So, with Bush's speech/conference, let me pose this question to you all: is there anyone on this board who believes that it is NOT important for people around the world to be able to choose who wil govern them and to be able to have a voice in the laws and institutions that their countries establish?
I hear so many people in the US bandying about the word "imperialism" when discussing many people's desire to spread democracy around the globe... what is it about spreading the right to have a voice that is so particularly imperialist, I wonder?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
::Waits for Treasonpax's response with baited breath::
::dips the bait in more wasabi::
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Well, for one thing, it paves the way for spiritual imperialism. Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
To clarify, David, do you believe Bush invaded Iraq to set up a democracy?
Out of interest, who controls Iraqi oil reserves?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'll play devil's advocate for a second: What about people who have tried to establish democracy and failed miserably? Is it because democracy wasn't right for them, or because they weren't right for democracy? Either way, what should be done in those cases?
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
That depends on your definition of "right." I believe democracy works best compared with other forms of government, but part of me thinks it has to be a decision on the part of the people within the country that is trying to create it, not through foriegn intervention.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
What if the people don't want democracy? Do we have the right to force them to "choose" it?
Kwea
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I know this isn't quite what you're looking for, but... I think it's more important that people are free to live good lives than for them to have a voice in their government. Democracy is, in theory, an effective way of providing the former through the latter.
As for what the US is doing in its attempts to spread democracy, if that is indeed what the US is doing, I don't think imperialism is quite the right word. But it's a convenient one, and just close enough to reality to serve the purposes of this policy's critics by equating it with distasteful practices of former empires.
Long live propaganda!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Maybe because Sadaam had an unfortunate habit of shooting/raping/killing the family of anyone who happened to bring it up?
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
How can a people decide in favor of democracy if the right to make such a decision is withheld from them or if the details of how such government is put together and works are distorted or made inaccessible?
What I think Bush was/is trying to do in Iraq is irrelevant to this question.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
No, I believe the right to choose who governs you applies to all peoples.
I don't believe it is a right for every individual, though, because there is no country existing (or any that I can concieve of) where such a right could be upheld. Even in America, if I don't consent to President Bush ruling me, or the Constitution ruling me for that matter, I don't get my say unless a majority happens to agree with me.
So, peoples or nations have this right, but individuals may not.
This implies, also, that you can choose to be ruled by a constitution, or a king, or a legislature, or whatever you want. It is a bit misleading to say "democracy" is a right, though, because for a lot of people democracy implies the American form of government. If the people want to consent to a king ruling them rather than a constitution like us, that is within their rights.
"Spreading democracy," in the way Americans often use it, violates this right, because it forces a certain sort of government on people who may not want it. That is what is wrong with imperialism. It is fundamentally undemocratic in the broad sense, even if it is voting proceedures and constitutions we are forcing upon the people. "Spreading democracy" violates the right to self-government, at least in some cases.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Mike, what other systems of governance might permit this freedom to lead good lives? What is the standard by which "good" is measured? Hitler believed his people had the right to live good lives, "good" being defined according to his own twisted code of ethics.
I'm sorry, but your hedging doesn't help my understanding why you would reject democracy for all human beings.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Unmaker: my point was not to reject democracy, but to assert that democracy is only a means to a greater end. Defining "good" is of course a problem, as definitions have a tendency to distort reality (if you really want me to try, though, I'd be willing to give it a shot). Also, I am not proposing to make "good lives" mandatory, as this would destroy most of the goodness. Only the opportunity to lead a good life must be mandatory.
Democracy is the best system that we know of that comes close to this ideal. Or so we're told. I myself haven't done the research, nor lived in enough countries, nor experienced enough political systems to come to a truly informed conclusion on this point. And I'm certainly not ruling out the possibility of better political systems yet to be invented and refined.
Feel like you're arguing with a moving target? Could be because you are. Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Oh, and Jon Boy brings up a good point: what do we do when the people, for whatever reason, reject democracy? What about when it's unclear what "the people" really want? Or when a minority speaks for the whole?
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
I believe that people are entitled to have a voice in the bodies that govern them.
Democracy is a form of government that does achieve that goal. But I also believe that a democracy, in particular, has to be earned in order to be kept. It is not a gift that someone can give you, it's not a gospel that you can drop in pamphlets over arab skies, and it sure as hell is not something that you can compel someone to do. Over half of AMERICANS don't vote. And that's just for major elections.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Let us all keep in mind that we are simply discussing political systems, not economic ones: embracing democracy does not mean embracing capitalism.
So, let's make a list of major existing political systems. I'll take the easy job and name three major ones. You people can add more (got to go teach!):
1) representative democracy (republic) 2) absolute monarchy 3) communism
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
*agrees with Caleb*
Another country did not fight to bring democracy to America. Americans fought for it. That doesn't mean I don't think we should step in when a despotic ruler gives his people no chance at all to fight for self-rule. But I don't think we can hand it over on a silver platter and actually expect that it will still be a democracy a week later.
That said, I personally don't think humans have any in-born rights. We have a whole pile of privileges -- some more than others -- privileges we should be grateful for and never take for granted.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Let's also be clear in distringuishing between two quesitons:
First there is the question you posed over whether people have a right to "be able to choose who will govern them and to be able to have a voice in the laws and institutions that their countries establish."
Secondly, there is the question of whether people have a right to be governed by a representative democracy of some sort.
These are not the same.
quote:I believe that people are entitled to have a voice in the bodies that govern them.
Democracy is a form of government that does achieve that goal.
Are you sure about this? I'd argue that, at least in the American democracy, a lot of people don't really have a say in the government that rules them. If you are a Democrat in a consistently Republican state, for instance, your candidate will never win, and you will essentially have no say in the laws made.
So, individuals in the American demcoracy definitely do not get to choose who rules them, unless they are lucky enough to be in a majority. You could argue that they do have a say, since they can vote, but for people with minority views this is nothing more than a technicality in any practical sense. You might as well say the Kurds had a say in Saddam's government because they could send him a letter and ask for stuff that he would inevitably deny.
And this is just talking about our temporary rulers. We have even LESS say on what the Constitution says, which is essentially a King to us. There are ways to overrule the Constitution, but only according to the way the Constitution itself prescribes, and only via the officials elected by the process described in the Consitution.
So, I don't think it's quite accurate to say even democracy guarantees a say in government.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Long live the Democratic Republic! Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Human beings have no rights, IMO. They only have the current condition of existing. Anything beyond that (including the future condition of existing) is always, perpetually, contingent on the actionable and actioned beliefs of society as a whole.
EDIT: The paragraph below was mangled...
At least, I think this is the case from a socio-political point of view. I guess even from a religious point of view, since any rights derived from religions are contingent on that religion's deity/deities. This is assuming we are talking about natural rights and not functional rights.
-Bok
[ April 14, 2004, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
"Are you sure about this? I'd argue that, at least in the American democracy, a lot of people don't really have a say in the government that rules them.....So, individuals in the American demcoracy definitely do not get to choose who rules them, unless they are lucky enough to be in a majority."
Xap you are confusing having a say with having things done your way. You can vote, therefore you have a voice. But your voice is no more important than mine when it come to that vote (another beautiful thing about democracy btw ) Just because you don't agree with the majority, that dosn't mean you didn't have a voice. That is the whole point about democracy. It is designed to what the MAJORITY thinks is in the best interest for the country. And if the majority of the people change their minds, then so does the policy, given time.
edited to add: If you don't like the way things are, then speak your mind (something that the Iraqi people have not been able to do in long while!) And if what you say sounds good and people agree with you and change then wonderful, things can change to the way you want them. Why do you think a lot of us are here on Hatrack, to learn others opinions and way them against our own and to refine and change them.
[ April 14, 2004, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Rights... Long live the immortal Bill of Rights!
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Good thoughts, Tres, but I wasn't referring to American Democracy specifically.
Although I would argue with you that I 'essentially have no say' if I am a minority. Being gay makes me a minority, and, while having virtually no representation or advocate for rights or priveledges that are specific to my minority, I do have a dissenting voice and I use it all the time.
Being here on Hatrack is proof enough of that.
For instance, my home state of Missouri is slated to become the first state whose citizens are actually going to vote up or down on a ban against marital equality. My community has little hope of defeating the measure but we will be encouraging others to support us and our votes will be counted. There are very few limitations on how one might participate in the process.
I think it's valid to say that Democracy is a system in which the people have a voice in the bodies that govern them. If they don't then it is not a democracy. It's popularism.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Who is against a Democracy?
Everyone in the minority.
The purer the Democracy, the more the minority fears it.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I believe that Democracy is an excellent form of government, I do not believe it is the US's divine duty to spread it to the whole world. Democracy would never work in China for instance because you could have a dissenting minority of a billion people.
Iraq may face the same issues. What happens if a Shiite is elected and passes a law that displeases the Sunni minority. The Sunni's probably won't wait for the next election for change but rise to arms immediantly.
