← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · toddbrendanfahey
Thread ID: 5040 | Posts: 22 | Started: 2003-02-16
2003-02-16 00:41 | User Profile
Ronald Reagan's Liberal Legacy
Ain't popular to say, in "conservative" circles, but it's true.
NOT said in this Washington Monthly feature (which is pretty irrefutable) is that Reagan could have selected as VP, say, Philip M. Crane or any other true American, rather than George Bush; Reagan also surrounded himself, in the Cabinet, with members of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, particularly after about 1982, despite his oft-repeated promise during his 1976 GOP primary battle against Gerald Ford, to "sweep the Trilateralists out of Washington."
Compared to Woodrow Wilson, LBJ and Nixon, Reagan was a good President. But so what? It's like saying, "Compared to eating a dung beetle, this bowl of dog stew tastes pretty good."
A great President will need to rescind about 20,000 Executive Orders, withdraw from and evict the United Nations from US soil, abolish the Federal Reserve System and reinstitute a precious metals standard (as specified in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution), for starters.
It's been a very long time since any President considered our republican Constitutional precepts.
[Washington Monthly article here]
2003-02-16 01:03 | User Profile
Reagan was a pro-Israel sorta-con. If your [anyone's] idea of "conservative" is Reagan, you been smokin' somethin', homedawg.
The only thing Reagan ever did that I liked was to call the Soviet Union "evil." Because it was. Too bad Ol' Ronnie never bothered to tell us WHICH RACE CREATED THE SOVIET UNION. [yeah, Mexicans, right....]
2003-02-16 02:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Feb 16 2003, 01:03 Reagan was a pro-Israel sorta-con. If your [anyone's] idea of "conservative" is Reagan, you been smokin' somethin', homedawg.
Well its relative. Reagan was certainly far more conservative than any president since Herbert Hoover, and any since.
I think on Israel he was just naive. Unlike since then, he and the Republicans were more even-handed on Israel than the Democrats. Several times he had to push arms sales through to Arab countries (Saudi Arabia and Egypt) over heavy Democratic opposition.
I remember the time when he called up the Israeli premier (Begin, I think) and told him to stop the bombardment of Beirut. Begin did of course. Afterwards Reagan said "I didn't realize I had the power to do that"
The only thing Reagan ever did that I liked was to call the Soviet Union "evil." Because it was. Too bad Ol' Ronnie never bothered to tell us WHICH RACE CREATED THE SOVIET UNION. [yeah, Mexicans, right....]
Actually the ADL had criticized Reagan before in his career. They didn't like the way he criticized and pointedly linked American communism with Trotsky. Remember how he also, in a gutsy stance that he stuck to despite heavy opposition from even within his administration, including Nancy, Deaver, and James Baker, as well as enormous opposition without, doggedly persisted in Buchanan's advice and spoke at the Wehrmacht cemetary in Bitburg, despite the red herring about a few Waffen SS veterans buried there.
Reagan was no superman, but I dare you to compare him to any other President in modern history for standing up for U.S. Sovereignty. Admittedly, that may seem like damnation by faint praise, but that's just the nature of our system. Even the best man gets tired constantly swimming upstream, and the powers that be insure the best man will never get elected anyway.
2003-02-16 17:54 | User Profile
Reagan was no superman, but I dare you to compare him to any other President in modern history for standing up for U.S. Sovereignty.
Agreed. I'm not bashing Reagan, just helping to illustrate the "myth v. perception," which this (liberal) Washington Monthly writer did a pretty good job in pointing out. The selection of George Bush as VP was really the beginning of the end of any notion that Reagan would stand up to the CFR/Trilat and UN One-Worlders. After that, his pick of George Schultz as Sec. State and Malcolm Baldridge at Treasury, confirmed that someone (or some group...those being the CFR/TC) other than Reagan was in charge of America.
But people like their soporifics, keeps 'em feeling warm & fuzzy...
2003-02-16 23:14 | User Profile
Why did the ultra Left Washington Monthly print an article like this???
It's all too True!
2003-02-17 00:00 | User Profile
I came to sentience during the 80s, and if I remember correctly, people really thought we had undone the 1960s. I did. Reagan wasn't dishonest, but he was a liberal by 1950s standards, and I think those of a conservative bent projected on him what they wanted to believe. Even Tom Fleming worked in the administration, back then.
