A View From the Left

[Kishkumen]

Perhaps I am a little slow (I am politically right leaning after all ) but no it wasn't clear to me that this was an opinion. It looked like a factual statement - That's why I suggested that they were opinions masked as fact.

As I have noted elsewhere, terms like democracy and republic are the subject of debate. I know that what I consider a republic or a democracy may not be the same as what you consider such. Athenian aristocrats of the fifth and fourth century BC had a much different idea of what democracy was than many of their non-aristocratic peers. We have the same problem in the US. If someone's idea of a republic or democracy is that the president can commit crimes as part of his official acts and never be prosecuted for them, then that person and I will never agree on what a republic or a democracy is. I believe in government of the people, by the people, for the people, and that is not consistent, in my mind, with a president who is able to act without checks and with impunity.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks Rep Ipsa. I agree with what you wrote.

Last year I was wondering what was happening 100 years ago and was surprised to learn that in November 1923 Hitler and his little henchmen attempt to gain power via the Beer Hall riots. He was arrested, tried for treason and put in a prison. It was there that he wrote Mein Kampf. It was there also that he decided to get power but he was going to do it legally. By 1933 he was Chancellor and in 1934 when President Hindenburg died he quickly combined the office of the President and Chancellor to become the fuhrer, the position to only be dissolved when he dies when the office of Chancellor and President will then reappear.

For some reason I'm very interested in literature and politics in 19th century Europe. My thought are how did Stalinism come about. I also want to understand German Nationalism. To me a lot of writers in the area of Europe and Russia wrote about poverty and the Serfs; there are so many names. They wrote about the abuse of the Monarchy, who had so much wealth that needed to be attended to so they exploited the poor to maintain the property and wealth. We have people like Lenin, Trotsky and the issues they pushed. The thing about power is that it tempts you with goodness and then at the end does a 180 and says, sorry, we lied. There was talk about workers ownership and elections that Trotsky and Lenin pushed so much but once they were in power they quickly took out any thought that dealt with workers ownership, elections and instituted a dictatorship.

Many soldiers became disillusioned with WW1 and many read what Trotsky was writing and sided with him. I don't think anyone today is writing that the U.S. Military is supporting Trump or anything like it. I think in a way they are the great independent force who aren't leaning either way but just fight when they are told to fight. If the press starts writing about what happen with the military in Russia in 1917 was happening here then I would be concerned.

People that go for power use others until they are no longer useful and then get rid of them. Everyone knows about Germany annexing the German speaking areas of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and I just learned the Poland also went in and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia. Then Germany and Russia attacked Poland. Then Germany attacked Russia and I'm reading all about Operation Barbarossa. It's just simply heart breaking to read how Germany attacked from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and how Germany went into the Ukraine from Romania. Two million people died in the first year and when Germany started retreating, there was a scorched earth program, and what Germany didn't destroy on the in they then completed in on the retreat. So much horror, so much heart break. So much death.

Lastly, nothing wrong with being a liberal in my book. There should be a medal for "bleeding heart liberal" which should be worn with honor.

Thanks, again.

Thank you for reading my post in the spirit in which it was written.

I think that understanding revolutionary and mass movements and what drives them is a critical part of preserving our form of government. Democratic forms of government don't appear to be particularly resilient to authoritarian mass movements. I've never done a deep dive into how mass movements that put Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot worked, but I don't think "communism" is a sufficient explanation. Communism is the utopia ideal that the leaders claimed they could create. In the U.S. today, the utopian ideal is "Make America Great Again." In place of Lenin or Trotsky or Pol Pot or Mao being the secret sauce that can deliver the ideal, today we have Trump. Obviously, there are differences among these mass movements that may be significant, but what drives them at their basic level looks awfully similar.

So much heartbreak and death is spot on. The history of the warring states in Europe and Asia is horrible. if only there were some method of resolving disputes among nations without war.

[Res Ipsa]

Hi Ceebs. Isn't it clear from context that Kish is expressing an opinion? Maybe a smidgen too much mustard?

Perhaps I am a little slow (I am politically right leaning after all ) but no it wasn't clear to me that this was an opinion. It looked like a factual statement - That's why I suggested that they were opinions masked as fact.

LOL!

That's always a dilemma for me when I write. I usually assume that the audience can tell opinions from factual claims based on the context and nature of the claim. Clarifying every few sentences that I am expressing an opinion seems tiresome. But, given that I will express opinions forcefully, this is a good reminder that my assumptions about people who read the stuff I write may have assumptions that differ from mine.

[Res Ipsa]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwn. Again. This is an example of what I was saying. This is the Cheney, Kinzinger line. The Romney line. The mainstream media line. It doesn't phase anyone anymore. It is like calling someone racist for driving a diesel pickup truck or Nationalist/Fascist/Nazi for going to their mother's funeral at a church. Mmmmmkay, it is that again.

