[Peace-discuss] Drinking the Kool-Aid

[C. G. Estabrook]

"In his later years, observing what was happening, Jefferson had rather serious 
concerns about the fate of the democratic experiment. He feared the rise of a 
new form of absolutism that was more ominous than what had been overthrown in 
the American Revolution, in which he was of course a leader. Jefferson 
distinguished in his later years between what he called "aristocrats" and 
"democrats." The aristocrats are "those who fear and distrust the people, and 
wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes." The 
democrats, in contrast, "identify with the people, have confidence in them, 
cherish and consider them as the honest and safe depository of the public 
interest, if not always the most wise." The aristocrats of his day were the 
advocates of the rising capitalist state, which Jefferson regarded with much 
disdain, clearly recognising the quite obvious contradiction between democracy 
and capitalism..."

Jefferson saw the point you make -- as he did on other matters, such as slavery 
("I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just").  And his 
understanding  probably can be said to make him more guilty than those too dumb 
to understand.

Tocqueville has suffered from his English translators' being for the most part 
pro-capitalist conservatives.  The latest is the neocon Harvey C. Mansfield 
(known as "Harvey C-Minus" to generations of his Harvard students). He recently 
wrote in th WSJ in praise of the administration's "unitary executive" theory, a 
  modern and very American form of absolutism. --CGE


David Green wrote:
> I've often felt that the notion of the "tyranny of the majority," 
> usually referenced to Tocqueville, is either propagandistic or 
> misinterpreted. It seems most often used (although I'll grant not in 
> this case) by those who prefer a tyranny of the elite, in order to 
> pretend that they are protecting individual rights against the mob while 
> they steal the people blind. In reality, they're protecting their rights 
> to accumulate power and property to the detriment of the common good, as 
> well as fundamental individual rights, like basic survival. It would 
> seem that the Bill of Rights should have addressed such concerns. Is it 
> the majority that does not agree with it? The notion of a majority 
> implies not a mob manipuated by a demagogue, but a democratically 
> constituted government. Why does this need to be "balanced" against any 
> other concept in order to promote liberalsim? If it is authentically 
> practiced, it will be perfectly consistent with liberalism.
>  
> DG
> 
> */Bob Illyes <illyes at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
> 
>     You're right, Bob, but there is an important issue that is getting
>     submerged in the argument about Obama (which has become quite
>     annoying). By
>     ignoring this underlying issue, the argument can be continued
>     indefinitely,
>     to the detriment of most folks on this list.
> 
>     Carl writes "A good leader would seem to be in the first place one who
>     serves the interests of the majority, not the opposing interests of a
>     minority." And then quotes James Madison as having said about the 1787
>     constitution that its goal was not democracy, which he and his good
>     colleagues saw as dangerous, but "to protect the minority of the
>     opulent
>     against the majority."
> 
>     There is a middle ground, represented by liberalism, which is a
>     compromise
>     between majority rule and individual liberty- a difficult balancing
>     act,
>     but a worthwhile one in my estimation, but apparently not in Carl's.
>     His
>     "serves the interests of the majority" morphs easily into "the greatest
>     good for the greatest number", which should give one pause. It could be
>     used to justify slavery, for example, although I'm sure that this isn't
>     Carl's intent.
> 
>     Bob
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Peace-discuss mailing list
>     Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>     http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss