“The Spartan people preferred two kings at odds, rather than one directing affairs with unchallenged power.I am not sure how we would recreate that today but I would suggest the two political parties as candidates for kings. They are constantly fighting each other for control and to set the agenda. I don’t know how many times I have heard “this is the end of the _______ party”. And then a few years later I hear it the other way.
“The two-king system, although it produced its own difficulties, did prevent the rise of a Mesopotamian-style monarchy”, p. 421
Partisanship is part of the reason our system works. If you only have one party then you end up with the kind of brutal repression common in the socialist systems of National Socialism and Communism. Anyone who ever gets out of their bedroom realizes that large number of people never agree on things. The only way you can have one party rule is by severe repression of any dissenting voice.
So let’s here it for partisanship. That is the point of the First Amendment. The Second is there for those times when the left forgets the boundaries of discourse.
November is coming. Let the anarchists and socialists feel the burn.
Bauer, Susan Wise. The History of the Ancient World. New York:
W. W. Norton, 2007.
homo unius libri
One concern that I have is that we will devolve into MANY parties as some European countries and then get NOTHING done.ReplyDelete
Our system makes that very unlikely, or so I am told. The parliamentary system also makes it possible to replace the head of state at a moments notice. No thank you.ReplyDelete
Grace and peace