I am borrowing this line from an American Senator from Alabama. This morning, I heard him say: "How dumb can we be, man?"
The topic reminded me a comment I read in this forum years ago. It was a reaction to a comment I had made in passant. I suggested that the "West" didn't invent democracy but borrowed it.
Somebody reacted to my comment and suggested that my suggestion was unethical and amounted to not giving credit to other people's inventions.
I don't know if he still stands by his reaction to my suggestion. I remember that reaction clearly because not giving credit where credit is due is not my forte or don't wish it to be. I also remember it because I thought it was a more general common knowledge. Somebody who could have been from the same vantage point as I when it comes to democracy reacting to my passant comment like that felt counterintuitive and a bit shocking. I think this feeling at the time is why it got stuck with me ever since.
A comment I heard in the news this morning reminded me at a moment's notice my suggestion then. It was shocking to me about democracy when I heard Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama say that he represents the people of this country or something to that effect. It made me ask quickly if he didn't know a constituency in Alabama elected him, that he represents that particular constituency, or if he is missing something.
In short, how is it that one of two Senators of one of America's fifty States goes public to say that he represents the citizens of all of the fifty States?
So, the question I would ask the participant who belittled my suggestion years ago that the "West" didn't invent democracy is this: Would he say that Senator Tuberville of Alabama is literate about democracy when he says he represents the people of this country instead of the constituency in Alabama that elected him?
If your answer is yes, I would have to ask: How dumb can you be, man?
If you answer is no and that his comment is just anecdotal, I would add Chris Christie for you for another anecdote.
I recently heard that he had stated back in 2016 that Donald Trump's skillset is not transferrable to a governmental setting or something to that effect. I couldn't agree more.
Then recently, I watched him raise his hand reluctantly to say that he would vote for a convicted felon if such becomes the nominee of his party. At that moment, I had to quickly say that is the paradox of the Queen's boy in a Republic.
If I remember correctly, I had heard him say on TV around 2016 that he pledges allegiance to the Queen. I don't know how he could do that without being treasonous to the U.S. as a Republic. That is between him, the Queen, or the King, and the U.S.
As an observer, I can't help noticing the contradiction between his knowledge about what skillsets a governmental setting requires like a Queen's boy should know and pledging to vote for a convicted felon when he saw an opportunity for himself to possibly become a President of a Republic. Have you heard anything more paradoxical than this contradiction when it comes to the practice of democracy?
Two anecdotes here. So, are you still resisting and saying that the "West" invented democracy?
I don't mean to say I said so here based on these anecdotes or after the U.S. has shown Trump for its lecture about democracy. I am suggesting that we continue to be enlightened about democracy, what it means, what gave birth to it, and where and when.