The World Tour Continues in Honduras...

[Anonymous]

Thanks for letting me know "all I am doing". I believe that all I am doing is examining situations case by case, and not imposing a one size fits all viewpoint. Like our President--except he is "inconsistent" with regard to reacting far more strongly, swiftly and censoriously to the military toppling totalitarianism (Honduras) than the military supporting totalitarianism (Iran). I guess we are both whimsical in our way.

[Anonymous]

By the way, the military intervened in Honduras against an illegal referendum outlawed by the Honduran courts and Congress. Is supporting the checks and balances and balance of power in a democracy "undemocratic"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for letting me know "all I am doing". I believe that all I am doing is examining situations case by case, and not imposing a one size fits all viewpoint. Like our President--except he is "inconsistent" with regard to reacting far more strongly, swiftly and censoriously to the military toppling totalitarianism (Honduras) than the military supporting totalitarianism (Iran). I guess we are both whimsical in our way.

Like I said, double standard.
It is a very weak argument to say that you can do it because Obama is doing it.
But that's your modus operandi. Whenever anyone points out the inconsistency in your argument, you claim some left-liberal leader is doing the same thing. And bash us over the head with Chavez, when as far as I can tell no one on this thread has drunk the Chavez Kool-Aid.

[Anonymous]

I am not bashing you over the head with Chavez; simply drawing a comparison between his beginnings and the recent actions of ousted President Zelaya in Honduras. If you have not drunk the Chavez Koolaid perhaps you can see the writing on the wall as the Honduran govt. did, and why they took the actions they did to protect their democracy. Democracy is not a suicide pact. The Supreme Court, the legislature and yes, the Army, are as much a part of the constitutional process as an executive seeking tyranny.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure Hitler saw it that way, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure Hitler saw it that way, too.

You are sure Hitler saw what what way? Hitler came to power through the democratic process, and then in an incredibly cynical manner used the laws of Germany to entrench himself and the Nazi party in unfettered power. By your logic, neither Parliament, the courts nor the military in Germany should have resisted him once they perceived what a threat he was to democracy (and humanity).

[Anonymous]

The point is that you choose to decide which military coups are acceptable and which armies are part of the democratic process. If you don't like a comparison, you twist it around so you can convince yourself you're being consistent.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Sorry, everyone, I know better than to even get into these ridiculous arguments with this particular highly recognizable pp. I shouldn't even have started.

[Anonymous]

Actually, your comparison to Hitler was perfect. There is a situation where I in fact would "pick and choose" that a military coup was acceptable against a "democratically installed" government doing "undemocratic" things. What's ridiculous and unproductive is you throwing Hitler out there as a snide barb, apparently without knowing any history about his rise to power. That is not only unproductive and ridiculous, but also rather alarming. I suggest that you add a 20th c. history book to your summer reading?

"He who does not know history is doomed to repeat it"

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:By your logic, neither Parliament, the courts nor the military in Germany should have resisted him once they perceived what a threat he was to democracy (and humanity).

I can't think of a single constitutional system in which the military is considered to have an independent constitutional role. While various militaries are influential in their countries' affairs, those roles are de facto rather than de jure. Militaries are expected to be subordinate to a president or prime minister.

The Honduran military is not acting to protect democracy. In fact, its actions are unconstitutional and it has engaged in many of the actions that you have condemned others for doing (censoring the media, preventing oppositional protests, etc.). In the Vietnam war they used to say they had to destroy a village in order to save it. Similarly, you seem to believe that the Honduran military needs to destroy Honduran democracy in order to save it. That logic made no sense in Vietnam, and makes no sense now.

I do agree with you that analogies involving Hitler have little usefulness in this discussion. Hitler never actually won a presidential election and his party never achieved majority status via democratic balloting. His Brown Shirts used violence to disrupt the democratic process and he certainly never submitted his proposals to popular referendum. He might, however, agree with you that the end justifies the means and the use of violence to achieved a desired outcome is acceptable.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By your logic, neither Parliament, the courts nor the military in Germany should have resisted him once they perceived what a threat he was to democracy (and humanity).

