Tim Redman wrote:

>
>Wei,
>
>How about Pound's strenuous opposition to the War Powers Act, by which
>powers given under the US constitution to the congress are ceded to the
>President? Lots about this subject to be found in the broadcasts.   Here
>also you will find an intersection with the theme of "confucian precision."
>Pound's belief is that the bending of the language of the consitution is a
>threat to the republic. Paradoxically, confucian ideals are brought to bear
>upon issues of constitutional democracy.
>
>Tim Romano
>

Let's have the full quote.  You may have a very good point here.  We need to
know the context, and the argument.  I am open to looking at it, and eager
to re-examine the question in light of the war powers debate.  I don't have
the full text of Doob available right now.  Perhaps you can give us a few of
the quotes.

If he is broadcasting from Rome, while making this objection, we would have
to ask some serious questions.  For instance, what is there in the quote(s)
to indicate a serious belief in democracy, or in the Republic?  Is Pound
merely making this argument to show the basic hypocrisy of so-called
American democracy?  (Which would not necessarily imply a belief that
democracy itself is a good system).   Of course Russian and Cuban propaganda
organ broadcast many calls to the American people to honor the will of
Congress in the Nicaraguan matter.  This does not mean Soviets and Cubans
were committed to democracy [You will recall that Congress passed the
"Boland amendment" which cut funds to the Nicaraguan contras, and banned any
"direct or indirect" aid to them.  The executive bypassed the will of
Congress using secret funds, gained through the sale of arms to Iran, as
well as by way of "donations" from private citizens, from the Saudis,
Israelis, Taiwanese, and the South African Apartheid regime].  The point is,
one can be critical of a particular policy for tactical reasons, or even
strategic reasons, without any commitment to a real principle.  Russian and
Cuban communists might criticize the US  executive, and give support to the
"democratic will" of the American people, as expressed through Congress,
merely for tactical reasons, not because they had any commitment to
democracy.

So, was Pound advocating a particular policy in the US because he hoped it
would make the victory of the fascists in Europe more likely?  Or was he
advocating democratic Congressional restraint on the executive ---in the war
making power ---as a genuine matter of principle, or because he genuinely
felt that Congress as an institution deserved his support?  The fact that he
makes the broadcast of his view via Radio Rome, in the heart of Fascist
territory, renders any alleged pronouncement in favor of democracy a little
bit suspect, don't you think?  Let's look at several of these quotes.  They
could be very enlightening.

Also you use the phrase "threat to the republic".  Does Pound ever use this
phrase, and does he, in your view, express support for a "Republic", as you
and I might understand it, namely as a government representing the people
through designated representatives, operating under the rule of law?

---Wei

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com