Bill Whittle has issued forth another gem, perhaps his best essay so far.

We hear of polls saying that upwards of 75% of countries like England and France see the United States as the greatest danger to the world, and it knocks the wind out of us. No, that?s can?t be right. Can it? Can they really believe that?

Some do. Many do.

Some of this emotion is genuine, real fear and panic brought on by our unparalleled success, and our past miscalculations and blunders. Some of it is envy, pure and simple. Some is driven by pain, the pain of lost greatness and glory. Some is projection, a sense of how tempting it might be to hold such power, from countries with histories of real empires, real governors, and real subjugation.

And some of it ? much of it ? is intentionally aimed at our decency, our sense of restraint and isolation, our desire to get back to our own happy and safe lives and turn our back on the world lost in the delusion that we long to possess it.

Go read it, and encourage him to write the book.

A very inspiring piece, but a little short on logic and fact.

> The masses, as usual, understand nothing.

Funny, that sounds to me like a paraphrase of George Bush:

"I do not need to explain why I say things. ? That's the interesting thing about being the President. ? Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

Translation: the masses understand nothing. I, the ever-confident leader of the confident people of the United States will confidently do the Right Thing. To hell with what anyone else thinks.

Good God, am I really the only one who sees the irony? The bedrock principle of democracy is supposed to be: what other people think *matters*, even if they disagree with you. You can't defend democracy with hubris.

America may be said to be a democracy. France may be said to be a democracy.

The world, however, is not a democracy. Nor do I foresee it becoming one within my lifetime.

Not that I necessarily endorse the President's comments, but saying that "the masses understand nothing" and that the president doesn't have to explain his actions are not semantically equivalent statements, so no, I don't see the irony.

In the one case, it is an expression of contempt for the ability of the people to understand world events. In the other, it's simply a statement of the Constitutional power of the presidency.

If people are unhappy with Mr. Bush's explanations, or lack thereof, they're entitled to replace him next election. But I didn't read into his statement that he doesn't think that people are capable of understanding any explanation he might offer--just that it's nice that he doesn't have to offer one. If anything, it's exactly the opposite of the French attitude--I would take it as an expression of fear that they might indeed understand, and thereby not reelect him.

> The world, however, is not a democracy. Nor do I foresee it becoming one within my lifetime.

Yes, and I think one of the reasons for this is that we who are supposedly the leading light of democracy seem to be so willing to dispense with its bedrock principle when it's convenient for us.

Here's another recent Bush quote:

"The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security -- in this case, the security of the people."

Not in a democracy it's not. The role of a leader is to decide policy based on the *will* of the people. And thank God, some people still seem to remember Ben Franklin's admonition: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

> If people are unhappy with Mr. Bush's explanations, or lack thereof, they're entitled to replace him next election.

I don't know. Most people voted against him in the last election but that didn't stop him.

What was it Rhenquist said? Counting votes is not the best way to democracy, or something like that?

No American president has ever shown so much disdain for democracy as George W. Bush. And I say that with the utmost confidence.

There's often a great deal of confusion about the fact that we still live in the republic (not a democracy) that Mr. Franklin claimed to give us.

Mr. Bush was elected as the Constitution dictates--there's nothing in it about majority of the popular vote. But you knew that, right, Erann? Comments like that just reduce my respect for you, when I know (or at least hope) that you know better.

When we say we are going to make the world more democratic, we mean that we are going to make the govenments ultimately accountable to the people--not necessarily literally install democracies.

> Mr. Bush was elected as the Constitution dictates

That is not entirely clear.

> there's nothing in it about majority of the popular vote.

True. Let's take a look at what the Constution does have to say, shall we?

From Article II, section 1:

" Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors..."

That is not what happened in 2000. The Florida electors were not appointed in a manner prescribed by the Florida legislature, but were instead appointed by a process that consisted in part of the Federal Supreme Court overriding the Florida Supreme Court in order to stop an in-progress vote recount.

Now, let's not get into a rehash of the 2000 election. What's done is done. Bush is our President, for better or worse. But don't give me a hard time for saying that it's not 100% clear that Bush has a mandate from the American People (or the Constitution for that matter). The only thing Bush has a clear mandate from is John Rhenquist.

> When we say we are going to make the world more democratic, we mean that we are going to make the govenments ultimately accountable to the people--not necessarily literally install democracies.

Maybe that's what you mean when you say it, but that is not what George Bush means when he says it. If he wants government to be accountable to the people then why is he not calling for the removal of Tony Blair, who stubbornly clings to warmongering policies despite *overwhelming* opposition from his people? The answer is obvious: because Bush's policy is not that government should be accountable to the people, it is that the whole world should be accountable to the United States.