So what do we do?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Agrees with Keats:
quote:...democracy, in particular, has to be earned in order to be kept...
Those Iraqis shown on TV, milling around, waving guns, taking the day off from work, are not ready for democracy.
Many of us, including some Floridians, are not ready for democracy either. That's why we have the Electoral College.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Can I chime in here to say that communism is not a political system, but an economic one? One could concievably have a representative democracy with a communist economy. What the soviet union had was totalitarianism combined with communism and we kind of combined the two into the one term of communism.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
David's playing devil's advocate here. He knows as well as I do that some people just need to be told what to do. The thing is, no nation should be required that by default. If they set it up of their own will, we can't damn them for it. Hence the whole "right to choose" argument David is making.
But don't quote me on that. David's mah boy, but that don't make me David.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Human beings have no rights, IMO. They only have the current condition of existing. Anything beyond that (including the future condition of existing) is always, perpetually, contingent on the actionable and actioned beliefs of society as a whole.
And because of that, it's to the advantage of everyone that the certain human rights be treated as inalienable, divine, and not subject to debate except under the most extreme need or duress.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:For instance, my home state of Missouri is slated to become the first state whose citizens are actually going to vote up or down on a ban against marital equality. My community has little hope of defeating the measure but we will be encouraging others to support us and our votes will be counted. There are very few limitations on how one might participate in the process.
I think it's valid to say that Democracy is a system in which the people have a voice in the bodies that govern them.
But if this is all it takes to have a say in government, then everyone has a say in almost any government. For instance, you can petition a dictator or king to do something. That's a say that's at least as useful as a vote for a member of the minority opinion. No matter who rules, whether it's the people, or an individual, or a council, you can always petition them and therefore "have a say."
And yes, that dictator might totally and consistenly ignore you, but that's no different from the majority of the people in Missouri totally ignoring you.
So, I think if people choose to have a dictator rather than a democracy, they have that right. Maybe they feel that dictator will listen to them and give them enough say - maybe they feel the dictator will give them MORE say than majority rule would. Or maybe their say is that they don't want to have to think about politics, or that they don't think the general public is capable of making good decisions (a position taken by a great many of the most respected political philosophers, I might add.) Whatever the reason, if their say is that they don't want to vote for their rulers, then we are in no place to overrule and force them to. THAT would be truly infringing upon the right to self-rule.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
This is why Edmund Burke would be ashamed and roll over many times in his grave every time Bush calls himself a conservative. Bush is not a conservative. True conservatives do not believe in "natural" rights, they are legal positivists. Rights come from states, from the people securing their own rights only. Going around claiming that there are inherent rights to being human and claiming these rights flow from a mysterious power is what caused the chaos of the French Revolution, and it is why Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, grounded his theory in his famous critiques of the French Revolution. He cautioned that any government preaching natural or god-given rights would go around crusading and become totalitarian. He was right.
[ April 14, 2004, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'm all for the divine right of kings, myself.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
If Iraq and the USA were the only two countries in the world, I would be much more inclined to say that this invasion was just.
David, we had an opportunity to spread democracy long before we went to Iraq, in a little country called Afghanistan. A country that remains decidedly un-democratic, and in fact decidedly overrun by warlords. We had a chance to do something about that. Instead we overplayed our hand and went to Iraq immediately afterward. In the end, when we could've improved the lives of those in Afghanistan and perhaps moved on to Iraq a decade later, we will have done plenty of harm in both countries.
If we were serious about spreading democracy, rather than just extending our power, why didn't we spread it to Afghanistan?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
amka, communism is a particularly pervasive governmental system. Socialism is the economic system commonly followed in a communist country, but in some communist countries (such as China), there is a high degree of capitalism in place.
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
Problem with "democracy" is, you just have to use the word over and over and over, and voilà, everybody believes...
East Germany was officially the "German Democratic Republic". There was a lot of "democracy". Definitely a lot in the speeches. There were four parties to choose from in every election. Everybody had a voice.
There was democracy in the Weimar Republic. People had voices. They voted. They chose their government. The majority voted for Hitler.
Once I came across this herd of sheep in the mountains. Every morning the sheep were free to choose. It was either the left meadow or the right meadow. They had lots of voices, and loud, too. They chose. Daily democracy.
There is "pizza", and there is "American pizza". Which one are we talking about?
Seriously, most of the times when I hear the word "democracy", it is pure propaganda. Agreed, the inability to choose is clearly not democracy. That doesn't mean though that the ability to choose is automatically democracy.
It's all in a few adjectives. Like, what about the ability to make an educated choice? What about informed and politically engaged people choosing their government, their laws, etc?
And how much of that do we actually have these days?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
ehh...I'm off to bed, so I'll be brief. Maybe I'll sketch this out more later.
Not only am I willing to argue that democracy isn't a right, but I'll also say that democracy isn't always right, as in the right form of government. Just like I wouldn't trust a 5 year old to drive a car, I don't necessarily trust every person to make good decisions in relation to running a country.
And that's assuming that 1) they want to make decisions in running a country and 2) that doing so, or at least having the belief that they are isn't going to have negative effects on them. These are two statements that I don't agree with.
A lot of the criticisms about "democracy in Iraq" aren't the racist ones that President Bush tried to make them out to be, but rather that the assumption that everyone wants to live in a democracy and that all we need to do is to remove the obstacles for them to do so is a very innaccurate and potentially dangerous one. People tend to flee responsibility and look for other people to tell them how to think and what to do. People willingly and even gladly entered into fascisms. For the longest time, even in the West, we lived in a state where we not only accepted autocratic commands from people in authority, but we earnestly believed that this is the way things hould be. According to some analyses, the break down of this sort of system led in large part to the responsiblity-fleeing aspects of the Reformation.
Many of the people in Iraq have made their feelings clear that they don't necessarily want to live in a democracy, especially not a western style democracy. By forcing one on them against their will, aren't you violating the very principles that you are claiming to uphold?
That is not to say that I wouldn't like to see some sort of populist government in Iraq and in other places, but it's important to realize that, just as in the west, there needs to be a philosophical and economic infrastructure in place for people to even want to be in a democracy. We can't just free them from outside constraints and expect them to spontaneously develop into good democrats.
One of the big things that we don't like to talk about in America is that we have a democracy in large part thanks to people who were really pissed off at religion, especially Christianity. Something that I think may be true, but I really don't know enough about is that the Muslim world hasn't made the strides towards populism or individualism that we have in part because our religious leaders have been more obviously corrupt than their's have.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
"So, I think if people choose to have a dictator rather than a democracy, they have that right."
Ummm, isn't the rght to chose the characteristic of a democracy? So you are, in essence, saying that you support thier democratic right to reject democracy? I would agree, as that is a fundamantal point of democracy. If majority of the people reject it, then it is no longer valid. The key word inyour statement is CHOOSE.
I prefer not to think that we are instilling democracy in Iraq, rather that we are giving them the option. We are taking steps to help a democratic government exist. If the peope of Iraq abolish it in the future, that is their choice. But we did give them the option to reject or accept democracy by removing their dictators boot from their necks. It might be a catch 22, but in order to give them a choice about democracy, you have to give them a democratic based system in which to voice their opinions of opposition.
"Many of the people in Iraq have made their feelings clear that they don't necessarily want to live in a democracy..."
Again, it has not been proven to me that the average Iraqi citizen does not want a democracy. I do beleive the President when he called the uprisings over there a "power grab" by warlords who are not going to powerful enough for their liking in the new government. As the deadline nears, this minority are getting desperate to maintain their control. Why do I belive this? Becasue it is logical and I have seen little evidence to the contrary. Does anyone have some convincing evidence on this? I don't consider the sound bites we hear on CBS that come from Al Jezera as very credible.
I am hoping to speak to a buddy of mine this weekend who just returned from Iraq last week. I hope he might have a better perspective than what I think most of us can get from watching our media.
Edited to add: To bring this back to the beginning of the thread, democracy is not a right, but the choice to have create one should be. the Iraqi people now have that right. We had to fight to gain our right to that choice. They are being given it. We'll have to wait and see what happens in the future.
[ April 15, 2004, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
I dunno, John... I worry quite a bit that the whole "some people just have to be told what to do" argument (and indeed, the general progressivist distaste for democracy) is a wedge for autocracy or oligarchy. I am made very nervous by those who proclaim their compassion for the masses, who declare they can help them meet their needs and give them opportunities to lead good lives... rather than simply permitting people the right to chose the direction of their lives (and find the means for doing so) on their own.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
I'd like to add that that democracies have the least violent way for ensuring that power doesn't pool in the hands of the same people... our particular system needs tweaking, but voting, impeachment and (in not enough situations, granted) term limits afford members of a populace non-violent means for deposing tyrannical politicos.
