President For Life Bush?

Most of us write off the conspiracy theories floating around from some of the loonier people on the left which claim that George Bush plans to remain president for life. Or are they so looney? A journal at Democratic Underground used Google’s cache to find an article from Family Security Matters. They found that Dick Cheney was an early member of the Center’s Board of Advisors and that other members of the national security establishment who have been advisers to the group.

In reality this proves absolutely nothing. I would bet that Dick Cheney has positions such as member of the Board of Advisors for many conservative groups and an article from one of these groups does not necessarily reflect his opinions.

While this might only reflect the views of a small number, it is still of interest to see how some conservatives view our democracy. As the original article has been taken down and is only available in the cache I’ll post it under the fold.

Update: As of August 24, 2007 the cached page is suddenly blank. Fortunately before it was wiped it was viewed by multiple other sites and has been widely distributed on line. A screen capture of how the cache previously looked has been posted here.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

# #


FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of ourcivilisation.com and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization. Mr. Atkinson receives mail at rpa@ourcivilisation.com.

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Comments

  1. 2
    Rick says:

    I can only hope that we as a nation have enough common sense to discard people like this as insane…..by the way….Mr. atkinson fails to note that the Roman Empire did in fact implode and afterwards the real Dark Ages began….and look who came through the “dark ages” with flying colors…yes indeed…the then omnipotent christian church..

  2. 3
    Rob Hruska says:

    I wonder if the San Francisco city council will pass a resolution supporting this person’s “dedication to democracy”, like they did with Chavez. I’ll keep an eye out for it.

  3. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    Rob,

    I note that you continue to be more concerned about taking political pot shots as opposed to actually considering issues that matter.

  4. 5
    Rob Hruska says:

    This whole blog is dedicated to political pot shots. I’m just playing along.

    But I note that in your latest political pot shot, you did not mention your many political pot shots.

  5. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    Rob,

    Bullshit. You might try actually reading the blog first. The posts here are based upon principles, not political party. I criticize and defend members of each party based upon the issue.

    Note that in this post, as opposed to taking a pot shot against Democrats which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, I actually made a point of defending Dick Cheney since the argument that he supports this because he is on a board for the organization which first published this is not a valid argument. As you know very well, since you also commented there, I also have another post today defending Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback from an attack. It has nothing to do with party–it is a question whether the attack is fair.

    In contrast you repeat every right wing talking point to defend Republicans or attack Democrats in your comments here regardless of whether there is any factual basis to the comment.

3 Trackbacks

Leave a comment