Should the US support democracy when it may be against our self interests?

[Pragmier]

I will let you guys decide what support means -

[Ben Shockley]

If the United States wants to stand as a "paragon of democratic self-determination," then Yes: it should support that for all other peoples.   Period.    Or be further branded as the international hypocrite it already is pretty much suspected to be.

[Eddie Coyle]

         Yes, but won't and rarely has. I believe Kissinger's quote about the "irresponsibility" of voters of Chile electing Allende in 1970 is hardly unique to that era or part of the world. God only knows how many elections we've rigged leading to installation of "our" guys(I use that in deepest sarcasm) in the past 100+ years...from Central Europe to Southeast Asia to Africa to Latin America.

[Ben Shockley]

I know that, Coyle... I was writing ideally.
Not one of this forum's rah-rah-America bastards has been where I was in ISRAEL a long time ago dealing with a female whose family had been fucked over in Chile -- and being in the position of a young American soldier who didn't have the full story but stupidly trying to mollify someone who did.
That's part of where I come from, politically in here.....

[LacyWoodrow]

The United States is actually a Republic before it was called a democracy.

If the Govt stopped making thousands of new laws every year, we might not be considered a socialist state at the moment.

[PB the Deplorable]

The goals are peace, prosperity, liberty.  Democracy is just a tool (even our Constitution has an Electoral College instead of a direct vote for President, an appointed Federal Judiciary, the Senate was originally appointed by the various state legislatures, non of this is 'democratic'). 

The Founding Fathers feared Democracy, they thought of it as tyranny by the majority, and set the country up as something else.   In a democracy, the majoruty can vote away anyones wealth and liberty anytime.  The above poster is correct that what we have is a Republic - rule of law - and there are a whole long list of tings the majority can't (or usn't supposed to) take from us, such as freedon to say what we want, to defend ourselves, the right to a jury trial, practice our religion, etc.

But to use the term, in order for there to be a 'Democracy (actually, self rule), there must be certain infrustructure in place.  I noted what some of that was in an earlier recent post.  In addition to those things, there needs to be an informed (and thus educated) electorate, and a thriving middle class (a bunch of illiterate peasants voting for what the mosque or church tells them is hardly in anyones benefit).

Without the infrastructure and some tradition of self rule, any 'vote' is going to produce either a corrupt government with a handful of wealthy families taking turns running the government (see the Latin American banana republics or places like The Phillipines), or a dictator that will eliminate the vote or rig the vote to stay in power for life (most of the places that have votes).

Neither a corrupt oligarchy nor a president-for-life is in the best interest of self determination or liberty, so no, the US should not support 'Democracy' in every case, and should stop advocating it.

What we should be cultivating with the governments we deal with, maybe with a carrot and stick approach using trade, weapons sales, diplomatic support, etc, is access to education and health care, clean air and water, non-corrupt land reform, freedom of the press, fair and open markets allowing people to more easily start businesses. the strengthening legislative bodies, independent judiciaries, etc.  That should be our goals, not some form of instant 'Democracy' that will become quickly corrupted..

[Nucky Nolan]

We should support the practice and theory of democracy in that we should let other countries choose their own democratic paths. If their choices go against our wishes, that's how it goes. We should stay out of their affairs unless they threaten us in some way. Most importantly, we should stop the practice of forcing democracy at the barrel of a gun.

[PB the Deplorable]

We should support the practice and theory of democracy in that we should let other countries choose their own democratic paths. If their choices go against our wishes, that's how it goes. We should stay out of their affairs unless they threaten us in some way. Most importantly, we should stop the practice of forcing democracy at the barrel of a gun.

That's all true, but what about the Brotherhood taking over Egypt, or Hamas in Gaza?  That isn't good for the people living their, their neighbors, our allies, or ultimately, us.  They won't be giving up power in the next election anymore than Arafat or Mubarek did.  Yet they can claim to be democratically elected.  So can Assad in Syria and lots of others.  Jordan is a kingdom and has a better government than any of them.

True Democracy (in the sense it means self determination) is good for everyone.  Tyrany, dictatorships, 'people's republics', no matter whether they hold a vote once or rig votes perodically are not really what we mean by 'democracy',  even if they call themselves one, and need not be supported by the US.  If they threaten our national interests - especially our strategic interests - they should be opposed (that doesn't mean militarily).

