Mediaboss Marketing

The Demon in Democracy Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies, by Ryszard Legutko, translated by Teresa Adelson, New York:

Encounter Books, 2016, 182 pages, hardcover.

The aftermath of last years presidential election in the United States has been marked by violent protests by individuals who are unwilling to accept the results of the constitutional election process. For the protestors, the election results have disrupted their belief in the irreversibility of that which they deem to be "Progress"; that is, the march toward a post-modern West, where socialism, collectivism, and political correctness rule without challenge. For many conservatives, the shock is seeing the widespread sentiment among so-called Millennials (and others) in favor of anything that attacks the foundations of our civilization, including the intellectual incoherence of trumpeting LGBTQ rights in the same breath that one advocates for unrestricted immigration by Muslims coming from countries that punish homosexuality with the death penalty.

Now, a new book by Polish author Ryszard Legutko sheds light on such phenomena. The Demon in Democracy Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies is written by a man who brings a wealth of practical experience and intellectual reflection to the examination of the troubles that haunt the West. Legutko is a professor of philosophy at Jagellonian University and has served in several high offices in the post-communist Polish government, as well as currently serving as a member of the European Parliament. His experiences under communist rule and during the decades that have followed have given him the opportunity to weigh the differences and similarities between communism and "liberal democracy." As the author notes at the beginning of his book,

This book is about the similarities between communism and liberal democracy. The idea that such similarities exist started germinating timidly in my mind back in the Seventies of the last century, when for the first time I managed to get out of communist Poland to travel to the so-called West. To my unpleasant surprise, I discovered that many of my friends who consciously classified themselves as devoted supporters of liberal democracy of a multiparty system, human rights, pluralism, and everything that every liberal democrat proudly listed as his acts of faith displayed extraordinary meekness and empathy toward communism. I was unpleasantly surprised because it seemed to me that every liberal democrat's natural and almost visceral response to communism should be that of forthright condemnation.

In this regard, one might think of the experiences of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and many other dissidents and defectors, which parallel those of Legutko, that gave rise to the term "anti-anti-communism" to describe liberal democrats. As those who lived through the 1970s and 1980s might well remember, the European and American political elite quickly rejected those who escaped from the Communist bloc if such dissidents had the "audacity" to argue that the failures and horrors which were commonplace under communism pointed to a fundamental problem with socialism and communism as a whole.

For Legutko, a significant contributor to the commonality of mindset between Communists and liberal democrats is a shared understanding of "historical process":

Three common threads occurring in Marxs works have their counterparts in the liberal and democratic tradition. There is a belief in the unilateralism of history, leading inevitably and triumphantly to the era of perpetual peace, or, in other terms, to the refinement of commerce and cooperation that humanity will reach due to the victory of freedom over tyranny. Another is the equivalent of deliberate human action, albeit not run by the party, but by active entrepreneurs and all types of freedom fighters, as well as the distinguished minority groups, elite and enlightened rulers who will prepare humanity until now apathetic, enslaved, and ignorant for the new reality. The third topic mankinds achieving maturity and intellectual independence is usually described in simpler language than the German-Romantic used by the young Karl Marx and amounts to a promise of a modern society liberated from ignorance and superstition.

Like the Communist, the liberal democrat believes in the inevitability of history, meaning any and all means are justified to accomplish that inevitable future end. From such a perspective, as Legutko notes, Both communism and liberal democracy are therefore perceived from an inside perspective as having no alternatives. The only change that one could imagine happening was one for the worse, which in the eyes of supporters meant not a slight deterioration, but a disaster.Thus one can readily see the reason for the unhinged hysteria on the American Left: Any notion that a new president will not continue the march toward the triumph of democratic socialism is not a slight deterioration, but a disaster.

