In article <Yv2dnXDnrMsCUlPanZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Henry Alminas"
<halminas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <holman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:holman-0503081525480001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> So - the Kremlin-leaning Helsinkian finds that democracy is
> "inefficient".
Wrong on two counts.
Firstly, I am not "Kremlin-leaning". My point was that the American system
of democracy is not perfect, and that there might be something to learn
from the nascent Russian plebescite-like variant. I was critical of both
of them. Anyone with an historicl perspective can see that the Russian
variant of democracy has sclerosis built into it and is thus ill suited
for responding to rapid and unexpected change.
Secondly, I question whether a system that devotes so much time, energy,
and money to presidential campaigning as the American one does is making
the most efficient use of the resources available to it. A few weeks after
the 2008 campaign has been decided, the 2012 campaign will be starting,
with all in***bants re-electable then devoting some of their efforts to
establi****ng a
popularly accepted legacy rather than to making really tough decisions.
> Dear me - the admirer of the assorted five-year
> plans and centralized rule is now an expert in "efficiency"?!
When was I ever an "admirer of the assorted five-year plans and
centralized rule"? Being serious enough about a phenomenon to do some
serious hermeneutic homework trying to understand it does not make a
person its "admirer".
> I will admit that the tap-on-the-shoulder approach to
> "electing" a president used by the Kremlin does save time
> and money.
Et tu, Henrice!
> The russkies do, however, blow some on the
> accompanying farce they call "elections". Apparently
> the KGBistas believe that this circus in necessary for the
> outside world.
Sorry to have to tell you this, Henry, but the KGB has been extinct for
almost two decades. If by "KGBista" you mean KGB alumni, one point of the
recent Russian electoral exercise was to reinforce the fact that the torch
has passed to a leader free of ties to the former KGB.
As to the former KGB itself, well, it had its share of thugs and committed
its
quota of unspeakables, but all countries have similar organs. The KGB had
enough information at its disposal as well as agents with a sufficient
degree of competence to allow the USSR to be a relatively responsible
member of the world community, to be able to read the writing on the wall
concerning its further impossibility, and not to advocate the use of
megaviolence to prevent its breakup and collapse.
> I seriously doubt that the average russkie
> demands it for it is obvious that whatever comes out of
> the Kremlin - throughout their miserable and bloody history-
> is OK with the serfdom - "out there" - as long as the sausage
> and vodka last.
Russia has a long history of the sausage and vodka not lasting. Today
things are different: vodka and vodka last, and people are switching from
vodka to lighter drinks and including veggies in their diets. There is
also a nation-wide campaign against smoking
(http://www.ceche.org/communications/russian-cancer-cen.html),
a movement
that the international tobacco giants are less than pleased about.
> I am equally amused by the statement that Ron Paul and
> Nader have been "marginalized. How?
You hardly ever see or read anything about them in the mainstream American
media.
> Also why ignore
> little Denis (Kucinich)?
I thought that two examples sufficed to make my point. Additionally, his
surname is too comlex to be easily remembered.
> He certainly made a braver effort
> than did poor old Nader. Once again - Holman - too few
> people were interested in their messages. In a democracy
> that counts for something - despite your "taps".
The Russians could used the same argument about Bogdanov and Kasparov.
> As to your "electoral irregularities" (republican of course)
> - hell, boy, they are going strong - in the Democratic party.
> In fact the Messiah (aaaah - Obama) has just been caught
> with his pants down in Ohio and Texas.
>
> You, I imagine, would say: "So who says that the Demirats
> never learn nuttin?"
No system is perfect, and the American one took almost 200 years to
perfect. When I was a kid my relatives in the southern states were not
allowed to vote, sit in the front of a bus, have a hotel reservation
honored, have their children educated in quality schools, walk, drive, or
travel without being harassed, aspire to middle-class status, or be served
at a lunch counter because they were regarded as second-class citizens. It
took a series of federal laws and demonstrations, some of them violent, to
change that. American democracy has has evolved and will continue to do
so. Rather than knock the Russian variant knee-jerk fa****on, we should
hope that it, too, learns from its mistakes and deficiencies, perhaps
generating some experience that others can benefit from, all while also
continuing to evolve.
That was the point that I was trying to make, your distortions
notwithstanding,.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
|
