Democracy

[peach174]

We are not a democracy we are a constitutional republic

Republic

If government can create or control it's laws , law does not control the government.
Like it is doing now, by not enforcing the ones they don't like.

 

[Windship]

A democracy rules by the majority of a ruling party, and thus can stamp on minority rights. A republic preserves the voice of the minority.

china has no Democracy...whats their record on human rights? How bout Viet Nam?...no Democracy there either. Lol, someone actually gave you a "winner" on that ridiculous post.

 

[Windship]

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majorityb : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

 

[Iceweasel]

Democracy is two lions and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner.

 

[Windship]

Saying we are not a Democracy will not make it disappear so you can make more money. You dont even know what Democracy is. To you Democracy sounds like democrat and Republic sounds like republican so you glue yourself there. Its just a play on words to you.

 

[Windship]

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule...
Quotation: "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

Variations:

1. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."
2. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Sources consulted: Searching on the phrase "mob rule"

1. Monticello website
2. Ford's Works of Thomas Jefferson
3. UVA EText Jefferson Digital Archive: Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government, Texts by or to Thomas Jefferson from the Modern English Collection
4. Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress
5. Retirement Papers
6. Quotable Jefferson
7. Bartleby.com: Quotations

Earliest known appearance in print: 2004[1][2]

Other attributions: None known.

Status: We currently have no evidence to confirm that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote, "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%" or any of its listed variations. We do not know the source of this statement's attribution to Thomas Jefferson.

↑ Ken Schoolland, The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey (Cape Town, South Africa: Leap Publishing, 2004), 235. PDF version available online.

• ↑ To establish the earliest appearance of this phrase in print, the following sources were searched for the phrase, "democracy is nothing more than mob rule": Google Books, Google Scholar, Amazon.com, Internet Archive, America's Historical Newspapers, American Broadsides and Ephemera Series I, Early American Imprints Series I and II, Early English Books Online, Eighteenth Century Collections Online, 19th Century U.S. Newspapers, American Periodicals Series Online, JSTOR.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0500.htm

 

[Windship]

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government. Thomas Jefferson
Read more at: Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

 

[Windship]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson
Read more at: Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

 

[Windship]

I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson
Read more at: Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

 

[Windship]

Ya know...I dont have anything against people making money. I dont have anything against people makin' a whole fuckin' SHIT load of money. I have a problem with people making a lot of money and dumping on the ones that made it for them. Its is selfish, self centered, greedy and immoral. I also have a problem with people pissing down my back and tellin' me its rainin'.

 

[Windship]

Democracy is a Collectivist Form of Government

04AUG​

​

11 Votes​

English: communism fail (Photo credit: Wikipedia)​

We live in a democracy. Most nations in the western world are democracies. We think so highly of democracy, that one of the rationales for invading Iraq and killing thousands of Iraqis was to give the Iraqi people the “blessing” of democracy. As Americans, we are prepared to fight, kill, and sometimes die for our beloved democracy.
Nevertheless, our national commitment to democracy is a little odd since the word “democracy” does not appear in The Constitution of the United States. In fact, the only form of government that’s expressly mentioned in our Constitution is seen at Article 4 Section 4 which declares in part,

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”.​

So why did we kill all those Iraqis to give ‘em democracy?
Why didn’t we kill ‘em to give them a “republican form of government”?
• The federal Constitution’s mandate for the “Republican Form of Government” is expressly echoed in some State constitutions.
For example, Article I Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas declares in part,

“The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”​

In other words, Texans can change their State’s Constitution any way they like, any time they please, with only one, itty-bitty exception: we must preserve our “republican form of government”. No matter what, we mustmaintain our “republican form of government”. And yet, here on Texas, we live in a “democracy”.
Again, that’s odd since the word “democracy” does not appear in the Texas Constitution.
The word “democracy” does appear in four or five state constitutions, but it’s only been added in the past 20 or 30 years. As originally written, all of our State and federal constitutions expressly or impliedly guaranteed a “republic form of government”—but made no mention of “democracy”.
Of course, if the terms “republican form of government” and “democracy” were synonymous, there’d be no problem. Maybe the word “democracy” is merely shorthand for “republican form of government,” hmm?
But if the two terms are not synonymous, our love for “democracy” and our willingness to fight, kill and die to spread democracy are unconstitutional and treasonous.
• I’ve been a casual student of the nature of governments for over a decade. Trying to find precise a definition of the “republican form of government” is almost impossible. Early editions of Black’s Law Dictionary defined “republican form of government” as “government in the republican form,” but that’s like defining the word “red” to mean “the color red”. In both instances, the definitions break the fundamental rule of lexicography: you can’t use the word or term that’s being defined as part of its definition.
I’ve yet to find a precise definition of the “republican form of government”. I have no doubt that that definition is intentionally concealed. The Powers That Be don’t want the great unwashed to understand the differences between the “democracy” we have and the “republican form of government” which we are guaranteed.
However, about ten years ago, I began to understand the difference between “democracy” and the “republican form of government” when I read the definition of “republic” in the 7th edition (A.D. 1999) of Black’s Law Dictionary:

“republic, n. A system of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elect representatives who exercise that power. • It contrasts on the one hand with a pure democracy, in which the people or community as an organized whole wield the sovereign power of government, and on the other with the rule of one person (such as a king, emperor, czar, or sultan). — Abbr. rep. — republican, adj. Cf. DEMOCRACY.”​

