Hmmm... I'd say that's a weak argument. First of all in practice democrazy is barely more then a dictatorship limited in time.
Please elaborate. Over the last 250 years, the federal government has gained more power (all three branches) but more people have also been enfranchised and the power of party bosses and powerful corporations has been curbed (in the US at least).
Is democrazy a purposeful typo btw? I'm not entirely sure on the gist of your argument, but I will address your points in an effort to understand.
Sure, in a democrazy power should be divided in executive, legislative and judicative, but in reality this doesn't work as it should in theory. I can remember that there was a high judge that got his job, because Bush wanted so.
Hmm? The President has the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court, but the Congress has to approve it. Seems like a good check to me! Is that your only example of how checks and balances does not work?
And there is still corruption. I know that Hungary isn't America, but I don't think things work much better in the US. So, take a look what's going on in Hungary: there are only very few people supporting the current pm now. There were demonstrations against him because he lied just before the elections (and thus got his power in a non-legitim way in my opinion). He lead Hungary into it's ruin, man, we are almost bankrupt! Almost everything he did since the last two years he did without support of the poplation. Normally a pm would give up his job to make it possible that someone else can try his luck. Not so in Hungary. He doesn't give up and the sad is that nobody can force him to (except by a revolution of course, but this is not an everyday method). Do you really think this can't happen in the US?
In Hungary, which is not the US, I would hope the Hungarian people would sweep the opposition into power and give them a mandate to reverse the damage of the previous PM. At least, that's the safeguard. It's not perfect, but I think Mr. PM will be out of office sooner in a parliamentary system than he would be in a dictatorship or whatever your offering as an alternative.
In the US, there have been plenty of bad presidents. It's a good thing he doesn't have supreme power! Usually, the opposition party will win the following election.
Do you have a perfect system in mind where we will never have ineffective rulers? Democratic type systems seek to reduce the damage of such individuals, it does not pretend to altogether prevent them
If you don't then the danger that it will is even greater. And as I have mentioned in my last post there is still propaganda that can be used to change the opinion of the population. Nobody can honestly say he is immune against propaganda. Advertisement is also propaganda and it works. You don't even notice that it does, but it certainly does. I have also read in a forum, maybe even here at the beginning - I don't know and I am too lazy to check, that FDR showed dictatory characteristics. As far as I remember this was written by an American.
FDR showed dictatorship type qualities, correct, in a time of war and economic strife. I'm no FDR apologist. The measures would have been much worse in a non-democratic system, is my argument.
Propaganda is a great weapon, sure, but in a democratic type system where freedom of the press is sanctified and you can depend on a litany of non-governmental sources...it is diminished in effectiveness.
Just another question: did Bush have the support of the american population when he started the iraq war? If not, then this is an example for a president starting a war against the will of the population. If yes, then it shows how you have been manipulated by propaganda. Nowadays it's quite sure that Saddam had no such evil weapons, therefor it was unnecessary to start that war. A secret service then the one of the US should have been able to determine whether Saddam has those weapons or not. I'd say it's almost clear that Bush faked those "proofs". All you have reached is destabilizing the region. Now, do you think people were different in this point 70 years ago? Hmmm... I guess you won't be convinced by what I say since you are from Texas, but who knows? Maybe I have a wrong picture of you?
Ok, I'll answer your questions in order.
Bush had statistical support for the war amongst the American population, yes. It's definitely not clear that Bush purposefully faked the proofs, so much as his administration warped CIA and British intelligence to suit their own agenda and ideological world view. Also, Saddam was no angel and made it easy to manipulate opinion against him. I'm no Bush sympathizer either.
Btw, support for the war had swung radically the other way less than 2 years in. Some propaganda machine!
70 years ago, American propaganda was more successful in the classic sense since the enemies of Fascism & Communism were well defined and easily seen.
I am from Texas, so what? Don't judge a person based on their location, but their arguments.
If there are dying millions of people somewhere on earth it's a problem of mankind, not a plain european.
Hey, don't look at me. I didn't say I agreed with American opinions pre-1942, I'm just saying that it would be hard to change that sentiment without something like Pearl Harbor happening.
What? His only instance of 'breaking the law' was to convince Congress to pass reforms that were later struck down as unconstitutional due to violation of Congress's commerce clause.
