Democracies Fail Without Adult Supervision

Very good article:

Socialism’s Empty Seduction - Charles Calomiris - November 16, 2018 Excerpt: Calomiris: "Socialism has never conquered poverty. It has never competed with capitalism as a means of effectively allocating resources and promoting sustainable growth. Over the past half century, scores of economic historians have sought to explain the factors that produced the economic progress that Europe and some of its offshoots enjoyed in the 18th-20th centuries. This group of scholars, which includes Angus Maddison, Joel Mokyr, Eric Jones, David Landes, Deirdre McCloskey and Douglass North, tend to hold quite diverse political preferences, but they universally agree on the facts: Government policies that safeguard a combination of personal economic freedom, secure property rights, and the ability of individuals to gain personally by participating in markets have promoted the effort and innovation that conquered poverty and promoted growth through the ages." https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/charles-calomiris/socialisms-empty-seduction

bornagain77

European Socialism: Why America Doesn't Want It https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/10/25/european-socialism-why-america-doesnt-want-it/#65b414bd1ea6

As was pointed out by john_a_designer, "Who saved Europe and the world for the purpose of making it “safe for democracy” not once but twice during the last century?", ,,, It is truly sad that the left now desperately wants America to follow the 'leftist experiment' of socialist Europe when Europe has failed so miserably at 'leftist social experimentation' in the past century, and, when looking under the current 'leftist economic hood' of Europe, is clearly headed towards disaster once again. Such naivete, i.e. lack of wisdom, on the part of the left would be humorous if not for the fact that their lack of wisdom will very likely result, once again, in the untold misery for countless millions in Europe. Trivia note: Contrary to what the fake news tells you, Nazis were actually socialists not capitalists.

Socialists and Fascists Have Always Been Kissing Cousins By BRADLEY J. BIRZER • November 9, 2018 Excerpt: Equally disturbing is that most younger defenders of communism buy into the oldest propaganda line of the Left—that real communism has never been tried and fascism is the polar opposite of communism. That the Nazis were actually “National Socialists,” these apologists argue, was merely a cynical ploy on the part of Hitler to gain the support of the working and middle classes of Germany.,,, That the National Socialists embraced socialism is factually accurate. Though they did not nationalize to the extent the Leninists wanted, they did nationalize very vital industry in Germany, even if by outright intimidation rather than through the law. In his personal diaries, Joseph Goebbels wrote in late 1925: “It would be better for us to end our existence under Bolshevism than to endure slavery under capitalism.” Only a few months later, he continued, “I think it is terrible that we and the Communists are bashing in each other’s heads.” Whatever the state of the rivalry between the two camps, Goebbels claimed, the two forces should ally and conquer. He even reached out to a communist in a personal letter: “We are not really enemies,” he offered. Hitler admired Stalin, and the two willingly carved up Poland in 1939. One SS division named itself after Florian Geyer, a Marxist hero promoted by Frederick Engels in The Peasant War in Germany. Hitler actively recruited communists into the National Socialist movement, believing they were far more malleable than Christians. The Italian fascists had even closer ties to the Marxists, with Mussolini having begun his career as a Marxist publicist and writer. A few Italian fascists even held positions in the Comintern. The only serious divide between the Italian fascists (or those who would become fascists) and Italian communists in the 1910s was their support, or not, of Italy’s participation in World War I. In the West, one of the first to recognize these vital connections was none other than Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian turned Englishman. Nationalism is nothing “but a twin brother of socialism,” he proclaimed in a 1945 speech in Dublin. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/birzer/socialists-and-fascists-have-always-been-kissing-cousins/

Of related note: The present economic condition of California, from its once enviable stature, also offers Americans a small glimpse into the disaster that leftist socialistic policies will eventually lead to

The Top Four Reasons California Is Unsustainable - 2018 https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2018/04/19/the-top-four-reasons-california-is-unsustainable/

bornagain77

It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between paid maternity leave and abortion rates. Does anyone here know if this has been looked at?

I don't know, and couldn't find anything with a quick google search, but I would imagine it would be difficult to estimate this, because this is probably correlated with other forms of reproductive health. I did find this paper which estimates pregnancy globally. Table 1 gives the estimates for intended and unintended pregnancies: North America has a rate of unintended pregnancies of 48 per 1000 women per year. Globally the number is 55, and for Europe it is 38 (Asia: 49, Latin America & Caribbean: 72, Oceania: 44, Africa: 86). Bob O'H

Jad

Who saved Europe and the world for the purpose of making it “safe for democracy” not once but twice during the last century? Who continues to pay the lions share for the defense of Europe.

Historians say that the soviets did more to defeat Hitler than the western allies. Not to mention the fact that the US economy benefited by sitting out the first years of both wars.

By the way, for the record, the U.S. continues to accept on average over a million legal immigrants each year.

True. But how do you explain that the third most populous nation is 28th in net immigration rates. Even behind Canada, which is 1/10th the population.

How in the world did mankind survive so long without “Paid Maternity leave”?

If you are proud to be the only OECD country without paid maternity leave, be my guest. But am I the only one who sees the disconnect between this and the very strong anti-abortion movement in the US? It would seem a no-brainer that if you want to eliminate abortions, the first step is to eliminate the financial impediments to having a baby. It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between paid maternity leave and abortion rates. Does anyone here know if this has been looked at? Ed George

Ed George to Mimus,

I tend to agree with you. I travel extensively with my work and interact with people from many countries. It is true that people from many of the developing nations are envious of the US. But that is not the case for people in the developed world.

Who saved Europe and the world for the purpose of making it “safe for democracy” not once but twice during the last century? Who continues to pay the lions share for the defense of Europe so you can spend your tax money on the welfare? A little gratitude would be nice-- just sayin. (NATO estimates collective defense spending among all member states will total more than $936 billion in 2018. US defense spending accounts for roughly 67% of this…) https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nato-budget-is-funded-2018-7 By the way, for the record, the U.S. continues to accept on average over a million legal immigrants each year. A significant proportion of these are from European countries. We also have a yuge problem with illegal immigration. The point is, people really do want to come here.

But that is not the case for people in the developed world. I think the statistics might explain some of this: Paid Maternity leave: Average for OECD nations is 18 weeks. US is only country with zero.

How in the world did mankind survive so long without “Paid Maternity leave”? And oh, you Trump bashers might want to take a look at this: https://www.businessinsider.com/ivanka-trump-marco-rubio-paid-family-leave-plan-2018-2 I am not saying I support that kind of legislation. I think the money would be better spent on other priorities. Like I said mankind has made it this far without paid maternity leave. I think there are a lot of other problems which are more pressing. john_a_designer

If he is a citizen of a democratic society he shares a responsibility as to how his society is governed. If he was a citizen of the U.S.A. he would be share a responsibility for how the U.S. is governed. Is that so hard for you to figure out on your own Bob?

No, it's not hard. What's hard is figuring out why you think people like him should be responsible for your government. Bob O'H

I'll just park this here:

Why Socialism Is Still Awful Despite Its European Image Makeover While conservatives have been busy repudiating outdated communist ideas, the American left has succeeded in selling a new fantasy: the democratic-socialist utopia. http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/13/socialism-still-awful-despite-european-image-makeover/

bornagain77

Mimus

Or, do put it more simply, countries with more democratic systems are not exactly envious of the American way.

I tend to agree with you. I travel extensively with my work and interact with people from many countries. It is true that people from many of the developing nations are envious of the US. But that is not the case for people in the developed world. I think the statistics might explain some of this: Paid Maternity leave: Average for OECD nations is 18 weeks. US is only country with zero. Infant mortality rate: 34 other countries have lower infant mortality rates. Life expectancy: 30 other countries have longer life expectancy. Quality of life: A subjective index but the US ranks 10th. Health care cost per capita: The US ranks the highest. Murder rate: US definitely doesn't top this list (ranking 90th) but there are 139 countries with lower murder rates. Incarceration rates: The US tops this ranking, marginally above countries like El Salvador and Turkmenistan. But don't get me wrong. I am not American but I have great respect for the US and its people. Whenever there is a natural disaster, the US has always been the first to step up and offer help unconditionally. Even for countries that are enemies. But Trump's xenophobic nationalism and constant lies is doing great damage to the US' reputation and international relationships. But that's enough of my Trump rant. Ed George

Mimus what country do you live in? bornagain77

I'm still at a loss as to who "people like me" are. I'm not a US citizen, I live in a functional democracy that lacks any o the anti-democratic fetaures Barry is praising in this OP. I commented because I thought it was a fairly amazing achievement in US-chauvisnm to boast about the benifits of a system that is so broken. Or, do put it more simply, countries with more democratic systems are not exactly envious of the American way. Mimus

Bob @ 45,

JAD 2 43 – you might want to ask Mimus where he is from.

I did. Did you read my post? I began with “Bob @ 31 and Mimus @ 27,”

He might be Czech or Slovak, both democratic countries. Or he might be Slovene or Croatian. Also democratic countries. You could try to find out first.

Are they culturally and ethnically diverse countries? How long have they existed? Is the U.S.A. with a population of over 325 million a culturally and ethnically diverse society? How long has it existed? Let’s see 2018 minus 1776 is what? 242 years. How could a dysfunctional representative democracy (at least according to Mimus) last so long? Does Mimus really know what he is talking about?

And it’s still not clear why it would be his fault.

I didn’t say it was his fault! I said, “And whose fault is that? Isn’t it people like you?” I also said, “Any democratic society is intrinsically unstable and it’s only as good as its constituents.” Mimus said he is “someone who lives in a representative democracy.” If he is a citizen of a democratic society he shares a responsibility as to how his society is governed. If he was a citizen of the U.S.A. he would be share a responsibility for how the U.S. is governed. Is that so hard for you to figure out on your own Bob? john_a_designer

JAD 2 43 - you might want to ask Mimus where he is from. He might be Czech or Slovak, both democratic countries. Or he might be Slovene or Croatian. Also democratic countries. You could try to find out first. And it's still not clear why it would be his fault. Bob O'H

Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.

This is an insightful statement. If this was not true, just about any form of government would succeed. At the same time, we'd mostly get by just fine without it. I don't know about other countries, but politics in the US is theater designed to wind people up so they support the same machine from different sides. 99% of the time money and existing power will decide who runs for office. The machine outputs two choices, and voters imagine they have power because they get to choose between them. Electing an occasional outsider doesn't change anything. It preserves the illusion. OldAndrew

Bob @ 31 and Mimus @ 27,

JAD @ 23 & 25 – I suspect Mimus doesn’t live in the USA. So it’s not obvious what your comment at 23 means. One might guess that any problems with US democracy are primarily the fault of American citizens.

What democratic country is Mimus from? Czechoslovakia? Yugoslavia? Oh that’s right they don’t exist anymore. What happened? Any democratic society is intrinsically unstable and it’s only as good as its constituents. U.S, founding father John Adams understood this very well when he wrote, “Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either… [it] never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.” https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/off-topic/democracies-fail-without-adult-supervision/#comment-668515 How long has the U.S. existed? Is it culturally and ethnically diverse? Has it been able to survive different kinds of crises? What exactly is Mimus’ argument? I have never found smug pretension and posturing from uninformed and clueless outsiders to be very convincing or compelling. john_a_designer

Bob (and weave), I automatically separated the rhetoric from the real issue. i.e. Far Leftists, like Darwinists, live in a fantasy world of illusion and imagination and in denial of the real world where borders are a very real necessity. ,,, Where are the moderate, sane, Democrats anymore that believed in borders???? Their party has been taken over by radical fringe elements who's ultimate goal is a 'borderless world'. They can't even honestly say that they are defending the working class anymore. Who would have thought that it would be the Republicans that would have to defend the rights of the working class? I miss FDR, Truman, JFK, even Bill Clinton. bornagain77

kf @ 39 - you haven't actually answered my question. But your comments suggest that you agree that it is possible to guard borders whilst trying to minimise these abuses. So why ask your question at 36? Is it really a good idea to use "Alinsky agit prop tactics"? Bob O'H

BA77

Ed George, you insinuated that Trump was not losing money as the President.

No. I said that we didn't know. Ed George

BO'H: the Alinsky agit prop tactics currently at work put up exactly that contrast. "Abolish ICE" they say, and there has been a rash of highlighting longstanding problems -- I have had relatives who fell afoul of immigration in the US and have had equipment ruined by bullying customs officers (ironically, obviously Cuban) -- as though they were of recent provenance. One of those, maybe a bit under a decade past, was in effect lost in detention, thus held effectively incommunicado until a lawyer met his cell mate and he was able to quietly ask for help; at minimum that shows gross negligence by supervisors. Kindly note my just above on where reforms should go: "Common sense indicates that borders be properly guarded and that traffic across them in materials and people needs to be soundly regulated — remember the 9/11 hijackers, who came in as flight school students? Plainly, reasonable defence of the civil peace of justice includes adequate but not oppressive or abusive border controls." KF kairosfocus

LT, your exchange caught my eye. What first strikes me is that it shows how prone to abuse governmental systems are when the vulnerable are at the mercy of bureaucrats. It should serve as a warning that too often, more government is NOT the answer to problems. Second, I infer that this is part of an ongoing debate over border controls. Common sense indicates that borders be properly guarded and that traffic across them in materials and people needs to be soundly regulated -- remember the 9/11 hijackers, who came in as flight school students? Plainly, reasonable defence of the civil peace of justice includes adequate but not oppressive or abusive border controls. Next, for cause I object to your insinuation that Christian values and identity are responsible for violations of the neighbourliness principle taught to the world at large by . . . Christians following Jesus and apostles who highlighted that the Mosaic law of righteousness as a whole hangs from love of God and love of neighbour created in his image. Therefore, he who loves neighbour as self will do no harm. Whether or not you reject the Christian faith, you are responsible to be truthful, reasonable and fair in discussing it. KF kairosfocus

ba77 @ 36 - your question only makes sense if the only choice is between no borders and borders guarded by people who will abuse their power by sexually assaulting detainees, without attempts to stop or minimise this behaviour. Do you think there is any middle ground, such as where most border guards treat detainees with respect, and those that do not are punished and if necessary) removed from the job? Bob O'H

So LarTanner, do you believe in a Utopian 'borderless' world? Might I suggest you remove the doors from your house so that you might practice what you preach? Let me know how that goes for you. :) bornagain77

Though I expect this post to be censored by UD's cowardly moderators, here's material relevant to post #32. America, home of the free and land of the brave. Greatest nation in the world. A Christian nation. A nation of immigrants. ICE Detention Center Says It's Not Responsible for Staff's Sexual Abuse of Detainees After ICE detained this migrant in Texas, her C-section scar ripped open and she was denied surgery for 4 months 6-Year-Old Girl Separated From Family Was Allegedly Sexually Abused at Immigration Detention Center LarTanner

