Provincial idiocy

[fpb]

MEMO: To all American conservatives.

If you want to get anywhere with anyone, you have to get the hell out of your own ignorance comfort zone. To wit, you have to stop talking as though everything that can be called socialism must, by that alone, be the same thing as the perversions of Lenin and Mao. Every European democracy has experienced decades of Socialist (Social Democrat or Labour, if you prefer) rule, and while I have nothing but contempt for such people as Zapatero of Spain or the Norwegian Labour Party, only the most moronic of ignorami could possibly equate them with the murderous rabble that tore Russia apart long ago and feasted upon Cambodia's blood. That sort of talk, which is universal in American conservative circles, makes it simpy impossible for Americans to understand Europe; even those among us who voted for Berlusconi, Merkel, Sarkozy or Aznar would laugh in the face of any American who insisted - as you people happily insist to each other, taking irresponsible pleasure in reinforcing each other's ignorance and prejudice - that even Zapatero is anything comparable to a tyrant. Worse still if, God help you, you take the suggestions I have seriously seen them waved about the blogosphere, that tyrants such as Salazar or Pinochet are better than democratically elected socialists - even if incompetent. If you insist on this sort of talk, I can promise you that you will remain nothing but bogeymen and hate figures to all Europeans, including conservatives, and most if not all citizens of democratic countries from India to Japan and from Argentina to Canada. America is the only democracy in the world in which it is assumed that a socialist cannot be a democrat. This is an instance, not of democracy, but of provinciality and groupthink. And I do not have to have any sympathy for socialists to say so: all I need is a little common sense.

Comments

[kgbman.livejournal.com]

Fair enough if you disagree. California is the closest thing to a pure democracy in the United States and it's been an unmitigated disaster. IMO, I think it's far more important to ensure the voting population is of good moral character than it is to expand the franchise as far as possible, and I'd support some form of moral screening before allowing anyone to vote. Testing directly for moral character would be a difficult business to be sure, but I've often thought restricting the franchise to the married-and-never-divorced heads of households with at least one legitimate child might be a reasonable proxy.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Switzerland is a lot closer to direct democracy than California is and works well. I think New England still has town meetings, I don't think California is much closer to direct democracy than other states are; initiatives and referenda are fairly common in the US. I've heard Oregon ballot budget measures have to come with an attached tax increase to pay for them.

As for your "moral" test... never mind.