Hail Caesar
by digby
I've been getting a lot of emails about this group Family Security
Matters which boasts such right wing luminaries as Barbara
Comstock, Monica Crowley, Frank Gaffney, Laura Ingraham and James
Woolsey among others on its board of directors. It seems like they
are just another of the dozens of wingnut welfare programs devoted
to throwing good money after bad keeping conservative operatives
gainfully employed.
The emails I'm getting say they are busily scrubbing articles all
over the place. When you look at what they've left up you have to
wonder what could possibly be so bad they have to scrub it.
This one is still in the Google cache for now, and it's certainly a
keeper. Here, for posterity is:
Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson
Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007
While democratic government is better than dictatorships and
theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip
Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush
today.
Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson
President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United
States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after
being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be
president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western
civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies,
sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President
Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded
by the people, which is Democracy.
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable -
for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than
because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an
agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he
commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held
responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit
folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is
frustrating their demands.
When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be
amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of
citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only
action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered
Iraq with an army.
This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but
left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile
country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its
home, then the threat it ended would simply return.
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his
nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his
demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little
risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if
he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his
term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must
practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect
example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will
fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet
Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend
itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is
necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's
powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that
will be popular with Americans.
As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq
that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat,
President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of
Democracy.
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an
enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the
worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the
situation in Iraq, but democratic government.
However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he
could choose to follow.
When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to
conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he
also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy
him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.
Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful
army to crush all political opposition at home and establish
himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action
not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil
chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome - thus marking
the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and
prosperity to the known world.
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to
empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he
would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military;
enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an
American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset);
and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound
popularity with the military to wield military power to become the
first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos
caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the
out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and
his God, by becoming "ex-president" Bush or he can become
"President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense
to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be
able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler
of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the
power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by
terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
There you have it.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment