Reader Comments
Issue 101 - February 13, 2008

Editor: I just wanted to drop you a line and say I particularly enjoyed your most recent article, “Conservatives Agree on Democracy?” It was truly first rate. It could not be more timely given the fact we are approaching an administration change. Keep up the good work! Ashley Emans

Editor: Regarding “Conservatives Agree on Democracy?” Madison put his finger to the very heart of the problem with democracy. It is not only NOT the ideal way of Government, but mainly the source of all tragic problems whose stark examples were provide by the 20th and the present centuries. In 1933 Hitler's National Socialists were voted DEMOCRATICALLY and FREELY into power. Quite recently, in Iran the representatives of the ideology (of world dominance) and practice of intolerance, not very different from the National Socialists of the past, have been elected in FREE ELECTIONS. In view of these harsh and tragic lessons of history, do we need to spread democracy throughout the world? The answer is resounding NO!! The U.S. foreign policy must always follow the dictum of Lord Palmerston, who famously said we have no permanent allies and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests. Sincerely, A.Granik, Prof. Emeritus

Editor: The answer to “Conservatives Agree on Democracy?” is short and sweet, and Aristotle said it best: good men can muddle through the worst of constitutions. Bad men can wreck the best of them. Please note the emphasis on the virtuous people everywhere in our history, e.g. Federalist 57. "Diversity" it ain't!! Best, Dr. Christopher Manion, Front Royal, VA

Editor: I do not have a large difference with “Conservatives Agree on Democracy?” when it begins by quoting James Madison on the mischief that can be caused by pure or direct democracy. But still, James Madison, as fortunate as he was in life, did not know the eccentric joys of growing up in my hometown in west suburban Chicago in the 1950s. We had something close to pure democracy in what we called school board elections. They were good old-fashioned neighbor against neighbor blood lettings. So this conservative, like many, harbors some mixed emotions about the different nuances of democratic processes. Director and screen writer Ken Hughes made up an anecdote about Oliver Cromwell that is not true but should have been. Richard Harris, playing Cromwell, has just dissolved the Rump Parliament in 1653 so that Cromwell can appoint himself Lord Protector. Hughes writes a great line for Harris at the end of the 1970 movie: “By God, England will have democracy if I have to rule it myself.” Mark Rhoads, Chicago

Editor: The term "democracy" is used today in varying, inconsistent, and confusing ways. In its broadest sense it means the whole bundle of Western political principles and values to which your essay “Conservatives Agree on Democracy?” refers, including the positing of freedom as the highest political value and the limiting of government through a variety of means, including the rule of law and the establishment of processes by which political decisions are made, some of them involving majority rule and some of them involving other, prudently-selected mechanisms. If that's "democracy", conservatives are for it. In a much narrower, but more original, sense, it denotes majority rule pure and simple, which is quite a different thing. There is nothing inherent in the process of majority rule which limits the subjects on which a majority may rule. Context is everything. Majority rule can be the means by which a free people choose their representatives and legislate on matters that are, by the just consent of the governed, delegated to the majority to decide. Tyrannies can operate by majority rule, too, and as a process of decision-making it may do nothing to protect the legitimate rights of minorities, whether the minorities are defined by religion, race, ethnicity, or anything else, including the individual conscience. Out here on the prairie, by the way, there was a time when we used the word "Democracy", with a capital "d", to refer to the Democratic Party. In those days opposing slavery and opposing "Democracy" went hand in hand. Joseph Morris, Chicago

Editor: I would agree with what you have stated in “Conservatives Agree on Democracy?” The original Founding Fathers of this country would be appalled by what has happened to our democratic government, or rather some of them would have predicted what happened, but all would have been saddened by it. The slow loss of personal freedoms, due to increase in government regulations and the idea that the government has the right to socially engineer society is a far cry from the personal freedom and small government that was established. Furthermore, many governments around the country, from city to state to the federal government, have gone from being staffed by people from industry to professional bureaucrats who have left the ideal of fiscal and personal responsibility in the way that they find and fund projects and legislation. A recent example in Illinois is indicative of the removal of public opinion from tax policies. When the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) was running out of money the state came to the rescue by increasing taxes and fees (predominantly paid by people not living in Chicago). At the same time it was reported that the average wages for the CTA were in the upper end of all transit pay in the country. Nothing was said about cutting waste inside the CTA, reducing salaries or management, or balancing service to reduce costs, the simple answer that most governments are now going to is simply raise fees, taxes, or assessments. The same can be said of the all-too-common practice of charging high or special taxes at airports for car rentals, hotels, etc. in metro areas to pay for civic improvements (i.e. new stadiums generally, or renovations to areas of the metro area not directly at the airport or hotels visitors are staying at). This basically is taxation without representation. With the ability to do this government bodies have been emboldened by the idea that increased taxation can always be justified and easily passed through to an unsuspecting, or increasingly apathetic populace. Keith Donaldson, Buffalo Grove, IL

