A
Brilliant Prophecy From 93 Years Ago.
L.
Mencken (born 1880 - died 1956) was a journalist,
satirist, critic, and
Democrat .
He wrote this editorial while working for the Baltimore Evening Sun, which appeared
in the July 26, 1920 edition.
He wrote this editorial while working for the Baltimore Evening Sun, which appeared
in the July 26, 1920 edition.
"As
democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more
closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks
of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied
by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."
closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks
of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied
by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."
H.L.Mencken,
The
Baltimore Evening Sun,
July 26, 1920
I see what you did there. Happy?
ReplyDelete"In addition to his literary accomplishments, Mencken was known for his controversial ideas. As a frank admirer of German philosopher Nietzsche, he was not a proponent of representative democracy, which he believed was a system in which inferior men dominated their superiors. During and after World War I, he was sympathetic to the Germans, and was very distrustful of British propaganda. However, he also referred to Adolf Hitler and his followers as "ignorant thugs." Mencken, through his wide criticism of actions taken by government, has had a strong impact on the American left and the American libertarian movement."
ReplyDeleteHee, hee. a strong impact on the left and libertarian movements. Hell you guys must be on the wrong side hanging with the repubs.
Just looking in an unbiased way at the quote, I wonder at its intent and relevance, even more so, as to its relevance today. Of course any student of US Political history is familiar with the philosophy of Menken.We are more aware of his satirical outpourings and this leads us to question his intent.
ReplyDeleteTaken at face value, the (part) quote can only be read as a piece of satire. The quote contradicts the writers stated intent in that it glorifies “democracy” but then lampoons the very system which gives the results after the people have made their choice. I can certainly understand the feelings of despair; 1920 was so close to the end of WW1 and Woodrow Wilson and many of his policies were on the nose. It was likely even in July that the Rebubs were likely to win the White House. Menkin was a Democrat and so the use of his position to write editorials was expected. Of course, the Republican candidate was also a newspaper man, Warren Harding and coincidentally the now forgotten Democratic candidate (Cox) was a newspaper executive. The huge margin (25% plus) for Harding may well have been affected by the 18th amendment which enfranchised the female members of the population.
It is easy to be wise after the event but I would be interested to hear opinions here, particularly on the question “was this a good election to lose”. There is also a case to be made for re examination of the Woodrow Wilson presidency; I could contribute some controversy from a British/Australian standpoint but I await any contributions from the US side of the fence. Cheers from Aussie
http://www.zazzle.com/anti_obama_moron_bumper_stickers-128706412725312755
ReplyDeleteThe problem with "clever" quotes like the one above is that they don't say anything meaningful. If you associate that same quote with George W Bush instead of Obama, you likely get just as many people to agree. A proclivity of the farther left and farther right in this country is to believe that they truly are victims of a government that is out of control. My take is that we get the government we deserve. Many conservatives are currently in a state of perpetual outrage over the Obama administration, over Obamacare and a great many other things. Like many liberals, however, they don't want to offer something better and instead want to just endlessly bitch and complain. Sadly, this has become a general trait of Americans. I'll say it again, the collective of legislators in Washington are doing exactly what we want them to do and we should accept that.
ReplyDeleteI respect our history and history in general. It's fascinating to look at snapshots in the development of our species. We can learn a great deal from history, but at this point in the development in this country, we collectively lack the desire or ability to use lessons from history wisely. In the context of today, which is what most concerns me, we have quite a few problems that I believe threaten the stability of the country. One group, however, would like to see us use an outlook that existed at the inception of the country. Others, such as myself, would like to employ an outlook held by people such as Teddy Roosevelt. Those people, in their day, were visionary and forward looking. Today, we are revisionist and backward looking. Obama sold the majority of the country a vision, and the minority has done everything in its power since then to derail that vision.
Given the reality of the attitude that pervades this country today, I sort of feel like discussions of our history are sort of like serving a fancy gourmet dinner on the upturned lid of a garbage can.
