jmg@houxk.UUCP (09/01/83)
To: Tom Buckley From: Joe McGhee I never regarded an army training manual as the final word on ANY subject. That document is only a sad reflection of the distorted mind that composed it. Obviously a Republican was in power in 1928 who was terrified that true democracy might take hold. Weren't we convinced to take part in World War I with the words "Let's make the world safe for democracy". Were those words merely propaganda? Is the equation " democracy = communism " valid as stated in that army manual?
notes@ucbcad.UUCP (09/05/83)
#R:drux3:-72700:ucbesvax:7500035:000:3129
ucbesvax!turner Sep 4 05:39:00 1983
The bumper-sticker
THIS IS A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY - LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY.
is sold at American Opinion bookstores, which I think are run by the
John Birch Society.
I think it makes sense that conservatives would stress a dichotomy
between representative government and direct democracy. In a way, the
Republic is inherently conservative. Representatives tend to be elected
by those who want things the way they are--even when this contingent is
not in the majority. This is because those who want things to stay the
same KNOW what they want, as a group--they have it right in front of them.
(Sometimes, they have a little *more* of it than most other people.)
Those who want things different, on the other hand, will have a harder time
agreeing on exactly what, and how to get there. (In its extreme form, this
is called "left factionalism".)
Government by elected representatives thus TENDS to be conservative.
And is therefore favored by conservatives.
The so-called Democratic party in this country tends toward conservatism
out of an interest in unity. Divided, they are far more likely to fall.
Being democratic, they are far more likely to be divided. So they
have to watch it. I.e., they get conservative. And less democratic.
Of course this has its problems. Macchiavelli, Republican par excellence,
was well aware of them, in spite of his desire for an Italian Republic.
He specifically cited the problem of "gentry"--owners of large estates,
who did not need to work for a living. (This was before capitalism;
the concepts do not necessarily translate.) He saw gentry as having a
disproportionate influence on the affairs of a Republic.
In this line of reasoning, Central America (for example) looks like a
bad place for Republics, which are the devout goal of the better-
intended foreign policy people in the U.S. Hence the half-hearted
U.S.-designed land reform in El Salvador. It is not working, needless
to say. Most of the successful land reforms in this century have
been carried out only with strong military support. Taiwan, and Japan
under MacArthur, are fair examples. In El Salvador, though, the
military current runs in a decidedly opposite direction: the Army
is virtually a mercenary force for the landed families, as it was
in Nicaragua under Somoza.
And, of course, Macchiavelli has a few choice words with regard to the
strength of a republic that relies on mercenaries. He says: forget it.
Mercenaries under feudalism (Macchiavelli's main experience) are a total
disaster with respect to ever reaching the goal of a republic. Central
America is politically a collection of feudal families, where it isn't
just outright military rule.
And that, in his book, leaves the "Masses". Not a mere bit of Marxist
cant, you conservatives. Read your original Republicans. This story
goes a long way back.
Sometimes a Raving Mobocrat,
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)
P.S. Sources on M. are "The Prince" (of course), but more importantly
"The Discourses". Read with care! The servants of power are
slippery talkers, by nature and necessity.trb@drux3.UUCP (09/07/83)
Here's an interesting tidbit. Taken from a 156 page book issued by the U.S. War Department, November 30, 1928, Training Manual No. 2000-25, they define the difference between a Republic and a Democracy: > DEMOCRACY: > A government of the masses. > Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of > "direct" expression. > Results in mobocracy. > Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property > rights. > Attitude toward the law is that the will of the majority shall > regulate whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by > passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard > to consequences. > Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. > > > REPUBLIC: > Authority is derived through the election by the people of public > officials best fitted to represent them. > Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, > and a sensible economic procedure. > Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with > fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard > to consequences. > A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought > within its compass. > Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. > Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, > and progress. > * * * > Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority > cannot be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly > administered. > Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly > tried without success. > Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness > of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely > in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. > They "made a marked distinction between a republic and a > democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded > a republic." And even more! Over two centuries ago, Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, while writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic over two centuries ago, wrote of democracy: "A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promis- ing the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." Kind of makes one wonder. We're supposed to be a republic: could we be drifting towards a democracy? And do we really want to spread "democracy" to the world, or are we just misusing the term? The reason for all this? I saw a bumper sitcker the other day that said - THIS IS A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY. LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY! - and I wanted to know what they meant. Tom Buckley