Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
With Democracy or Against It -- There's No In Between
In America, politicians are rarely compelled to turn rhetoric into action. Presidents make public commitments to support legislation while quietly instructing their congressional allies to kill the corresponding bills. Congresspeople then campaign on policy proposals only to make sure their respective presidents veto the initiatives.
We all know this game -- we know its rigged rules ensure plausible deniability and prevent follow through. But as the Mideast showed this week, just because those are our rules doesn't mean everyone plays by them.
That's what the Egyptian protests against U.S.-backed dictator Hosni Mubarak really represent for us: a poignant demand that we actually embody our democratic creed -- a demand whose response shows an American government desperate to avoid walking its talk.
Remember, President Obama told a Cairo audience in 2009 that America would unequivocally back Egyptians' democratic aspirations. Citing our nation's history being "born out of revolution against an empire," he said: "We will support (democracy) everywhere."
That declaration, while admirable, was hardly courageous because it was presented as a foreign-policy version of an American campaign promise -- that is, it was issued by a politician who never really expected to be asked for attendant action. In fact, the Obama administration was so certain it wouldn't have to embody its platitudes that it was actively slashing grants for democracy-building in Egypt while maintaining military aid to the Mubarak dictatorship.
As if deliberately bragging about this disconnect between pro-democratic rhetoric and undemocratic reality, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Arab television: "I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family."
Those "friends," of course, fired "USA"-labeled tear gas canisters at the very democratic protestors America promised to support. As the demonstrations persisted, Obama discarded the bromides of his Cairo speech and refused to press for Mubarak's immediate resignation. He then dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to both praise the despot as an "ally" and tell reporters to "not refer to him as a dictator."
Following suit, Clinton said that despite America's stated commitment to democracy, "we're not advocating any specific outcome." When asked whether the administration was at least backing away from her BFF Mubarak, Clinton was reduced to Rumsfeldian incoherence, insisting that "we do not want to send any message about backing forward or backing back."
This left Egypt's Nobel Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei to humiliate our equivocating leaders by stating the obvious: "The American government cannot ask the Egyptian people to believe that a dictator who has been in power for 30 years will be the one to implement democracy."
Despite the indisputable truth of ElBaradei's words, politicians and pundits has mostly defended the administration's behavior. From neoconservatives to Obama loyalists, the mediascape teems with those arguing that though we want democracy, we might have to continue propping up autocrats because democracy could elect regimes we dislike.
But that's the rub: Just as you cannot be sorta pregnant, you cannot kinda support democracy, and only when it does what you want. That's not "supporting democracy"; that's imperialism. Indeed, the ideal of self-governance is as uncompromising as America's views on terrorism: You're either with democracy, or you're against it -- and as Martin Luther King noted, we are too often against it.
Echoing President Kennedy's aphorism that "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable," King warned in 1967 that while our country once "initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world," we were becoming "the arch anti-revolutionaries." That reality has sowed predictable anti-Americanism among populations we've helped subjugate.
Now, though, we may see some much-needed change. With Cairo protestors so blatantly exposing our hypocrisy, we could end up shamed into finally living our democratic values -- and fulfilling Dr. King's dream.
139 Comments so far
Show AllWhat on earth leads Mr Sirota to believe that we here in the US have a democracy or that our "leadership" supports it anywhere?
We really need to stop with this pablum-speak.
general: i couldn't agree with you more
i reamed this guy steve on another post today about the same issue generally - in his case he was making the observation that "the people are the government" - and i called him by pointing out that the government doesn't give two shits about steve or you or me and that they are not "us"
i am amazed that there are so many people still deluded by the myth of democracy in amerika - or even the myth of democracy itself
as noam chomsky pointed out the other day on democracy now - the amerikan government HATES democracy - simple as that
we support brutal tyrants like mubarak because they are willing to kill their own people for zion and for goldman sachs
in fact we are the ones who put them in charge
we like our murderous dictators
it was very telling that mubarak got the bigggest support this week from the zion murderer bebe netanpoopoo who warns that freedom in egypt could seriously hinder the genocide of the palestinians
what a guy
he was lobbying for his favorites arab traitor
so much for democracy in egypt
so general i am with you - i am sick and tired of these gatekeepers and their bullshit articles about how we are at the moment of decision
fact is right now we are at the moment of decision when barry mubarak soetero is trying to figure out who to assassinate and which stooge they are going to slip into the presidential palace in cairo after this turd there now is flushed down the toilet of life
dream on david sirota - and if you ever meet a journalist willing to tell the truth about democracy in amerika please help him to get an article posted
do something positive
I agree with general that we have no democracy here, not even a representative "republican" one, but this sort of sentiment from you:
"i reamed this guy steve on another post today about the same issue generally - in his case he was making the observation that 'the people are the government' - and i called him by pointing out that the government doesn't give two shits about steve or you or me and that they are not 'us'"
I hear this sentiment a lot, and the way it parses for me goes something like this: "I am waiting for the government to figure out that it works for me and then to start behaving more democratically so that my rights will not continue to be violated."