Ed George, you insinuated that Trump was not losing money as the President. I pointed out that I had referenced Forbes. You, instead of honestly admitting that politics has not made Trump richer, as you had originally insinuated, you, in spite of your very own lack of character to be honest with your false claim, hypocritically attacked Trump's character. That he is losing money while making America and fellow Americans richer tells me all I need to know about his character. FYI, I will not be voting for you in 2020! :) bornagain77

BA77

Since I referenced Forbes, I’ll take it that there are ways other than Tax Returns to fairly accurately assess a person’s net worth.

He won't release his tax returns, as presidents before him did, and he has a long history of stiffing contractors on what he owes them. The morality of how someone maintains their net worth is a measure of a person's character. And based on his record, there is not much character there. Ed George

To Seversky and others that are so eager to label President Trump and those who support him as Nazis and equivalent to Hitler, I offer the same scenario and offer below: Morning Joe Scarborough of MSNBC Suggests Trump’s Rhetoric Could Lead to ‘Genocide’ of Blacks and Hispanics OK “Morning Joe” you are much more connected than I am, have a somewhat large audience and are able to get the rich and powerful in front of the American TV audience on a daily basis. So here’s what I propose: You gather up your favorite journalist, historian, politico or whatever pundit you desire, and we’ll take a road trip, complete with camera crew. You, I and your experts will drive down to rail yards where we will witness and document Americans being locked into rail cars – elbow to elbow – with no water, food or toilet facilities. I’m easy and am willing to travel with you however long it takes to see such things, including along the Mexican border. We will follow that train to its final destination, and then park next to it so as to smell the stench from human excrement, urine and vomit after some number of long days of travel. At this final destination, you will show me and the cameras thousands of naked women shaved of all body hair and shivering in the cold or suffering in the heat. We will watch as evil American soldiers tear earrings off with pliers. We will then see evil American soldiers pinch the breasts of those women suspected of being pregnant. On finding such women, they are directed to the gas chambers and then to the furnaces to be burned where the smell of burning human flesh is pungent in the air. The other women, those seen as fit to work, are sent off to a short career of hard slave labor until death. Of course you will show me and the world of such happenings via your daily TV show sham. We all know the results of this trip don’t we? We will find no such happenings in in the United States of America. Following such a trip I am sure you will want to educate yourself on what real Nazis did in the 1930s and 1940s. I recommend the following books: The Nightingale by Kristin Hannah: Born Survivors by Wendy Holden Now, fully humbled and embarrassed that you would stoop so low as to accuse any Americans today of any such heinous acts, I would expect a very public retraction and apology to all Americans, especially President Trump and his supporters – followed by resignations. But should we find such atrocities on our trip, I will take your Trump = Nazi posters and go to the head of the line to get on one of those rail cars. Please people in the United States of America in 2018 – stop such demonization and hate. It can lead to nothing good, only evil of the worst kind. https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2018/08/15/morning-joe-suggests-trumps-rhetoric-could-lead-to-genocide-of-blacks-and-hispanics/ Don Johnson – August 2018 ayearningforpublius

JAD @ 23 & 25 - I suspect Mimus doesn't live in the USA. So it's not obvious what your comment at 23 means. One might guess that any problems with US democracy are primarily the fault of American citizens. Bob O'H

Ed George, "Since he refuses to release his tax returns, how does anyone know?" Since I referenced Forbes, I'll take it that there are ways other than Tax Returns to fairly accurately assess a person's net worth. As to him loosing wealth whilst, amazingly, the unemployment rate drops and the economy booms:

The unemployment rate in the US declined to 3.7 percent in September of 2018 from 3.9 percent in each of the previous two months and below market expectations of 3.8 percent. It is the lowest jobless rate since December of 1969. https://tradingeconomics.com/articles/10052018123822.htm The Trump Boom Is Real — Just Ask The Global Economy https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/economic-boom-trump-global-economy/

Seversky claimed that Trump was a crook like the Clintons, that claim is patently false. Trump was already wealthy, and certainly did not need all the grief that the left wing heaps on him, and could have easily retired in comfort, instead of subjecting himself to the hatred of the left. Trump took the job of President because he, unlike the far left, genuinely loves America and hates how the left has been, basically, trying to destroy it from the inside out with socialistic ideology. bornagain77

Wow. It sound like she wants the USA to become like Finland. I hope you all know how to rake a forest. Bob O'H

Wow! How old are you Seversky? Your explanations regarding contemporary politics sound like radical Antifa material Eugen

I can assure you I have no idea who "people like me" have to do with the US government, political and electoral system. Mimus

BA77

Trump’s net worth has decreased not increased:

