Up Late

We Americans should concentrate all this effort and passions on electing better representatives.

The problem with democracies is not the distance between voters and representative, nor the fact the electorate votes once for all the four years; once, on everything that then happens in that time.

The problem with democracy is that it is a mixture of compromises that depends on total and permanently unknown strangers making their choices about the one or two people you get to choose from.

And if you can not agree, the courts can appoint a monkey for you and all your 2.5 thousand million votes.

Too bad.

It was the same process that chose Hitler and most of the Eastern European presidunces under Stalin.

Or did your grandparents imagine the one vote they gave to FDR would result in him giving half of Europe to a worse dictator than Adolph Hitler?

All through the Chimp's term of office I have railed against the idiot.

But now I see that the chance to continue the massive amusement is sliding away. You will get stuck with a proto-charismatic politician who, once his feet are under the table, will turn out to be a firmly ensconsed ...politican.

No I just like to rant.

The best thing about democracies is that you can eventually get rid of duffers without bloodshed. In Britain prior to the Civil War, the only way to remove dossers and loonies was to have a massive war and then chop off the head of the loser.

I only know two things about politics and they are immutable, probably the only things about politics that always holds true and never changes:

1. If a politician is talking to you someone is telling you lies.
and

2. Nobody EVER wins a war.

I liked the relationship Britain has or had with the USA. But I am very upset about the way things have gone under George Bush and Tory B Liar.

Pity.

About FDR.
I believe the man accomplished much good, he certainly saved the bacon for us. But he and Churchill did conspire to give Joseph Stalin half of Europe which was a betrayal of Poland and rather spoiled the point of the war somewhat.

Britain behaved very badly just before and for most of WW 2. Afterwards we wanted to rebuild our empire despite the fact that the locals in our colonies were set against. We even had our owwn Vietnam. It caused horror in Burma that still continues to this day.

Actually Churchill was upset about FDR's idealistic/romantic approach towards Starlin at the end of WWII. He was very disappointed that FDR ignored his idea and warning, in fact, not trusting Starlin and knowing full well the consequences. This deep concern about Europe plus his own election setback made him very ill and depressed. He never recovered from that.

I don't really know enough about Churchill to stand my ground. But I do know enough about democracy to know that both the Western icons of it were criminally out of touch.

Such is the way of politicians.
They have to be in touch with their opponents and they are kept in touch by their friends but as for the electorate... Gor fet it.

I have heard that nearly every British soldier, sailor and airman was a socialist by the end of the war. They all knew the words of and sang the Red Flag. Junior officers down at least.

Anyone else was part of the establishment that was killing them, had got them into the mess in the first place and was secretly negotiating with Stalin to empower him.

Perhaps they assumed after the war they would wield their power cohesively.

But, in Britain at least, the "workers" wanted payback for the depression, "means testing" and disarmament. And the Socialist Party was at its peak. The US would not deal with Britain' "Labour" government and that antagonism was an house divided in the third world war; the Soviet NATO cold war.

I don't know if you are aware of it but in the USA democracy was only skin deep and did not extend far outside its borders certainly not in the 1950's.

Democratic countries do not conspire against their electorate. They do not take part in secret trials, kidnap and mass renditions nor do they hold victims incommunicado certainly not for more than the few hours it takes to process them through their detention channels.

They do not allow a government to prosecute a war against minorities nor do they allow mass media free reign in blockading information and in the case of certain entertainers from access previously available to them by merit.

If it takes a large retinue of managers and a small fortune to "get elected" it is not a democracy. Anyone who believes differently is entitle to the sort of government they deserve.

As for Churchill, the UK still eulogises him.

But he behaved treacherously before and during the war. He ordered his Field Marshals to do silly things they couldn't accomplish and then sacked them for the inevitable.

Then he had the gall to write his version of the history of the war. I don't think there was a theatre he was competent in. Any successes were won despite him not because of him.

I can think of Greece and the Battle of France but there were several routs in North Africa too. (But I am merely aware of these things, I have not studied their history deeply.)

Had he a sense, any sense, of humility he would have stood down after the war. Maybe I am wrong about him but he sums up all that is wrong with politics, dominion, democracy and autocracy.

Bryan, I am sorry to be so negative but I think that anyone who "puts their trust in earthling man" at this time in this age is going to get a seriously upsetting wake-up.

I wish it wasn't so but when you look back at he great kings and principle men of any history you realise they lacked foundation. Even the good kings of the bible did seriously silly things.

David was a rapist, adulterer and murderer. Do they get any worse?

His son Solomon was one of the cleverest men ever but he was led astray by his own desires. Tudor England is supposed to be a time of great prosperity but the most famous British king ever was a tyrant of George Bush proportions.

Probably worse. He destroyed the monasteries which (for all their evils and errors) served as alms houses and local hospitals. He enclosed common land and defrauded poor tenant farmers out of a major source of income in doing so.

However since you live in a democracy it is hard to sit by and do nothing and probably end up with another fool/front-man. The alternative is terrorism or some "let the dead bury the dead" type religion.

So maybe you are right. I don't think so.

Obama hasn't sleaned up anything Bush did.

It's easy to make good with money to burn. It's impossible with both hands tied. But if he had a clear majority in government would he have got rid of the Muslim problem?

The US is backing to the hilt the same sort of activities that North Korea and Iran are condemned for.

And you still have kidnapped victims in Gutanamo Bay.
What are you abe to vote for about that?