Graham said:
"Complete Breakdown of Society" could be a violent revolution, conquest by another nation or, as I believe happened in Albania, just a total collapse into anarchy for whatever reason.
Ok, so you are saying that in your opinion we are moving towards this breakdown. Thank you.
Also could you cite specific examples of "nations in decline" that demonstrably fit your description and ultimately show their demise as a result of that description?
Tricky. I freely confess that I'm making this up as I go along but, bear with me 
It's tricky because every nation, every situation is so different. That's why I keep emphasizing the may be part.
Then let's be quite clear. The "may be" is speculation based loosely on your view of events in other nations in the past.
As you have said yourself every nation is different. To form a coherent thesis you will have to show why differences between America and nations in the past are insufficient to keep us from the same fate. I think you minimize these differences but they are quite fundamental.
How about Zimbabwe? Korea? I think they both fit the description though neither has quite demised yet.
I think that these are good examples (to demonstrate nations that fit your description). That they are still functioning is beside the point. If the USA were headed towards a society similar to either then I would say that would fit your description.
However, there are a number of very real and significant differences as to government. Please note that a president may only serve two terms in the US. Limiting the length of time that a leader can serve is a powerful antidote to dictatorship. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" George W. Bush does not have absolute power and he will at most be out of office in 2008.
Compare this to Kim Jong Il. He has absolute power until he dies. To be able to use a nation as an example of how America is moving toward a state of such as N. Korea you will have to show how a leader can overcome the very real obstacle to absolute power that was put in place by the founders of this country.
Thinking of a historical example . . . I suppose if I say the N-word that's the argument over there and then, is it?
I don't think Godwin's Law should apply here. And again, how did Hitler gain absolute power? He moved to concentrate All power under his direction. For any American leader to do the same he would have to in the least Amend the constitution. My reading suggests that an Amendment would not suffice. Any Hitler like leader would have to dissolve the constitution.
The constitution is something that people on both sides of the aisle take very seriously and the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats would fight to the death to prevent such a leader from threatening to abolish or amend the constitution in such a way that would allow him to limit the power of Congress or the courts.
As it is, Hitler, Kim Jong Il, Tsvangirai, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, etc. are simply not in our future.
What about Napoleonic France? There was definitely a personality cult around the Emperor (contrasted with the patriotism but overall lukewarmery of feeling in Britain towards King George). There was definite paranoia amongst the citizenry, as there had been since soon after the revolution. There was a type of atheist/scientific fundamentalism too, IIRC.
But for this "personality" cult to have any material effect the leader must have the power to abuse his office that our President does not have.
I'd like to add at this point that the three examples of characteristics were not meant to be an exhaustive list nor did I intend to imply that all three absolutely had to be present in every situation. According to my (rapidly developing) theory, different situations in time and place would display different combinations of characteristics.
Bill Clinton enjoyed high job approval ratings and was able to prosecute a number of military engagements with very little opposition. It would seem to me that a leader like Bill fits your definition more than Bush. As it is there are a lot of Americans who distrust Bush and are willing to march and protest his actions.
RandFanI am quite prepared to consider such argument provided that you can show -
a) Other nations that were destroyed because of specific events.
b) That we are exhibiting those self same events.
Graham
I think I've already answered this.
Actually no, but perhaps it is my fault for not communicating my query better.
Take the example of Hitler, if you could show the mechanisms of how Hitler seized power and show how a similar American leader could do the same. I will stipulate that America experiences many of the same attitudes and nationalism that Germany did prior to his ascension. The question is how do we get from A to B? It is quite clear how Hitler did it. It is also clear about Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Min and others. How does this translate into an American dictatorship? To date American presidents have been forced to abide by the will of both the courts and congress. A president can't even make laws and if he vetoes a law congress can override his veto.
The checks and balances are very real and limit the degree in which any leader can exercise power.
Again, may be. As discussed above, it is in the nature of states to move up and down the scale but there is a bottom to the scale and sometimes states do reach it. Do you agree on this point?
Agreed.
If so, then the argument that just because a hundred years ago the USA went from A to B and then back to A again doesn't mean that, this time, it won't go from A to B and then proceed to C.
This logic is quite correct. The problem lies is that we aren't even at B yet and are quite unlikely to get to B. History has shown quite clearly that even the most conservative of courts are unwilling to make significant inroads to separation of church and state. Again, to win the day with your argument you are going to have to show that we are able to at least get to the degree of fundamentalism in government that we had in the past and then surpass that level.
The evidence does not support this at all. Quite the contrary is true. The courts consistently uphold separation of church and state until we are at the point where the only vestiges left are the pledge of allegiance, wording on the money and prayers during congress. Every other instance has been ruled in favor of separation of church and state. You must show how legal precedent can and will be overturned based on public sentiment. Something our courts are loathe to do. I don't think you can make that argument.
To clarify - the characteristics listed are more symptoms than causes in and of themselves. The formation of a personality cult around a leadership figure doesn't push a nation into decline so much as a nation in decline is a fertile breeding ground for bold, charismatic leaders (leaders people think will be able to sort things out) and personality cults tend to form around such people.
