[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Not the type of answer I was looking for, so I’ll rephrase the question: to what extent are the Democratic and Republican parties faithful respectively to the eponymous principles they purport to represent?[/quote]
Through the lens of Tocqueville, Democrats certainly appear to support equality of conditions and rule by the common. The concomitant disregard for the rights of perceived aristocrats fits in there as well. But it’s a mixed bag, of course, with Democrats and Republicans each latching on to certain rights or ideas of liberty that help define them. Republicans, as the “party of big business,” or as moral legislators, seem to have an aristocratic element. And yet, they lack most of the features of aristocracy that makes it palatable (and indeed, desirable) such as diminished need for lucre and the luxury necessary to form long projects and become more complete human beings.
Both parties appeal to the people under the pretenses of popular rule, both parties will disregard individual rights or the rights of a minority when it suits them to do so. So while there is some loose, superficial correlation, they are both sacks of crap.
Using two articles is only redundant if the articles are understood as such. [/quote]
Fair enough. I understand hoi as an article, therefore the use of an extra article is redundant for me.
The examples I gave are perfectly applicable, in that they are phrases which include a definite article in their original languages, and so do not require an additional one in English. Proper nouns they may be, but if we were to translate the phrases into English they would still require the use of a definite article: the gilded one; the invalids; the leader; the god (…of the Muslims, anyway).
The phrase hoi polloi, translated into English, means “the many.” No additional article required.
Neph, I do realize that this is an old argument, from practically the time of the phrase’s adoption into English, and that my opinion is the minority one. No matter. There is no shame in being among hoi oligoi rather than hoi polloi, particularly when hoi oligoi are correct.
[i]Keating: A moment ago I used the term ‘hoi polloi.’ Who knows what it means?
Meeks (raising his hand): The hoi polloi. Doesn’t it mean ‘the herd?’
Keating: Precisely, Meeks. Greek for ‘the herd.’ However, be warned that, when you say ‘the hoi polloi’ you are actually saying ‘the the herd’. Indicating that you too are ‘hoi polloi’.[/i]
Both parties appeal to the people under the pretenses of popular rule, both parties will disregard individual rights or the rights of a minority when it suits them to do so. So while there is some loose, superficial correlation, they are both sacks of crap.[/quote]
Now that’s the kind of answer I was looking for. Thanks, Neph. Glad to see we agree on something.
[quote]pookie wrote:
This is great. A thread with two of the smartest forum members participating and what do they do?
They argue over the usage of “hoi polloi.”
[/quote]
Haha! Yeah, Pook, the irony did not escape me.
But see, Nephorm and I agreed on one of the main themes of this thread (that both the Democratic and Republican parties in the US are sacks of crap), so we had to find something about which to argue.
So… do you have any opinions about the Rule of the Rabble (or as Neph would say, “the the Rabble”)?
I think there is a distinction between “republican” and “democratic”, but the meaning of Democracy has changed since its ancient usage to mean a form of shorthand to mean a government that has an element of sovereignty residing in the people. That could take on a number of forms, but any government where the people aren’t “subjects” and instead have some level of authority in how they will be governed is “democratic”.
A Republic, of course, strives to eliminate the excesses of Democracy and Aristocracy. Both have flaws in the extreme, both have virtues in the moderate. A Republic, in many ways, is the middle.
Democracy has become more prevalent as education has become more available to more people. As diffusion of knowledge improves, there is less and less need for a privileged few to make decisions on behalf of the many without the many’s input or exercise of power.
Democracy doesn’t have to be perfect - it just has to better than everything else. One great thing about democratic-republican government is its fuel for change is compromise. Change in law should be slow and more transparent. While some of the Progressive zealots suffer a fit of the vapors because laws creating a utopia won’t be enacted right now, others realize that slow, painstaking, compromised change is a direct example of a Republic working like it is supposed to.
So is democracy a good thing? Certainly. Occasionally I hear people complaining about democracy in that the filthy plebians are too stupid to govern themselves and the results they generate are crass, backward, and uninformed. The amazing corollary to that is that these individuals clearly prefer something more monarchical/aristocratic and then always presume - in a fit of overestimating themselves - that they, of course, are part of the brilliant caste of wise men that would do they deciding and not one of the idiots.
Think of it on these forums even - how many people here have said something to the effect that the masses are morons and implying if not outright stating that they aren’t fit to really make meaningful decisions for themselves? Then, of course, each one of these individuals claiming this, if you asked them, would immediately reply that they themselves are not one of the morons - how absurd! What is interesting to me is that you get this from both the Right and the Left.
I find it amusing and telling. A huge percentage of people seem to think they are bright enough to warrant self-government, but no one else is. Hmm. Well, if what they hold is true, not all of us can be Enlightened geniuses.
That aside, I actually believe that democracy does work, and whatever ills that accompany that form of government are far more tolerable than the ills of the other kinds.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That aside, I actually believe that democracy does work, and whatever ills that accompany that form of government are far more tolerable than the ills of the other kinds.[/quote]
Far be it from me to wish for true oligarchical or aristocratic government. I believe, however, that we are best served by a mixed regime which contains elements of aristocracy and thus preserves the benefits of each form of government. I believe the Framers saw this, as well.
The idea of equality of conditions, the concomitant of Democracy, has such a dangerous and seductive power that it must be restrained.
It’s very naive to think the US cares, or ever cared, about democracy. Democracy for Washington, is acceptable only if it approves of the winner. [/quote]
So that’s why the US sets up democracies wherever it goes…Japan, Germany, Italy, France, South Korea, South Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, …
A lot of good men died setting up those democracies, btw.
So that’s why the US sets up democracies wherever it goes…Japan, Germany, Italy, France, South Korea, South Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, …
A lot of good men died setting up those democracies, btw.
[/quote]
Did the US set up democracies in France and Italy? For some reason I thought the French and Italians had done that. And as for South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem was elected about as democratically as Hitler was. With the exceptions of Japan and Germany, in all of the countries mentioned above, the US was more useful in either removing the previous government, or preventing the client regime it had set up from being overrun. Sometimes successfully.
But yes, quite a few men died in the process. On both sides.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
So… do you have any opinions about the Rule of the Rabble (or as Neph would say, “the the Rabble”)?
You bastard.
Haha. Sorry, pal. Couldn’t resist. Pookie makes a good point, though. I wonder if Plato and Socrates would ever quibble over semantics.
[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
4. So is democracy a good thing? Certainly. Occasionally I hear people complaining about democracy in that the filthy plebians are too stupid to govern themselves and the results they generate are crass, backward, and uninformed. The amazing corollary to that is that these individuals clearly prefer something more monarchical/aristocratic and then always presume - in a fit of overestimating themselves - that they, of course, are part of the brilliant caste of wise men that would do they deciding and not one of the idiots.
Think of it on these forums even - how many people here have said something to the effect that the masses are morons and implying if not outright stating that they aren’t fit to really make meaningful decisions for themselves? Then, of course, each one of these individuals claiming this, if you asked them, would immediately reply that they themselves are not one of the morons - how absurd! What is interesting to me is that you get this from both the Right and the Left.
[/quote]
