Friday, July 19, 2013

‘America does not have a functioning democracy at this point in time’

Got to give Jimmy Carter credit. He’s no theologian — like North Vietnam apologist Jim Wallis, a venerable bishop of the Cathedral’s dominant Christian heresy, quitting the Southern Baptists (remember when he courted the evangelical vote in ’76 because he was one of them, getting laughed at for confessing lust in his heart?) and telling the church to ordain women, and likely one of the Cathedral’s canonized saints once he passes on — but is in part a gentleman from the old America (Annapolis ’46), renowned for his charitable work, with the honor to confront the current régime on wrongdoing. Seemed like the Pope Celestine V of presidents; good men don’t necessarily make competent rulers. Maybe like Nixon going to China, Carter, because of his credentials, can get away with this.

Here’s Justin Raimondo on Carter’s latest.

4 comments:

  1. I haven't read Raimondo in a while. This column reminds me again why he's a good writer.

    However, I don't think either Raimondo or Carter want to acknowledge the fundamental problem: there's really no way to have a functional, transparent democracy in a State which rules over 300 million diverse, even antithetical, people.

    The very authoritarianism ('totalitarianism' is the more accurate term) which Raimondo goes on about is the only thing holding the whole mess together.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but. European immigrant people and cultures made America great; our WASP hosts made, by last century, a great home for our churches, but if you take your line to its logical conclusion, the Arabs who brought your church here would not have been welcome. You know I agree with you on the civil war between whites; the Tutsi elite want to replace the prole Hutus with 'diverse, even antithetical people', thinking they're well off enough not to be hurt by the consequences.

      Delete
    2. Point taken, but that's a whole other debate.

      America with an Anglo-Saxon supermajority didn't require whole Cabinet-level departments tasked with equality of outcome or an enormous national surveillance state. That's the price of diversity, which isn't working out so well for the Rum in the Middle East either.

      Delete
    3. America with an Anglo-Saxon supermajority didn't require whole Cabinet-level departments tasked with equality of outcome or an enormous national surveillance state. That's the price of diversity, which isn't working out so well for the Rum in the Middle East either.

      Yep. Equality of outcome is of course unfair. Regrettably, Americans don't know or care about the Rum.

      Delete

Leave comment