Is this the Mark Twain creative writers' club? Seriously. All the perfume in the world can't make what you say valid. It's not a logic issue. The trouble lies in your cherry picked premises.
Delete"If you associate that same quote with George W Bush instead of Obama, you likely get just as many people to agree."
DeleteBoth Obama and Bush weren't born in 1920 Max. Why so defensive?
Obama sold the majority of the country a vision, and the minority has done everything in its power since then to derail that vision.
DeleteBut does the majority still believe in that vision? If not, why?
Jimbo, what cherry picked premises?
DeleteWilliam, why so passive/aggressive?
Lou, I don't mean to mince words, but it's not that simple. Part of Obama's vision was that we would wind down wars, bring troops home, close GITMO and be less aggressive. I think there is still majority support for these positions, especially in Afghanistan.
He talked about developing more alternative energy, committed SOME money to it, but IMO, has not really pushed it all that hard and I believe part of that is simply a matter of not wanting to waste time dealing with fossil energy funded pushback. I believe a majority would like something more than just continuing to burn fossil fuels. This is not to say that all want a mythical world where everything is powered by solar or wind, but, something less all or nothing than an energy plan to seeks to just make oil and natural gas cheaper.
Obama also sold himself as the guy who would be different, and I believe a majority of Americans are still desperately wanting a true leader to emerge. Ultimately, however, Obama has made many of the same deal with Wall Street that prior presidents have, he's been willing to sign off on social program roll backs (save for Obama care), and even when he has done something progressive in an attempt to help the middle class, he seems unable to explain it.
From McConnell's promise to try and make him a one term president to the rantings of that asshole who yelled "You Lie", there has been a non stop effort to make everything associated with Obama a failure. Most here don't like Obama, so the only response I ever get to my little tirades about the damage that this dysfunction is causing is A) a list of conservative reasons why Obama sucks, B) screaming about why the debt has never been an issue at any point until now and C) the classic rebuttal of Democrats do it too.
Obama has disappointed me, partly by his chosen actions and partly by his inability to get off the ropes. Historically, he will not go down anywhere near the rank that his predecessor will. For people who were unable to separate Obama the man from the vision, undoubtedly they do not believe in the vision any longer.
Yes, Americans want a true leader. A responsible leader with integrity. A person who realizes the differences in our citizenry and compromises to make the system work again.
DeleteAs far as the vision, Obama has proven that his vision was nothing but a campaign tactic for election and again for re-election. I'm dismayed at everyone that accepts the mis statements from politicians and dismisses them as oh well.
People are becoming concerned about the debt as it's 17 trillion headed to 18 trillion with no slow down in sight. Unfortunately everyone rich to poor will need to begin paying as it approaches 20 trillion to continue funding the entitlements in this society.
Interesting thing about wind, doesn't always blow, kills lots of birds and takes up lots of space. Solar, great when the sun shines, takes up lots of space. Still requires all those nasty power plants. Imagine all of Nevada. Arizona, Southern California, New Mexico covered in Solar panels all to provide power for part of American. Neither are a solution but a stop gap measure. Instead of investing in stop gap, perhaps they should invest in a source available everywhere in the country, maybe Hydrogen cells.
In any case, the previous president was a disappointment at best and the current is much the same.
And Obama did lie many times as it comes to light he was briefed with Leon Panetta that it was a terrorist attack in Benghazi and had nothing to do with a video. He didn't tell the entire story that millions would lose their health insurance and he knew it before the election and many more little fibs.
But such is life, we deserve better that what we have in congress and the presidency today.
"But such is life, we deserve better that what we have in congress and the presidency today."
DeleteAs an honest question, why do we deserve better? I would offer that in all honesty, we really don't deserve better. Bush, or rather Karl Rove and Obama correctly assessed what would sell. A true leader would be someone who's taken risks, made mistakes, who knows failure and success. With the partisanship that exists today, we could not elect a true leader because such a person could not get past the stupid reality show that our political process has become. Republican primaries are nothing but immortalizations of Ronald Reagan and likewise Democratic conventions have become suckup to Clinton fests. We currently have what we deserve.
