Posted on 07/09/2010 4:53:37 AM PDT by IbJensen
With the disintegration of the Soviet Empire and the Soviet Union, and Beijings abandonment of Maoism, anti-communism necessarily ceased to be the polestar of U.S. foreign policy.
For many, our triumph fairly cried out for a bottom-up review of all the alliances created to fight that Cold War and a return to a policy of non-intervention in foreign quarrels where no vital U.S. interest was imperiled.
This was dismissed as isolationism. Seeking some new cause to give meaning to their lives, our suddenly superfluous foreign policy elites settled upon a crusade for democracy as Americas new mission in the world.
Interventions in Panama, Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia followed, plus wars in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. To further advance the great goal, the National Endowment for Democracy and agencies like Freedom House set out to subvert authoritarian regimes in Belgrade, Caracas, Kiev, Tbilisi, Beirut and Bishkek. Cold War methods and means were now to be conscriptedfor democratic ends.
Yet, considering the high cost in blood, money and lost leadership and prestige since our victory in the Cold War, the democracy crusade scarcely seems worth it. For while we have been bogged down in two wars, China has become the worlds leading manufacturer, steelmaker, auto producer and exporter, and the second largest economy on earth.
Nevertheless, we are ever admonished, we must not flag or fail in our pursuit of global democracy, for only when the world is democratic will our providential mission be accomplished. And only then can we be truly secure.
But setting aside the utopian character of all global crusades, why do we think that the more democratic the world is, the more secure and serene America shall be?
Historically, we have often made common cause with autocrats and dictators when our vital national interests commanded it. In our Revolution, our indispensable ally against the Mother of Parliaments was Louis XVI.
In the War of 1812, where our enemy was the Duke of Wellington, our de facto ally was the tyrant Napoleon.
During our war with Mexico, the Brits were on their side, not ours. During our Civil War, Tsar Alexander I wished us well, while the British wanted to see the United States permanently divided and weakened.
Democratic Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland were neutrals in World War II, while the China of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and the Soviet Union of Joseph Stalin did most of the dying on the Allied side.
During Vietnam, autocratic South Korea and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines sent troops. The Brits and French traded with the enemy. Gen. Pinochet, who seized power in a coup in 1973, was a better friend than Chiles Salvador Allende, who was elected. While the Nixon White House did not cause Allendes ouster, neither did they weep over it.
Democratic France denied Ronald Reagan overflight rights for his F-111s to hit Moammar Gadhafis Libya in retaliation for a terrorist attack, but Portugals dictatorship gave permission for Nixon to use the Azores as a fueling station in resupplying Israel during the Yom Kippur war.
Ought not nations judge friends less by the ideals they profess than by how they behave when you need them most?
Moreover, any 21st-century democracy must sooner or later, through elections, reflect the most powerful of the currents surging through society. And, outside the West, and even in parts of the West, what are these? Ethno-nationalism, fundamentalism, anti-Americanism.
When President Bush demanded elections in Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine, the winners were the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Hamas. Bushs enthusiasm for democracy seemed to wane after that.
The largest democracies in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and AsiaBrazil, South Africa, Turkey and Indiaare all moving away from the United States. Brazil and India are lining up with China to oppose limits on carbon emissions that would impede their growth.
India and China are resisting concessions to save the Doha Round of trade negotiations. South Africa leads the continent in sheltering the racist tyranny of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Brazil and Turkey launched a joint diplomatic initiative to help Iran break free of its U.S.-imposed isolation and of the U.N. sanctions regime.
Turkey is the archetype of a democratic nation moving away from America, as Ankara more accurately reflects the will of its people.
By moving Turkey off the secularist course set by Ataturk, moving closer to Iran and Syria, denouncing and defying Israel for its war in Gaza and treatment of the Palestinians, President Erdogan has increased his own and his Islamic partys standing.
In Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt, anti-Americanism and fundamentalist fever are both running high. Why would we want free elections in these nations if the inevitable result would be regimes far more hostile to our interests than the present governments?
America would do well to downgrade the ideological component of its foreign policy and start putting her national interests first. Not all autocrats are enemies; not all democrats are friends.
I would ascribe such movement to our feckless and clueless weak president.
The fact that the author doesn’t know the difference between a democracy and a republic makes it impossible for me to read this kind of nonsense with a straight face. Democracy is generally a bad idea. A republic, on the other hand, is a great way to go.
first, we’re not a democracy
second, our nation is not the only one awash in progressives.
third, our capitalistic republic was working just fine... better than anything the world had ever seen... until it was slowly choked by progressive dogma
want to save the country? just like saving a choking victim... you need to remove that which is choking them.
Exactly. And, our founders knew it. Many did all they could to avoid the new United States becoming a Democracy. They knew Democracy would ultimately result in mob rule. To call someone a "Democrat" in the founder's time was a huge insult that would usually result in a fight or a duel.