If that's not what you're saying, I apologize. If that IS what you're saying, maybe you should stop reaming out bloggers about their mistaken defense of the status quo and start asking yourself why you're still sitting around waiting.
If this government does not represent you then by definition it is an occupying power working against you. Do you like being occupied? No? Then why do you allow it?
We scream at the government to ban all weapons, then we scream at the government because it didn't ban its own weapons and now it is making us go along with its imperialism and rights violations at gunpoint and there's nothing that we can do about it.
Or maybe there *is* something. And maybe I'd go to jail for elaborating further. You have an imagination. Use it. At the minimum you could start refusing to go along with the status quo. Because if you wait for the government to come to its senses and finally realize democratic utopia in this country, you'll be in your grave and forgotten before that comes to pass.
Remember that we live in a country where if you want to protest the ruling parties, you must do so from inside a fenced and guarded area, and you will be investigated, and possibly have your computer siezed and searched. If you want to protest the theft of public property and money to the benefit of huge corporations (G7, WTO, etc) you will be tear gassed and arrested if you don't stay in the compounds errected for you.
Imagine if 100,000 people protesting military spending occupied the national mall for 5 days building baracades - how long before they would be swept out?
Realistically, they would never have the chance to get organized.
With the provisions in the USA PATRIOT ACT, all e-mail, cell phones, text messages, etc. are monitored, parsed, logged and fed into the massive DHS database looking for 'terrorist' flag words. SO any attempt to organize such an event would be snuffed out with pre-emptive arrests and detention while the Authorities 'investigate' those involved. Why do you think there has been so very little effective social protest in the last ten years? Because the organizers get warned off by Government thugs.
Why do you think so many social activists in the US have been receiving so many 'official' visits from the FBI recently?
There is a just as draconian crackdown on freedom going on in the US as there is in Egypt. And exactly like Egypt, it is receiving little or no official play on the Media.
Freedom? Don't make me laugh.
Galenwainwright, good point!
When the corporatist media report with distain that Mubarak has kept his country under a 'State of Emergency' for years, they never think to mention what you said about the damn Patriot Act --- which as you note is the same damn thing.
As you conclude, "Freedom (and democracy)? Don't make me laugh."
Best,
Alan
Alan and Galenwainwright,
Excellent observation!
In the animal farm the sheep still grazing peacefully while the pigs go about the States business. As I preparing this posting, with Aljazeera tuned on. The pigs are busy deciding the fate of the Egyptians. Look like the protest in the Freedom square fail and Hosni Mubarak will remain, while Pathological Liar preparing hands pick replacement for the Egyptians. I feel the pain as I hear an Egyptian beg Pathological Liar to ask Mubarak to leave in the foreground.
George Orwell, you are truly genius
The porcine
Clean and noble beasts
Compared to US
Rapacious
Vile, Violent, Viscious
You've never heard of writing on paper, I take it. Or using snail mail.
Better yet, you don't know anyone who has a job that effectively makes them nomadic (i.e., truck driver, but there are lots of others) where you could make them your courier and send messages around through them?
God forbid, that system of organization would require people to meet face-to-face and learn to trust one another. I've spent too much time around leftists making attempts at "community" not to laugh hysterically at that image. It won't happen. But if it did. We don't need electronic ANYTHING to organize. Look at what we used to accomplish before we caved in to Big Brother and let him spy on us. There is not a single solitary communications device able to be monitored by DHS that we are legally required to purchase.