I'd love to hear someone argue that another system has a better means for doing this. I'm all ears.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
This is one of the dangers of moral relativism. When you deny that any choice is inherently better than another, you get people saying things like, "If people choose to be ruled by a crushing dictatorship and to be denied all rights of self-determination, then that's what they should have." Reminds me of a previous thread. "If someone wants to be tied up, castrated, and forced to eat his own genitals, then who are we to call him crazy?"
I think that, as humans, we are all joined in the pursuit of happiness. Precisely what it takes to achieve such happiness is a very good question that we're still trying to answer. But we will make no progress at all if we deny the inherent value of the steps we've already made.
It's very easy to say, "Well, if it was wrong for the Soviet Union to try to spread communist totalitarianism across the globe, then it's wrong for us to spread Democracy." That's true, IF these two political systems were equal. However, I really don't think it is any kind of violation of ethics or intellectual honesty to say that Democracy, as it is practiced in America, does a much better job of providing opportunities for personal growth, success, and happiness than Soviet Communism ever did. As an American, by and large, I'm free to make myself happy or make myself miserable, as I see fit. I'm free to take an active part in my government and change the laws if I don't like them. My protests are heard, my vote is counted, and though I'm competing with 280 million other people for attention, that is much better than competing with those same people for a place in the bread line or for permission to move to a different state.
If people want to march in lockstep and let others make decisions for them, they are free to do so in a Democracy. That is what the extremist ends of political parties are for. But if they want the right to self-determination and involvement in government, they CAN'T have that in an oppressive dictatorship.
Nations like Iraq are not filled with a homogenous, benighted mass of people who think exactly the same. As in any nation, there are people who share many different outlooks, motivations, and desires. A dictatorship serves only a bare few of those people. A democracy serves them all far more equally. It isn't perfect, but it's a huge step in the right direction.
For those who like to make decisions for other people, it is easy to declare whether one nation or another really "wants" democracy by judging the population as too "weak" or "benighted" or by saying that it is their "culture" to accept brutality from the government. But think of this. There is an unborn generation of human beings who have not yet told us what they want. Do we damn them to oppression because their parents were unable or unwilling to oppose it? Or should we work to maintain democracy across the globe, so that every newly born human being has some chance to choose their own fate, rather than suffering for the failures of their parents?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Many of the people in Iraq have made their feelings clear that they don't necessarily want to live in a democracy, especially not a western style democracy.
quote:One of the big things that we don't like to talk about in America is that we have a democracy in large part thanks to people who were really pissed off at religion, especially Christianity.
Gross oversimplification. The Puritans arguably had the purest form of Democracy, just not as we envision it now.
Dagonee
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
So if 63% of the Chinese people want Democracy are we going storming in?
So if 71% of the Saudi Arabian people want Democracy are we going storming in?
So if 61% of the North Korean people want Democracy are we going storming in?
How do we choose our Democracy Crusades?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I didn't say that the percentage justified anything. I was correcting a mistake in someone else's post.
Dagonee
[ April 15, 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
David, am I on the wrong boat or do progressives truly distate democracy?
I, at least, enjoy it very much.
Agreed, our version of democracy is pretty darned good. I just don't agree that it's something to be chosen, as if governments could be picked up at an all-you-can-eat buffet.
For Iraq to be a real democracy, the Iraqis themselves would need to be in complete control of creating and sustaining governmental infrastructure. That the bulk of the decisions are being made (or not made) from Washington DC or American military strongholds within the country is reason enough to doubt the legitimacy--and safety--of a democratic Iraq. For democracy to work, you must have popular consent and you must have committed-local-individuals involved. I like to think that that's still possible to achieve in the next 70 some-odd days, but I also have my doubts that a worthwhile democracy can be functional among peoples who are not at peace even with one another.
But like I said, I essentially agree with your premise: I believe that people are entitled to have a voice in the bodies that govern them.
And by the way, Tresopax, I mean by "having a voice" that your voice is actually a part of the system, not an object to be directed at it that may or may not have any effect (such as in your example above). There is a significant difference between having your vote counted and having someone else decide whether you even get a vote.
Democracies can be hard on minorities, and we both know it. But if you look at the last couple centuries of American history I think you'll agree that minorities have indeed overcome many obstacles against the majority will. True, the cost has been high in nearly every case, but you cannot simply say that a minority in a democracy has no more say than a citizen of a dictatorship.
Although I pretty much agreed with most everything else you said.
[ April 15, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
So how many iraqi civilians do we have the right to murder in order to bring them democracy?
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Iraqis have the right to die for democracy, but I don't believe we have any particular right to kill them for it, especially seeing as how we hadn't been asked.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:This is one of the dangers of moral relativism. When you deny that any choice is inherently better than another, you get people saying things like, "If people choose to be ruled by a crushing dictatorship and to be denied all rights of self-determination, then that's what they should have." Reminds me of a previous thread. "If someone wants to be tied up, castrated, and forced to eat his own genitals, then who are we to call him crazy?"
And it reminds me of things like saying "If someone wants to be a Mormon, who are we to stop him?" when the majority of people in this country believe the Mormon religion is quite wrong.
Are you saying that you'd rather the most powerful party enforce whatever it considers to be the "inherently better" ideology on everyone else?
Perhaps we should just force everyone to be Mainstream Protestant Christians, and freemarket capitalists - since Americans believe those things are inherently better than their alternatives. Perhaps we should force them all to watch MTV and eat at McDonalds, because our culture is inherently better than theirs. Maybe we should force them to use our inherently better textbooks in schools, and make them raise their children in our inherently better ways, and make them live in all our inherently better ways.
Geoff, you are not talking about relativism, and you are not merely suggesting that there is some inherently best way of life. You are going further, and saying that WE KNOW that OUR WAY is the inherently best way, and that we should force it on everyone else, against their will if necessary. And that's precisely the sort of imperialism that we claim we aren't interested in, and the attitude that the Arab world is so enraged about.
It's also the same ideology as the terrorists, who are under the impression that their pious, religious governing ways are inherently better than our secular democracy, and who also think they should force it on everyone else against their will. What's more, for people who believe God speaks directly to religious leaders, I don't see a very strong, objective argument at all for the claim that allowing the majority to overrule God's messengers is an effective government.
quote:It's very easy to say, "Well, if it was wrong for the Soviet Union to try to spread communist totalitarianism across the globe, then it's wrong for us to spread Democracy." That's true, IF these two political systems were equal. However, I really don't think it is any kind of violation of ethics or intellectual honesty to say that Democracy, as it is practiced in America, does a much better job of providing opportunities for personal growth, success, and happiness than Soviet Communism ever did.
Of course YOU find American Democracy better than Soviet Communism. But the Soviet Communists found no violation of ethics or intellectual honesty in stating that Soviet Communism was far superior to American Capitalism. And although one of us is most likely right, and the other wrong, it'd be unfair for us to claim that WE are the absolutely and objectively right ones simply because we agree with ourselves - because they'd do exactly the same! Then it would be just a matter of might makes right.
Again, you are not talking about the existence of a best way. You are talking about us claiming our way is for certain the best way, and then forcing it on others with our military and economic might.
quote:There is an unborn generation of human beings who have not yet told us what they want. Do we damn them to oppression because their parents were unable or unwilling to oppose it? Or should we work to maintain democracy across the globe, so that every newly born human being has some chance to choose their own fate, rather than suffering for the failures of their parents?
Yes, and let's ban all non-Christian religions too, because even if the parents choose that particular religion, it's our responsibility to ensure that their unborn children get brought up in our "inherently better" religion. Or do we damn them to be raised in a religion that we, the majority, know to be wrong, just because their parents were unwilling to join it?
See - that line of logic just doesn't work. It only sounds good because everyone on this forum agrees that Democracy is good. But when applied to a more contraversial issue, it's clear what's wrong with it.
quote:And by the way, Tresopax, I mean by "having a voice" that your voice is actually a part of the system, not an object to be directed at it that may or may not have any effect (such as in your example above). There is a significant difference to having your vote counted and having someone else decide whether you even get a vote.
Why? Why is voting a vote that is certain to lose considered "part of the system", whereas sending a letter to a dictator who is certain to ignore it not part of the system? That difference is nothing more than a formality.
quote:Democracies can be hard on minorities, and we both know it. But if you look at the last couple centuries of American history I think you'll agree that minorities have indeed overcome many obstacles against the majority will. True, the cost has been high in nearly every case, but you cannot simply say that a minority in a democracy has no more say than a citizen of a dictatorship.
In most cases, minorities have won out because of the NON-democratic parts of our system: the Supreme Court and the Constition, which are not voted on but are set. Others were won because of violent or unlawful protest, which is also not part of the democratic system.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
The Supreme Court and the Constitution are in one sense the least democratic institutions of our democracy. It's kindof a double-edged sword, though. We have always had a representative democracy in America, and these two entities are manifestations of that representation. They were agreed upon and therefore "elected" and can be thought of as somewhat democratic institutions in that way.
