Let me start off by de-fanging the word "Dictator." There is nothing inherently evil with the word or idea behind being a dictator. Many great cultures have been ruled by dictators and monarchs. In essence, a dictator is just a leader who says to his people, "My job requires me to do things which I cannot, in any effective capacity, do while staying within the law. I'm going to need to be, for the forseeable future, above the law". He rules over a government of men, rather than a government of laws.

The only problem with becoming a dictator is that it has to be done just right. Now, I have no great head for history, but it seems to me that these things have a certain logical progression. There are certain people who don't want a new dictator, and so, a new dictator has to remove that resistance right from the start. It works like this:

1) Military leader comes to town, and sees that he has the biggest military strength in the area.
2) Military leader disarms the people as best he can, by telling them that they will be safer if his army is the only one with weapons.
3) Military leader declares himself above the law.
4) NOW THIS IS IMPORTANT - Military leader disbands all other forms of government, and kills or exiles any people who followed the old government.

Without that fourth step, you're just some guy who can still be prosecuted by the previous government. That step is absolutely critical in solidifying your rule.

So, when a story comes out that says, "George Bush okay's warrentless wiretaps" Congress decides to send a message to Bush by refusing to continue the Patriot Act. In response, Bush says that he did allow the wiretaps, and that he'll do it again. This, in essence, is step three. The president has stated that he's above the law, and not even worried about it.

But he missed step four. Right after saying that he'd continue to allow the illegal wiretaps, Bush should have dissolved the House and Senate, exiled or executed any congressman who resisted, and disbanded the federal court in favor of a national military courtmartial system.

Without step four, he's only a guy who says he is above the law. Like the one crazy guy every year who says he's not going to pay taxes, because income tax is unconstitutional. In those situations, the IRS usually slaps the guy down. Should Bush expect less?

Without disbanding our government, Bush runs the risk of being impeached, or worse, voted out of office by the representative democracy that gave him power in the first place.

I'm not trying to demonize Bush for declaring himself our new monarch. I'm just saying he needs to finish the job. What's the point of being the leader of the worlds most powerful military, and being above the law, if you're not going to declare yourself king for life?
 
   

 


 
 
hdan on
Re: On Being a Bad Dictator
Hear, hear!  No use being a half-assed dicator wannabe.  Look at Iulius Caesar.  He didn't let a little think like threat of assassination keep him from grabbing power!  Of course, he probably should have taken some body guards with him on the Ides of March....  (Note: I am in no way advocating the harm of any politicians.  We have a democracy - if you don't like them, get them voted out.  We're not barabarians!)

 

The Patriot Act was a good attempt to become a Cryptodictator while still appearing to follow the Rule of Law.  (How do you break the law legally?  Pass an act that lets you break the law however you like.)  I'm glad enough Senators came to their senses to see that the administration had no intention of behaving responsibly with its new-found super powers.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed that nothing crazy will happen before the 30th.

 

But like you say, a Dictator is not a priori bad for a country.  The concept of the Enlightened Despot goes back to the Age of Reason.  Many philosophers in the 18th century believed that populist democracy was unworkable, and that it was the duty of the natural born leaders (for some reason, these guys were always the local nobility) to direct society for the gain of everyone.

 

Of course, if your nobility are a bunch of jack-asses, then that theory falls down since you can't vote them out of office. :-)  Thankfully, the founders of our country didn't buy in to that philosophy.

queensfight on
Re: On Being a Bad Dictator
Ha! That's so funny, I just learned about all this stuff in class 2 weeks ago!  Of course, I knew a lot of it all before, but the Enlightened Despot was on a test I had the other day! Ahh well, life is funny that way.

 

Interesting converstation guys.

hdan on
Re: On Being a Bad Dictator
See, all that stupid history stuff can be useful in the real world!  Well, if you don't mind seeming like an overeducated blowhard, that is. :-)
hdan on
Re: On Being a Bad Dictator
(That's me == blowhard, not you, in case I wasn't clear) :-)

queensfight on
Re: On Being a Bad Dictator
Lol you were clear enough, and besides better to be an overeducated blowhard than a ignorant geek, right?  
creativelycrazy on
Re: On Being a Bad Dictator
i would laugh, but it sounds scarily possible.
ever read the mock obituary of bush ?


SEV
gamecoder on
Re: On Being a Bad Dictator
Jeez, that sounds morbid. No, I never did. My guess is that it was written by people who enjoyed doing it.
palyer101 on
Re: On Being a Bad Dictator
I, for one, wholeheartedly support the decision to impeach Bush. 
christa on
Re: On Being a Bad Dictator
Here, here!

 
Login to replyToggle picture size
 

Latest Comment
Re: Ugh. - I think it was started by five guys so I don't see why it's weird. ;)

Read...


 
© 2005-2007 MindSay Interactive LLC
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy
My Account
Inbox
Account Settings
Lost Password?
Logout
Blog
Update Blog
Edit Old Entries
Pick a Theme
Customize Design
Modify Plugins
Community
Your Profile
Wiki Pages
MindSay Tags
Video & Photos
Geographic Directory
Inside MindSay
About MindSay
MindSay and RSS
Report Spam
Contact Us
Help