Legutko recognizes that the current liberal democratic mentality is a perversion of the earlier ideal it is an abstraction no longer rooted in the earlier virtues of the Christian West. Thus, for example, Legutko declares:

The portrayal of liberal democracy as a realization of the eternal desire for freedom is very popular, almost verging on a platitude, especially in recent decades. This picture is false. First, liberalism was certainly not the only orientation expressing the desire for freedom, nor was it particularly consistent in this devotion. The supporters of republicanism, conservatism, romanticism, Christianity, and many other movements also demanded freedom, and did a lot to advance its cause. If freedom as we understand it in Western civilization is not only an abstract value, but has a concrete shape well-grounded in institutions, social practices, and mental habits, then the contribution of liberalism is one of many, far from decisive. It is hard to imagine freedom without classical philosophy and the heritage of antiquity, without Christianity and scholasticism, without different traditions in the philosophy of law and political and social practices, without ancient and modern republicanism, without strong anthropology and ethics of virtues and duties, without Anglo-Saxon and continental conservatism or many other components of the entire Western civilization.

Legutko recognizes that by rejecting Christianity after having marginalized the classical heritage Europe, and indeed, the entire West not only slides into cultural aridity, a process noticeable for some time, but also falls under the smothering monopoly of one ideology whose uniformity is being cleverly concealed by the deafening rhetoric of diversity that has been pouring into peoples minds at all occasions and contexts. Christianity, he declares, is the last great force that offers a viable alternative to the tediousness of liberal-democratic anthropology. As the idolatry of liberal democracy proves itself to be as much an act of vanity as all other forms of idolatry, the Christian verity remains to offer the same hope and promise that it has proclaimed across the ages, precisely because it recognizes the fundamental limitations of human beings. As Legutko concludes:

Whether the future of human history will add some new chapters, we cannot say, but such a scenario seems upon the authority of common sense likely. But the issue is not that new impulses, fashions, mood swings, major events, and other unpredictable factors will always emerge to affect the course of history and peoples perception of it. The real change will come only when the current view of man spends itself and is considered inadequate. Only then will other stories develop or be revived the former as a result of new experiences, the latter as a result of reactivating the long-dormant areas of collective memory allowing a different look at human fate and the dream through which individuals and communities express their aspirations.

Perhaps the long story reaching denouement in its last chapter that modernity divulged to us is not just one of many stories that can be replaced by another, but a basic truth about modern man who, after many adventures, downfalls and ascents, exultations and tribulations, after following many chimeras and surrendering to many temptations, finally arrived at the accurate recognition of who he is. If this indeed were the case, then further fundamental changes in human history would no longer be possible, except for the worse. Such an eventuality would be, for some, a comforting testimony that man finally learned how to live in a sustainable harmony with his nature. For others it will be a final confirmation that his mediocrity is inveterate.

The Demon in Democracy is worthy of thoughtful consideration by all those who wonder at the cause of the current troubles of the West, and seek the way back to civilizational sanity.

View original post here:
A Review of "The Demon in Democracy" - The New American

By Douglas M. Gibler and Kirk A. Randazzo By Douglas M. Gibler and Kirk A. Randazzo February 17 at 6:00 AM

President Trumps executive order suspending travel for those who hail from seven primarily Muslim countries quickly landed in the federal courts. Many decried this action as unconstitutional, and several federal judges (both Democratic and Republican appointees) ordered an immediate halt to its implementation. And on Feb. 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down a sweeping judicial ruling that halted enforcement of the ban and the president tweeted his impatience with its skeptical questioning of his authority.

Behind this turmoil stands an important constitutional question: Is an independent judiciary good for the long-term health of the republic?

Here we briefly review the evidence, and investigate whether the judiciary can remain independent despite the highly polarized political environment in the United States.

Why is an independent judiciary important?

One reason is that a majority of any nations population may not always respect democratic principles. Judges are installed to protect democracy and fundamental rights, rebuking the other two branches of government if they go beyond their authority, even with a majority mandate.

Consider one of the reasons that democracies backslide into authoritarianism. After a country is rocked by economic and political shocks, citizens often seek strong leaders who promise to rescue them and who use their populist popularity to increase their power. Threats from other countries (or in this climate, terrorism) may be one reason these populists ask a powerful leader to do what it takes to protect them. Economic threats (such asrapid, trade-induced change) can have the same result.

[Its not just Trump. Authoritarian populism is rising across the West. Heres why.]