Ouch, the truth hurts especially concerning the primaries which are a circus at best. We begin with 2 inconsequential states and the rest follow. After the half way point the rest of the country might as well save the money as the candidates have largely been selected.
DeleteWe don't get the the candidate we deserve but the candidate that promises the most. We chose what's good for the person instead of what's best for the country. We hold no one accountable from the president to every government official. A sad commentary for the great political system we have developed.
yeah, I agree with that.
DeleteA little twitchy their Max?.... I believe the quote was an open ended statement about what we are likely to end up with...A road, a path, as to the types of people we elect and what we allow them to get away with.. unless of course you feel that Obama is indeed the culmination of that statement or just another bad decision in that direction.
DeleteMax my thanks for the response. There is much in what you write which is thought provoking. There is also some which indicates acceptance of the status quo rather than the revolutionary ideals of William and his cohorts. Perhaps the ideal lies somewhere in between? As someone with a life long interest in history, and American history for about the last two decades, I cannot accept that all of the precedents laid down in the past, are suitable for the needs of today. What we can do is honor the men who set those precedents and then use their wisdom to modify them to suit conditions as we find them. There are two examples, among many others, which illustrate my point. One I mentioned recently was the 19th amendment which saw women win the right to vote at the 1920 Presidential election. Here was an example of the wisdom of the founders being honored and amended to suit the NEEDS of the people as society changed. The thrust of the constitution was not altered to a large degree but the constitutional concept of freedom as espoused in the 1st amendment was strengthened. It would indeed have been possible to go back to the very beginning of the American struggle and campaign for emancipation “No citizenship without representation”
ReplyDeleteMy second example, and this is on the reverse side of the argument is the second amendment. I know how the god given freedoms are jealously guarded, but I fail to see how the right to keep and bear arms can be retained in a Constitutional sense. The congress passed the amendments at a time when the Constitution was still a document awaiting total acceptance by the nation and when there was a genuine need for a Militia. The Jeffersonian argument that the people needed protection against government was as outlandish then as it is now. History has subsequently shown that the constitution can be sidetracked by clever wording with the result that until recently your country had unlimited power throughout the world, despite your constitutional impediments.
What I wish to get too, is the continued reliance on the second to encourage the proliferation of gun ownership. The rest of the world is appalled by the constant stream of reports where mindless killings are taking place simply because guns are available to anyone. Perhaps here is an example where the “People”, not the NRA and other lobbyists should consider whether the founder’s wisdom has outlived its usefulness.
So there you are, without doubt the United States has a Constitution, and more importantly, a people who believe in the document more than they do in Political affiliations. Perhaps unlike the British who value the chains of the political establishment rather than the implied freedoms of the Magna Carta. More than anything else, these differences give us who populate these sites, the opportunity to learn from each other.
Cheers from Aussie
"The Jeffersonian argument that the people needed protection against government was as outlandish then as it is now."
DeleteWow, profound King. We live in two worlds. Square a few things for me here. Are you saying that an unarmed people have as much chance of overthrowing someone like Hitler as an armed people?
The unarmed Cuban's haven't fared to well for over fifty years now have they?
The unarmed North Korean's haven't fared to well for over sixty years now have they?
And as for personal protection King. How do you square the fact that the States and cities with the strongest gun control measures have the most gun violence? IE: Chicago, Newark, Camden, Philadephia, Los Angeles.
The man in the police uniform shouted for the campers to come closer. When they did, he killed them.
DeleteThe gunman who killed at least 80 people at an island youth camp north west of Oslo used his disguise to lure in his victims, then shot them twice to make sure they were dead, survivors said in the village of Sundvollen, where they were taken after the massacre.
Speaking on the phone to Sky News Adrian Pracon said he heard the killer shout that everyone was going to die.
The 21-year-old said: 'He yelled out that he was going to kill us all and that we must all die. I started speculating and thinking this can't be real because Norwegian people wouldn't attack Norway.'
Mr Pracon also described how he could hear the gunman's boots as he walked along the rocks and felt his breath moments before he shot him in the back.
'I was lying on a rock, face down and I could hear him coming. I could feel his breath.
'As he approached, he shot at me to see if I was dead and fortunately I didn't move so he thought I was dead.
'I was laying there for two hours, still healthy but very cold.'
Before he was shot Mr Pracon said he had tried to escape the island by swimming into the ocean but only managed a short distance before deciding to turn back.
'I jumped into the water like the rest of the people but I did not have time to take my clothes off and it had started to rain.
'When I had swum about 100 metres I felt I had to turn back because I started to get very cold and felt I might meet a certain death.'
Once he reached the shore he saw Breivik who pointed his gun at him.
'I screamed to him, please no please. I didn't know if he didn't want to just kill me because I was one person or if he preferred to kill a group of people.
'Later he started shooting out of nowhere and I was hiding behind the bodies.'
Elise, 15, said was just feet away from the gunman when he opened fire in the camp on Utoya island: 'I saw many dead people.'
Elise said she had just come out from an information meeting in a nearby building when she heard gunshots. She saw a police officer and thought she was safe, but then he started shooting.
'He first shot people on the island. Afterwards he started shooting people in the water," she said.
Elise said she hid behind the same rock that the killer was standing on. "I could hear his breathing from the top of the rock," she said.
In panic, the girl phoned her parents, whispering to them what was going on.
'They told me not to panic and that everything would be OK," she said.
Her parents also told her to get rid of a brightly coloured jacket she was wearing to not draw attention to herself.
She said it was impossible to say how many minutes passed while she was waiting for him to stop.
Survivors described a scene of sheer terror at the camp, which is organised by the youth wing of Norway's ruling Labour party.
Hundreds of young people were eagerly awaiting a speech the prime minister was to give there today.
Several of the survivors seemed calm as anxious parents picked them up at a Sundvollen hotel, but the stories they told were of utter terror.
Dana Berzingi said the fake police officer ordered people to come closer, then pulled weapons and ammunition from a bag and started shooting.
Several victims "had pretended as if they were dead to survive," the 21-year-old said. But after shooting the victims with one gun, the gunman shot them again in the head with a shotgun, he said.
"I lost several friends," said Mr Berzingi, whose trousers were stained with blood. He said he used the mobile phone of one of his fallen friends to call police.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017938/Norway-massacre-Teenager-begged-Anders-Behring-Breivik-mercy.html#ixzz2qISN4xQ3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
To own a gun in Norway, one must document a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or "self-defence," but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency and "the second is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership."
Deletewiki
Michelle, Helsinki, 2 years ago
Delete@ MD Clayton About your comment on that they should have same gun controls as UK. I come from South London, There are 14 and 15 year olds walking around with guns! There maybe gun controls but it's still not that hard for kids to get hold of them. Sad but true. But at the same time it's better to have better gun controls than not. I live in Finland now and we have had school shoitings as people will remember but my old neighbourhood in London has shootings every week. Sadly although gun controls should be In place, they won't stop people getting hold of guns if they want to kill.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017962/Anders-Behring-Breivik-Right-wing-extremist-hated-immigrants-multi-culturalism.html#ixzz2qIYurdJK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
K,
DeleteIf a man didn't have a gun would he still kill?
If you were to pass a law that made guns illegal would criminals turn in their guns?
Would the drug cartels surrender their guns?
Would people be less safe with an armed criminal element and an u armed citizenry?
With an unstable government, how would the populace protect themselves from the government?
Lou, thanks for the response.
Delete(1) Perhaps he would, there would however be more opportunity for premeditation in many cases. A gun is so instant and the mere possession of a lethal weapon provides its owner with a sense of power.
