> He was a republican.
He was born in 1930, though, so it's hard to say that he shares much in common with the ideology we call republican today.
He was born in 1930, though, so it's hard to say that he shares much in common with the ideology we call republican today.
At its core, government is power over people, and the evergreen question is "how far should that power go, and who wields that power?"
I believe that there are reasonable concerns on "both sides" about that, but the reality is that power is effectively wielded by the wealthy. Democracy is an experiment that ostensibly runs counter to that.
That quote is completely spot on, so any objection to it is worthy of asking why so. The problem with that is that it's not likely to have a satisfactory answer.