The Constitution may be our KING in a way, Tres. And the Supreme Court could be its translator and the Congress can be its advisors and the President can be its defender, but the DIFFERENCE between our consitutional democracy and a dictatorship is that, while the minority opinion may have a minority weight, it is demanded that that opinion has a place at the table.
That the entities of our government least attached to the people are most responsible for protecting minority rights or interests should not be a surprise. But you can only call them undemocratic insofar as the people are unwilling to accept their authority.
Which is perhaps another way of refocusing the Iraq-->democracy? question, but again I believe we mostly agree.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
quote:But the Soviet Communists found no violation of ethics or intellectual honesty in stating that Soviet Communism was far superior to American Capitalism
Heh. Heh heh. Mrmf. Ha.
:ponders whether to "go there":
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
"Why? Why is voting a vote that is certain to lose considered "part of the system", whereas sending a letter to a dictator who is certain to ignore it not part of the system? That difference is nothing more than a formality. "
The answer is simple. Because a dictator does not have to change if the mathmatical number of votes mandates that it be so. Those in a democracy must.
A dictatorship knows no law larger than itself. A totalitarian government derives it's power by controlling the people. A democracies power is derived by convincing the people to agree with your cause. Huge difference.
In a democracy if you are certain that your vote will lose, then you have the freedom to try and lobby people to agree with you. In dictatorship the voice of opposition is usually silenced, often through violent means.
edited to add: In other words, democracies have a built in ablity to change peacefully. Dictatorships do not.
[ April 15, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Nobody wants to talk about democracy in Afghanistan?
That seems familiar.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Dest, I agree: very stupid move on our part, not moving fast enough on democracy there. We've made initial steps, though. We HAVE to follow through, IMO. If Bush doesn't, then he's an idiot. Okay, more of one.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
You count Karzai's nomination as an initial step towards democracy? Seems to me all we've done is prop up a puppet dictator.
I guess he's obligated to hold free elections this year, but that's honestly impossible, considering that his government only controls the capital and can't even collect taxes outside of Kandahar. Most parts of Afghanistan don't even have running water. How could they be expected to collect ballots?
We could try to fix the infrastructure, but right now we don't have the money to reconstruct Afghanistan. It's all been spent on Iraq.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The Constitution may be our KING in a way, Tres. And the Supreme Court could be its translator and the Congress can be its advisors and the President can be its defender, but the DIFFERENCE between our consitutional democracy and a dictatorship is that, while the minority opinion may have a minority weight, it is demanded that that opinion has a place at the table.
All "at the table" means, though, is in some archives of election results somewhere. If you don't support one of the two major parties, for instance, your vote probably won't even be shown on the news. So, I don't see why we should view this difference as so significant - especially no so significant that it merits overruling any nation that disagrees with us, and that would prefer a nondemocratic government.
quote:The answer is simple. Because a dictator does not have to change if the mathmatical number of votes mandates that it be so. Those in a democracy must.
This doesn't help the minority who will never get that mathematical number of votes.
quote:A dictatorship knows no law larger than itself. A totalitarian government derives it's power by controlling the people. A democracies power is derived by convincing the people to agree with your cause. Huge difference.
In a democracy if you are certain that your vote will lose, then you have the freedom to try and lobby people to agree with you. In dictatorship the voice of opposition is usually silenced, often through violent means.
These claims aren't true. There are a number of nondemocratic governments in the Middle East that do not repress the voice of opposition. There are dictatorships and nondemocratic governments who follow laws higher than themselves (the Taliban, for instance, were under Islam.) Just because there are some horrible nondemocratic governments such as under Saddam or Hitler does not mean that nondemocratic governments must by oppressive of its people. You can just as easily have rulers like the Dalai Lamas in Tibet. Would you call that them oppressive?
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
I fail to see what the right to democracy has to do with the US not being an imperialist power.
The Neo-Cons are -admitted- imperialists (at least functionally, even if they avoid the terminology). They want to impose their idea of how the world should work, on the rest of the world. That is, that we are the sole and shining light in the world, and that the rest of the world should follow us in lock step (i believe that's what "you're either with us, or you're against us" means).
I don't think there is disagreement with granting democratic control to any populous, i think that there are constraints and concerns that absolutely and fundamentally must be addressed in terms that the Neo-Cons and other Administration weenies don't have the cojones to deal with.
I have no faith, and no hope of faith that bush will do the right thing at this point.
This doesn't mean that iraq or any other place shouldn't be a democracy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, If I'm understanding you, you're claiming that the Enlightenment wasn't a primary source for the American form of government and that Puritans weren't pissed off about religion. I'm going to have to disagree with you on both counts.
I think you read what I wrote as being "Ooooh, religion is bad!" and that's not how I meant it. I was trying to point out that 1) populist ideas developed in the west as a reaction against authority, especially religious authority and 2) a religious-authoritarian view (or the "our country is founded on Christianity") is a competing influence on the kind of right-based democracy that we're hoping will pop up in Iraq.
The Islamic world hasn't had an Enlightenment. They haven't even really had a Reformation. Without these two fundamental authority challenging epochs, I don't really think that we would have developed the sort of populist, individualist ideas that we have. One thing that people in our culture rarely seem to realize is that America is not normal. Taken in comparision to the rest of the world and history, we are an aberration. We define the end of the scale in terms of individualism. If you're using America as a yardstick in this manner, you're making a very grave error.
I fear that we're Golden Ruling the Iraqi's instead of trying to see things from their perspective and encouraging a form of government that is going to defend against their specific weakness and encourage growth.
For me, that's the point of a government. If you see government as only a symbol or an institution, I think you're missing out on some important stuff. For me, government is a function that takes a population in and spits an altered population out. The perfect form of government is anarchy, in that it is the form of government best suited for a world of perfect people. Other than that, you need to include a "with respect to population X" in analyzing how good a government is.
The thing is, populism is theoretically flawed from a positive standpoint. It's just another form of might makes right, just with might being defined as number of people. There is no inherent respect for quality in a populist system. If you ask me, that's a rather big form of relativism right there. That's why nearly all populist governments include distinctly non-populist elements such as our Constitution and Supreme Court. As people have pointed out, it is these elements (and an awful lot of suffering) that protect the minorities from the "mob rule" that Plato rightly identified in democracy.
The only theoretical justification for viewing populism as a positive form of government is if you assume a motivated, mature, informed populace (i.e. people who can recognize and will choose quality) as the population that it is being applied to. I'd argue that such a populace have never in the history of mankind actually existed.
What populism does a good job of, though, is protected against many of the negative elements of government. You know, protecting against tyranny and that sort of thing. If a society holds true to the idea that the population holds the ultimate legitimacy, it's really difficult for a leader to seriously abuse the population and get away with it.
One of the aspects of populism is that is invests more responsibility in the average person than most other forms of government. Rather than being a unqualified boon, however, this often leads to some serious detrimental effects. The simple fact is that, until they reach a certain level of maturity, people tend to flee responsibility. Give them a choice and they will look for an authority to tell them what to do with it, whether it is a religious figure or a celebrity or public opinion or the liberal elites that OSC is always ranting about.
Let me be clear here. I know very little about contemporary Iraqi psychology. I don't know if what I'm saying fits them very well. However, I am pretty darn sure that "People want to be free and will naturally seek responsibility" doesn't even work in our culture. Sure, they'll fight like demons if they think someone is trying to force them to do something, but they also look around frantically for someone or something that they can choose to give up their responsibility and decision making ability to.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I want to clarify the "If people don't want have a democracy and you make them, you're violating the very principles you say you're standing for." thing. I don't believe that democracy is the absolute good that some people seem to be treating it as. I think that it contains both good aspects and bad ones. One thing I do believe is pretty much an absolute good is persuasion versus coercion. Coercion, in my opinion, is always a bad thing, and should only be used when the bad things that using it prevents are clearly worse than using it. I am extremely doubtful that you create positive things with coercion. It seems to me that when you equate not wnating democracy with being crazy and imply that we should force people to accept democracy, you are both violating the reliance on persuasion inherent in populism and pretty much dooming yourself to failure.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Pod, finally someone I can discuss this with...
I dislike Bush's religiously draped rhetoric on this, and I am annoyed that we went into Iraq as early as we did, and I am further annoyed by the lack of "cojones" (you're learning some Spanish, cuatito!) of the U.N. itself. But a democratic, united world is really humanity's only hope of staving off destruction, I think. It doesn't have to be just the US (I should hope it wouldn't only be us!): obviously there are a good deal of democratic nations in this world, all part of the UN, and if that organization (and here, despite being a conservative-leaning moderate, is where I definitely break with what you've called "neo-cons") had some real freaking teeth, the US wouldn't feel it had to engage in actions that those of your particular ideological bent see as imperialistic (and trust me, I understand your fears, and they concern issues that trouble me as well... you of course understand that our differences are mostly of degree: I believe that the system can correct itsel, you think the system is too flawed to do so). If the UN had the intenstinal fortitude to be the sort of world's umbrella government that it needs to be, displacing tyrants and enforcing the human rights it screams about, the US wouldn't have to act so nearly unilaterally.
:takes a deep breath:
Okay, time to go write a test on Dracula!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
David, did you see my thread on the Council for a Community of Democracies as an alternative to the UN?
[ April 16, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:All "at the table" means, though, is in some archives of election results somewhere. If you don't support one of the two major parties, for instance, your vote probably won't even be shown on the news. So, I don't see why we should view this difference as so significant - especially no so significant that it merits overruling any nation that disagrees with us, and that would prefer a nondemocratic government.
No, the difference is not significant enough for us to feel justified in carrying out a democracy crusade. But the difference is enough that almost all of us would choose to live here rather than Iraq.
Being at the table means you cannot be ignored. Your view can be denied just as easily, sure, but no one can take away your right to be there, which I still maintain is enough of a difference to claim, at least on an ideological level, that democracies are inherently more free than their authoritarian predecessors.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I'm understanding you, you're claiming that the Enlightenment wasn't a primary source for the American form of government and that Puritans weren't pissed off about religion. I'm going to have to disagree with you on both counts.
No, I said that saying democracy owing its existence to people "pissed at Christianity" is a gross oversimplification. The Puritans were Christians. They were pissed at other Christians. Not Christianity. Same goes for many of the Enlightenment thinkers. Not that excesses in various Churches didn't contribute to the philosophies that led to democracy. Just that labeling them "people pissed at Christianity" ignores a lot of the discourse that was taking place then.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
David,
quote:But a democratic, united world is really humanity's only hope of staving off destruction, I think.
Why? How is democracy going to remove the threats facing us?
quote: It doesn't have to be just the US (I should hope it wouldn't only be us!): obviously there are a good deal of democratic nations in this world, all part of the UN, and if that organization (and here, despite being a conservative-leaning moderate, is where I definitely break with what you've called "neo-cons") had some real freaking teeth, the US wouldn't feel it had to engage in actions that those of your particular ideological bent see as imperialistic (and trust me, I understand your fears, and they concern issues that trouble me as well... you of course understand that our differences are mostly of degree: I believe that the system can correct itsel, you think the system is too flawed to do so)
I agree, and would add that it's the U.S. in particular that is most preventing the U.N. from gaining more teeth. But I'm not sure those teeth should go so far as telling nations what governments to have. That, I would think, is a big sign of an out-of-control U.N.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think the trouble-at least when it comes to people saying things like, "Well, those people say they don't want to live in a democracy," is that the people saying that, by and large, have a misunderstanding about what democracy is.
It means little, for instance, if a majority of Iraqis or Cubans say, "We don't want democracy," for two reasons. One, they've never had it before. Or at least it's been so long since anything like it was had that they've forgotten. And two, they've been overwhelmed by state-created propaganda for all their lives (or most of their lives) saying democracy is evil or ineffective.
For someone who has lived their lives in a society which does not value popular sovereignty to say they don't want it would be for me to talk about the benefits of C++ vs. some other programming language. I don't know jack about it. Never used it, never seen the benefits, or the drawbacks. All I know is what someone else has told me. And when that person happens to be the owner of Joe's Programming Language, well then who would take my word for it?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I would also like to point out that environment is a factor in how effective a democracy, or the creation of such, is. One of the largest, if not the largest, reasons for the troubles and lack of overwhelming support for democracy in Iraq is that much of Iraq is very insecure. Since much of the police force is ill equipped and ill trained, and gangs of armed hoodlums run wild, many people live in a state of fear. This is not an optimal state for creating a democracy.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Agreed.
quote:I also have my doubts that a worthwhile democracy can be functional among peoples who are not at peace even with one another.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I think the trouble-at least when it comes to people saying things like, "Well, those people say they don't want to live in a democracy," is that the people saying that, by and large, have a misunderstanding about what democracy is.
This is not necessarily true, at least. A number of very famous political philosophers have claimed they don't want to live in a democracy, and they at least should know exactly what it is. (Usually their reason is something along the lines of "the majority is dumb and we don't think it makes a good leader.")
quote:One, they've never had it before. Or at least it's been so long since anything like it was had that they've forgotten. And two, they've been overwhelmed by state-created propaganda for all their lives (or most of their lives) saying democracy is evil or ineffective.
True, but we have the same lacks when in comes to nondemocratic governments. I mean, there is definitely a lot of pro-democracy propoganda in America. (For instance, I tutor a seventh-grader in history, and I've noticed that her definitions of the various nondemocratic governments that she learns about typically include the phrase "bad guys".)
----
I think even bigger than the issue of "whether or not democracy should be forced on people" (since not too many people don't want it) is the issue of what SORT of democracy nations should have. For instance, what if Iraq were to want a fundamentalist Islamic democracy? Would we allow that? After all, democracies don't have to be secular like ours, and they don't have to function in the way ours does.
[ April 16, 2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Fundamentalist Islamic democracy is a contradiction in terms.
At least, as it would be exercised, it almost certainly would be. Non-citizenship for various minorities, for instance.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
We were a democracy before minorities got voting rights.
A democracy is just any government where the people choose their leaders (and can un-choose them). One could exist built on fundamentalist muslim values, as long as none of those values happen to be "people can't select their leaders." (And if it is, I think we've found a good example of people who actually don't want democracy.)
[ April 16, 2004, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know precisely what I mean, Tresopax. And I even mentioned non-citizenship for minorities. I know it ain't necessarily what the dictionary defintion is, but any government which restricts rights of citizenship to people on gender, religious, ethnic, or economic grounds (there are others, I'm just forgetting), is not in fact a democracy.
Edit:
quote:One could exist built on fundamentalist muslim values, as long as none of those values happen to be "people can't select their leaders." (And if it is, I think we've found a good example of people who actually don't want democracy.)
I do not think such a people exist. Or if they did, they would not exist for very long, because they'd soon change their minds.
[ April 16, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It used to be a capital crime in Maryland to not believe in the Trinity. You were legally prevented from holding office there until I think it was 1964 if you were an athiest. And yet this was a democracy. You're confusing our rights (which are explicitly non-democratic in function) with democracy. Democracy doesn't for example say that they can't beat their women. It just says that it's only ok if enough people agree that it is.
Dag, So, it now looks to me as if you're arguing that the fundamental issues of the Puritans and the Enlightenment thinkers were with specific people or groups of people and not with the doctrine, structure, and practice of religion. I'm going to have to disagree pretty strongly about that.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:I do not think such a people exist. Or if they did, they would not exist for very long, because they'd soon change their minds.
And if not, we can use our military to do it for them. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*sigh* No, I'm not confusing anything. I am well aware that by the strict definition of a democracy, anything is legal so long as a sufficient majority agrees to it. That's not the kind of democracy I'm talking about, though, and I think that getting mired down in that definition is just a waste of time, since no one is proposing that anyway.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But you are confusing the issue then, because you're sheltering all these other issues under the umbrella of democracy. If you're including America-style rights as a necesary condition of democracy, you've changed the entire issue. edit: You're adding more issues than just self-determination into the mix, but you're framing you're argument as only about self-determination. That is confusing issues.
"These people choose to live in a Democracy guided by Islamic law."
"Well, they can't do that. That's not really democracy, and besides which, the only reason they're saying that is because they are deluded. I know this because it fits my prejudices, so I don't have even consider the situation."
To me, that's what you seem to be saying. We've got plenty of people in this country and on this board who claim that America should be a country that enforces Christian law. In many cases, such as the Maryland Act of Toleration that I mentioned above, it was. What makes a democracy enforcing Islamic law theoretically different? Is it just because it's the wrong religion?
[ April 16, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think Squick's onto something. The proper ends of government are to preserve the kinds of rights found in Western-style democracies. (Note: I'm not saying the exact balance of rights is perfect, or that the actual results live up to these ideals. The point is that respect for individual sovereignty is generally good in those societies.)
Democracy (or some form of representational government) is good ONLY insofar as it preserves those rights. That's why we allow the most anti-democratic of our institutions to overule the most democratic branch to preserve individual rights.
I don't know of any other system that has lead to such success, but I'm not willing to say no other system could work.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, So, it now looks to me as if you're arguing that the fundamental issues of the Puritans and the Enlightenment thinkers were with specific people or groups of people and not with the doctrine, structure, and practice of religion. I'm going to have to disagree pretty strongly about that.
OK, feel free.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Holy crap Dag, You see, this is why I think you're such a great addition to this place. Not because you're agreeing with me here, but because you actually tried to understand what I was getting at. I have to admit, I didn't really think understand was going to come out of this.
For me it comes down to the persuasion versus coercion issue. I'm willing to admit that coercion can at times be necessary, but I'll never hold it up as a good. Correlated to that is that if peple make mature decisions, you ahve to respect those decisions, even if they aren't the ones you wanted them to make.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The proper ends of government are to preserve the kinds of rights found in Western-style democracies.
