Bush Fails History

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
Excellent read.

If you don't feel like reading all of it, at least read the bold.



http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc4338.html
Bush Fails History
Thom Hartmann, April 22, 2004



Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon thought they could bomb Vietnam into accepting democracy. George W. Bush thinks he can do it with Iraq.

But the first American president to consider how best to grow democracies - Thomas Jefferson - had some very different thoughts on the issue. LBJ and Bush would have done well to listen to his thoughtful words in a letter he wrote on February 14, 1815, to his old friend in France, the Marquis de Lafayette.

Discussing the French Revolution, the Terror that followed, and the reign of Napoleon, Jefferson noted that building democracy is an organic process: The democracy movement in the colonies had been fermenting for a century prior to Jefferson's birth.

"A full measure of liberty is not now perhaps to be expected by your nation," Jefferson wrote, about the democracy movement within France, "nor am I confident they are prepared to preserve it. More than a generation will be requisite, under the administration of reasonable laws favoring the progress of knowledge in the general mass of the people, and their habituation to an independent security of person and property, before they will be capable of estimating the value of freedom, and the necessity of a sacred adherence to the principles on which it rests for preservation."

He added that it's nearly impossible to force democracy on a people, and the consequences of trying could be disastrous. "Instead of that liberty which takes root and growth in the progress of reason, if recovered by mere force or accident, it becomes, with an unprepared people, a tyranny still, of the many, the few, or the one."

Lafayette, at the time of the French Revolution (1789), had expressed his concerns to Jefferson that the movement for democracy wasn't sufficiently widespread among the average people in France to take hold as it had in America, and they should thus make the transition via a constitutional monarchy much like today's United Kingdom. At the time, Jefferson had disagreed with his friend, but in this 1815 letter, he noted: "And I found you were right.... Unfortunately, some of the most honest and enlightened of our patriotic friends...did not weigh the hazards of a transition from one form of government to another."

Many in the revolutionary movement of France of that era opposed Lafayette's deliberate and careful push for an organic democracy, rather than a sudden lurch. "You differed from them," Jefferson noted. "You were for stopping there, and for securing the Constitution which the National Assembly had obtained. Here, too, you were right; and from this fatal error of the republicans, from their separation from yourself and the constitutionalists, in their councils, flowed all the subsequent sufferings and crimes of the French nation."

The lack of a truly widespread, average-citizen-based movement for democracy in France, Lafayette had privately argued to Jefferson two decades earlier, could simply lead to a transition from the tyranny of the king to another, perhaps worse, form of tyranny. While Jefferson had, at first, embraced the French revolution, in his letter to Lafayette he confessed that he had now come to agree that without a broader base of support, a sudden change of government was a disaster, and the primary beneficiaries would only be war profiteers and the rich, Frenchmen who were so opposed to democracy that they could even be called foreigners.

Thus, Jefferson wrote, "The foreigner gained time to anarchize by gold the government he could not overthrow by arms, to crush in their own councils the genuine republicans... and to turn the machine of Jacobinism from the change to the destruction of order; and, in the end, the limited monarchy they had secured was exchanged for the unprincipled and bloody tyranny of Robespierre, and the equally unprincipled and maniac tyranny of Bonaparte."

Comparing France to America, Jefferson noted how - unlike France - we had overthrown an external occupier all by ourselves. For American colonists, the repression and occupation of the English in the Colonies "has helped rather than hurt us, by arousing the general indignation of our country, and by marking to the world of Europe the vandalism and brutal character of the English government. It has merely served to immortalize their infamy."

And now Arab leaders like Egypt's Mubarak say that, across the Arab world, our infamy is being immortalized by Bush's unprovoked invasion and occupation of oil-rich Iraq. America, Mubarak says, faces "a hatred never equaled" in the Middle East, even as Iraq totters on the edge of civil war.

It's as if the cycles of history are repeating themselves, and Iraq may now suffer the Terrors that racked France in the 19th Century.

When John Adams wrote to Jefferson on July 13, 1813 about a French politician, he could just as easily have been speaking of George W. Bush: "In plain truth, I was astonished at the grossness of his ignorance of government and history."

Adams added, speaking of those who think they can create empire and have a stable rule purely by military force, "Napoleon has lately invented a word which perfectly expresses my opinion, at that time and ever since. He calls the project Ideology; and... it was all madness."