The problem, of course, is that strong leaders are generally forced to move slowly in democracies that favor deliberation, consensus and power diffused among many stakeholders. Those leaders may try to eliminate checks on their authority so they can take action with popular support even if loosening those checks may put at risk freedom, liberty, civil rights and so on.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution feared the vagaries of popular opinion. Many democratic theorists point to these inclinations as a reasonthat judicial independence from the elected branches of government is so important arguing that courts are mostly immune from short-term shifts of popular opinion, and that the judiciary can block the executive if it tries to grab too much power.

[This is why authoritarian leaders use the Big Lie]

But is that theory correct? Yes. Thats what we found when we examined the evidence in detail, examining 163 countries (including the United States) from 1960 to 2000.

We examined these nations after they faced the two main sources of threats to democratic stability: First, slow growth and economic change, and second, threats from rival countries or other bodies. Nations that had an independent judiciary were more likely to remain democracies even when times were troubled.

Democracy did not predict the existence of an independent judiciary the two are distinct concepts but independent judiciaries did help prevent democracies from backsliding into authoritarianism.

When countries had had independent judiciaries for at least two years (any less and they didnt prevent authoritarianism), they rarely succumbed to creeping authoritarianism.

In fact, independent courts were extremely important in stabilizing democracy.Often they were they only factor that made the difference between democracy and authoritarianism. The courts were more likely to prevent executive overreach and consolidation of power than other governmental institutions, most especially the legislature.

One of the reasons for the effectiveness of courts is that judges are able to justify decisions against the executive in terms related to the constitution or the rule of law. The use of legal explanations (rather than political arguments seen in legislatures) increases the likelihood of compliance with a court decision.

Courts ability to stay independent rests on three factors

First, public belief that courts are legitimate; second, political elites respect for their authority; and finally, healthy political competition within the democracy.

First, judges understand that their authority rests on the public trust. Thats why, in the United States, the Supreme Court rarely ventures too far from public opinion in its rulings. Courts political power comes directly from public support.

Second, judges authority rests just as much on political elites respect for their legitimacy. That may be one reason that Trumps Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch took the unusual step of saying it was demoralizing and disheartening that the president had been tweeting criticism of the 9th Circuit hearing on his immigration ban.

Third, our research has also found that the judiciary is more likely to stay independent when a nation has healthy political competition. The courts can protect leaders who are voted out of office from retribution by the new government; they also guard the rules for free and fair competition, protecting all sides. This explains why, for example, although candidate Trump pledged that if elected he would jail Hillary Clinton, he backed off after the inauguration. No political side wants to support a system that could be turned against the next political loser in any future election.

[The Supreme Court will examine partisan gerrymandering in 2017. That could change the voting map.]

What are the threats to the U.S. judiciarys independence?

The new administration is not well ensconced within the party system. There are few signs that the administration cares whether the parties will be able to compete freely and fairly in future elections or whether the system tilts permanently. Such an attitude breaks down the idea that courts must be protected as an insurance policy for all political sides.

Trumps attacks on so-called judges attempt to undermine courts popular legitimacy. Thathas happened before, of course. President Andrew Jackson famously taunted and defied Chief Justice John Marshall when he stated, John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! But the Worcester decision that he referred to was handed down almost 200 years ago, at a different time in our politics and even then, the potential crisis fizzled without a direct showdown between the branches.

Judicial independence is good for democracy. Legitimacy and support from political leaders help maintain that independence. Attacks from political elites can seriously endanger threats to a key component of long-term democracy.

Douglas M. Gibler is a professor of political science in the Institute for Social Science at the University of Alabama. He is the author of several books, including The Territorial Peace: Borders, State Development, and International Conflict.

Kirk A. Randazzo is a professor of political science at the University of South Carolina. He is the author of several books, including Defenders of Liberty or Champions of Security? Federal Courts, the Hierarchy of Justice, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Follow him on Twitter @Kirk_Randazzo.

See the article here:
Can the courts protect democracy? Yes, but they need these three supports. - Washington Post

HONG KONG A Hong Kong court jailed seven policemen for two years each on Friday for beating a handcuffed activist during democracy protests in 2014, a rare case of police brutality in the financial hub that triggered public outrage.

The beating happened on Oct. 15, 2014, at the height of the 79-day protests that paralyzed parts of Hong Kong and posed one of the most serious political challenges to Communist Party leaders in Beijing for decades.