Actually, I would say that the proper end of a democracy is to protect and preserve democracy. This is because a democracy, by its nature, is on average able to change to accomodate problems within the country better than other forms of government. So, if there is a problem with individual liberties and the like, as long as elections continue to be held, those problems will eventually be addressed. That is, I think democracy -----> rights. Though, I do definitely think it is advantageous to have them enshrined in some kind of bill of rights from the start. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You said 'fundamentalist Islamic democracy'. It doesn't 'fit my prejudices so I don't have to think about it' to say that such a thing is incompatible with democracy (either the strict OR my own definition).
You're welcome to prove me wrong with either a historical or a current example, of course. I'll wait.
With that, I'm out.
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
All right, let me play devil's advocate once more:
quote:Problem with "democracy" is, you just have to use the word over and over and over, and voilà, everybody believes...
East Germany was officially the "German Democratic Republic". There was a lot of "democracy". Definitely a lot in the speeches. There were four parties to choose from in every election. Everybody had a voice.
There was democracy in the Weimar Republic. People had voices. They voted. They chose their government. The majority voted for Hitler.
Once I came across this herd of sheep in the mountains. Every morning the sheep were free to choose. It was either the left meadow or the right meadow. They had lots of voices, and loud, too. They chose. Daily democracy.
There is "pizza", and there is "American pizza". Which one are we talking about?
Seriously, most of the times when I hear the word "democracy", it is pure propaganda. Agreed, the inability to choose is clearly not democracy. That doesn't mean though that the ability to choose is automatically democracy.
It's all in a few adjectives. Like, what about the ability to make an educated choice? What about informed and politically engaged people choosing their government, their laws, etc?
And how much of that do we actually have these days?
To address that last question: It would REALLY do every American a great service to leave their isolated island/continent for a while and look back at it from the outside. By this I mean LIVE with other people, earn THEIR salaries, dive into THEIR culture. NOT just being on a mission, NOT being a visitor "doing" Vienna in 8 hours.
Seen from the outside, America has basically bought its people -- with wealth that comes largely from exploitation of resources outside of America. Seen from the outside, those bought-off Americans have long lost their voice, they just don't know it. Seen from the outside, Americans have been far too long manipulated on their road to "zombification" to even realize how FEW choices they are left with. They have long lost the ability to make an educated choice, simply for a lack of a broad, world-oriented education.
Seen from the outside, the biggest "contribution" of America to the world culture is the extinction of the native American culture. Followed closely by "Star Wars" and fast-food chains.
Seen from the outside, such is the picture of American democracy and its consequences. Why would anybody want to have (a scaled-down version of) this imposed on them???
[ April 16, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Sal ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sigh. Sal, you are making a really large, jingoistic generalization.
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
(I know, Storm. Just playing devil's advocate.
But I do shudder each time I hear about "bringing American democracy to the rest of the world".)
[ April 16, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Sal ]
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Herr SS: no, I hadn't seen that thread. I'll check it out.
Tres... most intellectuals opposed to democracy, I would argue, are opposed to it because they make up part of the elite that serves/would serve as an oligarchy (perhaps even a compassionate oligarchy, the goddess bless 'em) that knows what's best for the populace and ensures (in their intellectual wisdom) that those people have those things, despite John Q. Public's personal views or desires.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh,yeah, Sal. I was going to say, that kind of statement is totally unlike you.
[ April 16, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Sal, I agree that Americans need to broaden their horizons. You are very right.
Doesn't invalidate the need for democracy. Hell, you think most people NOT living in democracies have a wider world view than we...? Pshaw, right.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, You're okay with saying that when people said they had a problem with the theory of Papal authority, they weren't really upset about this, but rather just didn't like Pope Bob III? We can ignore the 95 Theses because Luther was just upset that he didn't get invited to parties? I don't know, I think dismissing ideological conflicts in favor of "Oh, they just didn't like those people." is doing a great injustice to history.
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
I absolutely agree with the need for democracy.
It's just, there have been plenty of different "democracies" historically. I get the impression that nowadays, almost everyone has their own, private definition of what it means. And I'm almost certain that most Hatrackers here have a very different idea about "democracy" than, say, president Bush.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
David, The question isn't whether American's are the most-open minded people. It's whether we know everything. Other peopel disagree with us in so many areas. We can either treat this conflicts as potentially valid or we can dismiss them. Even if you grant (and I odn't necessarily) that we know the most out of anyone, this doesn't mean that other people don't know things that we don't. The American way of life is not the RIGHT way, even if it is a way of life that has more right elements to it than other ones.
Rakeesh, Ah, somehow the burden of proof is on me. You make a definite statement, I say that it's not necessarily true, and I'm the one who's supposed to prove it?
I'm not an expert on anything Islamic or Arab, but from my admittedly limited perspective, it's obvious that at times in history the Arab empire offered the most open view of the world, the most sympatheic ear to the arguments of reason, and the best opportunities for individuals to advance themselves. If this was a part of their world then, I don't see how we can conclude that it is rules out of any possible form of Islamic democracies.
For the record, I don't believe in the absolute health of either an Islamic based democracy or America's current version. From my perspective, there are a lot of sick aspects of either. There are also a lot of good things about them. Rather than asserting something as an absolute not neccessary to prove good or evil, I think it's much more beneficial to view it as a systems of benefits and disadvantages relative to the people that it contains.
Storm, The question comes in though, would you support a non-populist government that ensures that all these rights are being protected and that minimizes the amount of coercian over a democractic society in which the will of the majority is to trample all over these rights and coercive force is the norm?
edit: I'm an anti-populist, in that I don't believe that a majority of people saying something makes it so. I accept that populism protects us from a lot of abuses, but protecting from negatives is not the same as being the model we should emulate as positive. I don't think that people qua people can be trusted to make right or mature decisions.
I'm also anti-elitist in the Deweyian sense because I don't believe that tricking people into doing things or perpetuating systems where people will never develop into being able to be trusted to make right or mature decisions is a good idea.
I'm a firm beleiver in quality and of right making right. What supports these, I applaud. What prevents them, I decry.
[ April 16, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Democracy (or some form of representational government) is good ONLY insofar as it preserves those rights.
At the very least, this is extremely contradictory to the initial assumptions of this thread - namely that Democracy is good insofar as it allows the citizens "to be able to choose who will govern them and to be able to have a voice in the laws and institutions that their countries establish."
quote:Tres... most intellectuals opposed to democracy, I would argue, are opposed to it because they make up part of the elite that serves/would serve as an oligarchy (perhaps even a compassionate oligarchy, the goddess bless 'em) that knows what's best for the populace and ensures (in their intellectual wisdom) that those people have those things, despite John Q. Public's personal views or desires.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean they are wrong, or that they don't understand democracy when they come to that conclusion - which was the charge.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The question comes in though, would you support a non-populist government that ensures that all these rights are being protected and that minimizes the amount of coercian over a democractic society in which the will of the majority is to trample all over these rights and coercive force is the norm?
The problem is that I don't beleve they would live very long in a 'non-populist government' as you so disarmingly put it. Consider, what is the purpose of any government but to facilitate the use of power? If you have a non-democratic government, then the purpose of that government is to facilitate the power of the one group or person that is in power. Civil liberties just get in the way, and really, what's the purpose? What's the motivation for a non-democratic power structure to offer them?
Now, you certainly can have the same lack of, or abuse of, civil liberties in democracies. No question. However, I think that it is inherent in a democracy that leaders of state to gain power seek to gain as many supporters as possible. This encourages keeping as many people happy as possible. If you have a lack of civil liberties in a segment of a population, well, how long will it take before some politician figures out that an easy way to get votes from that segment is to offer them civil liberties? This is why I propose that, over time, a democracy leads to some kind of civil liberties.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, Seriously, you think that the most logical form of power in populism is garnered from amking people's lives better? I'd argue that historically it has generally come from playing to their weaknesses. Southern politicians didn't remain in power by extending civil rights to blacks and by making whites' lives better. They remained in power by blocking black people's access to voting and by race-baiting. They had to be stopped, against their wills and the wills of the vast majority of their constituents, by the use of non-populist force.
I'm not saying that what you are saying isn't also in effect. The problem for me is that you're granting one thing all the positives without recognizing any of the negatives while doing the opposite to it's alternative. There were actual benevolent kings and American ideals of life liberty and the pursuit of hapiness have always been at least as much of a promise as a reality.
You can have a benevolent non-populist rule by a mautre elite and it will be more beneficial to a country of largely immature people than if you let them decide their own matters. This can easily devolve into all the problems that aren't being protected against by having populist checks on their powers. The thing is, the same thing is true of democracies falling prey to their weaknesses. There are major problems associated with letting people determine their own destiny without any reference to quality. One of my big problems here is that people's basis of value doesn't seem to go any further than "Democracy is good". As I said, I evaluate democracy and all other forms of government with reference to the populations involved and with human health and advancement as the basis of value.