The idea that Geroge Bush wants us to go to war (or do anything for that matter) to make government more accountable to the people sounds like wishful thinking to me. I have never heard Bush say anything of the sort. His rhetoric is all about security (which ought to scare the pants off freedom-loving people in and of itself).

His argument is not that we should attack Iraq to make its government be more accountable to the people (though that might be a serendipitous side-effect), but because we want to make ourselves secure against the WOMD that may exist there, and may find themselves in the hands of terrorists, who may use them against us.

Even domestically George Bush is flagrantly anti-democratic, using the power of the Federal government to override state ballot measures in California and Oregon. It is precisely the *confidence* that Bill Whittle trumpets that allows him to do this. A little less confidence and a little more humility would serve democracy better I think.

I'm all for government being accountable to the people. That is precisely why I oppose George Bush.

Erann appears to believe that for the Florida Supreme Court to override the Florida Legislature's choice of electors was Constitutionally legitimate, but that for the U.S. Supreme Court to restore the Legislature's Constitutionally established prerogative and whip the Florida court back to its place was not. Surprise! Seven Justices, not just the Chief Justice, held otherwise. Moreover, the legal issues were actually quite clear.

As for government being accountable to the will of the people, America is a constitutional federated republic in which that accountability is maintained at the federal level through periodic elections, not by continuous plebiscite. Perhaps you should brush up on the theory of the thing, Erann.

Oh, by the way, Erann, the Chief Justice of the United States' name is William Rehnquist, not John.

The idea that Geroge Bush wants us to go to war (or do anything for that matter) to make government more accountable to the people sounds like wishful thinking to me. I have never heard Bush say anything of the sort.

Apparently you didn't listen to the State of the Union Address.

> Erann appears to believe that for the Florida Supreme Court to override the Florida Legislature's choice of electors was Constitutionally legitimate

Rand appears to believe that he has ESP and can read my mind about what I think of the legitimacy of the Florida court's actions, despite the fact that I have taken no position on that issue. I am not familiar with the nuances of Florida's state constitution. My memory of the events are vague. I am not a lawyer nor a journalist. I concede the possibility that the Florida court may have erred. That is not the point. I did not say that Bush's election was not Constitutionally legitimate. All I said was that it is not clear.

> Moreover, the legal issues were actually quite clear.

Funny, a lot of people didn't seem to think so at the time, which is pretty much proves by definition that things were far from clear. In fact, about the only thing that's clear about the 2000 Florida election is that nothing about it was clear. But this is all beside the point.

Once again I have to ask, am I the only one who sees the irony here? The subject under discussion is not the election, its *confidence*. Rand is *confident* that the legal issue are clear. Bush is *confident* that attacking Iraq is the right thing to do.

The only thing I'm confident about is that they both ought to be a little less confident.

>As for government being accountable to the will of the people, America is a constitutional federated republic in which that accountability is maintained at the federal level through periodic elections, not by continuous plebiscite.

I see. So just because the *mechanism* we use to hold our government accoutable only kicks in periodically that means that our government is not accountable to us in between elections? Is that how it works?

> Perhaps you should brush up on the theory of the thing, Erann.

Perhaps you'd better explain it to me, Rand. Tell me again what we're supposed to be fighting for in Iraq. Is it security? Or democracy? Or government accoutability to the poeple? Or to turn Iraq into a constitutional federated republic in which government accountability to the people is maintained at the federal level through periodic elections? And once you've explained that, could you cite the passages in George Bush's public comments that indicate that's what *he* thinks we're fighting for?

And when you're done with that, could you explain to me why you agree with Bill Whittle that confidence is a good thing? That is, after all, what we're supposedly talking about, isn't it?

> Oh, by the way, Erann, the Chief Justice of the United States' name is William Rehnquist, not John.

Well, what do you know. Rand got something right that doesn't have to do with space. Will wonders never cease?

Erann, I don't know who you're responding to, but it isn't me. It might be Mr. Poretto.

And I should add, you've hijacked the post, to start a thread of discussion that has little to do with it. This isn't what I'd like to use bandwidth and disk storage for.

Your original beef was with Mr. Whittle. I simply pointed people to his essay. Why don't you go over and argue with him in his comments section?

> Funny, a lot of people didn't seem to think so at the time, which is pretty much proves by definition that things were far from clear.

Except that it doesn't.

People dispute clear things all the time.

>Erann, I don't know who you're responding to, but it isn't me. It might be Mr. Poretto.

You're right. I'm very sorry about that, Rand. I misread the "posted by" line and thought it applied to the post below rather than above. Please accept my apology.

Never mind....