If countries are peaceful or don't threaten us, we should butt out of their affairs.  We've become far too invloved in the rest of the world militarily, both directly and thru the UN.

Egypt has 1000 tanks.  The US just re-approved an earlier deal for 200 more.  Was that wise?

[Nucky Nolan]

If countries are peaceful or don't threaten us, we should butt out of their affairs.  We've become far too invloved in the rest of the world militarily, both directly and thru the UN.

Egypt has 1000 tanks.  The US just re-approved an earlier deal for 200 more.  Was that wise?

No, it was unwise. We shouldn't punish or reward any of these countries. Let them be, and remember Washington's wise words on interventionist policies. I couldn't agree more with the above quote from your post.

[Pragmier]

That's all true, but what about the Brotherhood taking over Egypt, or Hamas in Gaza?  That isn't good for the people living their, their neighbors, our allies, or ultimately, us. 

This is exactly why I asked the question.

[Caruthers612]

         The mob rule version of democracy, which it devolves into when the majority of voters are 'tards and when people who own nothing are allowed to vote, has been evident lately, to put it mildly. Thus I have become deeply cynical about democracy. I don't think the Founders, in their own minds and taking things in the context of the time, intended to prevent anyone but white males from voting, as is popularly taught in our universities these days. I think they intended to limit the vote to those who owned property, owned a piece of the system, so that the policies a citizen voted for would affect him, not someone else. If you own nothing and pay nearly no taxes, but are someone who benefits from the taxes paid by others, it's no surprise that you vote to raise taxes and increase the government activity those taxes finance. Nor are you the business owner affected by excessive and punitive regulations, so what do you care about the growth of bureaucracy--besides which you probably have a grudge against the boss, so screw him, right? We had to correct for the Founders' mistake of not allowing women and minorities to vote, but having done that, had we any sense and any guts, we would have maintained the requirement of ownership of property (land, a business, some piece of the system). As it is, we'll be lucky if millions of illegal aliens can't vote by this time next year.

[Pragmier]

I gotta take exception to what you suggest. The wealthy already have a great say/influence in how things run; taking away the poor classes' right to vote would deprive them of the small chance left of being heard. I don't think a democracy can survive trying something like that.

[The General]

Whether we should or not, we can't any longer.  We're broke.  I wish we'd pull the majority of our troops out of other countries, end all foreign aid, and bring our troops home to reinforce our own borders instead of someone else's.

Why we support groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt while we go broke is beyond me.  I truly question the motives of those in power that have enabled this madness, both Republican and Democrat.

[PB the Deplorable]

I gotta take exception to what you suggest. The wealthy already have a great say/influence in how things run; taking away the poor classes' right to vote would deprive them of the small chance left of being heard. I don't think a democracy can survive trying something like that.

I'm not sure about voting, but successful people - the vast majority that got it honestly and through hard work - should be applauded and used as examples instead of being demonized. 

Yes the poor will always be with us, as someone once said, but in our country it doesn't have to be that way.  The way out just needs to be shown better.  For now, bribing the underclass through handouts to swing elections is not getting responsible people into office.

[onan]

Responsible... the definition is up for grabs. We as a nation should always support the betterment of all people in all countries. Unfortunately, the words "insure domestic tranquility" has superseded the tranquility of other nations.
As for the contention we are broke. I dunno, I suppose there are many ways of looking at that. Fact of the matter is, wealth in this nation is at an all time high. Just concentrated in the hands of less than what? 3000 individuals?
We aren't financially as bad off as some would suggest, the issue is where do we get our revenues. I will concede the country is broken, however. Trouble is there is little rational thought or discussion. Mostly it is finger pointing and no willingness on either side to capitulate. Tough for me to find sympathy for the concentration of wealth when somewhere 25 percent of the population is well below the poverty line with no good solution on how to heal that.
Back on topic though... we should for the most part mind our own business. Work on solving our problems by focusing on internal manufacturing, and stop any and all off shore banking. I am sick of patriotism being about the sacrifice of soldiers and not about multimillionaires moving their monies to other countries... to me that is treason. ok rant mode off. Screw it I can't seem to get on topic.