My nostalgia for those years is always tempered by what came afterwards in the 1990s- that the illusion was pleasant, but just an illusion.
:(
2003-02-17 01:59 | User Profile
I know that James Baker got in trouble during the 1992 campaign by allegedly saying, "F-ck the Jews. They don't vote for us anyway."
Don't know what that has to with Ronald Reagan's political beliefs, but surely George Sr. had an astute man as his lead advisor.
-jay
2003-02-17 02:23 | User Profile
Jay,
Your focus is so narrow.
True enough, Jews by and large haven't voted GOP. They don't seem to learn from past totalitarianism...but, then again (and which will go to my point hereafter), the Republican party ain't no different (not since Calvin Coolidge, anyway) from the Democrat party.
Your praise of James Baker, merely on the level of his awareness of Jewish voting patterns in America, is so ignorant. George Bush I is a CFR/Trilateralist, a Skull&Bones top asset, and (nearly) anyone chosen by him during his Presidency is gonna, thereby, be the same sort of One-Worlder stooge.
So what if James Baker discounted the Jewish vote to the GOP? The GOP sucks these days; George Bush sucked harder; and his son is unspeakable.
You've got the logical acumen of a plastic cup.
2003-02-17 05:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Feb 16 2003, 17:54 **The selection of George Bush as VP was really the beginning of the end of any notion that Reagan would stand up to the CFR/Trilat and UN One-Worlders.ÃÂ After that, his pick of George Schultz as Sec. State and Malcolm Baldridge at Treasury, confirmed that someone (or some group...those being the CFR/TC) other than Reagan was in charge of America.
**
At the time, I remember the mainstream conservatives even at NR being content with Bush Sr. The reasoning was it would help Ronnie get elected, by "broadening his appeal". Little did we realize how it signaled just the start of a massive influx of moderate GOP officials from the old Ford administration.
I think, to give Ronnie his due, his assassination attempt had a big influence on him. He was just never the same man, with his old spunk, after that, and the moderate Nancy side of his administration started to run things.
BTW, here's a question for a conspiracy theorist. I always thought it was more than just a little odd that a son of high-placed and influential Bush supporters came within a hairbreadth of killing Reagan, and no one made a peep about it. Surely an old Bircher ought to have some theories on that, shouldn't he? :unsure:
2003-02-17 15:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Feb 16 2003, 20:23 ** Jay,You've got the logical acumen of a plastic cup. **
Todd Brendan Fahey strikes again.
-Jay
2003-02-17 15:50 | User Profile
Reagan's legacy was the MLK holiday. Need I say more?
-Z-
2003-02-17 17:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by Zoroaster@Feb 17 2003, 11:50 **Reagan's legacy was the MLK holiday.ÃÂ Need I say more?
-Z-**
In the same pandering manner internationally, Reagan ultimately caved to the Left and placed sanctions on the White government of South Africa, even though Pretoria at the time was an ally of the U.S. in the "Cold War," quite anti-Soviet. Of course, the sanctions helped the anti-White propaganda efforts of KGB assets in that country (such as Joe Slovo of the SACP) who were backing Nelson Mandela's release from prison...and the rest we know as history.
Come to think of it, let's not forget MLK was a KGB asset in this country, funded by the Soviets through his connections with the Highlander Folk School.
2003-02-17 19:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Feb 17 2003, 17:57 > Originally posted by Zoroaster@Feb 17 2003, 11:50 Reagan's legacy was the MLK holiday.ÃÂ Need I say more?
-Z-**
In the same pandering manner internationally, Reagan ultimately caved to the Left and placed sanctions on the White government of South Africa, even though Pretoria at the time was an ally of the U.S. in the "Cold War," quite anti-Soviet. **
Yes Zoroaster, you do need to say more, and no PA, although he did cave to neocon pressure on South Africa (I think, although I don't remember the exact details on it) it certainly doesn't qualify as "pandering". Both moves were reluctant acquisements after consistent and heavy pressure from the neocons.