But like Iraq with Saddam, Jefferson wrote that true democracy would take time in France because the overthrow of a tyrant had been done so hastily. "You are now rid of him, and I sincerely wish you may continue so. But this may depend on the wisdom and moderation of the restored dynasty. It is for them now to read a lesson in the fatal errors of the republicans; to be contented with a certain portion of power, secured by formal compact with the nation, rather than, grasping at more, hazard all upon uncertainty, and risk meeting the fate of their predecessor...."

As we "hazard all upon uncertainty" in the Middle East, Iraq is proving the prescience of our greatest presidents yet again. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said on September 22, 1936, "In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed, it must be achieved."

If only George W. Bush had paid attention during his study of history at Yale...

Thom Hartmann is an award-winning best-selling author and the host of a nationally syndicated daily talk radio show. www.thomhartmann.com. His most recent book is titled "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," and his newest book, based on Jefferson's writings, "We A Return To Democracy: Reviving Jefferson's Dream," will be released on July 4th by Random House/Crown.
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#2
2-0-Sixx said:
He added that it's nearly impossible to force democracy on a people, and the consequences of trying could be disastrous. "Instead of that liberty which takes root and growth in the progress of reason, if recovered by mere force or accident, it becomes, with an unprepared people, a tyranny still, of the many, the few, or the one."
Nearly impossible, but it has happened to Germany, Japan and also the USA. I don't know many Native Americans that knew of the Greek concept of Democracy, and I believe that it will also happen to Iraq. :-\
2-0-Sixx said:
Comparing France to America, Jefferson noted how - unlike France - we had overthrown an external occupier all by ourselves. For American colonists, the repression and occupation of the English in the Colonies "has helped rather than hurt us, by arousing the general indignation of our country, and by marking to the world of Europe the vandalism and brutal character of the English government. It has merely served to immortalize their infamy."
I guess ol' Uncle Tom forgot about Spain and France.
2-0-Sixx said:
But like Iraq with Saddam, Jefferson wrote that true democracy would take time in France because the overthrow of a tyrant had been done so hastily. "You are now rid of him, and I sincerely wish you may continue so. But this may depend on the wisdom and moderation of the restored dynasty. It is for them now to read a lesson in the fatal errors of the republicans; to be contented with a certain portion of power, secured by formal compact with the nation, rather than, grasping at more, hazard all upon uncertainty, and risk meeting the fate of their predecessor...."
I wonder if Sally Hemmings, her children, and the other slaves ever planned a coup d'etat against the facist.
 

shep

Sicc OG
Oct 2, 2002
3,233
2
0
#3
MEXICANCOMMANDO said:
Nearly impossible, but it has happened to Germany, Japan and also the USA. I don't know many Native Americans that knew of the Greek concept of Democracy, and I believe that it will also happen to Iraq. :-\
3 countries... that's hardly a winning record..... think about all the countries it hasn't worked in.

and you act like that's why we went, to instill democracy cause it's the best gov't... what about all the countries in which we backed dictators?
 
Oct 12, 2003
2,127
2
0
#5
2-0-Sixx said:
And now Arab leaders like Egypt's Mubarak say that, across the Arab world, our infamy is being immortalized by Bush's unprovoked invasion and occupation of oil-rich Iraq. America, Mubarak says, faces "a hatred never equaled" in the Middle East, even as Iraq totters on the edge of civil war.
aint that the truth. people are going to iraq just for the opprotunity to kill americans. you'd think bush would get the point.
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#7
shep said:
3 countries... that's hardly a winning record..... think about all the countries it hasn't worked in.

and you act like that's why we went, to instill democracy cause it's the best gov't... what about all the countries in which we backed dictators?
Before you respond I would suggest you read. I said it was possible. My whole post was sarcastic, hence the Native American comment. I don't think any type of government (or lack of) should be imposed on any people. Also give me any inkling of a proof or lead which lead you to believe that I act like we went to Iraq to instill Democracy to their government and when you find it (if you find it) remember that my post was sarcastic.
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#8
2-0-Sixx said:
Off topic

@Mexicancommando,

I'm a little confused...can you explain why you have Hitler in your sig, your ethnicity is stated as "Aryan My Niggz" and why your name is Mexicancommando?
I have Hitler in my sig because I believe him to be the greatest military figure of his time and the most influential politician ever. Secondly I said I am Aryan because I like to poke fun at the fact that Aryans are the original inhabitants of Iran and not blonde, blue eyed norse gods. Also what real 'Aryan' would ever say niggz? Nigger, but not nigg. Fourthly (or thirdly, depending on how you look at my post) my name is MexicanCommando because I wanted a change from SJN14.
P.S Lenin < Stalin and Hitler > Stalin. Stalin just got lucky at the battle of Stalingrad.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#9
MEXICANCOMMANDO said:
I have Hitler in my sig because I believe him to be the greatest military figure of his time and the most influential politician ever.
Agreed.

