course, this ignores the fact that the Roman Empire ultimately collasped from exactly the "peace and prosperity" that Caeser provided and extended to his successors...or the fact that Caesar ended up assassinated.]
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
[Oh, yeah....Iraq, the Fifty-First State of the Union!!! And where would all those new Americans come from, incidentially??? Those "illegal aliens" that you wish to throw out of the mainland??? The detainees out of Guamtamano Bay and Abu Ghraib?? The entire Black population of the US???]
He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
[Yeah, right....a military coup that would suspend the Congress and the SCOTUS. What kind of crack is this guy smoking??? He does know that most of the military would more than likely revolt the other way if such a "coup" would happen, right?? And he does know about this thing called "Federalism" which devolves political power to the States...and a certain constitutional amendment which limits Presidential terms to two consecutive four-year terms, right??? Boy, some folk do dream mighty dreams..mighty stupid dreams!!!]
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
Hold up…I thought that conservatives were supposed to be strict construtionists who opposed such concentration of power in one person, right???
If this was written by some tin-foil hat wingnut from Christian Identity or the MiNUTeKKKlan, it could be dismissable as certified crank lube….but this is coming from a serious neo-CON organization (although, they were pretty quick to clip Atkinson’s wings and repudiate in public his flights of fancy. And it does give great pause to what it says for some of the others in power who may share his myopia that going “Papa Doc for Life” might just be the ticket for avoiding the inevitable political ass kicking that the Repubs and ultra-cons are scheduled to recieve in November of next year.
Perhaps that may be Unkla Karl’s last parting gift to his President and his country. Let’s hope not.