Cesar Vidal states that he has undergone a long interview related to humanity that mutates with unexpected speed, so we will face an unpleasant reality. We do not know if the writer has accentuated the perception of him for residing in the US, today not far from change.
The appreciation led us to “The Big Book of Answers” (Kevin S. Hile), confirming that there is evidence of the mutation since long ago. The empires, among them, by the way, the Maya and the Aztec, Rome, republic and empire, Constantine the Great in the Byzantine and the Ottoman in Turkey. Likewise, The Tang, Song and Ming dynasties in China, in Europe the Carolingian, the Tudors in Great Britain, The House of Stuart and The Windsor. In “The Big Book” he wonders why the Magna Carta is important and what was the Bill of Rights of 1689? A particular mention to The American Democracy, the founding fathers of the United States, the articles of the Confederation and finally “The US Constitution”. The facts confirm Vidal’s assessment that “the world is a process”. The crux is “whether the change is for the better or for the worse”.
The question “America, between the north and the rhythm?” intends to point out the dilemma of whether the United States, under the presidency of Joe Biden, a good man, a lover of his country, with parliamentary and democratic experience, could lead his “great country” along the path of those who founded it, a historical maximum in such a thriving nation. The “survey”, however, places it far below in relation to the perception of it and the management of it. His electoral victory led to an event never seen in history, a kind of “coup d’état”, a strange strategy for the occasion already forgotten, even in the countries of South and Central America, which made it a way to compose and break them down. Harvard Constitutional Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe has just stated that Donald Trump, to whom the authorship of the “Coup d’Etat” is attributed, should be prosecuted. The antithetical assessment seems to be that of the Republican Party, today appropriated by “the real State developer”. It is the other side of the coin. The scene, antithetical.
The Central and South Americas, from the North, have historically been seen as borders to be protected, particularly from “communism”, an animal, today, with a variety of heads, which if Marx came back he would affirm that it is the opposite to what he wrote. The confusion that reigns in this peculiar continent has led those who try to see if the people elect them to put aside the qualification of “communists”, changing it, among other mentions, to socialism, progressivism and collectivism, a scenario before which other adjectives and nouns emerge on the opposite side, “conservative, reactionary and measured.” The two Americas, victims of rulers who did not pass the entrance exam, have been destroyed, for what could be called a “cataclysm.” The terminological confusion ends in the French tradition of “lefts and rights”. The work of Professor María Trinidad Bretones analyzes “the waves and counter-waves of democracy”, impregnated with that range of qualifiers, to the extent that each “breaker” in that immense ocean that is the world, receives a name, in most cases of the cases assigned by his own mentor and those who support him. The four letters “ism” are added, in order to build an alleged innovative trend, rather typical of art where “expressionism, cubism and surrealism” are spoken of. in most cases assigned by his own mentor and those who support him. The four letters “ism” are added, in order to build an alleged innovative trend, rather typical of art where “expressionism, cubism and surrealism” are spoken of. in most cases assigned by his own mentor and those who support him. The four letters “ism” are added, in order to build an alleged innovative trend, rather typical of art where “expressionism, cubism and surrealism” are spoken of.
It is not at all easy to judge “democracy”, nor to the so-called “non-democracy”, a kind of ambivalence that has accompanied humanity since its very creation. The first is conditioned to the fact that there are “citizens” and not subjects, a qualification that is rather in keeping with the regimes that a few qualify as “totalitarian.” “Communism, among them, the most named, and its adherents which, without exception, end up, precisely, as a reference that identifies the “crier”, “Marxism, Stalinism, Francoism, Trumpism, Chavism, Madurism, Uribeism, Kirchnerism and soon “petrism”. As well as those who promote democracy and its virtues, there are those who charge the former for the failure to achieve rational equality and true citizenship in society, inclusive, but not exclusive.
In the prologue of the particular book “Dialogue in hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”, it is stated that Maurice Joly contributes to political science the exact definition of a very particular regime, that of “distorted democracy”, called “Caesarism” by the old. And he adds “democracy is not that there is popular support, but that there are rules that codify the absolute right of man to govern himself. The philosopher puts in the mouth of Montesquieu “A few years of anarchy are sometimes less disastrous than several years of silent despotism.” Therefore, it would seem sincere to assume that democracy cannot be viewed solely as an old score of the progress of peoples. And that in the present times she has changed and that her mutation will continue.
Perhaps Samuel Huntington from the other world will send a letter stating that we are close to “a wave of efficient democracy.” But adding that this means “more north and less rhythm.”
“The opinions published here are the sole responsibility of their author.”
