Hear the words of Leonard Cohen - poet, prophet and priest.

Democracy

"Democracy"

It's coming through a hole in the air,
from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
It's coming from the feel
that this ain't exactly real,
or it's real, but it ain't exactly there.
From the wars against disorder,
from the sirens night and day,
from the fires of the homeless,
from the ashes of the gay:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's coming through a crack in the wall;
on a visionary flood of alcohol;
from the staggering account
of the Sermon on the Mount
which I don't pretend to understand at all.
It's coming from the silence
on the dock of the bay,
from the brave, the bold, the battered
heart of Chevrolet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal *****in'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.

It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's coming from the women and the men.
O baby, we'll be making love again.
We'll be going down so deep
the river's going to weep,
and the mountain's going to shout Amen!
It's coming like the tidal flood
beneath the lunar sway,
imperial, mysterious,
in amorous array:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Sail on, sail on ...

I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Lyrics

Linda,
     Leonard Cohen's performance is profoundly moving and his song addresses what must be a nearly universal longing. What is lacking is a clue as to how democracy can be achieved. The populace has neither the knowledge nor the will it needs to establish a responsible self-government. Inevitably it will depend upon self-appointed leaders to do the dirty work of ruling. Such leaders, same as other humans, will give their personal wants priority, which is what we are enjoying now.
     You are possibly an exception to my general rule, so tell me this: If you had the chance to reform our country, would you accept the job?
Seán

quote:

Leonard Cohen's performance is profoundly moving and his song addresses what must be a nearly universal longing. What is lacking is a clue as to how democracy can be achieved.

Sean,

I'm glad you can relate to the song. I posted the lyrics on the "Open Mike" board a few years back, but that was before I got broadband (a few weeks ago) so posting the lyrics was all I could do. I was unable to play YouTube videos except on someone else's computer. I listened to it four times yesterday and once today.

I don't think it's any lack or flaw in the song that there's no clue as to how democracy can be achieved. The song is about vision. It's not a how-to-do-it manual, nor should it be. The second you start down that path, there is always some naysayer telling you that it either can't be done or that it will take generations or centuries--which it very well could. And yet by their collective determination the Egyptian people were able to bring down a 30-year-long dictatorship in 18 days!

The "how-to-do-it" part is something very new and still evolving, and I'm just now beginning to get a handle on it. This Wikipedia article, Leaderless resistance, will give you some idea of the dynamic, but it badly needs updating since February 11th! Bear in mind that this isn't the whole story by a long way.

--Linda

Linda,

I've heard that democracies only last two hundred years.

In this country, because we have fifty states, democracy will always be organized as a republic, with elected and appointed people holding the ropes of power.

Interesting poem.

Happy Valentine's Day!
Donald

Linda,
     Leaderless resistance is a term new to me so I read the Wikipedia article with great interest. Acts of sabotage by disaffected individuals can be a problem for establishments, but an effective rebellion requires a focus, possible only with a leadership, to define its goals.
     If the world is more fortunate than usual, the Egyptian effort may succeed. But we know now that the hoped for changes have been entrusted to their army, whose leaders have financial interest in maintaining status quo and also were appointed by Hosni Mubarak. I hope I am wrong in fearing that the rebels have been led down the garden path by false promises, once again.
Seán

I think the army supports the idea of a republic, but not a direct democracy. Probably they are aware of the drawbacks to extremely long presidential terms.

Sean and everyone,

I posted this on my Facebook page a little while ago:

quote:

I'm actually in the process of developing a metaphysical theory about the Egyptian uprising. It involves the Trickster archetype and the principle of randomness or uncertainty. I'll write it up on my blog if I can turn it into something coherent, or even semi-coherent. Basically, the ideal revolution (the one with the greatest chance of success) is one where there is no leader. That way there's no chance for the opposition to "cut off the head of the snake," so to speak. Or if there does have to be a leader and one emerges as the process unfolds (i.e. Wael Ghonim), it's best if said leader remains unaware of his leadership status until the crucial moment.

That was a comment on this link which I posted previously:

Pentagon’s Prediction Software Didn’t Spot Egypt Unrest

I guess I should be used to it by now, but it never fails to amaze me how much money the Pentagon spends being totally clueless and wrong. In this case it cost $125 million. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad--not to mention expensive.

--Linda

     High-flown talk about Egyptian's thirst for freedom and democracy aside, I suspect the populace would settle for a decent living standard. They'll not achieve that easily since their GDP per capita is around $6,000, compared to $47,000 for the USA.
Seán

High flown? Parliamentary systems are a powerful idea, and Egyptians are not immune to ideas. The fact that Mubarak has over time allowed more political parties in his country should not be overlooked. Mubarak
Some link about Egypt that was on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by También:
High flown? Parliamentary systems are a powerful idea, and Egyptians are not immune to ideas. The fact that Mubarak has over time allowed more political parties in his country should not be overlooked. Mubarak
Some link about Egypt that was on the internet.

Tambien,

I agree with you that "high flown" was a very unfortunate and condescending choice of words on Sean's part (he should really know better!) but his point is well taken. There are a number of reasons why Egypt reached the boiling point, and they are roughly equal parts political and economic. Those two factors can never be separated. Slash-and-burn globalism that impoverishes large numbers of people can't be imposed without political reppression and usually state terrorism as well (Mubarak's infamous state security goons).

Mubarak may have allowed more political parties in his country, but that doesn't count for much since the elections were blatantly rigged. Mubarak and his party regularly got about 97% of the vote! Compare THAT with what you saw in Tahrir Square last week. Give me a break! That's about as convincing as the huge majorites the Communist Party got in the former Soviet Union.

--Linda

También and Linda,
     I withdraw high flown and replace it with ambitious, which is what I really meant. I did not intend to condescend. My point was that the Egyptians will still be poor, even if all their nation's wealth is redistributed equally. Ireland had the same problem until it made technology its main business: Technology uses physical resources sparingly while demanding personnel with training. Let's hope Egypt can find an opportunity with similar requirements.
     También, the most recent date in your link to the Mubarak biography is 1987. Evidently the Egyptian's opinion of him changed substantially during the 24 succeeding years.
Seán

Duplication deleted.
Seán

True that really is an old link! I thought it would be valuable as something to compare against, mainly because it is older. Recent information is not going to be as clear cut and is more likely to be influenced by current propaganda and sensationalism in media. You can put more confidence in an older resource. Also, the above link was not written by Egypt but was written for the US Library of Congress by various authors, and there is a hefty bibliography attached. It aims to be a scholarly reference for use by the government.

I understand what you mean about ambitious. You have a point about the economic issues in the country and Mubarak's rigging the vote. My impression is that Mubarak believed in democracy but allowed his ministers to coddle him into delusions of self importance, which he finally blurted out in a speech 18 days or so into the protests. He felt he was personally holding the government together, which in itself indicates psychological problems. Look at the man's expression, his eyebrows and posture. He clearly thought of himself as some kind of Jesus. Still, I can still see democracy as a potentiality among the Egyptians, and they have seen the evils of a command economy.

quote:

and they have seen the evils of a command economy.

Don't be too quick to think so. There are socialist elements among them, which will likely lead, IMO, to a lot of government direction of the economy. I hope it will turn out otherwise, but I wouldn't be surprised if they became another Greece economically and perhaps politically--and they won't have the EU to bail them out of their bad policies.
--
Stephen

     My impression has been that the spreading Arabic efforts to democratize are mainly
secular and are effectively attempts to replace the rule of Allah with government by
ordinary men. Now I see, if this article is correct, democracy is intrinsic to Islamic teaching.
     The credentials of the authors, listed at the end, seem adequate to me.
Seán

Sean

I did read most of the article, which was inspirational.

As I surveyed my mixed housing neighborhood this morning, I came up with a Definition of Democracy:
Democracy is an even handed way of taking care of the garbage.

Then I went to a local gas station and talked with the clerk who worked in banking when Newt Gingrich pulled the plug on federal credit. She said that awful, and she doesn't want to go through that again. There are two weeks to go for the next round.

Let's all make sure our mortgage payments are paid before then.

Donald

It's coming to a land of trees
of worms and caves and selfish bees
its wearing down the rocks and hills
gives us each other to pay our bills
here where the homeless roam the gray
give us your tired, your poor, your Fae
where everyman has an ear to hear
bionic love destroys all fear
its not unusual to say
Democracy is coming to the USA

Donald,
     I don't feel able to predict the consequences of a governmental shut-down, but I think it likely that it might cause an abrupt cessation of Social Security, Federal pension and Civil Service employee checks. People who subsist on those should set aside a cash reserve to weather the hiatus. That would be a good thing for everyone to do, since banks might freeze withdrawals.
     However, I strongly doubt a shut-down will occur because the politicians deemed responsible for it would be dead at next election.
Seán

Sean

Thanks for the reference, which I am passing on.

There are already a bunch of "dead" Democrats from the developing situation, per last Fall's national election.

Apparently Pelosi wants to blame the Republicans if the third close-down develops, but the Republicans are already pounding the remaining ones for the trillion dollar budget.

I can imagine the Chinese laughing at how they are gouging the Americans, as well as tickling the fledgling democracy movement already once shot down at Tianinmen Square.

When this year is over the toll in human lives will look like a major war took place, and dictators will be back in place. HOpefully the North Koreans will be contained.

Donald

Dictatorships should always be under the threat of system destabilizing ideas from now on. Keeping the populace educated gives us a cumulative thinking power (and imagining power) that is beyond the capability of past generations. It makes dictatorships very difficult to manage. The large scale character of humanity has changed.

Democracy is on a spiritual level in a sense or at least it acts like a spirit. You can think the Chinese are laughing at us if you want but their leadership are busy fielding continued Chinese democratic urges. These are not American promptings, but Chinese. For China, democracy is starting from within instead of being imported from overseas. Chinese democracy will be an interesting and valuable thing to see and to compare with, because its going to be a Chinese democracy, not a European or Greek one. We look over there and think they are refusing to accept democracy, but they are simply refusing our influence. Additionally they are rejecting and disproving the past claims that oriental races were inferior. I think I can understand that. Nevertheless the Chinese are themselves becoming a democracy based upon Chinese culture. In time China will be a tremendous democratic power, independently of the USA.

También

Many hold the torch of democracy, and your point of their being a Chinese version is well taken.

On the other hand, we are seeing mass protests and entrenched and dictatorial rule. The protests need a basis not only in spirit but in economic basis. There are a lot of hungry people protesting in Egypt, and I am certain the dictators have been trying to outwait the resources of those hungry.

Let us not forget that in the early 1800's Rev. Malthus formulated and presented his theories on the relation of population growth outgrowing food sustainability. This planet is there, and the agricultural forecasts for 2011 are for drought.

We shall see how horrible things can get, and Khadaffi is an index leader.

Donald

Yes there are economic issues currently, however democracy is patient. Just like love is patient and bides its time. We are talking about the power of democracy which is a subtle power based in the hearts, while economic issues come and go. Whether or not it results in democracy immediately the current crisis reveal its silent presence at work. It will continue to work and as people desire it and think about it more they will imagine ways to bring it about. It did not just suddenly happen for Europe and the USA either but was preceded by a lot of thought and people imagining how it would come about. Long periods of time ran their course until it succeeded. Despite the long wait, it was well worthwhile; and we are the beneficiaries of it today!

También

An East Indian friend came up with the retort that democracies only last 200 years. I believe this came from a Scottish professor.

The Wisconsin confrontation may well provide more insight into this statement.

Donald

Interesting, although humanity is a democracy and it has survived for much longer than that. Usually we view corruption on a personal scale and see the corruption inherent therein personally: He did this, and she caused that. Look at it alternatively as each dynasty is a snowball on a hot summer day, that day being our inherently varied and social species. A subset of a fractal will imitate the larger in order according to equilibrium, and a dynamic system expresses similarity within itself. Rome failed because it switched from a democratic to a dynastic system and was therefore incompatible with the larger system in which it lived. Of course you can question whether any particular group will maintain its democratic awareness for over 200 years, however no dynasty can be as stable as a democracy can partly because nobody lives that long.
I think variation and cooperation are inherent principles that will eventually force a choice between democracy and dynastic turnovers. If God were on earth it might be different, as then the world would be dynastic in nature. It is, however, not the case as God is in heaven and has apparently left it up to us to cooperate.

Donald,
     Apparently the 200-year limit for democracy was postulated by Alexander Tytler. He provides no list of failed democracies to substantiate his statement and I have found no examples by search or in my memory. Can you think of any?
Seán