Democracies end when they are too democratic.
This is a brilliant article, but all this talk of "democracy" makes me sick to my stomach; mob rule, lack of any sort of rational moral base and lets not forget...anything goes!
I think Rand Herself, was no fan - any comments on that?
Here is a great excerpt:
In Eric Hoffer’s classic 1951 tract, The True Believer, he sketches the dynamics of a genuine mass movement. He was thinking of the upheavals in Europe in the first half of the century, but the book remains sobering, especially now. Hoffer’s core insight was to locate the source of all truly mass movements in a collective sense of acute frustration. Not despair, or revolt, or resignation — but frustration simmering with rage. Mass movements, he notes (as did Tocqueville centuries before him), rarely arise when oppression or misery is at its worst (say, 2009); they tend to appear when the worst is behind us but the future seems not so much better (say, 2016). It is when a recovery finally gathers speed and some improvement is tangible but not yet widespread that the anger begins to rise. After the suffering of recession or unemployment, and despite hard work with stagnant or dwindling pay, the future stretches ahead with relief just out of reach. When those who helped create the last recession face no consequences but renewed fabulous wealth, the anger reaches a crescendo.
I think Rand Herself, was no fan - any comments on that?
Here is a great excerpt:
In Eric Hoffer’s classic 1951 tract, The True Believer, he sketches the dynamics of a genuine mass movement. He was thinking of the upheavals in Europe in the first half of the century, but the book remains sobering, especially now. Hoffer’s core insight was to locate the source of all truly mass movements in a collective sense of acute frustration. Not despair, or revolt, or resignation — but frustration simmering with rage. Mass movements, he notes (as did Tocqueville centuries before him), rarely arise when oppression or misery is at its worst (say, 2009); they tend to appear when the worst is behind us but the future seems not so much better (say, 2016). It is when a recovery finally gathers speed and some improvement is tangible but not yet widespread that the anger begins to rise. After the suffering of recession or unemployment, and despite hard work with stagnant or dwindling pay, the future stretches ahead with relief just out of reach. When those who helped create the last recession face no consequences but renewed fabulous wealth, the anger reaches a crescendo.
Allowing your adversary to judge a disagreement with government is insane. So is allowing statist political parties to set rules that eliminate their competition. Winner take all (electoral votes) election is another travesy against liberty.
F%^k the GOP! Looting for 156 years. (Ditto the dems.)
And it definitely seems right now as if there is no way out. We are being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.
At this point I see Trump as the only candidate that has a chance of occupying the White House that MIGHT bring some responsibility and accountability to government. Clinton and Sanders have zero responsibility and Johnson has zero chance of being POTUS.
I wanted a debate between Sanders, Johnson, and Trump (forget Hillary on that- who wants to listen to her evasions and lies anyway). I thought that kind of debate would bring out the real differences between the candidates for a change.
I wouldn't throw out the value in his historical view point though...that's what attracted me.
Just using the quoted paragraph above, the author does NOT want the reader to make any kind of connection that "The True Believer" is what put Obama in office twice and may put Clinton in office in 2016. Will anyone say Sanders supporters are not "True Believers"? Additionally, when the author says "When those who helped create the last recession face no consequences ..." I doubt very much if he is referring to the government meddling in the mortgage industry is what actually created the mess. I doubt if Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, or Chris Dodd, et al, will face anything for what they've done.
I found the article a very long and boring enumeration of the left's usual talking points and name calling. The only difference here is the author was able to pull up some unique appeal to authority references in an attempt to give the screed some veneer of respectability.
I understand what your sayin...the left has done this on Our dime and Our time...I'd love to reverse the flavor...(yes, I said flavor)
Load more comments...