mahoney@bartok.DEC (02/19/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 17-FEB-1986 14:40--------------------- >Michael Lewis says: > >> I submit that for democracy to be successfully implemented in a country, there >> need to be some long-standing pseudo-democratic institutions present. I don't > >2)we *did* successfully cram democracy down Japan's throat (to an extent) > MacArthur installed democratic institutions quite successfully during > the American occupation of Japan. > >Please get your historical facts straight. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Mr Sevener Get your facts straight. Japan had pseudo-democratic institutions they had been around for about 60 years before McArthur. They had a two house parliament that was fashioned after the Germany governemt at the time of Bismark. I am not saying that it was a real democratic institution but it was at least a pseudo-democratic institution. Don't jump down someone's throat before looking first. The Military candidates took over control of the cabinet much in the same way Hitler took power in Germany. Brian Mahoney
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/20/86)
> > ---------------------Reply to mail dated 17-FEB-1986 14:40--------------------- > > > >Michael Lewis says: > > > >> I submit that for democracy to be successfully implemented in a country, there > >> need to be some long-standing pseudo-democratic institutions present. I don't > > > >2)we *did* successfully cram democracy down Japan's throat (to an extent) > > MacArthur installed democratic institutions quite successfully during > > the American occupation of Japan. > > > >Please get your historical facts straight. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > Mr Sevener > > Get your facts straight. Japan had pseudo-democratic institutions they > had been around for about 60 years before McArthur. They had a two house > parliament that was fashioned after the Germany governemt at the time of > Bismark. I am not saying that it was a real democratic institution but it > was at least a pseudo-democratic institution. Don't jump down someone's > throat before looking first. The Military candidates took over control of > the cabinet much in the same way Hitler took power in Germany. > > Brian Mahoney That is a good point which is generally ignored in discussions of the American occupation of Japan and democracy in Japan. One must still ask the question: where were the long-standing pseudo-democratic institutions present 60 years before MacArthur? At some point democratic, or pseudo-democratic institutions must come into being. I do not share either Larry Kolodney's or Michael Lewis' pessimism regarding the possibility of developing genuine democracy in the rest of the world. The present concern with human rights expressed by Amnesty International and Americas Watch is an important step towards pressing for the minimum of democratic civil liberties -namely freedom from arbitrary arrest mutilation or murder. tim sevener whuxn!orb
cramer@kontron.UUCP (02/24/86)
[discussion of development of democratic institutions in Japan] [Sevener talking about the joys of democracy] > The present concern with human rights expressed by Amnesty International > and Americas Watch is an important step towards pressing for the > minimum of democratic civil liberties -namely freedom from arbitrary arrest > mutilation or murder. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Mr. Sevener: you still don't realize that popular will and civil liberties are frequently at cross-purposes. A few reminders: 1. Election of Adolph Hitler in freer and more democratic elections than the United States had at the time. 2. Formation of the Fascist government of Benito Mussolini in 1922 after getting more seats in the Parliament than any other party. 3. The election of Juan Peron in 1945 Argentina. 4. The Oregon Schools Initiative of 1921, which prohibited the Catholic church from operating schools, adopted by the voters of Oregon. (Of course, Mr. Sevener probably approves of that.) 5. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. If the popular will and civil liberties weren't so frequently opposed, we wouldn't need the Bill of Rights.