The policemen were filmed dragging the handcuffed protester, Ken Tsang, to a dark corner near the protest site, where he was kicked and punched repeatedly as he lay on the ground.

District court judge David Dufton, who had earlier found the policemen guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, sentenced all seven to two years in prison, saying they had "brought damage to Hong Kong's reputation in the international community".

There had been no justification for the attack on Tsang, he said.

Despite pleas for mitigation from the officers' lawyers, Dufton said imprisonment was appropriate. Dufton acknowledged, however, that the "Hong Kong police were working under great pressure" to maintain order during the protests that blocked major roads for almost three months.

Tsang, a social worker, suffered face, neck and shoulder injuries. He was handcuffed with plastic ties at the time, although the court heard he had earlier thrown some liquid at police.

Some of the policemen, dressed in dark suits and ties, were stern-faced while others smiled at family members in the gallery after sentencing.

Some in the gallery cried, while a few people cheered.

Tsang described the ruling as a "small victory for civil society in the fight against police violence" and said the people of Hong Kong should fight on for full democracy.

Supporters of the police outside the court said the sentences were unfair.

Heavy-handed policing is rare in Hong Kong and the case triggered public outrage and deepened tension during the protests in which clashes erupted occasionally.

Hong Kong reverted from British to Chinese rule in 1997 under a "one country, two systems" formula that accords the city a degree of autonomy and freedom not enjoyed in mainland China.

China bristles at dissent, however, especially over issues such as demands for universal suffrage.

Many in Hong Kong are increasingly concerned about what they see as Beijing's meddling in the city's affairs. Unease about the future has stoked protests and has even led to calls for independence from China.

(Writing by James Pomfret; Editing by Paul Tait, Robert Birsel)

BEIJING Three Chinese warships on Friday wrapped up a week of scheduled training exercises in the South China Sea, state media said, shortly after China's sole aircraft carrier tested its weapons in the disputed region.

MOSUL, Iraq When the boys first arrived at the Islamic State training facility in eastern Mosul they would cry and ask about their parents, who went missing when the militants rampaged through northern Iraq in 2014.

BEIJING China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi met U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Friday on the sidelines of a meeting of foreign ministers of the G20 top economies in the German city of Bonn, the official Xinhua news agency said.

Here is the original post:
Seven Hong Kong policemen jailed for assault on democracy activist - Reuters

There is an enormous paradox at the heart of American democracy. Congress is deeply and stubbornly unpopular. On average, between 10 and 15 percent of Americans approve of Congress - on a par with public support for traffic jams and cockroaches. And yet, in the 2016 election, only eight incumbents eight out of a body of 435 representatives were defeated at the polls.

If there is one silver bullet that could fix American democracy, it's getting rid of gerrymandering the now commonplace practice of drawing electoral districts in a distorted way for partisan gain. It's also one of a dwindling number of issues that principled citizens - Democrat and Republican - should be able to agree on. Indeed, polls confirm that an overwhelming majority of Americans of all stripes oppose gerrymandering.

In the 2016 elections for the House of Representatives, the average electoral margin of victory was 37.1 percent. That's a figure you'd expect from North Korea, Russia or Zimbabwe not the United States. But the shocking reality is that the typical race ended with a Democrat or a Republican winning nearly 70 percent of the vote, while their challenger won just 30 percent.

Last year, only 17 seats out of 435 races were decided by a margin of 5 percent or less. Just 33 seats in total were decided by a margin of 10 percent or less. In other words, more than 9 out of 10 House races were landslides where the campaign was a foregone conclusion before ballots were even cast. In 2016, there were no truly competitive Congressional races in 42 of the 50 states. That is not healthy for a system of government that, at its core, is defined by political competition.

Gerrymandering, in a word, is why American democracy is broken.

The word "gerrymander" comes from an 1812 political cartoon drawn to parody Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry's re-drawn senate districts. The cartoon depicts one of the bizarrely shaped districts in the contorted form of a fork-tongued salamander. Since 1812, gerrymandering has been increasingly used as a tool to divide and distort the electorate. More often than not, state legislatures are tasked with drawing district maps, allowing the electoral foxes to draw and defend their henhouse districts.

While no party is innocent when it comes to gerrymandering, a Washington Post analysis in 2014 found that eight of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the United States were drawn by Republicans.