[ April 16, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:MrSquicky said: Dag, You're okay with saying that when people said they had a problem with the theory of Papal authority, they weren't really upset about this, but rather just didn't like Pope Bob III? We can ignore the 95 Theses because Luther was just upset that he didn't get invited to parties? I don't know, I think dismissing ideological conflicts in favor of "Oh, they just didn't like those people." is doing a great injustice to history.
OK, the “problem with Christians” line didn’t express what I meant clearly. (That’s why I usually don’t reply to substantive posts when I don’t have a lot of time.) The reason the reformation happened is because the reformers loved Christianity. Otherwise, they would have just left, not tried to reform it. I contend that the dislike was with practices that were inconsistent with Christianity. The fact that I think most of the doctrinal changes they made were theologically unsound overreactions to questionable practices doesn’t mean I don’t recognize their motives (at least those not so blindingly cynical like Henry VIII) as trying to preserve Christianity.
I think the problem comes down to what each is using to define “Christianity.” You’re using the word to mean a concrete manifestation, which admittedly caused many problems and failed to live up to its ideals. I am using it almost in a platonic sense, similar to what Catholics mean by “The Church” when we talk about the entity as it exists across time and space.
quote:Xaposert said: At the very least, this is extremely contradictory to the initial assumptions of this thread - namely that Democracy is good insofar as it allows the citizens "to be able to choose who will govern them and to be able to have a voice in the laws and institutions that their countries establish."
Well, those were never my assumptions. Mine are fairly well summed up by:
quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
I have a hard time imagining how a society without fairly frequent elections of some kind can maintain the “consent of the governed,” but as I said before, I’m not willing to admit it’s not possible.
Dagonee Edit corrected quote identifier.
[ April 16, 2004, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Storm, Seriously, you think that the most logical form of power in populism is garnered from amking people's lives better?
No, I'm just joking. *poke*
quote: I'd argue that historically it has generally come from playing to their weaknesses. Southern politicians didn't remain in power by extending civil rights to blacks and by making whites' lives better. They remained in power by blocking black people's access to voting and by race-baiting. They had to be stopped, against their wills and the wills of the vast majority of their constituents, by the use of non-populist force.
Weakness/strengths--it comes down to listening to what the people are asking for and getting votes to put your ass in office. Eventually, this leads to extending the franchise to as many people as possible.
quote:
I'm not saying that what you are saying isn't also in effect. The problem for me is that you're granting one thing all the positives without recognizing any of the negatives while doing the opposite to it's alternative. There were actual benevolent kings and American ideals of life liberty and the pursuit of hapiness have always been at least as much of a promise as.
I specifically stated that you can have abuse in a democracy, but that over time, the abuse would take care of itself as more people were enfranchised and had a say in what the state did with them.
yeah, you're going to have rabble rousers and the like. however, as long as there are peaceful elections, I think things will work themselves out so that everyone gets a long.
quote: You can have a benevolent non-populist rule by a mautre elite and it will be more beneficial to a country of largely immature people than if you let them decide their own matters.
I have no idea what a country of 'largely immature people' are. Immature being one of those subjective terms that can mean so much. I get the impression that you are saying that you can have some kind of enlightened archon in charge of some proles, but I don't think history shows us that that is normally who ends up in power in totalitarian states. It's often (usually?) the biggest and the baddest and the meanest, with being enlightened normally meaning the ruler is enlightening the country at the expense of the welfare of the general populace.
In any case, you'll note that I said 'on average'. I freely admit that there are ups and downs in a democracy, however they are a result of what the enfranchised people vote. The people, squicky, not the rulers. Power flows from them, to the rulers. Do you not agree that this makes those who rule pay attention the needs of the citizens, and cause the citizens to pay attention to their rulers, than some kind of passive, despotic government where the people have no say?
Sure, the rulers, can, but again, why would they? They have power for the rest of their lives, or until someone knocks them off the perch. What's the motivation to do anything but keep the people under that ruler's thumb?
Democracy inherently involves more than one party as a kind of check on the other party to keep it honest. Is it perfect? No. The key is the vote. As long as people continually have the ability to choose, eventually things will correct themselves.
quote: This can easily devolve into all the problems that aren't being protected against by having populist checks on their powers. The thing is, the same thing is true of democracies falling prey to their weaknesses. There are major problems associated with letting people determine their own destiny without any reference to quality. One of my big problems here is that people's basis of value doesn't seem to go any further than "Democracy is good". As I said, I evaluate democracy and all other forms of government with reference to the populations involved and with human health and advancement as the basis of value.
You might want to take a look at your own posts, then. You've been playing devil's advocate, but what exactly are you touting as the strengths of a totalitarian government edit: over a democratic government? Are you honestly suggesting that a non-democratic government is 'better'? Just because it's not a democracy doesn't mean that it's some kind of antimatter image where the weaknesses are strengths and the strengths are the weaknesses.
I agree with you that democracy has its problems inherent in the act of voting. It can be chaotic and lead to a lack of vision. However, I think that because elections are a known quantity where the xfer of power is known a head of time, the xfer of power is much more smooth than the 'xfers of power' in totalitarian states which are often NOT smooth at all.
I submit that the 'reference to quality' in both democracies and any other form of government is self interest. Period. There are no other standards or ideals.
I've left a lot unsaid. I'm at work. Kind of realize this in your response.
[ April 16, 2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, to kind of elaborate a second on one of the weaknesses of democracy, when I talk about democratic countries, I'm not saying that all power must be decided democratically. Obviously, in a society in which people are free to choose their manner of life, they can choose to bind themselves to any number of gurus, big wigs, cults or philosophies. More power to them. It's only in the political realm that I think it's important that the element of choice is essential.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, I've got to get back to work too, so I'm going to be brief.
I've specifically sketched out a lot of my criticisms and unhealthy effects of democracy in my initial posts here. I haven't seen anyone address them yet. I believe that the Milgram experiment reflects the true state of our society. That's one of the big determiners of what I'm arguing from.
I don't think that self-interest in as indivisible a concept as ou are treating it as. There is the extremely important question of the time frame. I think you are giving undue credit to people as being more converned with long-term self-interest over short-term self-interest. In many cases, these are contradictory. It's my assertion that our political system is geared towards harnessing short-term considerations and largely ignoring or being antagonistic towards the long term.
You seem to be taking an evolutionary perspective towards societal change. That is, over time, people will adapt to more effective ways of doing things. I agree that this model fits into the allowing democracy method, but I have major problems with treating the evolutionary model as an optimal or even a necessarily beneficial thing. There is no intelligent design to evolution. There is especially no guaranteed benefit to all the people in the evolving system. From a very rational perspective, slavery was extremely beneficial for a long time. It persisted because of it's benefits to the people in charge. It was only through a break in the evolutionary process that slavery was done away with.
You seem to be taking an attitude similar to Asimov's theory of psychohistory, in that you regard the contributions of individuals as largely insignificant. I disagree with this vey strongly. I think that the burden of human advancement has been taken up by relatively few people. There were social factors in place that made Indian independence possible, but without someone of the intelligence and character of Gandhi, Indian's struggle for idenpendence would have taken a much different and more likely more negative aspect. Without Hitler's genius, I don't think that the German people's expression of their despair would have come out in such a focused or virulent form.
I have no confidence in the inevitible improvement of the human species. The western world collapsed after the Roman Empire fell. A millenium and a half is too long for me to wait for things to get better. If we sit back and rely on populist forces to rule, I am reasonably confident the human race won't last another 1500 years.
As to self0interest ruling all, my response to this is best captured in your Humanism thread. I don't believe that humanism is mostly about not liking religion. Rather, I believe that it is the idea that people can at some point be trusted to base their actions on things other than their own limited self-interest.
Posted by Shlomo (Member # 1912) on :
Democracies also have the built-in ability to change quite violently. Just like in 1933. Also, dictatorships have the built-in ability to change peacefully. Just like in 1989.
And, I'm sorry, 1776 was not entirely about democracy. These same colonists were fine under the monarchy until it started taxing them (and not letting them enslave native Americans, but we won't go there). 1776 most certainly had a strong element of republicanism, but it was primarily a revolt against coloial rule.
1789 was not entirely about democracy either. It was also about the middle class gaining influence, Parisian women being fed, and Louis 16 being a really bad ruler. The French were fine under absolute monarchy when it was the Sun King who ruled; he was good at it. And they were happy being ruled by Emperor Napolean, because he was good at it.
People are perfectly happy if they are ruled well. And they are quite angry if they are not.
Sooo...what is the best political system? I do not know, but I do not think that democracy is best should be taken for granted. Nor should it be taken for granted that dictatorship is inferior.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I've specifically sketched out a lot of my criticisms and unhealthy effects of democracy in my initial posts here. I haven't seen anyone address them yet. I believe that the Milgram experiment reflects the true state of our society. That's one of the big determiners of what I'm arguing from.