Since he refuses to release his tax returns, how does anyone know? Ed George

Are you really that clueless? john_a_designer

What does "like me" mean? Mimus

Mimus @ 21,

Speaking as someone who lives in a representative democracy, could I just point out US government, political system and electoral machinery and not exactly a shining model of a functional democracy these days…

And whose fault is that? Isn’t it people like you? john_a_designer

Seversky, your distorted view of Trump is so delusional it is even worse, more distorted and delusional, (if such a thing were possible), than your Darwinian view of how all life came to be on earth. For one example out of many I could pick from your rant, contrary to what you erroneously believe, Trump's net worth has decreased not increased:

Donald Trump Falls 11 More Spots On The Forbes 400 List - Oct 3, 2018 American billionaires may be getting richer, but America’s billionaire president is not. Forbes released its annual ranking of the 400 richest people in the U.S. today. And, while the average list member’s net worth rose by $600 million over the past year, Donald Trump’s remained flat at an estimated $3.1 billion. Trump is now the 259th-richest person in America, by our count, down 11 spots on the ranking since last year. It’s the third consecutive year that he has fallen in the ranks. In 2015, just after he launched his campaign for president, Forbes estimated Trump’s fortune to be $4.5 billion, good for the 121st spot on the list. Since then he has dropped 138 places, in spite of the surging stock market,,, https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2018/10/03/donald-trump-falls-11-more-spots-on-the-forbes-400-list/#5b878a4c79f1

Thus unlike politicians like say the Clintons, Trump certainly has not gotten richer because of politics (but amazingly he has lifted millions out of poverty, and into jobs,).

"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook." - Harry Truman Clinton Cash http://www.clintoncashbook.com/

bornagain77

Speaking as someone who lives in a representative democracy, could I just point out US government, political system and electoral machinery and not exactly a shining model of a functional democracy these days... Mimus

The Tytler quotation at the beginning of this post was captured long ago in the figure of speech "bread and circuses", originally attributed to Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81, c. 100 AD. "Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses Another example is the prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, who upon presenting a national budget with a huge deficit, infamously declared that "budgets balance themselves". Thus, this weakness of democracies is apparently longstanding and widespread. But as Winston Churchill supposedly said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Fasteddious

ayearningforpublius @ 17

Your comparison of your President Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler is truly vulgar and totally off the mark. A more apt comparison would be Trump and Ronald Reagan, for reasons that are becoming more clear as the months roll by. But I doubt you will expend any energy, time or integrity to investigate for yourself. A real danger and national tragedy in the Hitler/Nazi name calling is that young impressionable and uneducated minds, such as perhaps your own grandchildren, will come to associate people who support our president with the monsters of history.

My father served in WWII as just one of millions of Allied troops who fought a bloody war to destroy the Nazi regime an Imperial Japan. What is utterly outrageous and deeply offensive is that, not only has Trump courted and received the support of white supremacist groups who are the spiritual descendants of the Nazis, he has even had people who share such views in the inner circle of his advisers. Can you imagine what Roosevelt or Truman would have thought about that? Trump is not Hitler. Yet. But the Hitler of the Twenties and Thirties was not the Hitler we know now. He was seen in Germany as a strong but good man who could lead the country out of the mess of the Weimar Republic and the Great Depression and restore their political, military and economic power. To that end the German people were prepared to overlook a certain amount of bad behavior. By the time the bad behavior became so bad it could no longer be ignored, it was too late to do anything about it. The US is still a long, long way from that situation but we owe it to the generation that fought the Nazis to make sure that it never happens again. Seversky

bornagain77 @ 8

oh goody, Seversky, the Darwinist, compares Trump to Hitler. If that were really true you, the Darwinist, should love Trump

Trump isn't concerned with the survival of the fittest, just the survival - and enrichment - of Donald Trump. To that end he'll dogwhistle racist views to the white supremacists, pretend to Christian belief to the religious and support the national myth of a United States that has been chosen by God to be the greatest country on Earth. He says whatever he thinks his chosen audience wants to hear. He couldn't give a damn about whether it's true or false as long as he gets his way. The sad thing is a whole lot of people swallow his BS hook, line and sinker.

Moreover since Trump has been the most pro-Israel president in decades, as well as lowering the unemployment rate for minorities to there lowest levels ever, I guess your Hitler comparison to Trump falls flat in a rather dramatic fashion.

Support for Israel goes down well with Christian evangelicals. Trump also made it clear he would have no problem with an influx of white immigrants from Scandinavia, for example. What he doesn't want, which plays into the strand of racist bigotry in US society is invading hordes of brown-skinned people pouring over the southern border, who are mostly drug-dealers, rapists and MS-13 gang-members. Poverty-stricken refugees desperate enough to trek thousands of miles on foot hoping for a safe haven in the United States from horrendous conditions in various Central and South American countries don't count. You think Trump could give a toss about black unemployment except where the figures make him look good?

Why would Darwinists disavow their most ardent champion, Hitler???

Show me where Hitler championed Darwinism and I'll show you several passages where he appealed to Christian belief. Seversky

Seversky Your comparison of your President Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler is truly vulgar and totally off the mark. A more apt comparison would be Trump and Ronald Reagan, for reasons that are becoming more clear as the months roll by. But I doubt you will expend any energy, time or integrity to investigate for yourself. A real danger and national tragedy in the Hitler/Nazi name calling is that young impressionable and uneducated minds, such as perhaps your own grandchildren, will come to associate people who support our president with the monsters of history. ayearningforpublius

Who is Jul3s and whose side is he on? Is he sympathetic with ID or does he oppose it? If it’s the latter his “sage advice” is a tad disingenuous, is it not? john_a_designer

Jul3s, So you fear that people who are emotionally 'tribal' in their politics will also be emotionally tribal in their science? :) Again, letting your emotions dictate your science and politics is an absolutely horrible way to go about science and politics and is only bound to put you in logically untenable positions again and again, Moreover, in case you haven't noticed, Darwinists, since they have no empirical evidence to back up their grandiose claims, have been trying to smear ID with name calling for a very long, long, time. Other than outright lying about the true state of the empirical evidence, name-calling is practically Darwinism's main defense against ID. No matter what IDists do, since Darwinism is itself based on a religious/political agenda, instead of on any actual science, Darwinism will call ID names and try to hypocritically accuse ID of being the same exact thing that Darwinism actually is, i.e. a religion masquerading as science.

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint, and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it, the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics, National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 (May 13, 2000)

And again, the supposed science of Darwinism is itself based on (bad liberal) theology not on empirical evidence,

CHARLES DARWIN: VICTORIAN MYTHMAKER By A.N. Wilson (Book Review By Jonathan Wells) - - Wednesday, January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Darwin called “The Origin of Species” “one long argument,” and it was a theology-laden argument against creation by design. Many people have the mistaken impression that Darwin’s theory was accepted because he provided so much scientific evidence for it (he didn’t). Instead, his theory was accepted because it fit the increasingly secular spirit of the times.,,, So Darwinian evolution is not so much a scientific theory as it is a secular creation myth. According to Mr. Wilson, “Darwinism, as is shown by the current state of debate, is resistant to argument because it is resistant to fact. The worship of Darwin as a man, the attribution to him of insights and discoveries which were either part of the common scientific store of knowledge or were the discoveries of others, this is all necessary to bolster the religion of Darwinism.” Mr. Wilson’s book is not flawless, but on this point he’s right. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/31/book-review-charles-darwin-by-an-wilson/ Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html

Moreover, it is impossible to even 'do science' in the first place without basic theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our 'made in the image of God' minds to be be able to grasp that rational intelligibility.

Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf

Thus, since science itself was born out of, and is still, despite what atheists may claim to the contrary, very much dependent on Judeo-Christian presuppositions, it is simply impossible to completely divorce science from Theology. i.e. "Religion" will always be the elephant in the room. In fact, in their attempt to divorce science from its Theological foundation, Atheists have wound up in a world of illusion and fantasy. Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387 Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Paper with references for each claim page; Page 37: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit

Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

And I would also hold that, in so far as atheistic ideology influences politics, as it does with socialism and/or communism, that politics itself will end up in a world of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor of reality to grab onto. For prime example, Cortez's grossly fiscally irresponsible fantasy that is highlighted in the OP bornagain77

"Premise 3: you fear that to point out an absurd political position on this site" No. "could potentially alienate people from ID who hold to Cortez’s grossly fiscally irresponsible position." Again, no. It is naive to think that criticizing an individual politician will only put off people who personally support them. Even if it did, there is no need to virtue signal about being economically literate on a design-in-nature site. Reality check, politics is tribal in one way or another and most people overall sympathize more with one side than with the other. An attack on candidates on one side can be seen as an attack on that entire side, even if individuals on that side disagree with each other. Criticism of one politician for being fiscally irresponsible doesn't make you look smart, it just raises questions as to why there isn't criticism of the other side here. Virtue signalling and going after easy political targets only on one side on a supposedly design-in-nature themed website reeks of partisanship. It is unpersuasive to people who are not fully aligned with you on all or most issues. "Moreover, I find your premises to not be valid which invalidates your conclusion even before it gets off the ground." Throughout the West at least, there is the fear, the fear of "creationists in cheap tuxedos" that Berlinski described. Wherever the topic of the design-in-nature debate comes up, the accusation of having a religious/political agenda is sure to follow, its practically an axiom in the mainstream. ""And again even if I granted your premises, I find your conclusion to be non-persuasive." So you see no value in leaving partisanship outside of a scientific debate. That is very worrying. Jul3s