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

...I am sick of patriotism being about the sacrifice of soldiers and not about multimillionaires moving their monies to other countries... to me that is treason. ok rant mode off. Screw it I can't seem to get on topic.

Good post; great ending. +1.

[anunnaki]

We are not a Democracy.
The Founding Fathers were against it .
No where in our Constitution, Bill of Rights is that word to be found.
We are a Constitutional Republic and our "Pledge of Allegiance" to the Flag is "to the Republic for which it Stands"- NOT 'to the Democracy for which it (does not) stand.

Ben Franklin said it best- "A Democracy is two Wolves and a Chicken voting on what to have for dinner". "In a Republic that Chicken has a Gun"

[Darisi]

         The mob rule version of democracy, which it devolves into when the majority of voters are 'tards and when people who own nothing are allowed to vote, has been evident lately, to put it mildly. Thus I have become deeply cynical about democracy. I don't think the Founders, in their own minds and taking things in the context of the time, intended to prevent anyone but white males from voting, as is popularly taught in our universities these days. I think they intended to limit the vote to those who owned property, owned a piece of the system, so that the policies a citizen voted for would affect him, not someone else. If you own nothing and pay nearly no taxes, but are someone who benefits from the taxes paid by others, it's no surprise that you vote to raise taxes and increase the government activity those taxes finance. Nor are you the business owner affected by excessive and punitive regulations, so what do you care about the growth of bureaucracy--besides which you probably have a grudge against the boss, so screw him, right? We had to correct for the Founders' mistake of not allowing women and minorities to vote, but having done that, had we any sense and any guts, we would have maintained the requirement of ownership of property (land, a business, some piece of the system). As it is, we'll be lucky if millions of illegal aliens can't vote by this time next year.

I mostly agree with your comments partially because the conjure up that iconic image of the "Obamaphone" lady during the national electon race.

[onan]

Here is the link to the actual information on obamaphone madness.


http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone

[Pragmier]

Ben Franklin said it best- "A Democracy is two Wolves and a Chicken voting on what to have for dinner". "In a Republic that Chicken has a Gun"

What is your source? I'd like to read the original document by Franklin.

[Darisi]

Does anyone do any thinking or research before they make their statements?


Here is the link to the actual information.


http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone

Thanks for the info.  I obviously chose an incorrect example to make my point.  Lesson learned.  Tks

[onan]

Thanks for the info.  I obviously chose an incorrect example to make my point.  Lesson learned.  Tks

thank you and I do apologize for my tone.

[Pragmier]

We are not a Democracy.
The Founding Fathers were against it .
No where in our Constitution, Bill of Rights is that word to be found.
We are a Constitutional Republic and our "Pledge of Allegiance" to the Flag is "to the Republic for which it Stands"- NOT 'to the Democracy for which it (does not) stand.

We may be splitting hairs here. Republic and democracy are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Since the constitution allows for the election of representatives by the people, it can reasonably be described as a form of democracy, which means rule by the people. No one talks about "spreading republicanism".

[Darisi]

thank you and I do apologize for my tone.

No problem. You just reminded me that I still need to work on my old bad habit of pressing "send" before I thoroughly review my comments.  Thanks, I need a slap on the face every so often.   My initial comment was crude and had several insensitive overtones, I. E. racial, class, gender etc.   I wish I was a better man.

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

...just a few things to toss into the thread...

The Constitution exists not for controlling the people, but to control the government. The Constitution was designed to further the cause of liberty, not democracy. Exporting democracy instead of supporting liberty is a form of tyranny. If you want to prevent the needless bloodshed overseas (in this case), stop exporting democracy. By doing this you will also stop being surprised when the lands where democracy is imposed, wish to elect leaders that represent the peoples views rather than the USA.

As far as I can tell, the USA government has not recognized/operated according to the Constitution for over 100 years. I believe if the Framers of our Constitution were in their prime today, they would form the roots of a second revolution of some kind. This is not in reaction to the current administration, but would include it in a long line of those expanding the powers of the government over the liberties of the people.

At this point, I will pass on bringing up the difference between Capitalism vs Corporatism/Cronyism.

[anunnaki]

From Neal Boortz:  February 21, 2008
SORRY ... BUT IT'S HARD TO DEAL WITH THE UNEDUCATED SOMETIMES.

