His main point is valid:
It took America quite some time to develop this democracy we cherish.
Remember that when you decry "sham" elections abroad or declare single-party states "dictatorships." Because if mature, multiparty democracy was so darn easy, everybody would have one.
It did take a long time for democratic government to be extended to everyone as it is today. But some of his rhetoric over historic facts is misleading imo:
The enemy branded our military leader a terrorist. In fact, its Parliament was the first in history to use such terminology to describe our violent attacks against its commerce.
Problem here is his language supports those who would wish to make false moral equivalences (along the lines of ... Washington was a terrorist too). Washington was NOT a terrorist in the modern meaning of the word. He was a general who commanded troops in the field against the British army, not a targeter of civilian men, women, and children for atrocities.
we "elected" this rebel military leader our first president in 1789. I say "elected" because, for all practical purposes, he ran unopposed.
The key phrase is "practical purposes". Because he was so popular, Washington was an easy win but he was elected under the election laws of the time and there's no reason to cheapen that by putting quotes around "elected". In 1789, each elector was given two votes, one of which had to be cast for a candidate from outside their home state. Washington got 69 electoral votes, Adams 34, 10 other people received from 1 to 9 electoral votes each. 3 electors didn't cast a vote for anyone.
gwpapers.virginia.edu
When the general finally stepped down in 1797, ..
It should be noted that he voluntarily stepped down after serving two terms. The use of "finally" implies he governed, somehow dictatorially, for an inordinately long time.
..he was replaced by another revolutionary leader ..
Adams "replaced" Washington by winning a close election, getting 71 electoral votes to Jefferson's 68. Yes, everyone who was involved in politics then were "revolutionary leaders" as they'd been involved in the Revolution in some manner or other. but of the first five Presidents who were "revolutionary leaders", only one was a general. Only two fought in the Revolution at all. Three were either diplomats for or delegates to the Continental Congress. This wasn't a period of dictarorial strong-man rule.
Our third president, one of the world's most notorious radical ideologues, ushered in a period of single-party rule in 1800.
In other words, three candidates of the same party won elections in a row governing for 24 years straight. Reading "single-party rule" one might get the wrong impression other parties were outlawed or something.
Just my quibles. |