As to: "You misrepresent my conclusion,",,, "Posts such as this one are fuel for the fear Berlinski talks about." Well then, let's amend,,, Premise 1: the evolution-ID debate is in a stalemate. Premise 2: the reason the evolution-ID debate is in a stalemate is political not scientific. Premise 3: you fear that to point out an absurd political position on this site, such as Cortez's grossly fiscally irresponsible one, could potentially alienate people from ID who hold to Cortez's grossly fiscally irresponsible position. Conclusion 4: it is counterproductive to talk about absurd political positions since you fear people holding those absurd political positions may be driven away from ID. :) Again, your conclusion does not follow from your premises in that it is founded on the 'phantom fear' that somehow people who are not able to clearly see that Cortez's socialist position actually is grossly fiscally irresponsible, will somehow 'emotionally' be driven away from ID. Reality check, anyone who is deciding certain political positions, as well as what is true about reality, based on their emotions rather than on the logic and evidence is not going to be persuaded by the rock solid science for ID anyway. Moreover, I find your premises to not be valid which invalidates your conclusion even before it gets off the ground. And again even if I granted your premises, I find your conclusion to be non-persuasive. bornagain77

You misrepresent my conclusion, I never said that. There is a huge difference between "talking about the political aspect of the stalemate" and actively pushing an agenda. Posts such as this one are fuel for the fear Berlinski talks about. That is the issue I raised and that you didn't even address in your reply. It's clear now that being accessible and persuasive across the aisle isn't a goal of this site. Jul3s

Jul3s Premise 1: the evolution-ID debate is in a stalemate. Premise 2: the reason the evolution-ID debate is in a stalemate is political not scientific. Conclusion 3: it is counterproductive to talk about the political aspect of the stalemate even though it is the main driving force of the stalemate. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Moreover, I would argue over your two premises. The second premise in particular. I hold that the main divide between Darwinism and ID is a religious divide not a political divide per se, (with Darwinism falling firmly in the religious camp, since it is basically, at least the way Darwinists treat their theory, a unfalsifiable pseudoscience), from which politics somewhat loosely follow,, (i.e. although most, if not all, hard core atheistic Darwinists on the internet are far left, most Democrats are not atheists) bornagain77

In the ID the Future podcast David Berlinski & Michael Denton, Pt. 2: Darwinian Stalemate? Berlinksi says: "Why is the (evolution-ID) debate stable? ... And there are complicated answers, I don't think they're scientific. I think there is in this country a tremendous fear that any form of criticism of Darwin has an underlying political agenda." If Berlinski is right, (and he most likely is), then this thread and others like it contribute nothing useful to this site and are counterproductive. Jul3s

BA, Looks like it is relevant to point to Plato's parable of the ship of state (notice, the mutiny and manipulation): https://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2018/10/platos-ship-of-state-parable-how.html and to Luke's subtle echo in Ac 27: https://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-ship-of-state-2-acts-27-as-case.html Democracy can too easily become a manipulated, mob-ruled voyage of stubborn, doomed folly, a de-mock-racy: https://www.themontserratreporter.com/de-ole-dawg-part-15-2016-will-we-have-democracy-or-de-mock-racy/ . . . so, we must address restoring the foundations of a sound society. KF PS: On the logic of revolution, words to give us pause: https://americanmind.org/essays/our-revolutions-logic/ kairosfocus

oh goody, Seversky, the Darwinist, compares Trump to Hitler. If that were really true you, the Darwinist, should love Trump. Hitler took Darwinian thinking to its logical end and applied it to society as a whole, specifically to those he deemed unfit to survive. Why would Darwinists disavow their most ardent champion, Hitler??? Moreover since Trump has been the most pro-Israel president in decades, as well as lowering the unemployment rate for minorities to there lowest levels ever, I guess your Hitler comparison to Trump falls flat in a rather dramatic fashion. When will you ever judge rightly Seversky? bornagain77

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy . . .

The greatest threat to a democracy is an uninformed electorate whose ignorance and fear can be exploited by whatever populist demagogue - whether left or right - most effectively says whatever they think they want to hear. The left will promise a package of financial, health and social security benefits which would cripple the economy; the right - forgetting their principles of fiscal prudence - slash taxes which makes the wealthy and big corporations even richer and sends the national debt through the roof - like from $18tn-$22tn since 2016. Sadly, the traditional Republican Party has ceased to exist. It has been mutated into the Trump Nationalist Party, basically a herd of RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who go lumbering after their would-be Fuhrer in whatever direction pops into his narcissistic head at any given moment. I suspect the only thing that is stopping him renaming it the Trump National Socialist Party is that anything "socialist" is anathema to his base and he knows it. Given his predilection for Twitter, though, I suppose he could call it the Trump National Social Media Party. Instead of Nazis they would be Tweetzis. More seriously, it was said Donald Trump was a measure of how much Hilary Clinton was disliked and distrusted by a large part of the electorate and I think there is a lot of truth in that. Polls had been showing - and continue to show - that Congress and the Washington establishment are held in abysmally low regard. But it didn't seemed to worry them at all and apparently still doesn't. They still seem to think they can safely ignore it. Trump's election proved them wrong although it doesn't look like the older generation have learned the lesson. Not that it matters since that older generation will become increasingly irrelevant as it falls to the next generation to cope with their inheritance of climate change and a burgeoning national debt which has to be paid off somehow or other. The worrying thing is that we have a president who's one real skill seems to be wriggling out of bankruptcies relatively unscathed, meaning others are left bearing the losses. Not a good precedent - or president. Seversky