As a result, districts from the Illinois 4th to the North Carolina 12th often look like spilled inkblots rather than coherent voting blocs. They are anything but accidental. The Illinois 4th, for example, is nicknamed "the Latin Earmuffs," because it connects two predominantly Latino areas by a thin line that is effectively just one road. In so doing, it packs Democrats into a contorted district, ensuring that those voters cast ballots in a safely Democratic preserve. The net result is a weakening of the power of Latino votes and more Republican districts than the electoral math should reasonably yield. Because Democrats are packed together as tightly as possible in one district, Republicans have a chance to win surrounding districts even though they are vastly outnumbered geographically.

These uncompetitive districts have a seriously corrosive effect on the integrity of democracy. If you're elected to represent a district that is 80 percent Republican or 80 percent Democratic, there is absolutely no incentive to compromise. Ever. In fact, there is a strong disincentive to collaboration, because working across the aisle almost certainly means the risk of a primary challenge from the far right or far left of the party. For the overwhelming majority of Congressional representatives, there is no real risk to losing a general election - but there is a very real threat of losing a fiercely contested primary election. Over time, this causes sane people to pursue insane pandering and extreme positions. It is a key, but often overlooked, source of contemporary gridlock and endless bickering.

Moreover, gerrymandering also disempowers and distorts citizen votes - which leads to decreased turnout and a sense of powerlessness. In 2010, droves of tea party activists eager to have their voices heard quickly realized that their own representative was either a solidly liberal Democrat in an overwhelmingly blue district or a solidly conservative Republican in an overwhelmingly red district. Those representatives would not listen because the electoral map meant that they didn't need to.

Those who now oppose President Trump are quickly learning the same lesson about the electoral calculations made by their representatives as they make calls or write letters to congressional representatives who seem about as likely to be swayed as granite. This helps to explain why 2014 turnout sagged to just 36.4 percent, the lowest turnout rate since World War II. Why bother showing up when the result already seems preordained?

There are two pieces of good news. First, several court rulings in state and federal courts have dealt a blow to gerrymandered districts. Several court rulings objected to districts that clearly were drawn along racial lines. Perhaps the most important is a Wisconsin case (Whitford v. Gill) that ruled that districts could not be drawn for deliberate partisan gain. The Supreme Court will rule on partisan gerrymandering in 2017, and it's a case that could transform and reinvigorate American democracy at a time when a positive shock is sorely needed. (This may hold true even if Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court, as Justices Kennedy and Roberts could side with the liberal minority).

Second, fixing gerrymandering is getting easier. Given the right parameters, computer models can fairly apportion citizens into districts that are diverse, competitive and geographically sensible ensuring that minorities are not used as pawns in a national political game. These efforts can be bolstered by stripping district drawing powers from partisan legislators and putting them into the hands of citizen-led commissions that are comprised by an equal number of Democrat- and Republican-leaning voters. Partisan politics is to be exercised within the districts, not during their formation. But gerrymandering intensifies every decade regardless, because it's not a politically "sexy" issue. When's the last time you saw a march against skewed districting?

Even if the marches do come someday, the last stubborn barrier to getting reform right is human nature. Many people prefer to be surrounded by like-minded citizens, rather than feeling like a lonely red oasis in a sea of blue or vice versa. Rooting out gerrymandering won't make San Francisco or rural Texas districts more competitive no matter the computer model used. And, as the urban/rural divide in American politics intensifies, competitive districts will be harder and harder to draw. The more we cluster, the less we find common ground and compromise.

Ultimately, though, we must remember that what truly differentiates democracy from despotism is political competition. The longer we allow our districts to be hijacked by partisans, blue or red, the further we gravitate away from the founding ideals of our republic and the closer we inch toward the death of American democracy.

---

Klaas is a Fellow in Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics and author of The Despot's Accomplice: How the West is Aiding & Abetting the Decline of Democracy.

See the original post here:
Gerrymandering is biggest obstacle to genuine democracy in US - MyStatesman.com

Longing for the Kennedys and the days of Americas past glory.

by Tyler Malbreaux | 2/17/17 12:30am

In a 1963 interview with Life magazine, the newly widowed Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy reflected on her husbands days in the White House. At night before wed go to sleep, Jack liked to play some records; and the song he loved the most came at the end of this record. The record she referred to was the soundtrack of Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewes broadway musical, Camelot.