That's the loophole. That's where they effed up, and that's where we could win. If the organizing takes more time, so what?
The historical precedent for this would be the tent city of the WWI "bonus march" demonstrators who set up shop in Washington DC in the late twenties or early thirties. Most of them were angry, disenchanted veterans of the Great War, and their cause enjoyed substantial public support and sympathy in tough economic times.
I don't know exactly how long the bonus marchers were there before they were swept out, but swept out they definitely were. I believe the lead general tasked to kick out this upstart rabble citizenry and tear down the vets' encampment was the illustrious General Pershing.
If 100,000 people camped out this spring on the national mall for five days building barricades and demanding cuts in Pentagon spending to focus upon domestic economic needs, who do you think would lead the military crackdown?
Probably McChrystal. Petraeus is preoccupied.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill
The incident you describe served as the opening to William Manchester's monumental study of American history in the 20th century...The Glory and the Dream.
The general who bludgeoned the vets seeking relief was Douglas MacArthur.
As always, the military served that day as the muscle for the capitalists.
MacArthur, with the help of Patton and Eisenhower, routed the Bonus Army's encampment in 1932. MacArthur used the calvary and 6 tanks to oust WWI veterans and their families from DC. Hoover had ordered the police to evict the Bonus Army from their encampment but they failed even after killing two WWI veterans. Patton ordered the calvary to charge the bonus Marchers.
After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, an arsenical vomiting agent, entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling this exercise was a Communist attempt at overthrowing the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Fifty five veterans were injured and 135 arrested. A veteran's wife miscarried.
This is how we honor our veterans in America.
Might help if al Jazeera were here, giving a different perspective to what's going on - especially regarding protest movements (that have been brutaly squashed for many years). MSM is frightening - when you can even bear to watch it - just like Egypt's State-TV.
What on earth leads generalcommentator to believe that David Sirota believes that we have a democracy or that our "leadership" supports it anywhere?
What Sirota actually said is that our leaders are hypocrites who SAY they support democracy but in fact undermine it both at home and abroad.
What Sirota actually said is that Obama spoke nicely about supporting democracy at his Cairo speech while in fact at the same time increasing financing to Egypt's anti-democratic forces.
What Sirota actually said is that our leaders lie about what they support in elections.
Where in the world did generalcommentator get the idea that Sirota was spouting some kind of pablum that our leaders are true democrats?
That's what I was thinking. DS, I believe, has always unambiguously been one of the good guys. Just because he's not ready to light the molotov cocktail doesn't mean he's the enemy.
Lib
I am so fed up with the use of the word democracy to describe any of the realities extant in the world today that I'm afraid I didn't read Mr Sirota's piece dispassionately enough.
You are correct...I misread the article. Thanks for the correction.
Generalcommentator!
I am so impressed with your humility and ability to correct yourself! Wow. You are unusual.
You know I agree with your criticism of our government, I just didn't think Sirota was on their side but ours. I feel much better now that you read the article more closely and have come to the same conclusion. Thanks!
When Obama or any other Washingtonian insider speaks of "democracy",
What they mean is that they think anyone who can make money for private profit in whatever means necessary is equal to anyone else who can make money for private profit.
That is also what they mean when they speak of "human rights."
When John McCain called the current uprisings "a virus", he could and should be seen as a spokesperson for the "government" of the United States.
Anything remotely just and egalitarian is seen by the U.S. capitalists as a threat to the status quo.
Bingo!
Your incisive comments are reminiscent of the scene in the magnificent film A Man For All Seasons [1966] when Thomas More [played by the incomparable Paul Scofield] addresses Cardinal Woolsey [played by Orson Welles]:
"When statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos."
"Erroll"
That quote is very interesting and needs very careful interpretation.
Perhaps, I could counter with,
One man's "chaos" is another woman's liberation.
If I may be permitted to say, I find your comments regarding the line delivered by Paul Scofield in A Man For All Seasons to be utterly baffling. I wrote that line of dialogue to illustrate how it seems to reflect what so many leaders around the world elect to do and that is to use their power in order to benefit their own nefarious ends such as the current situation in Egypt with Hosni Mubarak. This being the case, I have absolutely no idea how you are somehow connecting Thomas More's statement to Cardinal Woolsey to women's liberation.