The chief advantage of democracy is that it allows most adults to vote on most policies. In North America, that has produced a great deal of stability. People forget that there has not been a civil war north of the Rio Grande since 1865. US: 50 states, Canada: 10 provinces, 3 territories. But no civil war. No war between the two sovereign states for over two centuries. When we consider the history of comparable parts of the world in terms of size and population density, that merits some reflection. I think one reason is that, for example, Ocasio-Cortez was not put there without most of her district voting for her. If she is a fool, she is a popular one. If people are willing to live with the results, so be it. If they regret their choice, they can find out by consulting a calendar when they can do something about it. The secret to immense stability is that there is no reason to consider throwing bombs or overthrowing the government, no matter what she does, because everything is limited by something else. I hope it stays that way. News

As has already been pointed out here, some of America’s founding fathers were quite cautious of democracy. They saw the danger of subversive “factions” illegitimately seizing power and destabilizing the government. That is one of the reasons they designed so-called checks and balances in the constitution so it would be difficult to seize power. For example, Kevin Williamson who writes for The National Review points out that "John Adams hated democracy and he feared what was known in the language of the time as ‘passion.’ Adams’s famous assessment: ‘I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either.’ Democracy, he wrote, ‘never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.’ " https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/03/donald-trump-populist-demagogue-john-adams-anticipated/ Adams goes on to warn us,

[that] no government [is] capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.

The difference between then and now? The majority of people living in America at the time believed that moral values and obligations were grounded in a transcendent moral standard (an eternal self-existing Creator and Lawgiver-- God.) Today we live in a society dominated moral subjectivism and relativism. What value are so-called human rights if they have no grounding in something eternal and transcendent. If morals are only very transient human inventions then they carry no real interpersonal obligations. Without real interpersonal moral obligations there is no such thing as a right. There is certainly no possibility that human rights are universal and timeless. john_a_designer

I had a conversation with a democrat the other day. It went something like this.

Dem: I voted in the midterm so as to stop Donald Trump Me: Are you for open borders? Do you believe that whoever wants to come in to America can just come in? Dem: Well, I think that maybe immigrants should be vetted. Me: That is not what the main platform of the Democratic party is anymore. They basically want completely open borders and to abolish ICE. After a moments thought he states,,, Dem: Well the Europeans had no right to come to America and take it from the Indians. Me: So are you are saying that the United States should not even exist at all? Dem: Yes! ,,, (Please note that this was, of all people, a veteran that I was talking to) Me: So are you going to leave America and go back to Europe? Dem: Wellll??? Me: Don't you think that God had a divine hand in the founding of America? You know, divine providence? The defeat of the Nazis and Communists and all that??? Dem: NO!

,,, I left the table thoroughly angry and disgusted. Here was a military veteran so thoroughly brainwashed by leftist ideology that he no longer believed that the country that he laid his life on the line for has any right to exist, and that its borders can thus be crossed with impunity by foreigners. Later that evening, I ordered this book:

The American Miracle: Divine Providence in the Rise of the Republic by Michael Medved https://www.amazon.com/American-Miracle-Divine-Providence-Republic-ebook/dp/B01BAU6ES0

I plan to not so subtly read it right in front of my brainwashed Democratic friend so he can clearly see the cover. Here is an interview with Medved about the book

Michael Medved dicusses "The American Miracle" @ AFA's Literary Cafe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SM7EDjMk6U

bornagain77

As Ocasio-Cortez would say, "I mean, yeah, Barry, fur shur,, awesome man, you know, I mean, like, woh." I am not sure that the subject is entirely off topic, however. The progressives are all anti-Logos, anti-design, revolutionary partisans. Invariably they prefer disorder to order. The point is that it requires very little intelligence to make a mess of things. As a wise man once said, "Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one. So it is with a well-ordered society. StephenB

Here is the detailed Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez socialist plan for free electricity for all Americans: https://scontent.ffcm1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/46336620_2112164295480676_1032677770531962880_n.png?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent.ffcm1-2.fna&oh=0a184152feefb07c41a428bcd64cad83&oe=5CB109C1 :) bornagain77

I read a quote from one of the Founders who said that Democracy could work in the new United States because the vast majority of the citizens were from the same culture (i.e., English Protestants). The common culture of Americans only began to change when boatloads of CATHOLIC Irish came over in he 1840s. (Note that John Kennedy was remarkable because he was the first CATHOLIC president. Andrew Jackson was an Irishman, but he was Protestant.) Also note that most States (and cities and counties) had a requirement that only PROPERTY OWNERS could vote. A common requirement was owning property worth at least 50 pounds, back when land was cheap and even 1 pound was a LOT of money. And of course only men could vote. It's unlikely that the Founders would have proposed the same Constitution if they were writing it with today's cultural mixture. vmahuna