Yeah, but those “selfless precious few” hated democracy with a passion, equally if not more, as corrupt tyrannical dictators and went to great lengths to avoid it, the whole constitution and separation of powers, electoral college, independent judiciary, and on and on is constructed for this reason.
What’s wrong with any of those things? The only questionable thing I can think of is the electoral college, and even that made sense at the time. How are they an example of power corrupting? They show that the founders didn’t want a pure democracy but who does? It would be a disaster.
Francisco Franco although a fascist and was pretty much determined to hang on to power he did’nt go to extremes with his authority.
He groomed the present king of Spain, Juan Carlos, knowing that when he (Franco) died the country would revert to a Monarchy and it would be in good hands.
I wonder if Nava would agree?
That is after the fact reasoning, Franco expected the King to follow his footsteps, He already knew that some secret and open surveys showed that the socialists would be a big force in a general election.
And it is hard to go to extremes when at the beginning Franco virtually killed all opposition. Nevertheless many groups had their language and culture repressed during Franco’s regime.
What I do remember is that the King was being taught by Franco an the elite to follow a similar path.
Quoting Wikipedia because this time it is sourced and it fits what I remember from reading the history:
What I do remember is that it was the King deciding not to support the coup what surprised many, but by then it was clear that change was coming, via violence or democracy, even a King can see the writing on the wall.
A country is generally a big thing, and any government is going to have thousands (at least) of bureaucrats, local administrators, police chiefs, military officers, and so forth. Regardless of how pure-hearted you are, it’s naive to believe that you could pick only pure-hearted people to hold all these thousands of positions. No matter how hard you tried, many of these people would either start out corrupt or become corrupted and misuse their authority. Furthermore, there’s no way that you alone could monitor every one of these thousands and efficiently replace of the bad eggs with good people.
Democracy gives the people a fighting chance at removing corrupt government officials at every level, from the top to the bottom.
I too appreciate Guevara (and the Castros too on very limited information.) A story you might like, probably apocryphal, is that Castro, shortly after the revolution asked the assembled gathering "who here is an “econ9omist?” Guevara raised his hand and thus became the economic director of the fledgling state. Guevara is supposed to have said “economist?” I thought you said “communist.” (I would guess that Castro was familiar with his background but who knows, not me.)
On the other issue how about Tito? His people always seemed to be fond of him.
Of course not.
You’re looking at reality from an ‘Alice Through the Looking Glass’ point of view.
In the real world, those who seek power tend to be corrupt.
Those who seek absolute power tend to be absloutely corrupt.
When you have accepted this alternative view of reality, Shamozzle, you will have learned. 
simon bolivar?
I suppose it depends on who you rely on as an unimpeachable source of information.
By ‘position of authority’, perhaps you mean your hero, Che, performing the kind of stuff described in this article?
Che Guevara: Assassin and Bumbler
Oh, what the hell. He’s a working class hero, after all. His heart was in the right place. :rolleyes:
He was only doing it all for freedom, liberty and justice. 
Not so, compadre? 
I actually wanted to make the same point. I guess there have been a few cases where near-absolute power suddenly fell into the hands of somebody who hadn’t actively sought it (e.g., the Emperor Claudius), but usually it came through either an anticipated succession or a ruthless campaign. In the modern U.S., I don’t see how you could run a successful presidential campaign while remaining completely honest, so a little corruption is required from the start. And I’d bet that that current President has always held his stated view that being a leader means you don’t have to explain what you do.
Why does this always happen with Che Guevara, specifically? It was the same thing when Bricker wrote his Staff Report on him. WhyNot clearly said she didn’t like him, but she had to give him credit for this tiny little thing. Somehow you turn that into “Che Guevara was a great human being deserving of a million blowjobs”.
I’m astounded. 
Did you read my post?
Pliz look up ‘irony’. Find yr own link. 
I noticed the irony. I would have even without the dozen emoticons. My point was that WhyNot said “I don’t like him, but this little thing I must give him credit for” and you responded as if she had said “He’s absolutely wonderful”.
Well, let’s have another look at what WhyNot actually said.
If you cannot see the hero worship of that murderous thug, Che Guevara, that are contained in those comments by WhyNot then we don’t really have much to discuss. 
If you can read the words “I don’t like a whole lot about him and his methods” and see hero worship, then we do indeed not have much to discuss.
And if you can read the words:
and not see admiration for that murderous thug, then you’re right. We don’t have much to discuss.
But who cares.
Let WhyNot tell us both how much he admires that murderous thug when he visits the SDMB again. 
Seriously, what the fuck, man? I don’t know how I could have been more clear than “I don’t like a whole lot about him and his methods”. So I’ll just have to conclude that your reading comprehension skills are incredibly lacking. I have not one iota of hero worship for Guevera, and am rather amused and filled with contempt by the young neohippie types (many of whom are my friends) who wear t-shirts and display flags with his picture on them without really knowing who he is.
Switch to decaf, seriously. When you froth and foam, it makes people not listen to you. Admitting your opponents might have some admirable qualities is a sign that you’re a rational human being capable of reason; no one is completely and utterly contemptible, and to suggest otherwise means you’ve been hoodwinked and are not a source of logic or reasoned debate.
Even Hilter was a master of rhetoric and a skilled motivational speaker. Go on, tell me I’m a nazi now.
“A bit of respect” != “admiration” or “hero worship.”
Stop yanking our chains and quit hijacking the thread to indulge your narrow biases.
I should point out that Guevara leaving Cuba was not necessarily a voluntary move. Around that time Castro was purging his government of anyone he saw as a potential threat, and while Guevara was not particularly popular he did have a very loyal military following. Guevara likely saw himself as in danger and left Cuba as a result. Proof of this was when Fidel made public the letter that Guevara had written, just in case he was caught. The letter was not meant to be made public, and by releasing it Fidel essentially exiled Guevara.
So no, Guevara did no leave to be a poor fighter, he left to be a live fighter.