Secondly I said I am Aryan because I like to poke fun at the fact that Aryans are the original inhabitants of Iran and not blonde, blue eyed norse gods. Also what real 'Aryan' would ever say niggz? Nigger, but not nigg.
I see...and I agree


Fourthly (or thirdly, depending on how you look at my post) my name is MexicanCommando because I wanted a change from SJN14.
Ohh shit. I didn't realize :mad:

P.S Lenin < Stalin and Hitler > Stalin. Stalin just got lucky at the battle of Stalingrad
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#13
MEXICANCOMMANDO said:
Before you respond I would suggest you read. I said it was possible. My whole post was sarcastic, hence the Native American comment. I don't think any type of government (or lack of) should be imposed on any people. Also give me any inkling of a proof or lead which lead you to believe that I act like we went to Iraq to instill Democracy to their government and when you find it (if you find it) remember that my post was sarcastic.
Okay, I have one maybe two comments....Weren't you the one that I was talking to about NOT BEING ABLE TO TELL IF SOMEONE IS BEING SARCASTIC ONLINE? So don't expect others to pick up so quickly, if even you can't. Maybe you should have said at the very fuckin beginning that you were being sarcastic instead of letting people assume and then talking shit to them.
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#14
Sixxness said:
Okay, I have one maybe two comments....Weren't you the one that I was talking to about NOT BEING ABLE TO TELL IF SOMEONE IS BEING SARCASTIC ONLINE? So don't expect others to pick up so quickly, if even you can't. Maybe you should have said at the very fuckin beginning that you were being sarcastic instead of letting people assume and then talking shit to them.
Funny, I never talked shit, again you assume. All I said was you assumed I said something when I didn't. Had I said something and meant it to be sarcastic then I would understand. The thing is I never said we went into Iraq to instill democracy there, you assumed it. Thus my reply to you.
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#15
MEXICANCOMMANDO said:
Funny, I never talked shit, again you assume. All I said was you assumed I said something when I didn't. Had I said something and meant it to be sarcastic then I would understand. The thing is I never said we went into Iraq to instill democracy there, you assumed it. Thus my reply to you.

That was my first post, so how did you tell me that I was assuming something before I posted? Is this like the god thing? It exists before it happens or something? I didn't assume anything, I observed and gave my opinion on it. I never said you said shit about Iraq or democracy, what the fuck are you talking about dude? You quoted my post...Where did I say that? I don't see it.
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#16
Sixxness said:
That was my first post, so how did you tell me that I was assuming something before I posted?
Like you I brought up something from another post. You brought up the sarcasm thing, i'm bringing up the assumptions.
Sixxness said:
I never said you said shit about Iraq or democracy, what the fuck are you talking about dude? You quoted my post...Where did I say that? I don't see it.
Sorry man, I'm confusing you with Shep. I was gonna edit but too late now.
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#17
MEXICANCOMMANDO said:
Like you I brought up something from another post. You brought up the sarcasm thing, i'm bringing up the assumptions.
The difference is that mine is from another thread, you did it in this one after talking about it in another thread. I'm not assuming here, so bringing that up doesn't help you validate your argument.

MEXICANCOMMANDO said:
Sorry man, I'm confusing you with Shep. I was gonna edit but too late now.
I know who you were confusing me with...I don't even care about it, but you point out my mistakes in my posts (even when they aren't there), so I thought I'd do you the same favor. :)
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#18
Sixxness said:
The difference is that mine is from another thread, you did it in this one after talking about it in another thread. I'm not assuming here, so bringing that up doesn't help you validate your argument.
I think this can eventually go on for ever. So I'll just quit. There are other posts in which we can debate.
Sixxness said:
I know who you were confusing me with...I don't even care about it, but you point out my mistakes in my posts (even when they aren't there), so I thought I'd do you the same favor. :)
To err is human, to forgive is divine.