Today Is a Good Day
Dec 3rd, 2007 by Micah Tillman | 11 Comments |
The Rise of the Tyrant has been put on hold in Venezuela (Chavez loses constitutional vote) even if it’s taken a giant leap forward in Russia.
When I speak of “the Rise of the Tyrant,” I do so in Plato’s terms (see here; do a ctrl-F search for “And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy” and read to “no longer protector, but tyrant absolute”) since it seems to me he has distilled the essence of the phenomenon.
The flabbergastingness has been put on hold in the Sudan: Briton pardoned [and released, I might add] in Sudan Islam insult
The Mormon questions have been momentarily put on hold, since Romney to give Mormon speech this week. Which I very much look forward to. Seeing as I’m skeptical both of the historical claims of the Book of Mormon and the theodicy I’ve found in said book, I shall be interested to hear how Romney will deal with the issues (I expect he’ll avoid them, and talk about commonalities with the rest of Christianity instead).
Can he convince me to take seriously someone who apparently buys what I find unbuyable? It should be fun.
And finally, it seems that Newt has said he would accept the VP slot, in the right circs. I am too young to remember either Newt’s triumphs or scandals very clearly, but one thing I do know is the man is brimming with ideas and conservative Republicans love him, so he has an air of visionariness and excitement-about-the-future about him.
This makes me feel good about today, whether Newt is actually any good or not. I’d have to study him a lot closer to decide that. But I like feeling good, so we’ll just stick with that for the moment.
He’d make the Thompson candidacy exciting/serious again. He’d make the Romney candidacy very compelling, given Romney’s already proven he knows how to run bureaucracies. And he would put Giuliani over the top, by acting as a reassurance to conservatives that a Giulani ticket wouldn’t be as liberal as they’re afraid.
Of course, adding Newt might kill any chances a Giuliani ticket had of winning over Democrats too. But forget that, because it’s Feel-Good Day here at micahtillman.com.
It’s no secret that I’m not a Republican. However, I think there are well-intentioned Republicans who believe they are doing the right thing.
Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani are folks that I can firmly understand why people would want to trust and believe in. I’m a little confident in George Bush Senior and Mitt Romney…
But I want to offer the opinion that Newt Gingrich is a power-hungry, malicious, toad-like excuse for a man. He is cast from the mold of Richard Nixon and poses a danger to this country.
I realize I’m doing nothing but mudslinging here. But when his name comes up I’m not very good at constructing rational arguments to explain myself. And I do remember his reign, it was characterized by showmanship, partisan politics, and ethics violations.
Micah, can I borrow to explain to this guy I know that CNN wasn’t wrong in calling Chavez’s reforms “undemocratic”?
Apparently in his world, the simple fact that something was voted for in a democratic fashion makes it democratic.
Isn’t that a bit of a dilemna, though? It seems like if you really believe in the democratic process you need to be behind it, even when members of a democracy vote for things inconsistent with democracy, don’t you?
(Not loaded questions here, just pondering out loud.)
I believe in the democratic process enough to not want to see it committ suicide.
Scott, you have my permission to do whatever you want. You just tell whoever it is that ever tries to challenge anything you do that you have my permission. That should settle it for them *grin*
I’m liking these adds in the right-hand column. Taken as a whole they contradict themselves (though they’ll probably have changed by the time you’re reading this page) :-)
Well said about suicide. A law that makes democracy illegal, for instance, is not a democratic law, even if it was enacted democratically.
Essence and origin are two different things.
O.K… But I’m still not clear about how we might, on a pragmatic level, go about protecting democracy from itself. Should the constitution specify that there are certain aspects of itself that can never be ammended?
Or do we do it on a case-by-case, after the fact basis, when democratic principles are under attack through democratic processes?
The requirement of super-majorities for some provisions is probably enough. The U.S. Constitution is one such method and has done pretty well for the last 200 years. It is very difficult to amend since it needs quite a bit more than a simple majority. Some of these amendments have been done to restrain democracy (e.g. term limits on the President), i.e. to make the United States less democratic in order to better guard against the rise of a tyrant.
The requirement for a super-majority ensures that such a provision can still be undone if, in the future, it turns out to be simply unworkable. The U.S. Constitution, by the way, even has a process for undoing itself completely. If we were ever to call another Constitutional Convention (it requires two-thirds of the state legislatures to call such a convention), such a Convention could amend the Constitution completely.
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I would have said had you not gotten there first Andrew.
I think the most striking discovery for me on the whole issue in Venezuela was that apparently they only require a simple majority vote to change their constitution, or at least that was true of the parts that were being voted on. That is just a terrible idea, in my opinion. A democracy that could be tossed out on that kind of whim isn’t a very well formed one, IMO.
Has anyone ever called Venezuela a “well-formed democracy”? Chavez, after all, first rose to prominence when he attempted (and failed at) a military coup. The Venezuelan Constitution was written by Chavez supporters in 1999. The purpose of the document was to give Chavez a lot more power and allow him to stay in office longer than he could under the old Constitution. His latest proposal was to change it again and allow him to retain power for even longer.
Chavez has been extraordinarily lucky in his timing. Historically high oil prices have propped up his Presidency by providing him with the funds he needs to cover up his economic mismanagement. (Putin has had similar good luck.) This will change eventually.
I would have a hard time ever voting for anyone if just because I didn’t buy in their views on something, in this case religion.
“Can he convince me to take seriously someone who apparently buys what I find unbuyable? It should be fun.”
Or is this a case of Romney (or any Mormon) taking his brain completely out and throwing away logic and reason by beleiving these things that his ability to reason anything is called into question?
Also, even though it might seem like Chavez lost I think he wins both ways. If he wins the referendum then he gets a lot of power and that is good for him. If he loses the referendum this is also good for his international image because he allowed the democratic process to go through and he didn’t resort to cheating in the election. The guy is ridiculous but not that stupid.