Editor: I admire Mr. Madison’s words as they are recorded favorably in “Conservatives Agree on Democracy?” However with all due respect, we have been losing our democracy since the days of Lincoln and his autocratic rule during the civil war (or properly, the war between the states")--suspension of habeus corpus the ordering of Justice Taney's arrest, the illegal war and invasion of another sovereign state, the illegal drafting of men for the war the summary shooting of deserters during said illegal war. Although we have been taught in school that Lincoln freed the slaves, he did no such thing. Teddy Roosevelt was no better, declaring a war against a weak nation such as Spain just to take away their territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean. To say nothing of Mr. Bush’s illegal war in the Middle East or Nixon’s war in the far east. There is nothing in the Constitution that approves of welfare, social security, income tax, the Federal Reserve or any of the alphabet soup departments like the IRS, FBI, BATC, FEMA, etc. With the exception of a few terms in between, we have had very little democracy since Lincoln. I won't even begin to soil this diatribe with the terrible Democrat Presidents who were possibly worse! CS

Editor: I am damn tired of this "Democracy" nonsense language. What ever happened to the "Republic"? Democracy, Democracy; it is the next step to socialism. Using the term democracy does nothing more than steer people away from the founding of this nation as a REPUBLIC, A SOVEREIGN REPUBLIC. Maybe I am too damn patriotic but that is the way I see it! Bob Copley

Editor: “Conservatives Agree on Democracy?” The problem with this country is that since Ronald Reagan our last real republican ,we have elected only liberal internationalist that are committed to bringing this country down and bringing us into the world government. Now we have three more in line for this job. What we need is a real conservative. Is there one out there? Ron Paul would have gone a long way in straightening out our problems but the government news media complex did its job by demonizing him out of the race. Support John McCain if you must but me, no way. Gary Norman

Editor; Regarding your “Conservatives Agree on Democracy? We have voted in a government that is rotting at the core, appointing Godless Judges who throw reason out the door. You think GOD is not angry that our land is a moral slum? How much longer will He wait before His judgment comes? Smoky K

Editor: Hey Guys and Girls, Why don't you get it straight for once and for all. This great country is NOT A DEMOCRACY! This great country IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC! The very word DEMOCRACY (rule by a majority) is totally repugnant to our CONSTITUTION, OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, AND OUR CITIZENS. Our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC (rule by our Constitutional Law and through the Citizens) is what our founders intended. I get disgusted when people who purport to know what's going on bandy this word Democracy about and delude others into thinking that this is what our country is. If conservatives don't truly know and tell people what this country is, then we are in real trouble. Susan Improta

Editor: Daniel Pipes has the nail hammered square-on in his “The Family Affiliation Culture.” Nothing short of a complete reform of Islam across the board, coupled with an equally complete demolition and reconstruction of Middle Eastern culture from the foundations up will even begin to "make things better." The question is: Do we have the will and the wherewithal to go through with it? A good question. Does anybody out there have a good answer? Regards, William Barry, Wake Forest, NC

Editor: I want to commend you for publishing this superb piece, Chris Robling's “Remembrance of Lev Dobriansky.” Writing like this is all too uncommon these days. Thank you. Robert W. Smyth, Jr., Chicago, IL

Editor: regarding Thomas Lindaman’s “Is the Problem Us?” I have been voting for about 40 years. I don't ever remember an election where there was no one to vote for. Voting in 2008 will be voting for the lesser of two evils. I have talked to a lot of people who say the same thing--all rah rah rah.. and avoid the real issues that anger Americans. It reminds me of Ross Perot when he described 'sound bytes'. I sure wish Ross Perot were campaigning this year. MG, FL

Editor: Regarding “Debating Future Conservatism,” our party’s been successfully hijacked by those we thought we’d vanquished in 80, 84, and 94: the country club Republicans and the mainstream media. As detestable as McCain is, we can’t allow the Dems to claim any further foothold – i.e. the White House – and we still must support local officeholders who will return the party to greatness and America to its prosperity that can only be enjoyed under a conservative regime. If we don’t, we’re doomed to another couple of decades or more of socialistic misbehavior. We’re the party of honest optimism, not false hopes. Remember what Ronald Reagan said over 20 years ago: “Whatever history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, nor your worst fears; to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with Liberty’s lamp guiding your steps and Opportunity’s arm steadying your way.” Jim McAlister, Tampa, FL

