8 thoughts on “A Question for the Obama Administration”

  1. Shouldn’t really be a surprise given the leftist subculture that Obama comes out from. That subculture has always viewed liberal-democracies as the problem and leftist authoritarians as the solution. Besides, given their usual facial and egocentric understanding of foreign affairs, they will automatically default to the defense of anti-American actors.

  2. Thus, Obama’s argument would be – like those for Arafat, etc. – that the only importance is the first election, which puts someone in office? Ignoring or manipulating later elections can always be answered by, well, he won the election – thought it might have been decades ago and since then he has subverted the system. Once the world has begun paying lip service to democracy it has become littered with such arguments, usually made in countries that have begun practices quite undemocratic. The subversion of the checks on such tyrants is always a fear, understandably a fear in countries that have had a tradition of such rule. We know who was “elected” in Iran – does that mean that we should consider that, too, the voice of the people?

  3. Hitler was elected. Chavez was elected. Evo Morales was elected. Plenty of dictators were elected. Election does not confer perpetual legitimacy, or license for elected officials to do as they please once in office. Zelaya was elected, but he abused his office in an attempt to perpetuate himself in power against the wishes of the electorate. This is the Chavez model for gaining absolute power.

    The consent of the governed, like an individual’s consent to sex or consent to a police search, can be revoked. Democracy is neither synonymous with liberty nor a guarantee thereof. It is merely one of a number of least-bad means for selecting a representative government.

  4. > they will automatically default to the defense of anti-American actors.

    Unfortunately, in Hollywood, there aren’t too many other kinds.




    *Never Mind*…

Comments are closed.