On MLK day in particular, the circumstances are telling about the difference between Ronnie and the neocons. Reagan met with Jesse Helm's heard his objections to MLK, and admitted he found them quite convincing. He however said he felt political pressure to go ahead and approve MLK day because of the popular image of what MLK was, not who he actually was.
I think you forget what an overwhelmingly strong political groundswell there was for MLK day, especially outside the South. Meachem in AZ is one of the very few Nawthenuhs to take a public stance of opposition (and look what happened to him)
Sure, he could have done more. But compare Reagan's open admission of MLK defects to any other prominent GOP figure since, who now almost slavishly follow the neocon line of effusive MLK praise, as in the Trent Lott affair.
2003-02-17 19:35 | User Profile
Sure, he could have done more. But compare Reagan's open admission of MLK defects to any other prominent GOP figure since, who now almost slavishly follow the neocon line of effusive MLK praise, as in the Trent Lott affair.
You're right, FW I, in that sense, it is all relative. It also shows how far we've declined in this country--that false "popular image" seems to have solidified more and more.
2003-02-17 22:08 | User Profile
The worst things done on Reagan's Watch
MLK holiday
The Machine Gun Ban, part of the "1986 Gun Rights Law"?
"1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act" (illegal alien amnesty)
South Africa sanctions
I will say Reagan was the best President since Hoover, and did do some good. I think Bush the First undid any good Reagan had done by 1990.
2003-02-17 22:13 | User Profile
Joseph Sobran on this subject!!!
The Reagan Cult
October 7, 1999
A week ago conservatives were debating whether Pat Buchanan is still a conservative. Now theyââ¬â¢re debating whether George W. Bush is a conservative.
G.W. has fallen into the habit of self-extolment, at the expense of his party and some of his supporters. He offers himself as the advocate of ââ¬Åcompassionate conservatism.ââ¬Â This annoys other conservatives by its suggestion that compassion is alien to them, just as his fatherââ¬â¢s ââ¬Åkinder, gentlerââ¬Â vision suggested that Ronald Reaganââ¬â¢s presidency wasnââ¬â¢t sufficiently kind and gentle.
Now G.W. Bush has taken a couple of whacks at the Republican Congress, first for ââ¬Åbalancing the budget on the backs of the poorââ¬Â ââ¬â the very words Bill Clinton and countless other liberals have used ââ¬â and now for their pessimism about an America ââ¬Åslouching toward Gomorrah.ââ¬Â The latter phrase was a mocking allusion to the title of a book by Judge Robert Bork, who is held in high esteem by ââ¬Åculturalââ¬Â conservatives.
But all this arguing about whoââ¬â¢s a conservative omits one thing: a helpful definition of conservatism. In the conservative movement, only one certitude remains: the Reagan cult. Most conservatives still believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but Reagan runs a close fourth.
Republican presidential candidates invoke Reaganââ¬â¢s ââ¬Ålegacyââ¬Â and compare themselves to him at every opportunity; those who served in his administration ââ¬â as advisors, speechwriters, cabinet officers ââ¬â drop his name constantly (ââ¬ÅAs Ronald Reagan used to say ...ââ¬Â). What lends all this a touch of grim comedy is that today Ronald Reagan can remember none of these old intimates.
These candidates likewise attack each other with charges that their rivals have departed from the Ways of Reagan. Bush and Buchanan have been variously accused of abandoning Reaganââ¬â¢s warmth, optimism, vision, toughness, internationalism, etc. Like God, Reagan comprehends every perfection, and the flesh is flawed to the degree that it doesnââ¬â¢t resemble Reagan. Reagan has ascended to the plane of a Platonic form, a pure essence unsullied by lower matter, as witness the old conservative slogan ââ¬ÅLet Reagan be Reagan.ââ¬Â Only ââ¬Åthe people around Reaganââ¬Â ââ¬â wimpy poll-obsessed aides and advisors ââ¬â were preventing him from being himself. (As one exasperated wag quipped: ââ¬ÅLet someone else be Reagan.ââ¬Â)
Thus candidate Gary Bauer replies to G.W. Bush with a dual invocation of Reagan: ââ¬ÅYes, conservatives need to embrace the buoyant optimism of Ronald Reagan about our countryââ¬â¢s future. But we also need to be grounded in Ronald Reaganââ¬â¢s realism.ââ¬Â It all reminds one of the days when the Chinese appealed all questions to the great icon of Mao Zedong, even when Mao himself was silent: ââ¬ÅWe must be true to Chairman Maoââ¬â¢s socialist vision,ââ¬Â one side would say. ââ¬ÅYes,ââ¬Â the other side would reply, ââ¬Åbut we must also remember that Chairman Mao was a great pragmatist, never fettered by dogma.ââ¬Â The only question was which of Maoââ¬â¢s myriad virtues was most relevant at the moment.
In 1988 George H.W. Bush won the presidency by running as Ronald Reagan. He trailed Michael Dukakis in the polls until he gave a stirring convention speech ââ¬â ââ¬ÅRead my lips: No new taxes!ââ¬Â ââ¬â ghostwritten by Reaganââ¬â¢s poet laureate, Peggy Noonan. Bush won by a landslide, then enraged Reaganites by agreeing to new taxes.
I once teased my old friend and colleague William Rusher for being a total Reagan apologist. ââ¬ÅBill,ââ¬Â I told him, ââ¬Åwhenever Reagan does something awful, you defend it on one of two grounds: either that Reagan had no choice, or that the full wisdom of his action will be disclosed to lesser mortals in Godââ¬â¢s good time.ââ¬Â Unshaken, Bill instantly replied, ââ¬ÅMay I point out that the two positions are not necessarily incompatible?ââ¬Â
Reaganââ¬â¢s authorized biographer, Edmund Morris, frustrated in his search for the ââ¬Årealââ¬Â Reagan, encountered, in his many interviews with his subject, only an ââ¬Åairheadââ¬Â and a ââ¬Åbore.ââ¬Â Poor Morris was driven to write the most eccentric biography of our time, with a fictional character where Reagan should have been.
Itââ¬â¢s high time to face it: the ââ¬Årealââ¬Â Reagan beloved of conservatives never existed outside their imaginations.
Joseph Sobran
url: [url=http://www.sobran.com/columns/991007.shtml]http://www.sobran.com/columns/991007.shtml[/url]
2003-02-19 07:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by Frederick William I@Feb 16 2003, 02:18 ** I think on Israel he was just naive. **
In general I agree with what you say, but I don't think Reagan was naive.
I think that 20 years ago the IP had not fully consolidated its power. Remember that in the 1980's you had a massive concentration of corporate wealth lead by IP members Michael Milkin et al, which only accelerated in the 1990's after a brief respite. This allowed the IP to capture many, many of the boards and management of our largest corporations. Eisner was knocking back 600 million per year, as were the lads from Enron.
On the political front, Clinton's political appointees were largely IP, and all levels of the bureacracy were infiltrated thoroughly. There's a great deal of bureaucratic intertia behind all that - it's impossible to change overnight.
Reagan had more power relative to the IP back then. Bush is coming on the heels of 20 years of IP-lead corporate monopilization and 8 years of the IP actually having their hands on the levers of political power.
While Bush and the Houston oil boys aren't IP, they understand the power structures that they confront.
Bush simply lacks the power to say no.
Walter
2003-02-19 16:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by Frederick William I@Feb 17 2003, 19:17 ** > Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Feb 17 2003, 17:57 > Originally posted by Zoroaster@Feb 17 2003, 11:50 Reagan's legacy was the MLK holiday.ÃÂ Need I say more?
-Z-**
In the same pandering manner internationally, Reagan ultimately caved to the Left and placed sanctions on the White government of South Africa, even though Pretoria at the time was an ally of the U.S. in the "Cold War," quite anti-Soviet. **
Yes Zoroaster, you do need to say more, and no PA, although he did cave to neocon pressure on South Africa (I think, although I don't remember the exact details on it) it certainly doesn't qualify as "pandering". Both moves were reluctant acquisements after consistent and heavy pressure from the neocons.
On MLK day in particular, the circumstances are telling about the difference between Ronnie and the neocons. Reagan met with Jesse Helm's heard his objections to MLK, and admitted he found them quite convincing. He however said he felt political pressure to go ahead and approve MLK day because of the popular image of what MLK was, not who he actually was.
I think you forget what an overwhelmingly strong political groundswell there was for MLK day, especially outside the South. Meachem in AZ is one of the very few Nawthenuhs to take a public stance of opposition (and look what happened to him)
Sure, he could have done more. But compare Reagan's open admission of MLK defects to any other prominent GOP figure since, who now almost slavishly follow the neocon line of effusive MLK praise, as in the Trent Lott affair. **
Frederick William,
Youââ¬â¢re a fine fellow, Frederick William. Generally, I find myself in agreement with your conservative views; occasionally, however, politics distorts your better judgment and, like Don Quixote, you go off chasing windmills.
A case in point is your defense of Ronald Reagan for signing into law the MLK holiday. With the exception of Jesus Christ, no other American holiday, except MLK day, celebrates a single individual.. Is Martin Luther King equal to Jesus Christ? Should King be elevated above the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln? Of course not, and we both know it.
The best defense I can give Reagan is that he started out as a decent enough president, opposed to the NOW agenda and so forth, until John Hinkley came along and made a true believer out of him. Signing the King Holiday Bill into law was a simple act of political cowardice. The holiday has come to serve as the lynchpin of ââ¬Åpolitical correctnessââ¬Â and multiculturalism,ââ¬Â which is Reaganââ¬â¢s legacy. His presidency paved the way for pro-Israel, Neo-con Trotskyites to take over the Republican Party and turn it into the war party.
Hereââ¬â¢s what Sam Francis has to say about the MLK Holiday:
[url=http://www.amren.com/francis.htm]http://www.amren.com/francis.htm[/url]
-Z-
2003-02-19 22:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by Zoroaster@Feb 19 2003, 16:58 > Sure, he could have done more. But compare Reagan's open admission of MLK defects to any other prominent GOP figure since, who now almost slavishly follow the neocon line of effusive MLK praise, as in the Trent Lott affair. **
Frederick William,
Youââ¬â¢re a fine fellow, Frederick William. :) **
Thank You> ** Is Martin Luther King equal to Jesus Christ? Should King be elevated above the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln? Of course not, and we both know it.
The best defense I can give Reagan is that he started out as a decent enough president, opposed to the NOW agenda and so forth, until John Hinkley came along and made a true believer out of him. Signing the King Holiday Bill into law was a simple act of political cowardice. The holiday has come to serve as the lynchpin of ââ¬Åpolitical correctnessââ¬Â and multiculturalism,ââ¬Â which is Reaganââ¬â¢s legacy. His presidency paved the way for pro-Israel, Neo-con Trotskyites to take over the Republican Party and turn it into the war party.**
The King Holiday as "a lynchpin for political correctness"? Part of the reason I don't follow this thread is that I sometimes have difficulty seeing the case to be made for making such a big deal about symbolism and national holidays. I know there's an argument to be made, but I don't really see it being made. Shute, most people just ignore National Hoidays anyway. How many go to ceremonies on Memorial Day or Veterans Day for instance? Tose things are basically dying out.
I can easily see some politician say "hey we got to give the blacks one Holiday. Its just good Affirmative Action. What difference does it make, if its MLK day, Malcomb X day, Michael Jordan day, Michael Jackson Day, national breakdancing day, or national watermelon and fried chicken day? Just give them their own day to go breakdancing and watermelon eating, and if they let us alone the other 365 days that's a pretty good trade."
**Hereââ¬â¢s what Sam Francis has to say about the MLK Holiday:
[url=http://www.amren.com/francis.htm]http://www.amren.com/francis.htm[/url]
-Z-**
Thanks for that link. You know it is interesting that Samuel Francis notes how Jesse Helms was widely rumoured to be committing political suicide by his opposition, yet made political capital of the bill. As I recall, he even managed to win respect, if not support, for his position from many blacks.
A younger, more vigorous Reagan might indeed have chosen to make a fight against MLK day, and similarly have made winning political capital out of it. It certainly was something he could do on occasion. Here however he succumed to the political advisors and decided there were more important things to fight over.
It strikes me, if the worst thing you can say about Ronald Reagan is he signed the MLK day holiday bill, it would strike an awful lot of people even on our side that this simply shows what a good President he was.
2003-02-20 01:33 | User Profile
It strikes me, if the worst thing you can say about Ronald Reagan is he signed the MLK day holiday bill, it would strike an awful lot of people even on our side that this simply shows what a good President he was.
You have a valid point, Frederick William, but it does not change my mind about Reagan. His election of Bush the Elder as VP undermined the conservative foundation of his administration even before it began. What we have now is the Bush dynasty: "political correctness" in the form of an oxymoron, "compassionate conservatism," and a policy of perpetual war on behalf of Israel and the Walll Street crowd that could destroy America.
As you say, the MLK holiday is mostly symbolism. What the MLK holiday symbolizes is the life and times of a philanderer and sex fiend who associated with political radicals. If Reagan felt Blacks must have a holiday, he should have proclaimed it Black Saints Day and not honored King.
The daughter of Ron and Nancy once appeared on the one-eyed Jew and, during an interview, said her father did not recognize evil. She said that it could be all around him, everywhere, and he'd just ignore it. Maybe that explains the Reagan Presidency.
-Z-
2003-02-20 03:59 | User Profile
I worked for Governor Evan Mecham, from 1986-87. The man was a passionate advocate of state's rights (10th amendment) and a member of the John Birch Society. His first official act being to abolish the MLK holiday outraged the liberals, and essentially sealed his ouster from office.
Only 8% of Arizona residents are black; but, as we know, MLK is a sacred cow to socialists and guilt-ridden whites.
Mecham never had a chance. He had defeated Establishment favorite Burton Barr--then-Speaker of the House of the AZ legislature and corrupt to the core (land-holdings amassed via insider knowledge of things to come in Arizona). Reagan and McCain were both Barr-backers. Mecham defeated him in a primary-election upset-landslide. Then, thanks to the entry of a moderate-Independent (3rd party) in the general election, he won the governorship.
The elected Attorney General (a guy named Bob Corbin, a moderate Republican) had it out for Mecham from Day 1. Corbin was also a Barr-backer. Eventually, a couple of incredibly minor "campaign violations" were discovered by Attorney General Corbin (basically screw ups in accounting, which were the fault of Mecham's brother, who was his campaign treasurer and was not a sharp guy to begin with)--stuff so minor they wouldn't warrant public discussion in today's politics. But the charges snowballed, along w/ the MLK issue and Mecham's JBS affiliation.
I was there at Ground Zero; the most exciting time I've had in my 38yrs. Mecham wasn't gifted at the microphone (Dan Quayle-syndrome), but he was a sharp writer and a patriot par excellance. Not since vintage George Wallace has America had a more patriotic state Governor.
2003-02-20 08:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Feb 20 2003, 03:59 **I worked for Governor Evan Mecham, from 1986-87.ÃÂ The man was a passionate advocate of state's rights (10th amendment) and a member of the John Birch Society.ÃÂ His first official act being to abolish the MLK holiday outraged the liberals, and essentially sealed his ouster from office.
Only 8% of Arizona residents are black; but, as we know, MLK is a sacred cow to socialists and guilt-ridden whites......
The elected Attorney General (a guy named Bob Corbin, a moderate Republican) had it out for Mecham from Day 1.ÃÂ Corbin was also a Barr-backer.ÃÂ Eventually, a couple of incredibly minor "campaign violations" were discovered by Attorney General Corbin (basically screw ups in accounting, which were the fault of Mecham's brother, who was his campaign treasurer and was not a sharp guy to begin with)--stuff so minor they wouldn't warrant public discussion in today's politics.ÃÂ But the charges snowballed, along w/ the MLK issue and Mecham's JBS affiliation.**
I remember reading this somewhere, maybe NR. It seemed interesting really how flimsy the pretext was for removing Meachem. Or how oddly complacent was the reaction of the existing "conservative" press. I think this is where the neocon takeover really started to show its weight.
At the time Arizona was the most conservative state in the Nation outside the South, quite probably the most conservative period. If opposition to MLK was enough to de facto criminalize you in AZ, it was enough anywhere.
Some historian might note this the day the neocon crypto-Trotskyite counterrevolution ended the putative "Reagan Revolution" - and Democracy/Republican/Constitutional government - in America.