Now I know that with our system of government schools there is every excuse for people to be badly misinformed on critical issues. Let's face it ... these government schools have been more interested in feeding you dogma than the truth. Let's take the idea that our country is a democracy, for instance. I would guess that virtually every government school in this nation teaches its hostages (students) that the United States is a democracy. Now don't you find this just a bid odd, considering the fact that neither the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or the constitutions of any of the 50 state even contain the word "democracy?" Isn't it odder still that the Constitution specifically says that our form of government is "Republican?"

Yes .. there's a reason for this. Around the time of Woodrow Wilson the idea of government welfare programs that were outside of the grant of authority in our Constitution began to take hold. Politicians knew that if they continued to tout the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, they would have a rather difficult time getting their government welfare programs enacted. So, the idea started to spread that we were a democracy .. a country ruled by men and not the law. Whatever the majority of the people (voters) wanted .. they got. After all, isn't that what democracy (majority rule) means?

You might find it interesting to know what our founding fathers thought of the idea of a democracy. There's an incredible book out there titled "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. Here's your link if you might like to get a copy. The author, historian Joseph Ellis, tells us at the very beginning of this book just what our founding fathers thought of the idea of democracy. Here's what they thought of democrats:

"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who
panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"

I know ... it truly is amazing how that phrase pretty much describes the Democrats of the day. For the most part the oratory of both Obama and Hillary have been little more than examples of pandering "to the crude and mindless whims of the masses."

So .. why have our government schools been so anxious to spread the "democracy" lie? Because the more people believe that crap the stronger government becomes. If the dumb masses can be convinced that, since we are a democracy, the government should be able to do whatever the political class convinces the majority of Americans it should do ... then we have stronger politicians and weaker protections for our rights.

[anunnaki]

I was para phrasing Ben Franklin. Here are some sources:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/poor_richard.html

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/683253-democracy-is-two-wolves-and-a-lamb-voting-on-what

[anunnaki]

By Neal Boortz  Jan. 13, 2010

The State Department has decided that it is going to host a Twitter competition. Contestants are to "tweet what you think democracy is in 140 characters or less." The winner will get a Flip video camera.

Naturally, I have my own ideas for the State Department Twitter contest but something tells me they won't be well received. Here are some examples:

    Democracy .. detested by our founding fathers, loved by today's despots.

    Democracy .. a concept completely misunderstood by the American people.

    Democracy is three wolves and one sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.

    Democracy is a form of government which panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.

    Democracy is mob rule that recognizes no individual rights.

    Democracy .. where the rule of the masses destroys the rights of the individuals.

There. Those didn't take 140 characters. It also didn't take a lot of creativity on my part ... only a little bit of research into what our own founding fathers thought of the idea of democracy. You see, a lot of you were probably educated in government schools. That's ok. You really don't understand my aversion to Democracy. Well, that's by design. But your government schools did you a grand disservice (man is THAT an understatement!). Your government school teachers lied to you. Our country is not a democracy. Shocking, I know. But did you know that the word "democracy" fails to appear in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or the constitutions of any of our 50 states?

Look at it this way. Let's say that you're charged with a horrible crime. Well say you are charged with the rape and murder of a little girl. You're innocent .. but you also know that pretty much everybody in the community thinks you're guilty as hell .. and they're forming a lynch mob. At this point are you rooting for democracy or the rule of law? Do you want a system where the majority prevails? Or do you want a system with a structure of laws that will protect you while guilt is adjudicated?

The idea that our country is a democracy did not take hold until about the time of Woodrow Wilson. This is when politicians began to see the Constitution as a roadblock to enacting their dreams and schemes. So they started spreading this idea that we were a country ruled by men (instead of law) and therefore began to abuse and stretch the limitations of the Constitution.

So back to my quote. I said that it wasn't original. I got it from a book titled "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation" by historian Joseph Ellis. At the very beginning of the book he tells us what our founding fathers thought of the idea of democracy:

    "... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"

Sounds about right, doesn't it? Now ... we will see if that wins me a Flip video camera. Wait! I already have one ... so it doesn't matter.

Like hell it doesn't.

[anunnaki]

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

[anunnaki]

Ben Franklin-

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/poor_richard.html