mahoney@bartok.DEC (02/26/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 24-FEB-1986 17:37--------------------- >Posted by: decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer >Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA > >[discussion of development of democratic institutions in Japan] >[Sevener talking about the joys of democracy] > >> The present concern with human rights expressed by Amnesty International >> and Americas Watch is an important step towards pressing for the >> minimum of democratic civil liberties -namely freedom from arbitrary arrest >> mutilation or murder. >> tim sevener whuxn!orb > >Mr. Sevener: you still don't realize that popular will and civil liberties >are frequently at cross-purposes. A few reminders: > > 1. Election of Adolph Hitler in freer and more democratic elections than > the United States had at the time. > 2. Formation of the Fascist government of Benito Mussolini in 1922 after > getting more seats in the Parliament than any other party. > 3. The election of Juan Peron in 1945 Argentina. > 4. The Oregon Schools Initiative of 1921, which prohibited the Catholic > church from operating schools, adopted by the voters of Oregon. (Of > course, Mr. Sevener probably approves of that.) > 5. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. > >If the popular will and civil liberties weren't so frequently opposed, >we wouldn't need the Bill of Rights. I agree with what you are syaing about popular will and civil rights being at cross purposes many times. I do have problems with some of your examples though. 1.) Hitler was never repeat ever elected to anything in Germany. The Nazi's (through a fair vote) never got a complete majority of the Riechstag. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Paul Von Hindenburg who was President. The elections were not all that free and clear either. 2.) The election of Mussolini's party was also marred like that of Marco's but at that time people overlooked it. The King and his supporters especially. 3.) The election of Peron was more the election of his wife. It was also a vote against the ruling aristocracy or oligarchy whatever you want to call it. Evita Peron fashioned her husband into the hero and supporter of the common man. People saw and bought an image they were proved wrong. (Though he was better to the people then those that he replaced) 4.) I know knowing about this I would need to know the percentage of votes caste to the number that could have been cast and so forth. 5.) This was governmental action and not the popular will. (Even though alot of peope supported it.) If it was put to a vote a don't know what would have happened hopefully people would have been against it. I can't say. SO out of your examples the only popular will was number 4 but as I said I do agree with you. It is that you need better examples then the ones you choose. Brian Mahoney
baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (02/27/86)
In article <532@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > 1. Election of Adolph Hitler in freer and more democratic elections than > the United States had at the time. Clayton, it seems, has both a distorted view of history and a short memory. I will partly excerpt from my responses the last time he posted this nonsense. Hitler had already been appointed chancellor before the 1933 election took place. State radio was used for Nazi propaganda in that campaign, and police were forbidden to interfere with the Nazi SA's suppression of opposition gatherings and newspapers. This is freer and more democratic than the US in 1933? How so? > 2. Formation of the Fascist government of Benito Mussolini in 1922 after > getting more seats in the Parliament than any other party. Out of 535 seats in the Italian Chamber of Deputies (Parliament), the Fascists won 35 seats. For comparison, the Socialists won 123 and the Populists won 108. Three coalition governments were formed between the election of May, 1921 and the Fascist uprising in October, 1922 that resulted in Mussolini's being allowed to form a government, his price for not besieging Rome. Baba
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/28/86)
> > ---------------------Reply to mail dated 24-FEB-1986 17:37--------------------- > > >Posted by: decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer > >Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA > > > >[discussion of development of democratic institutions in Japan] > >[Sevener talking about the joys of democracy] > > > >> The present concern with human rights expressed by Amnesty International > >> and Americas Watch is an important step towards pressing for the > >> minimum of democratic civil liberties -namely freedom from arbitrary arrest > >> mutilation or murder. > >> tim sevener whuxn!orb > > > >Mr. Sevener: you still don't realize that popular will and civil liberties > >are frequently at cross-purposes. A few reminders: > > > > 1. Election of Adolph Hitler in freer and more democratic elections than > > the United States had at the time. > > 2. Formation of the Fascist government of Benito Mussolini in 1922 after > > getting more seats in the Parliament than any other party. > > 3. The election of Juan Peron in 1945 Argentina. > > 4. The Oregon Schools Initiative of 1921, which prohibited the Catholic > > church from operating schools, adopted by the voters of Oregon. (Of > > course, Mr. Sevener probably approves of that.) > > 5. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. > > > >If the popular will and civil liberties weren't so frequently opposed, > >we wouldn't need the Bill of Rights. > > I agree with what you are syaing about popular will and civil rights being > at cross purposes many times. I do have problems with some of your examples > though. > > > 1.) Hitler was never repeat ever elected to anything in Germany. The > Nazi's (through a fair vote) never got a complete majority of the > Riechstag. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Paul Von Hindenburg > who was President. The elections were not all that free and clear > either. > The NSDAP received 42% of the vote -- their coalition partners, the Nationalists received 6%. This isn't a complete majority -- but it's more than the ruling coalition in a lot of "democratic" states. The elections were marred, but from what I've read, they were no worse than say, Chicago elections are today. > 2.) The election of Mussolini's party was also marred like that of > Marco's but at that time people overlooked it. The King and > his supporters especially. > Charismatic leaders have little problem swaying the masses. That's why democracy is so dangerous when unrestricted. > 3.) The election of Peron was more the election of his wife. It was also > a vote against the ruling aristocracy or oligarchy whatever you > want to call it. Evita Peron fashioned her husband into the hero > and supporter of the common man. People saw and bought an image > they were proved wrong. (Though he was better to the people then > those that he replaced) > You are still basically agreeing that democracies can make bad selections. > 4.) I know knowing about this I would need to know the percentage of > votes caste to the number that could have been cast and so forth. > The Oregon Schools Initiative was a vote of the people. If a lot of people choose not to vote, it doesn't affect the legitimacy of the result, at least to those who believe in democracy. (If you need some examples, go look in net.college where various leftists are justifying mandatory political contributions by students on the grounds that the student governments (elected by 10% or less of the students) voted for the fees. > 5.) This was governmental action and not the popular will. (Even though > alot of peope supported it.) If it was put to a vote a don't know > what would have happened hopefully people would have been against it. > I can't say. > A survey of Californians during the war found 80% supported the internment of Japanese-Americans. (Source: _Nisei_, by Bill Hosokawa.) You'll find a lot of support for it among older people, even today. (Logic and facts seem irrelevant when I try to talk to some of them about it.) Also, unless you believe in the mythical pure democracy, representative democracy will always have the problem of government doing things and saying "We represent the people." > SO out of your examples the only popular will was number 4 but as I said > I do agree with you. It is that you need better examples then the ones you > choose. > > Brian Mahoney I think my comments above justify the examples, to various levels of quality.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/02/86)
> In article <532@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > 1. Election of Adolph Hitler in freer and more democratic elections than > > the United States had at the time. > > Clayton, it seems, has both a distorted view of history and a short memory. > I will partly excerpt from my responses the last time he posted this nonsense. > > Hitler had already been appointed chancellor before the 1933 election took > place. State radio was used for Nazi propaganda in that campaign, and police > were forbidden to interfere with the Nazi SA's suppression of opposition > gatherings and newspapers. This is freer and more democratic than the US > in 1933? How so? > Baba, it seems, has a short memory and knows little history. There are two significant elections in 1933 Germany. The first one, where the Nazis won 42% of the vote, and their coalition partners 6%. The second election, after Hitler was appointed chancellor. The first election (really the important one, since it provided the basis for Hitler to be appointed Chancellor), was freer and more democratic than American elections of 1932 for the following reasons: 1. Jews and other minorities were allowed to vote. The sort of abuses of voting rights common throughout the South at the time did not happen in Germany in the first election, at least on the scale they happened in the South. 2. Voting age in Germany was 18. Voting age in most states in America was 21. 3. A MUCH larger percentage of the eligible voters voted in the first German election of 1933 than ANY national election in American history. Over 70% of the population voted in Germany in the first election. The second election was, of course, much less democratic. It was a travesty, because the first election, which was free and democratic, put into power someone quite willing to subvert freedom. For more detail, read _Rise_And_Fall_of_the_Third_Reich by William Shirer, _Arms_of_Krupp_ by William Manchester, or most any other history of Nazi Germany. Baba knows this. We discussed it in great detail some months back. It's just easier to deny the facts than admit that democracies make mistakes -- sometimes tragic ones. > > 2. Formation of the Fascist government of Benito Mussolini in 1922 after > > getting more seats in the Parliament than any other party. > > Out of 535 seats in the Italian Chamber of Deputies (Parliament), the Fascists > won 35 seats. For comparison, the Socialists won 123 and the Populists won > 108. Three coalition governments were formed between the election of May, 1921 > and the Fascist uprising in October, 1922 that resulted in Mussolini's being > allowed to form a government, his price for not besieging Rome. > > Baba The books *I* have read, including a survey of Italian history published by the U.S. State Department I read several years back says that the Fascists had more seats than any other party in the Parliament, and that's why the King asked Mussolini to form a government. The March on Rome happened, according to what I've read, AFTER Mussolini formed a government. What are your sources? I would be curious to hear that the U.S. State Department would publish a thoroughly false history of the rise of Fascist Italy in one of their Area Handbook series.