That definition told me that in a democracy, the people hold sovereign power as “an organized whole”—not as individual men and women.
I believe that the term “organized whole” is synonymous with the word “collective“.
If so, Democracy must be a collectivist form of government.
• In broad strokes, every form of government can be determined by answering one question: Who holds sovereign power?
The question is important since the essence of “sovereignty” is authority. Sovereignty offers a legally cognizable answer to the question, “Who duh boss?”
The authority and power of all nations are generally structured in the following hierarchy:
1. Sovereign
2. Government
3. Subjects
The sovereign makes the law and gives the orders. The government always serves the sovereign(s) and controls or even oppresses the subjects.
As Mel Brooks remarked in his movie History of the World, Part I, “It’s good to be the king [sovereign].” Conversely, it sucks to be a subject.
If you’re a sovereign, the government is your servant. If you’re a subject, the government (acting on behalf of the sovereign) is your master. If you’re a subject, you have no meaningful rights to resist the action or even oppression of the government.
• Broadly speaking, there are three fundamental forms of government:
1. Monarchy wherein one man—the king—holds sovereign power and is the “sovereign”; all others are subjects.
2. Aristocracy (or a plutocracy, etc.) wherein a relatively small but elite group of men or families (the “aristocrats”) hold sovereign power; all others are subjects.
3. Republic wherein the sovereign power is held equally by all people. Everyone is entitled to participate in the government by voting and/or holding public office. All citizens of a republic are equal in terms of rights and obligations.
In every republic, the people are sovereign—and that’s theoretically better than having one man (a king) or a handful of men (aristocrats) be the sovereign(s) . But not all “republics” are benign.
Therefore, whenever we deal with a “republic”—in addition to asking “Who holds sovereign power?”—we need also ask a second question to determine the kind of “republic” we’re dealing with: In what capacity do the people hold sovereign power—as sovereigns or as subjects?
For example, in the “republican form of government” that’s expressly guaranteed by our federal Constitution, We the People of the States of the Union are sovereigns in the capacity of individual men and women. I’m a sovereign, you’re a sovereign, the guy across the street is a sovereign. Our status as individual sovereigns was born out in the A.D. 1793 Supreme Court case of Chisholm vs. Georgia which declared the American people to be “sovereigns [plural] without subjects”. In the “republican form of government,” everyone is a sovereign—no one is a subject.
The resulting hierarchy of authority in the “republican form” looks something like this:
1) God–the universal sovereign (all earthly sovereignty flows from God);
2) We the People as individual, earthly sovereigns by virtue of being endowed by our Creator with “certain unalienable Rights” and subject to God’s law;
3) Government (subject to the People’s law a/k/a the Constitution).
In the “republican form of government,” because the people are individual sovereigns, the government is ourservant—not our master. The people who work for government are our “public servants”.
• The “republican form of government” is a very special and specific kind of “republic” where all the people are equal as individual sovereigns. But there are other republics where all the are all equal as subjects.
For example, communism is a republic.
Don’t think so? Remember the proper name for the former USSR? It was the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics“. There’s no mistake there. The communists correctly described their form of government as union of “Republics“.
Socialism is also a republic. In the case of both communism and socialism, any young man (or woman) who is sufficiently intelligent, ruthless or lucky can grow up to the “Premier” over a communist or socialist nation. But, as “Premier,” he may wield maximum power, but he remains as much a subject of that republic as any street sweeper. He is not the “sovereign” or even a “sovereign”.
The “republican form of government” and the communistic/socialist “republic” are both “republics” because all the people can participate in government by voting or holding public office. However, while all are individual “sovereigns” in the “republican form of government,” all member of a communist or socialist “republic” are subjects. As Mel Brooks said, “It’s good to be the king (sovereign).” As I said, it sucks to be a subject.
There are no subjects in the “republican form of government”.
There are no individual sovereigns in a communist/socialist “republic”.
In the “republican form of government,” each of us can be “free” as individuals because we are each deemed to be a sovereign.
In a communist “republic,” we’re all individual subjects who are each equally liable to being oppressed by our government “master”. In a communist “republic” subjects have no right to resist governmental oppression. There is no individual freedom in a communist republic because there is no individual sovereignty.
• If the foregoing commentary seems unclear, it’s probably because I haven’t yet answered the second question concerning “republics”. The first question is “Who holds sovereign power?”
We know that in any “republic” the people are sovereign. That’s always true. But it’s critical to ask the second question: “In what capacity are the people sovereign in a particular republic?”
In the “republican form of government,” We the People are each sovereign in the capacity of individuals. Again—I’m a sovereign; you’re a sovereign; the guy across the street is a sovereign. We are each sovereign in our capacity as individual men and women.
In a communist or socialist “republic,” we the people are also sovereign–but not as individual sovereigns. Instead, under a communist or social “republic,” we the people are sovereign in the capacity of a single collective. In the communist/socialist “republic,” I am not a sovereign. You are not a sovereign. The guy across the street is not a sovereign. No living man is the sovereign or even a sovereign. All are subjects.
