A Disturbing Look Into Conservative Extremism

Ron Chusid of Liberal Values has dug up a piece penned by Philip Atkinson of Family Security Matters, one that is, at the very least chilling to the core of anyone who has a healthy respect of our form of government.  It is important to note, as does Ron, that this is not necessarily the viewpoint of anyone significant, and yet it is interesting to look at the center of a certain extremist viewpoint.

It is also far less harmless sounding when matched up with this quote from President Bush back in 2000, “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President for Lfe” Bush, the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

I am, at this point, torn between wanting to allow myself to be baited into arguing this, and letting its own distorted absurdity stand on its own.  For the most part, I feel it necessary to let it stand.  Most criticisms would only be a reiteration of already widely held beliefs and facts that most sane and right thinking people already know.

But on the concept that our democracy is weak because it is forfeit to the whims of popularity, one thing must be said and reiterated for the simple purpose of understanding the true reasons why it is weak, why we as a mass make poor decisions, and to at least touch on the pathways to rectify this situation.

It should be noted now that in Jefforson’s eyes, the success of self-government relied widely upon the concept of a “well informed citizenry”.  That is the key, along with the concept of deliberative debate on how this country should progress with its policies as opposed to the black and white red vs. blue style debate that our country has currently fallen into.

We have severe deficits on both accounts, and as a result, the populism of the public does come with the danger of an uninformed Democracy.  I just finished absorbing Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason, much of which bolsters this argument.  What has led in a primary fashion to the decline of the integrity of our democracy has been ultimately the effects that television have had on our public forum.  This makes sense in so many ways especially when you take into account that Telivision is the single most used means of communication, it is one way, and access to it as a means of dissembling information is limited to a small few.

Our political culture has molded itself to this medium, and thusly suffered.  With no means of useful feedback, and with the market place influences on television and its employers, it is little wonder that true political debate in this country has suffered.  Substance has succumbed to style, reality to subjective truths, and political discourse to marketing strategems.

We look at both George Bush campaigns for the presidency, and there is little wonder why he won both times; the vast media front of his campaign was geared towards manipulation and coercion as opposed to engagement.

How can you engage someone in a two way exchange through a television screen?

So in contrast to the idea of the President just using the military to nuke all the bad guys and establish a monarchy, maybe the way to fix what is wrong is to fix our debate and our political discourse.

I’m just saying.

No Responses to “A Disturbing Look Into Conservative Extremism”


  1. Further Out On The Brink » Comments From Left Field - [...] couple of weeks ago I came across a disturbing essay that sought to install Bush as a permanent president…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook