The author is assuming that they sincerely like their governments, but is that really so?
Or are they maybe as critical as we are about ours but someone taught them not to say this too loudly?


I would get some links or more info about what kind pf plebiscites the author means here.
This in itself is not clear. Hitler did not gain 90 % in the regular elections, so what plebiscites are meant here?

Lieber stehend sterben als kniend leben!


http://www.flickr.com/photos/lalense/

I would take Pat Buchanan with a grain of salt. He's a right wing extremist, and sure, he's a racial guy, although it's confusing why in, I think it was in 2000 or 1996, he ran with a black woman for the presidential slate. Oh well. wonders never cease in this country. Sure does make life interesting!

He does have some views that I agree with though, such as the USA becoming a republic again, not an empire. But other than that, he isn't exactly the sort of person you'd want to hedge your facts on.

"Your mind's pictures of today are tomorrows reality."

http://www.myspace.com/adventure_maniac
Blog: http://davesnewadventure.wordpress.com

Brain washing works better than you think (or you are taught to believe).

Yes. Definitely!

And even more helpful to get the wanted results in a staged election or plebiscite is if such a government has some well trained and ruthless SS and SA hordes to beat everything into pieces when a town did not provide the deserved results.
Or have them raid a pub where citizens held their critical political discussions, beat them all up, kill some and drag some away to never be seen again.
People are brought into the deserved state of fear until they will do anything.
If anyone really thinks that elections or plebiscites in nazi germany or the soviet union were even remotely "free" they need some kind of serious reality check.

Well i wouldnt judge what a country feels about their own government based on what we are taught about them in our countries either (ie. we've been taught that their governments are shitty). Bottomline is all through history the populus doesnt really care about how evil their government might be (especially to other people) as long as their own prosperity is taken care of. Basically the adage that everyone loves a winner is true. In just about every war i can think of, the majority of the population was for it (or at least didnt oppose it) while their own country was winning, but as they start to loose well more and more people start to oppose it and the war.

Nordic-kulta, Pidän sinusta oikein paljon. Kiinalaisten ja suomalaisten lapsista tulee kauniita!

Erm, rattie, can you fix that quote of my words please?
Some "quote" tags around the last sentence got lost obviously and I feel a bit particular about seeing it like this.

It's a well established theory that for countries without a democratic tradition, the transition to democracy is usually a very messy process. The remarkable success in Poland and Czech Republic owes no small part to their pre-war liberal-democratic infrastructure, while the rush to Western-style democracy in the former Soviet Repulics have gone down a pretty bumpy path.

The Russians don't want democracy, they want the return of Peter the Great. Surveys have made it abundantly clear.

The Chinese are similar. Over the millenia China has been ruled by centralized regimes dominated by Hanese, so while democracy isn't entirely alien to Chinese tradition, liberty is. Contrary to popular belief, Mao ruled over a democracy, it's just not a liberal democracy. He led the 95% majority to oppress the remaining 5%, but a few decades later people are surprised to find out 95% of people HAVE been part of the 5% at some point.

And the West ought not to dismiss the progress China has made in the last 30 years. Any Beijing tax driver will tell you the dirty stories about the Chinese leaders. If you have lived under Mao, you'd realize that's no small feat. The society is transforming in its own pace.