Editor: Regarding “Debating Future Conservatism,” I cannot figure out why some Conservatives seem to abide a Hillary or an Obama while pillaring John McCain. I am 64, I cast my first ever vote for Barry Goldwater. I was a foot soldier in the Young Republicans and YAF while living in NYC, voted for William F. Buckley for Mayor and marched in support of the Vietnam War before I was drafted to serve. I have more "street cred" as a conservative than just abstract passionate beliefs. I don't agree with John McCain on all of his positions but agree with the Liberals on NONE of their positions. He would simply be a better President for OUR COUNTRY than either of them would be. That should be enough for people who profess high principles and love of country above all. Would I like to have a more energetic, youthful, appealing, dynamic, charismatic conservative as our nominee? Sure! Am I going to get one this time around? No! Do I pout about it, stamp my feet, whine and stay home on election day? I think not! Not me! This is a crucial election on our history and we have to keep the Liberals out of government AT ALL LEVELS! To cut off "my nose (candidate)" to spite my "face (country)" is a uniquely Liberal tactic. I will not allow them to be my teacher! I will not emulate the nearly treasonous America-hating crowd of politicos on the other side. They MUST be stopped in this election. This is one conservative who will not only pull the lever for McCain and all other Republicans, but will talk up the vote proudly and enthusiastically. To do anything else would betray my roots and my strongly held convictions that my country counts above anything else. John Nevola

Editor: Senator McCain stated he needs the support of conservatives, and I hope your organization will not accommodate him. Gov. Huckabee would be a better choice, Romney would be the best. Fran Rafanovic

Editor: Re “Debating Future Conservatism,” I understand the gnashing of teeth in regards to McCain's social agenda. I disagree with him on immigration, global warming, Gitmo and energy policies along with some other things. I join organizations because they believe in the things that I believe in. I don't join them for any other reason. As a staunch conservative the simple fact is, although not perfect, in a two party system the Republican Party holds closer views to my ideals than the Democratic party. I don't quit organizations because they go astray. I try to redirect them back into the norms from which they strayed. Not to vote for someone that believes at least 75% the way you do is foolish. Not voting and allowing someone else be elected to the office that doesn't believe the way you do at all is just plain suicide. So conservatives need to get a grip and work on McCain to move him our way. He is a politician and understands the winds of war when they are blowing in his face by his party base. If McCain wants to win in November he better wake up to the fact that it is not the independents or moderates that will work to get the vote out it is the conservative base. Independents are just that! They don't take sides or push a candidate they just vote. The same is mostly true with moderates. The low turn outs on the Republican side during the primaries and caucus's attest to that fact. If McCain's advisors are dumb enough not to select a conservative VP the base turnout will be low and John will loose. I will vote for the Republican nominee but my lack of enthusiasm will not bring out other voters. He needs to reach out to the party’s conservative base or unfortunately his arrogance and distain for conservatives will impact the voter turnout. I would hope what happened with his amnesty bill gave him knowledge and not resolve to get his way. His advisors need to set aside the cool aid and recognize without his conservative base he is a goner. Dean Jenniges

Editor: Regarding “Debating Future Conservatism,” I cast a "vote-by-mail" in the California primary a few weeks ago for Ron Paul, the only Republican with whom I had substantial agreement (including getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible) among all the stodgy candidates in the race. Bill Boerum

Editor: Regarding “Debating Future Conservatism,” Democrats voted 14 million in Super Tuesday turnout and Republicans 8 million. Since the McCain-Feingold bill overhauling campaign contributions, Democrats are reaping donations with a virtually similar 2 to 1 advantage...and McCain calls himself a conservative. In 2000 Bush set a record drawing in about $80 million in donations. Today Obama raises that much in 3 months. And isn't it funny that McCain's bills always have a Democrat attached (Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry). Is McCain a mole? Al, Lemon Grove

Editor: Regarding “Debating Future Conservatism,” John McCain is not a conservative candidate, and I will not vote for him. He votes with Democrats too often to be a true Republican, and as far as I am concerned bi-partisan is another word for collaborator. He will never get my vote. He is no better than any "other" Democrat as far as I am concerned. Any Republican who co-authors a bill with Ted Kennedy is my enemy!!! Leo Ryan