11 November 2016

We Grieve Now because of something that has stilled hearts of the civilized world since World War II started out of Germany and ran its course:

We feel the powerlessness of knowing that, had we been there as German citizens, we could not have stopped the rise of Adolph Hitler.

Many Rational-sounding Arguments to support voting for this election’s winner are given voice. None dismiss the fact of our knowing virtually nothing to the good of the character, and quite a bit to the bad, and the fact that only words, empty promises by a person devoid of any experience in fulfilling promises, were offered us.

Too many of the words were filled with rage. Too much of that rage was amplified by that candidate’s supporters at rallies. Groups classes of American citizens were insulted, vilified. In this election, it was Muslims, where, resulting from the 1932 German election, it turned out to be the Jews.

“It can’t happen here,” has been a refrain that the world has lived with, throughout the years since the end of World War II.

“It can’t happen here.”

After Tuesday’s Voting, when America received its most-obvious such major-party ideologue, spewing insults and hatred, which insults and hatred found resonance among too many of the ideologue’s adherents, flocking to each successive rally—

After Tuesday’s voting, when the candidate unequivocally offered nothing but insults and empty promises—

We feel the powerlessness of knowing that, had we been there as German citizens, we could not have stopped the rise of Adolph Hitler.

With the sadness of dire regrets,
(($; -\}


02 February 2013

A Felicitous Element common to many comments on Fareed Zakaria’s opinion essays in The Washington Post is that the quality of many of the “comments” is unusually thoughtful. Trolls are few. The company there is often pleasant and thought-provoking.


In a Comment on Mr. Zakaria’s latest Washington Post essay, Arab Spring’s Hits and Misses,* one reader, ffrey63, wrote,

It has been well said that the American Revolution succeeded because, unlike the French, Russian and Chinese revolutions, it was waged by reluctant revolutionaries. Moreover, the historical record is pretty clear – most revolutions are transfers of power, not exchanges of tyranny for democracy.

The comment called to mind another theory, recently read, about the American Revolution. The other theory characterized America’s origins as more of a civil war than an actual revolt against tyranny. The thought was new to me: that what revolutionary pressures our Founding Fathers experienced were mild, compared to other such struggles in history. This perspective makes America’s founding seem even more remarkable.‡


Mr. Zakaria’s Main point, taken away from reading his thought-provoking essay, is the hypothetical proposal that Jordan’s monarchy may be slowly moving its country deliberately, step-by-step, in the direction of a constitutional monarchy. It’s a nice thought. One hopes that substantial reality lies behind it.

One wishes to believe that today’s Arabian monarchs respond increasingly to the tenor of the times. One also wishes to believe that that “tenor of the times,” regardless of how reasonable its first soundings (in U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq) may or not have been, will yield continual reverberations of democratic republicanism throughout the more-troubled regions of the world.

(($; -)}


* Read Fareed Zakaria’s Washington Post essay here: Arab Spring’s Hits and Misses

† One may find the full comment by clicking the link to all comments, and searching for ffrey63 by date and time: 1/31/2013 7:36 AM CST

‡ Regrettably, the source of this viewpoint has been forgotten.