"Erroll"
I am trying to show that when some people say "chaos" they are trying to affect our perception as to what we are seeing and to show that this is also true (however un-intentioned) when we say "man."
I was not aiming my reply specifically at you.
The important thing, to me, was how that quote can be interpreted in a variety of ways because of its wording.
Private/public conscience/actions delineation/obfuscation.
Is A Man for All Seasons also the movie which contains the marvelous passage about religious zealotry - the imagery of the self righteous crusader who will cut down all the trees and brush in the forest in his mad pursuit chasing the Devil, only to suddenly discover in horror that there is nothing left to shield him when the Devil stops, turns, and confronts his pursuer face-to-face?
Bill from Saginaw
"William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
Sir Thomas Moore burned his share of heretics at the stake.
Typical Sirota, stuck in the past along with the fols at "The Nation"
How is Sirota stuck in the past?
LibWingofLibWing, I think I have to agree with you, that Sirota is still kinda hip.
In fact, when I read his line "We all know this game -- we know its rigged rules", it made me think of this old hipster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUfS8LyeUyM
Although this video montage of the same song is somewhat dated, and needs to be up-dated with pictures of Obama and Mubarak shaking hands, Hillary 'war goddess' Clinton lying and glaring at the camera like Cheney, and, of course, all of the Democrat's retreaded neo-con banksters and warsters like; Tim Geithner, and Bob Gates added to the montage of crooks and killers, and to add more Afghanistan killing instead of the old Bush era Iraq war death photos, since "Everybody Knows" that NOTHING HAS 'CHANGED':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h27HRNm_r4U
Best,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
"Democracy over Empire" party headquarters
PS, And talking of democracy, here's the old hipster who still has real hope of democracy over Empire in the USA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHI9BTpGkp8&feature=fvw
I'd say Sirota is pretty much on target. We saw him play a major role in the Ned Lamont campaign here in CT. He did a bang up job exposing the LIEerman.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0721-21.htm
Come on y'all. Where are the rest of you (Siouxrose, Mentula Secunda, jclientelle, aussidawg, Elizabet, curiosteve, politicojunqui. tioche, etc.) who should be jumping on the bandwagon, denouncing the U.S. as fascist, undemocratic, racist, etc. (Actually, the U.S. is a federal republic, not a democracy, but no matter.)
So are you opposed to democracy?
Sorry, I forgot to put you on the list.
As to democracy, for the United States, I prefer our federal republic to a democracy because it allows for regional representation. A pure democracy (e.g., all Senators elected at large) would favor the cities and hurt the rural areas, favor the coasts over the middle of the country. I can live without that notwithstanding the apparent inequities -- e.g., Wyoming and North Dakota each has the same representation in the U.S. Senate as California.
A republic is a democracy, and not knowing this basic fact speaks to your own illiteracy.
The genesis of the "it's a republic, not a democracy!" argument as a way to avoid supporting democracy is, like most bullshit, a relic of the 50s.
For those of you who don't read anything beyond the drudge report (that means you, Horace), the difference between a republic and a democracy is simply the language of origin of the two words. THEY ARE IDENTICAL IN MEANING.
One is derived from ancient greek (democracy) and the other, Latin.
We refer to this country as a republic because we copied largely from the Roman structure (representative democracy) as opposed to the greek city-state arrangement (direct democracy with limited participation). But they are both democracies, and both were designed to meet the same end.
Wikipedia says the following:
"A federal republic is a federation of states with a republican form of government. A federation is the central government. The states in a federation also maintain the federation. Usage of the term republic is inconsistent but, as a minimum, it means a state or federation of states that does not have a monarch.
"In a federal republic, there is a division of powers between the national 'federal' government, and the government of the individual subdivisions. While every nation manages this division of powers differently, national security and defense, monetary policy, and other issues of a 'national' scope are handled at the 'federal' level while more local issues such as road and infrastructure maintenance and education policy are handled at the local level. In other words, while the federal government has ultimate sovereignty, there is a limited sovereignty granted to the subdivisions, where the federal government does not have jurisdiction. This is in contrast to a unitary republic whereby the national government has complete sovereignty over all aspects of political life, with purely administrative subdivisions, and a confederation whereby the constituent states retain ultimate sovereignty. The form of government is used by many countries around the world."