Yes, but this ignores the checks and balances inherent in our system. Powerful checks and balances that can't be easily swept aside.
The key question here, IMO, is how today is different from the past. Again, a tricky one. I think what really worries me about the current is how ill-defined everything is.
During WW2, for instance, it was possible to say "Well, once the Germans are defeated and the Japanese then the war will be over." When will the War on Terror be over?
A very real and healthy concern. I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it to watch
The Siege with Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington. This is an excellent example of what you are suggesting and so parallels what is going on now that it is very instructive.
I think the indefinite war on terror does give a level of power to the administration that they would not otherwise have. However the ability of the Administration (Bush et al) to suspend or curtail civil liberties is limited and I would suspect that there will come a time when the American public grows weary of the Patriot act and other such potentially troublesome things. There simply are limits. Now if the terrorists should launch further attacks then that will change thing further. How much can it change? Well, how strong are our checks and balances?
When there are no more terrorists in the world? Call me Henny-Penny if you like but I don't ever see that happening.
I don't call you Henny Penny because you suggest the war on terror indefinite. I call you Henny Penny because you look at only some of the evidence. To come to a conclusion that America is on a path to destruction is to ignore or be simply ignorant of our history and our government and people.
I cannot honestly look at such a conclusion without a great deal of skepticism and criticism. Henny Penny is a very good analogy because you are doing precisely what she did. Forming conclusions on a narrow set of data.
Nations recover when the crisis ends and the need for forceful, decisive leadership is gone, the reasons for paranoia are past and people go back to living comfortable lives rather than seeking solace in fundamentalism. When will that be, do you think? A year from now? Ten years? A hundred years? How long can American society hold out?
Fear can be quite healthy. It is not just paranoia. There are people who have made it their mission to kill Americans. This threat is very real and security is a fundamental glue in the cohesiveness of society. You can scoff but it is we who the terrorists are targeting. We as a society must tread a fine line. Fortunately our forefathers put into place a system that would protect us (not entirely) from our fears and human nature.
I find it difficult to believe that George Bush could be as stupid as he appears and yet have become President of the USA. What more can I say? I'm not even sure which I'd prefer!
When Clinton was elected president I had just started down a road towards objectivity and skepticism. As my friends and both sides of my family are conservative I ran into lots and lots of conspiracy theories and evil intent on the part of Bill Clinton. I discovered something then. Most Republicans see evil in Democratic presidents and Democrats see evil in Republican presidents. And like religion no amount of logic or reason could shake these views.
That is why I accused you of refusing to accept the truth. I don't need to lay out these things. They are clearly with in your reach. There is nothing new that I offer you. Yet in the end you, like my Republican friends and family will only see evil in George Bush. Likewise you will concentrate on the passions of the people and ignore the history of our country and our system of government. You will pick and choose what 'fits' your theory. Hence the so eloquent quote of one of the greatest word smiths of my generation.
IMO, "Fundamentalism" is the pursuit of simplicity - simple beliefs and simple causes. Fundamentalism in morals makes people search for answer to modern questions of bio-ethics in a six thousand year old book. Fundamentalism in politics reduces international crises to the level of "us and them", rather than the miasmic grey area that is reality.
But we are a nation of laws and not of men. That a certain number of our population are given to simplicity is not a reason to indict us. In the end evolution won out. In the end school prayer was abolished.
Again, you find the examples that "fit" your theory and ignore those that don't.
Again, I would invite you to compare King George (the first?) of England with the Emperor Napoleon. George was, by all accounts, a reasonably popular ruler beloved of his subjects etc, etc, etc but Napoleon was, well, Napoleon. Do you see what I mean?
King George was a monarch
mon·arch ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mnrk, -ärk)
n.
1. One who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right, especially:
a. A sole and absolute ruler.
b. A sovereign, such as a king or empress, often with constitutionally limited authority: a constitutional monarch.
2.One that commands or rules: “I am monarch of all I survey” (William Cowper).
3.One that surpasses others in power or preeminence: “Mont Blanc is the monarch of the mountains” (Byron).
George W. Bush is an elected president. Do you understand the difference?
The outrage, such as it was, came when the US wanted to invade Iraq, other nations dared to diagree and were told in no uncertain terms to tow the line or else!
Before the war was started President Bush said in a news conference that France remained our friend and that he would continue to work with them.
I disagree with your characterization. I think for political and financial reasons Russia, Germany and France told us not to invade.
I have no wish to argue at this time about whether US actions in Iraq were right or wrong - morally, politically or any other-ly, but I think the diplomatic end of the whole thing was very badly managed.
We will have to agree to disagree. Our refusal to let others who have conflicting interests and who do not have our best interests at heart to dictate our response to the increased threat to America was one of our finest diplomatic moves. Americas interest cannot be second to the whims of the world. We acted diplomatically. It was 12 years and many resolutions. After all that we acted appropriately. Again, we will just have to agree to disagree.