I can't think of a single constitutional system in which the military is considered to have an independent constitutional role. While various militaries are influential in their countries' affairs, those roles are de facto rather than de jure. Militaries are expected to be subordinate to a president or prime minister.

The Honduran military is not acting to protect democracy. In fact, its actions are unconstitutional and it has engaged in many of the actions that you have condemned others for doing (censoring the media, preventing oppositional protests, etc.). In the Vietnam war they used to say they had to destroy a village in order to save it. Similarly, you seem to believe that the Honduran military needs to destroy Honduran democracy in order to save it. That logic made no sense in Vietnam, and makes no sense now.

I do agree with you that analogies involving Hitler have little usefulness in this discussion. Hitler never actually won a presidential election and his party never achieved majority status via democratic balloting. His Brown Shirts used violence to disrupt the democratic process and he certainly never submitted his proposals to popular referendum. He might, however, agree with you that the end justifies the means and the use of violence to achieved a desired outcome is acceptable.

The military in Honduras was acting at the behest of the Supreme Court and the Congress, whose decisions on the referendum the President was willfully overriding. It is very debatable who is in the 'right' here (in a protecting democracy sense).

Thanks for agreeing on the pointlessness of throwing the scary word "Hitler" at people in discussion. That being said, you completely undermined your disavowal of this strategy with your nasty and unnecessary comment about how Hitler would have agreed with me. Why don't you decide which tack is acceptable?

I disagree with you that Hitler did not come to power democratically. I did not say he was elected--I said that he came to power within the democratic framework in Germany at the time. Once he was in power, he of course worked to undermine democracy as you point out--often using its very apparatus against itself. At what point is it OK for parliament, the courts and the military to intervene against this kind of activity? Would it have been better to stop Hitler early, or wait until he was entrenched? Of course, we know how later attempts by the German military to overthrown him went. But heavens, stopping him early at the first abuse of power would have been "Hitler-like". Gee, what a conundrum this presents.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
I do agree with you that analogies involving Hitler have little usefulness in this discussion. Hitler never actually won a presidential election and his party never achieved majority status via democratic balloting. His Brown Shirts used violence to disrupt the democratic process and he certainly never submitted his proposals to popular referendum. He might, however, agree with you that the end justifies the means and the use of violence to achieved a desired outcome is acceptable.

From the pp who threw in Hitler earlier, this was the reason I did so. Wasn't particularly articulate about it so I realize now that it led to misinterpretation.

[Anonymous]

So you are saying that the fact that I believe that the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court acted legitimately puts me in league with Hitler. The difference is that both Hitler's means and end were morally repugnant. I believe that the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court's means and end are arguably legitimate. You have never answered any of my points on what the Honduran government should have done to contravene President Zelaya's intention to hold an illegal referendum. Why not answer that? What would you have done if Hugo Chavez had just shipped your President ballots to hold an absolutely illegal referendum to change your democratic Constitution? I am actually sad it came to a coup; if you have a better course of action that the Honduran government could have taken to safeguard their democracy feel free to explain.
As to whether the end ever justifies the means-- were you upset when NATO forces intervened in Kosovo? I just ask because you are starting to remind me of the car I saw puttering down the highway with "War is Costly, Peace is Priceless" and "Save Darfur" bumper stickers sitting side by side.

[Anonymous]

Non-binding referendum.

[Anonymous]

I think we have no choice but to back the constitutionally elected leader. Whatever Zelaya might have been attempting (and it seems he was attempting -- Oh the Horror! -- to hold a referendum) it couldn't be more unconstitutional than a coup. If acting outside the constitution were grounds for removal at gunpoint, none of our presidents in my lifetime would have been immune from coups. Once again, constitutional democracy is "the worst system, except all the others."

[Anonymous]

Sort of like "He had an infection on his thumb, and such things have been known to lead to gangrene, so I cut off his hand"