Dont let it be forgot / That once there was a spot / For one brief shining moment that was known / As Camelot.

There will be great presidents But therell never be another Camelot This was Camelot Lets not forget, Jackie Kennedy said.

The splendor of King Arthurs fictional realm is comparable to the magnificence that described the Kennedy Era. Unofficially, it was Americas royal family, with its most prominent member commanding from the great white mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue. At his side was the gracious and exquisite wife, descended from a lineage of wealthy socialites from the Hamptons. Together, they symbolized an America that previous first couples could not. Their lives pointed to an optimistic vision of the future, a vision in which theories of exceptionalism were finally realized. In the Kennedy era, the American empire seemed to be an unstoppable force for good, yearning to bring peace and prosperity to every corner of the world.

Most importantly, though, America was the foremost exemplary democracy. The different parts of the system would work harmoniously to create equal opportunity for every social class and racial group. The postwar expansion period was the largest economic boom up to that point, with standards of living even for blacks, women and the poor rising across the board. Political capital slowly shifted away from the hands of white males, as social justice movements gave minority populations new voting power. And even in the fog of the Cold War, the United States still commanded a nuclear arsenal unlike anything the world had ever seen. In short, Kennedys empire was vast, prosperous and protected, just like the fictional Camelot.

But like any good fairytale, there is a point where reality begins to destroy the facade of perfection. The head of the worlds empire of democracy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas in 1963. Five years later, Robert F. Kennedy, his younger brother and a leading candidate for the Democratic Partys presidential nomination in 1968, was killed in Los Angeles, California.

Indeed, the American public (at least, some of it) reflects wistfully on the Kennedy days, especially since the current president is the antithesis of grace and poise. The office of the presidency is insulted, daily, by a man President Donald Trump who refuses to respect the institutions made long before him. He is a man who cannot comprehend the importance of the words uttered at the bully pulpit. Our president is now a man who refuses to even tell the truth. This is not just the deterioration of the presidents office. This, in all likelihood, is the degradation of American democracy.

Larry Diamonds article in the Journal of Democracy best captures the threat facing Western democracy. He calls this new authoritarian trend democratic recession. Diamond describes an alarming trend in rate of global democratic growth. Around 2006, the expansion of freedom and democracy in the world came to a prolonged halt. Since then, there has been no net expansion in the number of electoral democracies, which has oscillated between 114 and 119, resulting in a decline in both electoral and liberal democracy. Particularly dangerous is that the United States lacks immunity to these global trends. Diamond cites legislative gridlock and polarization as signs of democratic recession, along with falling approval rates of Congress, low civic participation and low transparency around the impact of money in politics.

Diamonds article was written in 2015, which means it does not account for democratic recession exacerbated by a Trump presidency. But if the past month has revealed anything, it is that democratic recession could very well turn into a democratic depression. The people whose very values and aspirations are recognized in a democracy must save the institution from demise. While the constitution provides a stringent system of checks and balances, if enough politicians form coalitions that dispense with the rules, anything is fair game. Republicans lawmakers remain relatively lax on Trumps first disastrous month in office. They have not pressed him to release his tax returns, nor have they tried to discredit any of his outrageous statements. Obvious signs of potential conflicts of interest for Trump, notably his refusal to establish a blind trust, are blithely pushed under the rug. Even serious matters of national security, such as Michael Flynns communication with Russias ambassador to the U.S., are not enough to merit serious investigation, according to Jason Chaffetz, the Republican congressman whose committee would lead any such investigation.

If America still longs for the days of Camelot for the days of an exceptional America it must first ask itself if it has reached the point of no longer being exceptional. American exceptionalism has become, at times, a partisan issue, making it harder or even impossible to discuss this matter. But one thing is certain: the current trend cannot continue. Unless Congress becomes serious about checking the executive branch, or people actually exercise their civic duty, then it is only inevitable that future generations will one day look back in sober remembrance of the one brief shining moment there was an America.

See original here:
Malbreaux: Camelot and Democracy - The Dartmouth