Starts off great...
Great smile...even-handed presentation.
Then comes the inevitable "Satan/Damien/End-of-World/Apocalyptic" Music...and I said to myself...
"...Here it comes; all the countries' ills blamed on the current President..."
And he didn't disappoint!
De-humanizing loss of free-will? Sigh, slow down with the non-sequiturs my friend. -_-
Gooly, what an inspired individual. I am so glad you showed me that. Now I can drop out of Berkeley, forfeit my PoliSci degree,e and join the right wing anti-Obama resistance. I will do all of this for liberty, the thing I have never heard about because I haven't read Tocqueville's "Democracy in America."
Wait a minute? I have read Democracy in America. I have read, analyzed, interpreted multiple sources that center around the Tyranny of the Majority which was the centerpiece of much of Tocqueville's work, and written several papers on the subject. Fortunately, I have also read James Madison's work, notably Federalist 10 and 51 which describe the mechanics of Pluralism. Mr. Klaven is either ignorant of or is choosing to ignore the tenants of Pluralism in his unsupported and single-sourced argument.
Let me answer Klaven's argument with Madison's philosophy on America's representative government structer. The people in America are extremely diverse and spread across a large enough area that their needs, onions, and philosophies will not be consistent even within a particular party that posses a political majority. (See "blue dog democrats" for an example of this). Political representation in the legislative branch ensures that the aggregate public opinion would prevent any political minority from drafting legislation that would overly benefit any (political) minority. This is an extremely simplified version of the Madison's concept, but his ideas remain congruent within political parties, congressional committees, and even in the Executive bureaucracy.
So Klavan, because the President cannot draft legislation, garner power from Congress, or take away Judicial Review from the Supreme Court, a tyrannical takeover (even an idealistic one) in the current system is impossible.
you're kidding....right? If not you need to take a pretty serious look at the current state of politics.
Much of it was spot on but he loses a lot of credibility with the cast of GOP characters he holds up as defenders of conservatism.
I'm not kidding. This is a complicated and nuanced principle that is very difficult to fully explain in such limited space. Let me give you a historical example of something similar happening in modern America. When Ronald Reagan took the white house from the unpopular Carter administration in 1980, he did so with revolutionary ideas and with overwhelming support from congress and the American people. Did he change America, yes he did. Were his changed beneficial, arguably yes. My point is that Reagan and Obama are very similar characters in American politics, simply at the other end of the political spectrum.
Yeah, my job has me listening to a lot of talk radio and I want to put my fist through the windshield every time I hear them talk to Huckabee, Guiliani or Romney.
I'm reading the latest issue of Science and they say that the government spent $3.99 on every student for every $1 of tuition in the 60s, while today it's $1.79 for every $1.
College grads might not be the best audience for this video.