Most of them have been faced with the business end of Obama's middle finger.
Yep! China has a plan, for China. They are buying up the world industries having foreigners work for them. For a while we were told the US housing bubble-boom was real US economic growth, but that all a lie.
I am pasting below a passage from the War Department’s Training Manual 2000-25, November 30, 1928. It was the text book for studying to become an American Citizen. It was immediately pulled and replaced within months of the election of FDR.
Democracy: A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression.
Results, in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/tm/tm_2000-25/tm_2000-25.htm
It’s overrated only if you’re a socialist/marxist.
The founders LOATHED the idea of a democracy,
because they could “think beyond stage one”
to see the consequences of the idea.
This type of thinking is what “progressives” of today are either incapable of or unwilling to do.
Socialists/Marxists LOVE to tout “democracy”,
because the uneducated masses will invariably
vote for socialism.
Our problem is that we have the franchise to anyone who breathes vs. those who actually have a stake or make a positive contribution to our society. On the other hand, you don’t want all the votes concentrating in the hands of the rich & powerful either. The franchise should be earned, not given out for existing. I liked Heinlein’s idea of only giving the franchise out to veterans. Personally, I think this will only happen when the system totally collapses.
” Yep! China has a plan, for China. They are buying up the world industries having foreigners work for them. For a while we were told the US housing bubble-boom was real US economic growth, but that all a lie. “
Correct
If asked why democracy is better, most Americans would reply something to the effect of, because it brings freedom and liberty. But while this is the popular view, it does not explain why democracy is still attractive to people who have no real grasp of what we think of as freedom and liberty.
When pressed, these same people would say something like, because democracy is better than other forms of government.
And this is far closer to the truth.
The biggest selling point of democracy is that it is more *efficient* than any other system. And while freedom and liberty are complex and subjective ideas, “greater efficiency” make sense to *everyone*, be they an uneducated peasant or a king.
The “salesmanship” of democracy, to sell itself to people, is truly amazing, and what turns a philosophy into a viral revolution. Once a nation is infected with the idea of democracy, it could infect anyone: a shoemaker, an artist, a princess. And there is no way to even tell if they have become a democrat or not. They may do nothing and say nothing, and then out of the blue, make a critical, pro-democracy decision that effects their entire nation.
A great example of this happened, and continues to happen, in rural China. Collective farms would be periodically visited by communist party members, to issue orders as to how to farm. Their job was to obey his orders, even though he likely knew very little about farming.
But even in rural China, television had become available, with maybe one or two TV sets in a small town. And as with everywhere else, some of the most popular shows were game shows. Shows that featured a novel, and democratic notion: voting.
The idea of voting was an amazing concept to these uneducated peasant farmers. It made *sense* to them. So the next time the communist party member showed up to issue them orders, one of the farmers would chime in with an *alternative*, better idea, that all the farmers knew would work better.
He would tell them “No. Do what I say.” And one of them would chime in the equivalent of, “Hey, let’s *vote* on it!”
Well, the more dictatorial party members would still demand that they do things his ignorant way, because. But some of the smarter party members asked why? And the farmers would explain it to him.
Being smart, with just a little flexibility, some of the party members agreed to do farming the farmers way. And when harvest season rolled around, those groups of farmers were way above quota. And in turn, this ended up with the party member getting promoted for doing a good job.
And this is how democracy works. And the idea spreads quickly. Soon it puts the anti-democrats on the defensive, and they can no longer justify their lack of efficiency. Which even an uneducated peasant farmer can see.
Of course, this is low level, basic democracy, which beyond a certain level of organization becomes less efficient, which is where the idea of republicanism comes from. It just makes sense for a large group to have a spokesman, a representative, instead of everybody talking at once.
But the selling point remains. Democracy is just better. More efficient. And as part of the deal, freedom and liberty arrive as a necessary part of the process. Freedom and liberty are like the lubricant that makes the engine of democracy perform better.
To Progressives it's all about power and control. That is all they think about morning, noon and night and it's been that way for nearly 100 years.....
yes, it has long been known that democracy == mob rule.
and the progressives know this... and they control the media... which they use to direct the mob
“The fact that the author doesnt know the difference between a democracy and a republic makes it impossible for me to read this kind of nonsense with a straight face.”
People (i.e. conservatives) make way too much of the difference. It barely exists. When our founders spoke out against democracy, they took it to mean (after the—bad, in their estimation—example of ancient Athens) pure majoritarianism. Which of course is not necessarily the connotation today. There are such a thing as limited democracy, constitutional democracy, and mixed democracy. All of which mean precisely the same thing as republicanism.
Also, bear in mind we’ve lost (legally) a lot of made us anti-democratic (insofar as we were), for instance via the 17th amendment.
Nailed it. Of course Democracy is overrated. That is why we are a Representative Republic.
You miss the point. The US foreign policy advocates democracy for other countries. This is not about the structure of the US government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.