(2) No of course not, it would however empower the law enforcers to remove guns at every opportunity and from every citizen not employed in occupations requiring the possession of firearms
(3) Again no. they would fall under the same conditions as in your question 2
(4) In the medium to long term they would be much safer. Here in Australia we have found a very significant fall in gun deaths since our gun laws were introduced. There has however been a significant increase in death by other forms of violence, particularly stabbing. By the way I am talking about an increase of less than 10 per city and in some cases, per state so the problem is not large in numerical or percentage terms as in the US
(5) This is the area in which I have been most interested in this debate. American Citizens appear to revere the constitution to the extent that it is akin to Holy Writ, as I said a day or so back; for you constitution first, government second!. Nothing wrong with this approach of course but any constitution without change does eventually show its age. I must turn your question back on itself, from whence can your “Tyrant” come? You now have a standing army, despite the constitution banning it. You have the Electoral College, designed by the founders to prevent the “Tyrannical oppression you fear. You have the Supreme Court and the two houses with full democratic representation on the hill. I asks again Lou, where is the Tyrant to be found? If Americans are unable to convincingly answer this, I honestly believe you will serve your people well if you follow the lead of some other countries including mine with gun control.
Tyrannical?
Delete"Obama, speaking to reporters during a cabinet meeting at the White House, foreshadowed his upcoming State of the Union address and what appeared to be a new messaging strategy by emphasizing his ability to take executive actions without approval from lawmakers."
http://nypost.com/2014/01/14/obama-i-can-use-executive-orders-to-take-action-in-2014/
William thanks for the reference. I looked it up and a whole new can of worms appeared. Even as a nominal Republican I can determine nothing "Tyrannical" in the reference. What does shock and horrify me though is the article itself which appears light on evidence and long on opinion with a very strong, one could say right wing bias. That the article is sourced from Reuters speaks volumes. Could readers here, in just a few short words pass an opinion as to whether the article is typical of American journalism, if the publication is normally left or right leaning and finally are you content with the type of media you appear to be getting? I have no idea about TV but there must be some cause for concern surely.
ReplyDeleteWhat is apparent king is that Obama won't compromise with the opposition majority. He prefers to govern by edict. Why not comment with your opinion as a loyal subject instead of criticizing the media?
DeleteThe actual remarks from the WH press room:
Deletehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/14/remarks-president-cabinet-meeting
This is the attitude of the president of the democratic party, my way or the highway.
The article is accurate. What it didn't say it is just short of a veiled threat.
The actual remarks from the WH press room:
DeleteRemarks by the President Before Cabinet Meeting
Cabinet Room
11:04 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: I’m glad to be able to pull together my Cabinet for the first official Cabinet meeting of the year, and I want to wish everybody a wonderful New Year.
We’ve got a lot to do in 2014. As I’ve said before, this is going to be a year of action. We’ve seen the economy improve. We want to maximize the pace of our recovery, but most importantly, we want to make sure that every American is able to benefit from that recovery, that we’re not leaving anybody behind and everybody is getting a fair shot.
I was very pleased to see the House and the Senate agree to a budget and to put forward a bill that will fund our government at levels that allow us to take some important steps to provide the services and the help that Americans need and American families need in order to get ahead in this economy. And so I would urge that Congress pass that funding measure as quickly as possible so that all these agencies have some certainty around their budgets.
And Congress is going to have some additional work over the course of the next several weeks; specifically, it’s important that they do something about unemployment insurance. Although we’ve seen improvements in the economy and job creation in our economy, I think we all know that there are a lot of hardworking Americans out there who are desperately looking for a job, and unemployment insurance is not only good for them and necessary for them, but it’s also good for our economy as a whole and will actually accelerate our growth if we go ahead and get that done. We know that we need to get immigration reform done -- a major piece of unfinished business from last year.
So Congress is going to be busy, and I’m looking forward to working with Democrats and Republicans, House members and Senate members, to try to continue to advance the economic recovery and to provide additional ladders of opportunity for everybody. But one of the things that I’ll be emphasizing in this meeting is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for a legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone -- and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible and making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.
And I’ve got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life -- non-profits, businesses, the private sector, universities -- to try to bring more and more Americans together around what I think is a unifying theme: making sure that this is a country where if you work hard, you can make it.
So one of the things that I’m going to be talking to my Cabinet about is how do we use all the tools available to us, not just legislation, in order to advance a mission that I think unifies all Americans -- the belief that everybody has got to take responsibility, everybody has got to work hard, but if you do, that you can support a family and meet the kinds of obligations that you have to yourself and your family but also to your communities and to your nation.
DeleteWe’re already seeing some examples of that. In fact, this week I’ll be traveling tomorrow down to North Carolina to talk about a manufacturing innovation hub that we initiated, talked about in our State of the Union last year. It’s going to be moving forward. And there are a lot of folks down in North Carolina who are excited, because it’s a perfect example of the kind of public-private partnership that can really make a difference in growing our economy faster and creating the kinds of good-paying jobs that help people get ahead.
I’ll also be pulling together university presidents from all across the country to talk about how we can make college education more accessible to more young people around this country. And we’re going to be bringing CEOs from across the country to also have a conversation about commitments they can make to start hiring the long-term unemployed -- people who oftentimes have terrific skills, have a great work ethic, have wonderful experience, but because of the misfortune of having been laid off or lost their jobs during the depths of an extremely severe recession, have been out of work long enough that now we’re finding it’s very hard for them to just get in the door and make their case to an employer; that there’s some screening that’s taking place for people who have been out of work for more than a month or two and it makes it harder for them to get the kind of shot that they need. And we’re going to try to work with CEOs to make a pledge that we’re going to take a second look at these Americans who are very eager to get back to work and have the capacity to do so, but aren’t getting the kind of shot that they need.
So, overall, the message to my Cabinet and that will be amplified in our State of the Union is that we need all hands on deck to build on the recovery that we’re already seeing. The economy is improving, but it could be improving even faster. A lot of people are doing better than they were in the depths of the recession, but there are still a lot of folks who need help. And I am absolutely confident that in 2014, if we’re all working in the same direction and not worrying so much about political points but worrying much more about getting the job done, that we can see a lot of improvement this year, and people will look back on 2014 as a year in which we didn’t just turn the corner in the aggregate for the economy, but everybody started feeling a little more optimistic about our futures.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/14/remarks-president-cabinet-meeting
Reuters was quite accurate in their assessment. What they were kind enough to say is it was just short of a threat. He acts like a child stomping his feet if he doesn't get his way. My way or the highway.
Pathetic.
" But one of the things that I’ll be emphasizing in this meeting is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for a legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone -- and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward,,,"
DeleteThis borders on impeachable action.
He's riding a fine line. He may think he can rule from above. We the people are capable of individual nullification. We may just stop "sending it in." Be very careful Barrack.
1773-2009
Thank you both, I cannot understand the advice re the "Loyal subject” from William but the remarks from Lou are enlightening. Not sure if you are aware of an Australian (now UIS citizen) who owns about half the worlds media, but he oversaw the election of the present Australian government and there have been several opinion pieces here recently in his publications which lean heavily against the new government policies. Gotta Lovit has frequently been critical of your media and I would like to explore that subject further.
ReplyDeleteA fairly decent study on media bias. What you need to be able to do is determine what is an opinion piece and what is news reporting. The problem with news reporting is of course bias. It is not only the tone of the writing, left or right but also what is or is not reported. Failing to report a news story is a form of bias.
Deletehttp://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
An example of Media bias today, Reporting on the failure of green energy companies. Limited reporting at best with many companies that received government grants, loans that declared bankruptcy. If this would have happened under a conservative administration, we would still be hearing about it. Another more recent example is the Christie bridge debacle. Clearly a local issue the media and left have blown out of proportion. Compare that to the lack of reporting on the ACA issue. Obama clearly knew millions would lose their healthcare but didn't disclose anything about oit until after the election. The media has conveniently did a non reporting on the issue. The same for the pricing of insurance via the exchange, a non reported event from the media. If you would like more info let me know.
Your opinion as a loyal subject of the Queen is valuable in providing contrast with those of us that are blessed to live in a free society. Comments from your perspective are case studies for us in evaluating the situation in which we presently ourselves. That is of living under an executive that feels he can usurp legislative powers backed by a compliant media.
DeleteSubject vs Citizen
Compare and contrast.