You can't argue about whether or not it appears that way. It may not appear so to you but it does to me - there's no room for argument in that statement.
Fine, I can't argue that the moon does not look like green cheese or even appears to look like green cheese. If you choose to think that it looks like green cheese (metaphorically) then I suppose that is your prerogative.
Your freedom may make you vulnerable but what are you fighting for if not that very freedom. If you win at the cost of your freedom, will you have won at all?
Oh agreed, but fearing that we will lose our freedom is a poor reason to do nothing. As I said earlier, we must walk a fine line but there is a system in place to assist in our journey.
I think I can answer these two together - IMO, when it comes to "keeping the nation in check" your advanced and powerful court system and the solid foundation of the constitution is like the emergency parachute that deploys every time your main 'chute fails.
I don't think that there is anything that I could disagree with more. It is not at all an emergency parachute. It is part and parcel of our system and the precedents established by our courts and the laws enacted by congress serve as counterbalance to presidential power. They were never meant to be back ups.
If you knew that your main parachute had a great big hole in it, would you jump out of the plane anyway and trust to your emergency chute to save you? How many times?
I don't agree with this line of argument and I don't think there is any foundation to it. The history of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial shows that such an analogy is unfounded.
Your system of checks and balances has dealt with paranoia and fundamentalism quite adequately thus far. Maybe it will continue to do so long enough to see you through this crisis, maybe it won't.
Can you give me a logical reason why our courts and legislature will fail? A scenario perhaps.
What if the next piece of anti-terrorism legislation removes a part of the courts' power?
It would be unconstitutional. The SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that the legislature cannot move to
Surely you don't think that's impossible?
Anything is possible. In the movie
Invaders From Mars aliens kill the members of Congress and the president IIRC. So I guess that it is just as possible.
You have some concerns about the "Patriot Act" as do many others. However, you trust your government not to take advantage of you and you trust your court system to protect you and thus you accept the enactment of the Patriot Act without complaint. How many more such acts will you accept on trust?
Hold on there sparky, who says that I act without complaint? And damn straight I put trust in our judicial system. 200+ years of precedent give me ample reason to trust it. But don't think for a moment that I don't have a healthy concern about government. That is exactly why I support the 2nd amendment.
You can't see the US government abandoning due process when they've already done just that for at least a proportion of the prisoners in Guantanamo.
This has been done to death by me and others on this forum. I don't a.) completely agree with your characterization and b.) there are plenty of judges that would like to rule but can't since it is out of their jurisdiction. The US government can't abandon due process for citizens or those who are legal in the US and the vast majority of those who are in the US illegal.
It's just a bending of the law in many ways, a clever manaouvre of legallities.
No. It is a narrowly applied use of the legal system. I can see how it can be abused but it has very severe limits.
Are you comfortable to have your authorities make such manaouvres? What if they decide to manaouvre around your rights?
I have already stated my concerns. But history is quite clear on this subject. For instance, law enforcement has for sometime been frustrated with the number of criminals who get away with murder, rape, and other violent crimes based on technicalities of Miranda. So law enforcement sought to restrict those rights. The outcome, from a conservative court?
June, 26 2000
The Supreme Court on Monday issued one of its most important criminal law rulings in decades by upholding a 34-year-old decision requiring the police to inform people being arrested of their Miranda rights.
In a 7-2 vote, the nation's highest court refused to discard its 1966 Miranda decision and replace it with a less-stringent federal law that allows voluntary confessions even when police fail to give the warnings.
Seemed like a reasonable request to some. Why should murderers get off on some technicality?
The Supreme Court of The United States did not agree. In a 7-2 vote they upheld Miranda. All I have to make my judgement is history and precedent. Based on history and precedent I can only conclude that we are NOT on a path to destruction.
You mention, the separation of church and state and you say that you can't see the trend towards further separation being reversed. If your national leader and all his cabinet are devout fundamentalists (and I'm not saying they are, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the lesser members of the cabinet to make such a broad statement but it seems to me that Bush certainly is and Rumsfeld probably is), if a sufficiently high proportion of senators and congressmen and beaurocrats, in short if the entire government becomes itself an institution pervaded with religiosity, what difference does a technical separation between it and the church proper actually make?
Forgive me but this argument is fallacious for a number of reasons including the fallacy of composition.
If most or all of the government is religious then perhaps that is a reflection of the nation. Living in a Democratic Republic I think that would be appropriate. Don't you? It is not what the members
are that count but what they
do, the laws they pass. In addition those laws must pass the supreme court.
So even if the vast majority of America is religious and they elect leaders who are religious to pass laws that favor religion then we have a court that can overturn those laws on the grounds that they violate civil liberties.
For example, for sometime Congress has been passing laws to prohibit flag burning and for some time the Supreme Court has struck those laws down. Just because congress want to do something does not mean that the can.
Furthermore, just because a congressman believes in religion does not mean that he/she
will pass laws that violate the separation of church and state.
Thanks for the discussion so far.
RandFan
.
, but I can't prove that. But it is in the Vehicle Code.