Exactly right - It just doesn't impact most people anymore and/or people just don't care anymore.

Due to the extreme overuse and frequency that they are tossed around, the original meaning of these words and statements (Like Nazi, fascist, racist, homophobe, threat to democracy, etc) has been so diluted that they are rendered useless. They have been cheapened and no longer possess value.

The unfortunate and unintended consequence: What do we do when we encounter an actual racist/fascist/homophobe?

While this is a common trope employed by lots of people, I disagree that those words no longer possess value. In the context of sexism, I've already outlined how I approach those issues. The TL/DR is to apply the terms to words or deeds, focussing on the effect. Given that we can have racist, sexist, homophobic, etc attitudes of which we are not consciously aware, the better approach is avoid labeling people with a label that inadequately describes the person.

[Kishkumen]

LOL!

That's always a dilemma for me when I write. I usually assume that the audience can tell opinions from factual claims based on the context and nature of the claim. Clarifying every few sentences that I am expressing an opinion seems tiresome. But, given that I will express opinions forcefully, this is a good reminder that my assumptions about people who read the stuff I write may have assumptions that differ from mine.

We are in quite a pickle right now in our attempts to separate out fact from opinion. Our entire media apparatus complicates the situation exponentially. They present opinion as news and news as opinion. Yikes!

[Res Ipsa]

Wait - Are you moving the skateboard?

I thought you were suggesting that, if Trump wins, you would be extremely sad to live is a lost Republic and something about not being able to move out of the country with folks like Dinero. Are you now suggesting that the Republic might be lost now? With Biden in charge?

The unconstitutional powers ceded to the president by the Supreme Court could be called the death of the Republic. I can tell you that in January 27 BC, the Senate gave Augustus a giant military assignment that laid the groundwork for the institution of the Principate, or an empire ruled by an emperor. When that assignment was extended to him, very few people would have said that the Republic was over. In fact, they were praising him for laying down his power, in return for which they invested him with power. The event was actually heralded as the restoration of the Republic at the time. But in hindsight people often place the end of the Republic at that point. Big historical changes are topics of debate. What a republic or democracy is, in the fine details, is also up for debate. What you would happily call a republic or a democracy I may not agree with.

Most people today would agree that the traditional Roman republic was decisively dead in January 27 BC. At the time, most people would not have thought that. I tend to go with modern opinion on the topic. I think it is this difference between a historian's perspective and a layman's point of view that might account for some of the chasm between me and other members of this board. As someone who has studied the death of the Roman Republic for over two decades, my view is likely to be different than those who do not possess a similar background.

I think that, if our Republic dies, future historians will very likely identify a point in time at which it died that escaped the attention of most folks. At the same time, I am skeptical at the notion that the events that preceded the identified point made the death inevitable. What I fear from declarations that the Republic is over is a defeatist mindset that nothing can be done. I don't think that's what you intend, but I fear the effect.

[Res Ipsa]

LOL!

That's always a dilemma for me when I write. I usually assume that the audience can tell opinions from factual claims based on the context and nature of the claim. Clarifying every few sentences that I am expressing an opinion seems tiresome. But, given that I will express opinions forcefully, this is a good reminder that my assumptions about people who read the stuff I write may have assumptions that differ from mine.

We are in quite a pickle right now in our attempts to separate out fact from opinion. Our entire media apparatus complicates the situation exponentially. They present opinion as news and news as opinion. Yikes!

I think the pickle goes beyond that. (And now I am stuck with the mental image of a giant pickle.) Far too often provable falsehoods are presented as facts.

[Kishkumen]

I think that, if our Republic dies, future historians will very likely identify a point in time at which it died that escaped the attention of most folks.

Yep! That is one of the points of my post alright!

At the same time, I am skeptical at the notion that the events that preceded the identified point made the death inevitable. What I fear from declarations that the Republic is over is a defeatist mindset that nothing can be done. I don't think that's what you intend, but I fear the effect.

If it helps at all, there were Roman politicians hoping for the return of the Republic over 70 years after January 27 BC.

[Kishkumen]

I think the pickle goes beyond that. (And now I am stuck with the mental image of a giant pickle.) Far too often provable falsehoods are presented as facts.

You’re right!

[Res Ipsa]

I think that, if our Republic dies, future historians will very likely identify a point in time at which it died that escaped the attention of most folks.

Yep! That is one of the points of my post alright!

At the same time, I am skeptical at the notion that the events that preceded the identified point made the death inevitable. What I fear from declarations that the Republic is over is a defeatist mindset that nothing can be done. I don't think that's what you intend, but I fear the effect.

If it helps at all, there were Roman politicians hoping for the return of the Republic over 70 years after January 27 BC.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense to me.