What I meant in distinguishing between a federal republic, such as ours, and a democracy is that, in the latter case, the public gets to vote directly for President and Vice President (instead of electing electors to the Electoral College) and the election of Senators is based on an equivalency of voters -- so that the voters of a less populous state than California do not get proportionately more representation per capita in the Senate. As it was, the United States moved closer to a true democracy upon the ratification of the seventeenth amendment in 1913, before which U.S. Senators were elected by the state legislatures.
In any event, we have a federal republic, in which power is shared between the federal government and the states and, pursuant to the tenth amendment, all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government under the U.S. Constitution are reserved to the states.
In any event, don't refer to anyone as illiterate unless you know what you're talking about, you worthless dirtbag.
Horace resorts to name calling and ad hominem attacks because he lost the argument. So sad.
Newsflash, douchebucket: Wikipedia is about as authoritative as my shoe.
But thanks for confirming my comments.
Here's a quick primer on American politics 101. And you won't be charged (seeing as how I'm not a capitalist):
The system you refer to is called "federalism". It has no relationship to "democracy either conceptually or structurally. Its existence neither confirms nor denies the democratic nature of a government. It is simply, as you describe, an apportionment of governmental power and could exist in *any* system not centralized at th very top, from theocracy to constitutinoal monarchy.
Your attempt to distinguish between the two is false. So if you want to defend federalism as its own system, that's fine. It is a form of check and balance. But it has no bearing on the attempt to discredit democratic rhetoric by claiming "we're a republic!" as you did in the post I responded to.
And for the buttmonkeys who contribute to Wikipedia, try checking proper sources before you conflate federalism and republicanism in an attempt to discredit democratic impulses in the American system. This is why no one with a clue would even *think* about using WIkipedia to defend a point such as this and why instructors generally don't accept it as a source in a paper.
For something a bit more authoritative than Wikimadeupia, try reading Bob Dahl's On Democracy. He explains this in language even you could understand--illiterate.
Love, Worthless Dirtbag.
Seriously, I'm still laughing that almighty, erudite Horace came waltzing in with the Grand Sword of Wikipedia. Dude, go read an actual book.
Just thinking off the top of my head, doesn't "republic" come from an old roman/latin phrase, something like "res publicum", meaning something like "things (issues, policies, etc...) concerning the public"? And the "public" can be all the adult population at large, OR, a more exclusive group of "qualified" citizens that got to ponder upon, and decide "things" (issues,policies, etc...)? I think there are examples of "aristocratic republics" in history. One that comes to mind is "the serene republic" of medieval Venice (neither serene, nor a reblublic IMO; just a powerful, wealthy mafia where "the dons" and "capos" decided things).
That "res publicum" phrase might have meant "the resolution of things concerning the public".
you introduce the complication of citizenship here: what constitutes the "public" and what doesn't.
nevertheless, res means 'rule by' or 'rule of', as it's kin Rex means 'ruler'.
this doesn't discount the original proposition of democracy, since the demos in Athenian understanding also meant a specific portion of the population that would have been considered "the people", and this is why the assertion made by Horace is false. Your example *also* translates equally well to the Athenian model, which would have used the word democracy. Both limited citizenship to a smaller sliver of the population, as did the US upon founding. But this being true doesn't make the term republic different from the term democracy. It just means there has been historical variation in who, exactly, constitues "the people" or, as you say, "the public".
Interestingly, the same eternal franchise battles that have been waged here were also waged with great ferocity in Rome and to a lesser extent in Athens and subsequent city-states who adopted some of the Athenian model. For example, merchants were excluded from the class of citizens eligible to rule in Athens--would that such were the case today!--because mercantilist tendencies were seen as too deeply selfish to be virtuous enough to exercise full citizenship...:) So the Greeks weren't completely off base! But rich merchants fought back, as they did in Rome.