So who/what is the sovereign in a communist republic?
Answer: The artificial entity and/or legal fiction called the “collective” is the one and only sovereign.
That’s why communist and socialist systems are called “collectivist” forms of government. In that kind of “republic,” you and I and the guy across the street are collectively members of the sovereignty, but each of us is individually a subject of that collective/sovereign.
In a collectivist “republic,” the hierarchy of authority runs like this:
1. Sovereign Collective. A legal fiction that consists of all the people acting together in the capacity of a single collective.
2. Government (alleged servant of the collective/sovereign/people)
3. Subjects. We the people in the capacity as individuals.
Thus, in a collectivist form or government, the people who are presumed to comprise the collective-sovereign are also, in their individual capacities, subjects of that collective.
Tyrannical like collectivism because under that pretext, all of the individual people are subjects who have no right to resist government.
• In a collectivist state, it is presumed that the will of the sovereign collective is expressed by the majority of the votes in any given election. In a collectivist state, the people’s only way to express their small relation to sovereignty is by voting in elections. But in every other aspect of their lives, the people are rightless subjects. This is exactly why Stalin could send millions of subjects to Siberian gulags to die. As subjects, they had no rights to resist the government’s tyranny.
In a collectivist state, the will of the sovereign is essentially unbridled. That is, the members of the collective can do anything the majority (or their representatives) vote to do in any election. The collective-sovereign is not bound by previous elections, morality or God’s law. The collective is purely man’s unbridled law.
For example, today, the majority (or their representatives) can vote to free the slaves. Tomorrow, they can vote to restore slavery. The day after that, they can vote to kill the slaves. The day after, the majority (or their representatives) can vote to reward all the slaves who survived. Then they can vote on whether to shoot, imprison or reward everyone who has blue eyes or was a Ron Paul supporter.
Whatever the majority votes to do at any particular time is perceived to be the “will of the collective-sovereign” and can be carried out brutally by the government (which always serves the sovereign). If the majority voted to kill all the slaves (or voted to elect representatives who subsequently voted to kill all the slaves), the government will execute the slaves without any judicial process since subjects have no meaningful rights to litigate. If the majority (or their representatives) vote to seize all property of people who have blue eyes, the government will so seize—and without any legal niceties. For the individuals targeted by the majority, there’s no legal defense against the “will of the collective/sovereign” because subjects have no significant rights.
Thus, in a collectivist “republic,” at any moment, each subject is liable to be taxed, robbed, imprisoned, assaulted or executed by the government (acting under the guise of “servant” for the collective/sovereign).
All collectivist “republics” are stupid, ungodly and dangerous to every “individual”.
• There’s an old joke definition of democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Ha-ha.
We know that the two wolves will vote to eat the one sheep. But we suppose that meal will be based on nothing more than mathematics. Two wolves is greater than one sheep. The majority rules. Therefore, the two (majority) can vote to eat the one (individual). Eating the sheep is deemed the irresistible “will” of the collective-sovereign.
If fact, that joke definition offers enormous insight into the reality of democracy. Yes, the majority rules. Yes, the majority can vote to “eat” the minority. But the fundamental reason for this cannibalism isn’t mere mathematics. It’s because each individual member of the democracy (be he sheep or wolf) has no right to resist the will of the collective as expressed by the majority of voters. The two wolves can vote to eat the one sheep—not because two is greater than one—but because, in a collective, no member has any God-given, unalienable Right to Life (as declared in our Declaration of Independence and which laid the foundation for the “republican form”). Within the democracy, the individual is merely a rightless “thing” (or, at best a subject) who can be lawfully deprived of his property, family, liberty or life any time the majority or their elected representatives vote to do so.
Democracy is another variety of a collectivist form of republic. Yes, We the People are sovereign in a democracy—but we are sovereign in the capacity of a single collective—not as a multitude of individuals. Democracy, is functionally identical to communism and socialism. Thus, for most of a decade, we’ve fought, killed and died in Iraq to give the Iraqis a collectivist form of government fundamentally identical to the “evil empire” formerly condemned by Ronald Reagan.
• Every subject in a democracy is constantly exposed to absolute vulnerability to government oppression. Compare that vulnerability to the fundamental principles of the “republican form of government”: That “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Under the republican form, each individual is deemed to have certain unalienable rights that can’t be taken away or even waived, but must be respected by the public servants of that “republican form of government”. In the “republican form,” it matters not if two wolves, or 200 hundred million wolves are hungry–they can’t vote to “eat the sheep” since doing so would deprive the “sheep” of his God-given, unalienable Right to Life.
Where would you rather live—in a democracy where you have no real rights as an individual man or woman? Or in the “republican form of government” where you have God-given rights to resist the will of the majority or the actions of the government?
And why has our government subjected us to a “democracy” when our Constitution mandates the “republican form of government”?
A: Because our government wants to oppress the American people rather than serve them.
Share this:

