Is Democracy a short-termer?

I received this e-mail from one of my friends this morning. It made some interesting points in putting across a counterintuitive (crazy?) notion.




To keep population in check, China had a one child per couple policy. Religionists, free (as the US) world advocates (democracists) and others condemned the Chinese governments policies. In retrospect, the Chinese policy has been the only significant human accomplishment to curtail global warming and the exponential overpopulation of the planet. The policy was most significant since it did not attempt to deal with either of the previous issues. Economic instability was the greatest factor. Most notably this was accomplished by a less than enlightened totalitarian government.

This brings into question the validity of democracy on issues for which this form of government was not designed. A true indication of democracy is the nature of representative government. Extension of political life is the overriding goal of politicians. Pork barrel spending, gerrymandering electoral districts, sucking in the money from the lobbying spigot – all are means to reelection. The politician is just a reflection of the electorate. A fictional example will illustrate. A pig farm in Ames, Iowa receives $200,000 from Homeland Security to fight terrorism. This absurdity is not lost on Iowa’s politicians who fought for the money but they are just a reflection of their constituents. The people of Ames and Iowa accepted the money rather than telling Homeland Security to use it in Washington D.C., or New York City where the terror threat is real. Therein lies the problem. The nation’s overall good is sacrificed to local well being and greed.

If we can’t logically deal with terrorist threats on our own soil, what chance is there for preemptive action on global warming which the average citizen can’t feel. Does it make sense to commit economic suicide for words which have no everyday impact? Of course not. Very few are willing to inflict masochistic pain on themselves. By the time the land dries up, water covers up much of the present US, and life as we know it imitates a ravished island in a Dr. Seuss book, action will be too late. Democracy will have been relegated to the trash heap of human history.

Evidence points to dictatorship as the form of government most capable in dealing with abstract, dreadfully painful issues. One person or cabal dedicated to the planet’s preservation could be more effective than all the democracies put together. But, there is no surety that those in corrupt, tyrannical, power positions would have a benevolent world view as the first priority.

 

Two words:

Roman Empire.

 

I think we can all agree that there's no one good enough form of government to deal with all problems. A dictator might solve certain issues, but other equally important things would be forgotten and we'd be just as screwed. The world has survived this long with a mish-mash of governments and I'd like to think our basic sense of self preservation will keep it going for a while longer, regardless of who's in charge.

 

I think that you are right.

 

Read the book of Revelation. I think you can see that scenario develop, looking like that at first, then turning really, really bad.

 

I read the Book of Revelation. It's about Nero, by the way.
I think this is a really good time in history to get the religious fanatics and rapturists away from the steering wheel.

 

I don't think the religious fanatics or the rapturists will have one damn thing to say about how it ends.

Why don't you include the spirit of the Antichrist in that too - or in a non-religious sense, the embodiment of evil? Provided of course, you can steer yourself away from seeing the Republican Party as the source of ALL that's poison.

 

Ah, how about because I don't believe in the Antichrist, or in his spirit, or in applying ancient religious mysticism texts to the modern world. (There is no "non-religious sense" of the Antichrist; hence, the second syllable of his name) There is no single "embodiment" of evil, secular or otherwise. And, I'm sorry, but it's the Republican party that was the entry vehicle for crazy-ass bad theology into our secular politics.

 

Does the issue of the Antichrist in the New Testament apply as a religious issue, whether he/she/it is or not?

And, did I not read on some thread that you declared yourself a Catholic?

If correct, I guess you told the Vatican to shove that part of the story.

 

The "religious fanatics and rapturists" have far less global impact than some might think. Unless talk radio and the letters to the editor pages have a lot more power than I think they do. And of course there's the boogeyman factor. Hot holy hell, the ultra-right-wing Jesus freaks are taking over the world! Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps control the government! DC Talk has street cred! Not hardly. Most conservative Christians aren't as their more, uh. assertive brethern* would have you believe. They go to work, raise their families, praise the Lord and sometimes wonder what's with all the butts and cussin' on the TV. The stuff of the Fourth Reich this is not.

* -- many of the assertive brethern don't think W is a Christian because he's -- gasp! an apostate METHODIST! LIBERAL! You want real out-there conservative Christian? Go here: www.constitutionparty.com. Then be thankful for the moderate voices of the Republicans.

EDIT: I fail at typing.

 

And most of those you favorably speak of do understand an end of the world.

I don't believe in a literal rapture of the believers to leave the scounderels to fight out the last days. I think it is vastly misinterpreted. If you follow related texts, the second of a rapture is followed in the next second by the complete end. I think Thessalonians calls it "at the sound of the last trumpet, in the twinkling of an eye, ALL (meaning, not just the Church of Christ) will be changed." If it happens that way, I don't think we'll gather here for a discussion on whether things are changing.

 

uh, yeah. this'll work well.