Thanks for the reply. Informative. When I think about it, "democracy", or "the people rule"; what are they ruling over? Things concerning the the public, or people. What else? So yeah, republic and democracy mean the same thing. Thanks.
lnb February 4th, 2011 11:30 pm
I don't think the Latin origin is historically correct since Plato wrote the Republic about 300 years before Roman civilization. If my memory serves me correctly, in the Timaeus, Plato says that Solon, the Archon of Athens who introduced democracy to the city state of Athens learnt the basics of it from the Egyptian priest scribes at the city of Sais in the Nile Delta, near what is now Alexandria. He puts the date around 600BC.
Isn't it amazing that a great democracy demand is rising from the inheritors of Egyptian civilzation who are now demanding their ancient Democracy Rights of Man which they taught to the Greeks who then taught it to the rest of the Western World by implemneting it in direct election form. Romans, I believe, introduced the electoral senate which became the rubber stamp organization for the Ceasar military type dictators who took over Roman civilization much like the MIC has taken over Amerika.
Peace
Hmmm... The completing of great circle/cycles? Not at all linear, but cyclical as the Hindus would have it said? We've been this way before...and before...and before?
Horace February 4th, 2011 12:45 pm
Horace - More referred to as a "Federal Constitutional Republic" you are correct.
Change the states then. Redraw the state lines just like we redraw congressional districts from time to time to represent changes in population that require changes in representation in the House.
It's not that big a deal. The only limitations against it are in our own minds. States are an imaginary game anyway. Redraw the map, change the game.
If some random person lost their job and couldn't find another, someone like you would be all over them to get an education or move to another town or otherwise think outside the box, ANYTHING to keep you from having to pay their welfare check. But when this nation is faced with intractable problems that only thinking outside the box can solve, someone like you digs in his heels because God forbid your comfy little reality should ever change.
If it were up to me we wouldn't be a huge nation-state taking up one-third of a continent and stretching from sea to shining sea. We're too big, we'll never be anything *but* diverse and as a result, someone is always going to get screwed under our present form of government. It simply doesn't work. It might have worked had we stayed at thirteen colonies up and down the East Coast, but we couldn't stomach the thought of anyone but us owning land in North America and we paid the price.
Yeah - it's a shortcut. You know we mean 'republic' versus 'direct democracy' - but that's not clearly stated, and it should be. Many people do not support a direct democracy because the possibility of 'mob rule' can color referendums (not to mention the inherent prejudice against rural regions), but I'm not sure that's true since most people who bother to vote at least have a political opinion.
The rise of 'know-nothings' scares some of us - traditional conservatives, mostly, but the US 'Left' is also worried by the Tea Party movement (Koch mob). I'm not crazy about parlimentarian models either, but they may be a better alternative to what we have. We really need to consider what kinds of governments are effective all over the world - this nonsense about having the best is just that - nonsense. There has to be better alternatives to what we have, since it's obviously not working for ordinary people.
With respect, direct democracy was discussed and rejected not in principle of "mob rule" per the two federalists who tried to make that argument (Hamilton, Jay and to a lesser extent, Madison who wound up backpedalling anyway), but because of its obvious lack of utility in a nation state. it was primarily a technological objection as much as anything else, although it would be correct to suggest that direct democracy would pose a franchise problem for the federalists who supported limited electoral participation.
My objection to Horace's comments stems largely from the fact that the canard of "republic versus democracy" was intentionally engineered in the educational overhaul in the early 50s specifically to respond to the post war claims by marginal groups for civil rights on the basis of democratic participation (sparked initially by the Gilliam report in 1948 advocating integration of the military).
Whenever a right winger uses this phrase, their intent--conscious or not--is to minimize the legitimacy of claims for greater access to political power from marginal groups.
I was not aware of the context. In the future, I will refrain from using this inflammatory comparison, since the words seem to be loaded. Thank you.
Thanks for tolerating my pedantry here. Horace tripped an old peeve of mine that I have a special dislike for given the historical damage this little turn of the phrase has done.
Your posts are really good, and I apologize for stepping on you here. Not my intent.
No, I'm glad to have the input. I come from an immigrant community and am not always familiar with the American context. I certainly don't want to use inflammatory language so appreciate when anyone points this out. I know I usually am the first to insist that we say what we mean and choose words carefully, but words evolve, and phraseology has particular connotations that may not be evident at first. (Such as the 'State's Rights argument, which I honestly didn't know applied to slavery.)