Hmmm. Bread and Circuses, anyone? Didn’t that have some bearing on the downfall of previous democracies? (except democracy means forever, doesn’t it?)
Seems to me that one of the things that could cause people to rise up is if they start to feel that all the options are equally bad and against them.
That’s one of the things people have to get over… the thought that voting for another option cost someone the election. Voting for another option is the only thing that will get a party’s attention, (it’s the only interaction the majority of people have with their representation anymore.) But, instead of saying, “why are people voting for them? Why did they see us as just as bad as our hated rivals?” they whine, “you cost us the election.” No, your policies cost you the election. If the party had been representing the people they expected would vote for them… those people would probably have voted for them. And I think it’s only by losing votes that a party will ever change their ways. A vote for a party never changes it. They think everything is hunky-dory if you vote for them; “no need to change, we already have that vote locked up…” The “you have to vote for us or the ‘evil’ guys will win” syndrome just leads to apathy and parties that aren’t responsive to the public. And that’s when revolution begins to be a risk.
Not saying one is on the horizon. Just saying that the current whine of “we don’t have to change to represent you, you have to vote for us anyway or the ‘evil’ guys will win,” is one of the stages to it.
Obviously an overstatement, but it’s true that the democratic process can be a steam valve on issues that could lead to revolutions under other systems of government. People described the Tea Party as a revolution (although that was largely self promotion) and that was only a transfer of power in state governments and one chamber of Congress. That should give you some idea of what people think of as revolutionary in the U.S.
That was sarcasm, and Ancient Rome was not a democracy. And I don’t know if your view on Rome is accurate.
That’s true. Certainly a lot of people feel that neither of the major parties has their best interests at heart. But in a multiparty system (even with only two major parties) it’s difficult for that many people to decide all the options are equally bad.
You know, once I had seen a comic strip online of photoshopped world dictators, cringing in fear of computer mice scurrying on the floor, The reason I say photoshopped is because they would allow themselves to be seen in poses of fear, However the pictures tend to imply that the dictators of the world fear the Internet, which I don’t think is true, because they are supposed to fear nothing. Do they have anything to be afraid of?
You are talking as if dictators are created in factories and are all the same, and where did you get this idea that dictators are not supposed to fear anything?
Well, I know that oppressors fear the very people that they oppress, and treat them all as potential traitors, and give them the “guilty until proven innocent” treatment, and act as if they are in control of everything, because they usually are.
How do you know that? This feels like easy pop psychology. Being a dictator doesn’t mean fearing no one. Usually it means doing anything possible to stay in power, and that can mean disposing of anybody who might become a threat. Does it matter if they’re fearful or just nuts?
The internet was a critical piece of the revolutions in the Middle East this year, and in Iran in 2009, so yes, the 'net can be a useful tool in situations like this. But smarter dictators and despots can also use it to their own ends, so it’s not like internet = freedom hooray.
Queen Victoria. Louis XIV. Fredrick II. Cyrus II. Emperor Meiji.
I’m not sure that I would agree with everything those monarchs did (just as I don’t agree with every action of any democratic country), I think they are generally recognized by history and making substantial contributions to their countries and people, and to history in general.
The way I actually know this stuff is because I’m a very hard person to fool. I paid attention in history class while my classmates text about who’s dating who, I was watching war documentaries while they watched American Idol, or or Big Brother.
Cite? This is really tangential to the thread topic, but your statement was that dictators are fearful. The fact that they’re generally unkind and unjust does not say anything about their fearfulness or lack thereof. As a rule, you get to be an oppressor by killing and intimidating people and you stay on top by killing and intimidating people. Does it matter if you’re doing it because you are “fearful?”
I don’t doubt your studious nature. I, too, paid close attention during my master’s studies in international history. However, my outstanding grades do not mean that I am never in error.
That’s why I find it helpful to offer supporting evidence of my arguments and conclusions, rather than relying on other people’s awe of my considerable intellect, in order to resolve disagreements.
This is really tangential to the thread topic, but your statement was that dictators are fearful. The fact that they’re generally unkind and unjust does not say anything about their fearfulness or lack thereof. As a rule, you get to be an oppressor by killing and intimidating people and you stay on top by killing and intimidating people. Does it matter if you’re doing it because you are “fearful?”