That is just the consequence of not being defeated by America and then occupied. Yes, losing a war to America and then having to agree to American conditions may not be all that great to whomever is in charge at the time. However, it is the best news for the population of the defeated.

The international world tried their solution of “let the UN handle things” in the spirit of brotherhood and the meeting of minds instead of unilateral American actions, and this is the result.

Russia avoided losing a war through a decisive defeat against America. Instead it disintegrated from within. They missed out on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and their seemingly great gain lead to this situation you speak of, Neo.

To everything there is a price, including prosperity and security. Those that do not pay it, do not get it.

It’s a daunting task, and the Grand Inquisitor’s solution always beckons. Putin definitely hears its siren call. But the alternative—the realpolitik policy of leaving dictators in place—is a lousy one, as well. Therein lies the conundrum.

An alternate solution is tribute vassals or otherwise known as feudalism, empire, or the many other methods from which chaos can be fought and order secured.

Weak nations can always ally with stronger nations, or ask to become protectorates of that stronger nation, or petition to become low pole members of an empire (request to be annexed).

The ironic thing is, all the solutions humanity came up with is seen as obsolete and anachronistic, and thus people are motivated to try this “democracy” stuff that was only proven to work through American insight, force of arms, and national character. So when the new age solutions fail, because they lacked a solid foundation of strength and power, people go back to the old solutions, Neo. Except this time, the old solutions prefered are those that themselves create the most instability, far more than tribalism, feudalism, or imperial systems ever did.

The current world is not the same as what went on before. The old solutions lack flexibility and solidness, they also carry with it the baggage of all the other problems they created in human history.

This doesn’t matter if a people choose dictator, that old strongman solution, amoral familism, or any number of other things that humans have tried before.

What matters is simple. Which adaptation of imperialism in the Cold War era lead to the pushing back of chaos and the onslaught of law and order? The question answers itself.

America has inherited the position that Athens, Sparta, Rome, Axum, and Asoka’s Empire once held. Which is the position of using force that fights back against bandits, pirates, and other elements of chaos. Illyrian pirates, Barbary pirates, it matters not. The force that holds civilization together, and provides for the people in good times and bad. Except America’s reach extends to the entire globe, not just one or two continents.

Look at Europe right now. Instead of using their energy for something good, they are wasting it trying to overthrow America. A waste of time and resources better put to better use. Yet it is also a recognition of the position America has inherited. A position Europe and others want for themselves, yet they have never proved worthy of such.

Few nations and people can truly “bootstrap” themselves up from the mud without any outside help. If that was feasible, then America never would have needed to change from a Confederation to a Federation.

In the end, people will always have to make the choice that the Sunnis of Iraq recently made. Which do you value more, your pride that says foreigners cannot be tolerated or needed or making the lives of your children better?

Pray God that underlying historical consensus will endure. I fear the post Vietnam years have strained it.

I also think the problem with the system is not so much any flaw in its design. It’s a popularity contest, at its core, but the primary function of a president is to be popular with his citizens, the better to boost their morale and enable them to present a united face to the rest of the world.

Rather, the problem stems from a media that has seized far too much control over the flow of information, and are now using that control to push propaganda based on leftist fantasies instead of providing information on actual events. They are even trying to use their position as information overlords to cripple the US government whenever they can, having decided in their own closed courts that its victory over the false hope of global communism is a crime that must be punished by death.

Sergey, I wouldn’t assume this. The American voting public knows only what the media controllers allow. Elections are often stage shows, with the electorate barely understanding real issues, and often manipulated by irrelevancies. Personality and TV suitability become the main factors. Plus all the distortions the media will allow.

Bill Clinton was a very bad mistake. Al Gore has shown himself to be less than stable in post election times. And who is Jimmy Carter; he’s the exception to the rule that we shouldn’t execute ex Presidents.

So was the possibility that Al-Qaeda could bring down the WTC, up until it happened. My own father told me it would be impossible, because any fanatic crazy enough to try it would be too stupid to have any chance of success.

Ever since then, I haven’t paid much attention to anyone who tells me something is “just too farfetched.”

With all due respect to the commentator the idea of ANY US President disbanding Congress and/or the Judicial branch under ANY circumstances is about as farfetched as any opinion I’ve read on this blog. The American public would NEVER go along with such actions and neither would the military. The US has been through many, many wars, has been under attack many times and no President has ever come close to what is described.
 

Correct, and that’s why so many limitations were placed on the growth of our government. Unlike the framers of the EU, who sought to create a government Frankenstein-style, stitching together a bunch of existing parts and simply assuming it would work, the Founders instead created a frame that would keep the government from growing into a monstrosity, and let the people create what government they wanted, within that framework.

That’s why the US government’s existence has lacked the sort of bloodshed that had typified European governments.

“The Congress was to be the most powerful of the three, which is also why its powers were clearly enumerated.”

Depends on how you define “power.” From the example of Athenian democracy, it was clear that placing the power of the military directly in the hands of a democracy was a grave mistake that led to anarchy and mob rule; that’s why the US army answers to the executive branch, and the US police answer to the judiciary. Congress may be able to make laws, but they are not allowed to enforce them.

The Founders recognized that, no matter how religiously you believe in the virtues of pure democracy, the real world had already shown its flaws.

Don’t forget that the democracy has the power to not only limit, in certain areas, but also to reign in the oligarchy.

I have always been quizzical about why we consider the branches “equal”. Congress can tell the Supreme Court to butt out of certain areas (“with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make”), it can override Presidential vetoes, and it can impeach members of the other two branches. It makes the laws of the land and controls the purse strings (try running a war without funding). The Supreme Court’s ability of judicial review was a construct after the ratification, a logically correct one, but not directly written in the Constitution.

The Congress was to be the most powerful of the three, which is also why its powers were clearly enumerated.

Very many Founders had a real fear of government and of its powers. (Looking at the anti Federalist writings for instance.)
Somehow today we have left that understanding, lost fear, all at our peril.

Is government meant to be the one way to a greater good?
Or is it a necessary evil? (words from my schoolboy studies)

Mercy Otis Warren (18c historian/ Mass. Founding family, and Anti Federalist) wrote: ‘that there was a basic “propensity in human nature to tyrannize over their fellow men.”‘

“I am more and more convinced..that Man is a dangerous creature, and that power whether vested in many or a few is ever grasping, and like the grave cries give, give.”
Abigail Adams, wife to John ( quotes taken from “Cast for a Revolution,” Jean Fritz, 1958)