 

[Windship]

Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. Ronald Reagan
Read more at: Ronald Reagan Quotes

 

[Windship]

HISTORY
Ronald Reagan on Democracy
PETER WEHNER / FEB. 3, 2011

0
shares
Westminster Address. That speech is worth quoting extensively, since Reagan laid out his argument with intelligence and care.

“Democracy is not a fragile flower,” Reagan said. “Still it needs cultivating. If the rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of freedom and democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the campaign for democracy.”

America’s 40th president went on to say this:

While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. So states the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, among other things, guarantees free elections. The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means. This is not cultural imperialism, it is providing the means for genuine self-determination and protection for diversity. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy.

In practice, Reagan did not place talisman-like powers in democracy, and he wasn’t stupid in his application of the principles he enunciated. He didn’t favor destabilizing pro-American authoritarian regimes if they were going to be replaced by anti-American totalitarian ones. Statesmanship involves the prudential application of principles to particular situations and moments in time, something at which Reagan excelled.

Still, there is no denying the centrality that freedom and human rights played in American foreign policy during the Reagan years. And those who are consistently skeptical about proclaiming the inalienable and universal rights of all human beings — who when they speak about democracy promotion these days almost always do so in critical terms — are standing shoulder-to-shoulder not with Reagan but with Henry Kissinger.

Secretary Kissinger, after all, downplayed the role of morality in foreign policy. He believed that the United States should largely ignore the human-rights violations of other nations. Democracy promotion for him was a peripheral concern, and sometimes not even that.

Oh, and Dr. Kissinger was (in the 1976 primary challenge against Gerald Ford) Reagan’s bete noire, and the Reagan presidency in important respects a repudiation of Kissinger’s realpolitik.

I admire much about Henry Kissinger. But on this, as on so much else, Ronald Reagan was right.

 

[Windship]

• HOME| ​
• REMARKS BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W....​

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AT THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY​