And you think a non-democratic society counters, or mitigates, blind obedience to authority rather than the other way around? I'm flabbergasted.
quote: I don't think that self-interest in as indivisible a concept as ou are treating it as. There is the extremely important question of the time frame. I think you are giving undue credit to people as being more converned with long-term self-interest over short-term self-interest. In many cases, these are contradictory. It's my assertion that our political system is geared towards harnessing short-term considerations and largely ignoring or being antagonistic towards the long term.
No, I'm saying that it is the nature of democratic power to extend the vote to every 'reasonable' person possible over time. I think when most, if not all adult groups in society, can have a say in how the state is present in their lives, it tends to average out to being beneficial to everyone. I have said average out about three times now. I *don't* deny that out political system is frequently short sighted. Also, remember, we're talking about whether or not 'non-democracy' is better than democracy. Would a non-democracy really think long term more than a democracy would? I doubt it very much because those in power are accountable to the voters and this forces them to examine the consequences of their actions and their effects on the country. Sure, sometimes you get chicken in every pot syndrome and money is burned for short term political gain, but again democracy saves the day because sure as shooting when the castle of sand comes tumblign down, who's going to be there pointing out why things are failing but the opposition party. Thus, responsibility both short term and long term is maintained. Again, I am baffled as to why you think non-democratic societies would think more long term than democratic ones.
quote:
You seem to be taking an evolutionary perspective towards societal change. That is, over time, people will adapt to more effective ways of doing things. I agree that this model fits into the allowing democracy method, but I have major problems with treating the evolutionary model as an optimal or even a necessarily beneficial thing. There is no intelligent design to evolution.
I disagree that this must be the case in social evolution. As long as history is around to learn from, people will be able to see how certain behaviors effect themselves and their surroundings. Will the facts be muddied from opposing view points? Sometimes. But they will be there.
quote: There is especially no guaranteed benefit to all the people in the evolving system. From a very rational perspective, slavery was extremely beneficial for a long time. It persisted because of it's benefits to the people in charge. It was only through a break in the evolutionary process that slavery was done away with.
A 'break in the evolutionary process'? What are you talking about? Slavery was debated and discussed and talked about for hundreds of years before the civil war. Civil rights are still discussed. The status of black people and the poor has steadily improved over the history of our country. I submit one of the primary reasons is because of the principal of democracy.
The definition of evolution usually revolves around change over time. The fact that things did improve, eventually, because of POLITICAL reasons, rather than reasons of survival and revolution, like slaves uprising and revolting, speaks to my case. Sure, there was a war to decide the issue, there has been a bomb here and there, but I think by and large things have gotten better because advocates for their particular groups or parties have been able to have their voices heard and changes have been made accordingly after some time.
Is it perfect? No. Am I touting America as some kind of utopia or better than a lot of other democracies? No. But I do think democracy and the democratic process have allowed our country to evolve in ways that would be impossible if it weren't a democracy.
quote:
You seem to be taking an attitude similar to Asimov's theory of psychohistory, in that you regard the contributions of individuals as largely insignificant. I disagree with this vey strongly.
You know,it's comments like these that really make me question whether or not people even read the shite I write.
Even if the point wasn't crystal clear in this thread, haven't I always advocated for the individual over society? Good gravy.
To answer your point, I happen to think that individuals matter very much, but those individuals function within a society and there are plenty of other extraordinary individuals around for those people to communicate with. I'm sure you're aware of the whole standing on the shoulders' of giants phenomenon? It's extremely rare for ideas to just spring up out of nowhere.
quote: I think that the burden of human advancement has been taken up by relatively few people. There were social factors in place that made Indian independence possible, but without someone of the intelligence and character of Gandhi, Indian's struggle for idenpendence would have taken a much different and more likely more negative aspect. Without Hitler's genius, I don't think that the German people's expression of their despair would have come out in such a focused or virulent form.
I agree, society owes a great debt to some individuals. No question. But remember,(tangent) many of Ghandi's ideas came directly from Hinduism and the anti-slavery groups and the suffragettes. Ghandi's ideas weren't new. The point has been labored to death, as well, that had he tried his non-violence thing with the Germans, he and his followers would have found themselves in an oven built for two in short order. So, the point is arguable whether he was a genius or just lucky.
quote: I have no confidence in the inevitible improvement of the human species. The western world collapsed after the Roman Empire fell. A millenium and a half is too long for me to wait for things to get better. If we sit back and rely on populist forces to rule, I am reasonably confident the human race won't last another 1500 years.
We'll see. The facts seem to be pointing n my favor, if you ask me. Take a look at the world now versus how it was fifty, one hundred, or one thousand years a go.
quote: As to self0interest ruling all, my response to this is best captured in your Humanism thread. I don't believe that humanism is mostly about not liking religion. Rather, I believe that it is the idea that people can at some point be trusted to base their actions on things other than their own limited self-interest.
I agree. I think the cultivation of compassion, the ability to empathize with others, is extremely important. But at the end of the day, all people, without exception, are motivated to some degree by self interest.
[ April 16, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Disclaimer: Haven't read any other posts, just replying to david.
There is an issue of identity and image in the world today.
Regardless of what antagonism exists between the US and the UN for who is supposed to direct the path of the world (which i think is a vastly different issue from what's at hand here), the behavior of any such body which wishes to direct the future of the globe is the root of the problems that are engulfing the world.
and this then gets to your point about world democracy, or at least some sort of governing body which has the best interests of all people in mind. The view across the majority of the world is that the US does not serve the interests of other nations/peoples, regardless of any ideological rhetoric to the contrary (of which president bush seems quite fond).
I'm going to attempt a short thought on why this is, and a list of the effects that have been borne out of this pov.
The bush admin, and i certainly believe that this is true of the neo-cons as well (and when i say neo-con i mean the group of people championed by the Project for the New American Century) believe that what is good for America (and that means the US, and not necessarily mexico and/or canada) is good for the rest of the world. This extremely self-centered view of the world may have some truth to it as a lot of good things are developed in the USA however, one can understand simply on an intestinal level, why people other than americans might find this particularly bent on foriegn policy a tad irksome. (i personally do not believe that what is good for the USA is good for the rest of the world, for a number of reasons, which i will go into only if asked)
Now, one can argue that when the Bushie Neo-cons speak of "good for america" they mean "good for the american economy" and thus "good for american companies," but that's not a tangent that i'm going to delve into heavily (primarily cause i haven't given thought to what factual evidence i can support that with yet), but i might make reference to it shortly.
The dichotomy between the idealism that president Bush gushes every time cameras from the international press are jammed in his face, and the justifications that are given to congress and national media are striking. Did we invade Iraq for the Iraqi people? For the war on terror? some mix of the two? Due to the fact that information must be wrested from the hands of the Bush administration, it's still a matter of speculation. This is -bad-. Room for speculation allows people who have previous agendas to jump to conclusions which may be completely unfounded. And while it's possible that the Bush administration can justify their policy decisions simply on their credibility with the american public (and you'll note this appears to be their campaign strategy. They want to claim that America can't trust John Kerry to fight-the-war-on-terror/save-the-economy/save-the-souls-of-america), there is a snowball's chance in hell that the Bush admin has the credibility to persuade the rest of the world based on their foriegn policy. Particularly if its reasonable to characterize their policy as "what's best for us is best for everyone else."
This policy's stated goals, are promoting democracy, waging the war on terrorism, sustaining the American economy, and things like spreading freedom far and wide.
What this has amounted to, is preferential treatment for Israel murdering people, coalition companies for the selection of construction contracts, and most notibly the marginalization of nearly everyone else, be it, western Europe, the palestinian public, environmentalists in the USA, liberals in the USA, scientific thought, non-christian non profits.
The problem is that the body which wants to control the world claiming to be fair, just, and good, and -blatantly- contradicting their own rhetoric with their behavior, in -any- way shape or form. It amounts to a crisis of credibility, not one of justifying unilateralism.
On a side note, i don't think the system is too broken to function... no, actually i think i may think the system is too broken to function, its not the case that i believe it's utterly unsalvagable. I just think that we need to throw -all- of congress out, dismantle the military-industrial complex, and restore some sort of accountability to politics.
And on that note, i'm quite happy with organizations like moveon.org cropping up. They're getting -people- involved again, even they're involved in political weasling, and/or political dogmatism.
[ April 18, 2004, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Pod ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
`Keesh:
quote:I know it ain't necessarily what the dictionary defintion is, but any government which restricts rights of citizenship to people on gender, religious, ethnic, or economic grounds (there are others, I'm just forgetting), is not in fact a democracy.
That's really ironic, since our "spread the democracy" president is also proposing a Constitutional Amendment that will restrict rights of citizenship to a group.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)