United States Chamber of Commerce
Washington, D.C.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Please be seated. Thanks for the warm welcome, and thanks for inviting me to join you in this 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. The staff and directors of this organization have seen a lot of history over the last two decades, you’ve been a part of that history. By speaking for and standing for freedom, you’ve lifted the hopes of people around the world, and you’ve brought great credit to America.
I appreciate Vin for the short introduction. I’m a man who likes short introductions. And he didn’t let me down. But more importantly, I appreciate the invitation. I appreciate the members of Congress who are here, senators from both political parties, members of the House of Representatives from both political parties. I appreciate the ambassadors who are here. I appreciate the guests who have come. I appreciate the bipartisan spirit, the nonpartisan spirit of the National Endowment for Democracy. I’m glad that Republicans and Democrats and independents are working together to advance human liberty.
The roots of our democracy can be traced to England, and to its Parliament — and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared, the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed, precisely because it did not respect its own people — their creativity, their genius and their rights.
President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today. (Applause.)
A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the President. According to one editorial of the time, “It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan.” (Laughter.) Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous. In fact, Ronald Reagan’s words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct. (Applause.)
The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well underway. In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia. This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America* had collapsed. Within another year, the South African government released Nelson Mandela. Four years later, he was elected president of his country — ascending, like Walesa and Havel, from prisoner of state to head of state.
As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world — and I can assure you more are on the way. (Applause.) Ronald Reagan would be pleased, and he would not be surprised.
We’ve witnessed, in little over a generation, the swiftest advance of freedom in the 2,500 year story of democracy. Historians in the future will offer their own explanations for why this happened. Yet we already know some of the reasons they will cite. It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world’s most influential nation was itself a democracy.
The United States made military and moral commitments in Europe and Asia, which protected free nations from aggression, and created the conditions in which new democracies could flourish. As we provided security for whole nations, we also provided inspiration for oppressed peoples. In prison camps, in banned union meetings, in clandestine churches, men and women knew that the whole world was not sharing their own nightmare. They knew of at least one place — a bright and hopeful land — where freedom was valued and secure. And they prayed that America would not forget them, or forget the mission to promote liberty around the world.
Historians will note that in many nations, the advance of markets and free enterprise helped to create a middle class that was confident enough to demand their own rights. They will point to the role of technology in frustrating censorship and central control — and marvel at the power of instant communications to spread the truth, the news, and courage across borders.
Historians in the future will reflect on an extraordinary, undeniable fact: Over time, free nations grow stronger and dictatorships grow weaker. In the middle of the 20th century, some imagined that the central planning and social regimentation were a shortcut to national strength. In fact, the prosperity, and social vitality and technological progress of a people are directly determined by extent of their liberty. Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity — and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations. Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity, and the best hope for progress here on Earth.
The progress of liberty is a powerful trend. Yet, we also know that liberty, if not defended, can be lost. The success of freedom is not determined by some dialectic of history. By definition, the success of freedom rests upon the choices and the courage of free peoples, and upon their willingness to sacrifice. In the trenches of World War I, through a two-front war in the 1940s, the difficult battles of Korea and Vietnam, and in missions of rescue and liberation on nearly every continent, Americans have amply displayed our willingness to sacrifice for liberty.
The sacrifices of Americans have not always been recognized or appreciated, yet they have been worthwhile. Because we and our allies were steadfast, Germany and Japan are democratic nations that no longer threaten the world. A global nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union ended peacefully — as did the Soviet Union. The nations of Europe are moving towards unity, not dividing into armed camps and descending into genocide. Every nation has learned, or should have learned, an important lesson: Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for — and the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)
And now we must apply that lesson in our own time. We’ve reached another great turning point — and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement.
Our commitment to democracy is tested in countries like Cuba and Burma and North Korea and Zimbabwe — outposts of oppression in our world. The people in these nations live in captivity, and fear and silence. Yet, these regimes cannot hold back freedom forever — and, one day, from prison camps and prison cells, and from exile, the leaders of new democracies will arrive. (Applause.) Communism, and militarism and rule by the capricious and corrupt are the relics of a passing era. And we will stand with these oppressed peoples until the day of their freedom finally arrives. (Applause.)
Our commitment to democracy is tested in China. That nation now has a sliver, a fragment of liberty. Yet, China’s people will eventually want their liberty pure and whole. China has discovered that economic freedom leads to national wealth. China’s leaders will also discover that freedom is indivisible — that social and religious freedom is also essential to national greatness and national dignity. Eventually, men and women who are allowed to control their own wealth will insist on controlling their own lives and their own country.
Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East — countries of great strategic importance — democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. (Applause.)
Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to the representative government. This “cultural condescension,” as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would “never work.” Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, “most uncertain at best” — he made that claim in 1957. Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be “illiterates not caring a fig for politics.” Yet when Indian democracy was imperiled in the 1970s, the Indian people showed their commitment to liberty in a national referendum that saved their form of government.
Time after time, observers have questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, are “ready” for democracy — as if freedom were a prize you win for meeting our own Western standards of progress. In fact, the daily work of democracy itself is the path of progress. It teaches cooperation, the free exchange of ideas, and the peaceful resolution of differences. As men and women are showing, from Bangladesh to Botswana, to Mongolia, it is the practice of democracy that makes a nation ready for democracy, and every nation can start on this path.
It should be clear to all that Islam — the faith of one-fifth of humanity — is consistent with democratic rule. Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries — in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America.
More than half of all the Muslims in the world live in freedom under democratically constituted governments. They succeed in democratic societies, not in spite of their faith, but because of it. A religion that demands individual moral accountability, and encourages the encounter of the individual with God, is fully compatible with the rights and responsibilities of self-government.
Yet there’s a great challenge today in the Middle East. In the words of a recent report by Arab scholars, the global wave of democracy has — and I quote — “barely reached the Arab states.” They continue: “This freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development.” The freedom deficit they describe has terrible consequences, of the people of the Middle East and for the world. In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines.
As the colonial era passed away, the Middle East saw the establishment of many military dictatorships. Some rulers adopted the dogmas of socialism, seized total control of political parties and the media and universities. They allied themselves with the Soviet bloc and with international terrorism. Dictators in Iraq and Syria promised the restoration of national honor, a return to ancient glories. They’ve left instead a legacy of torture, oppression, misery, and ruin.
Other men, and groups of men, have gained influence in the Middle East and beyond through an ideology of theocratic terror. Behind their language of religion is the ambition for absolute political power. Ruling cabals like the Taliban show their version of religious piety in public whippings of women, ruthless suppression of any difference or dissent, and support for terrorists who arm and train to murder the innocent. The Taliban promised religious purity and national pride. Instead, by systematically destroying a proud and working society, they left behind suffering and starvation.
Many Middle Eastern governments now understand that military dictatorship and theocratic rule are a straight, smooth highway to nowhere. But some governments still cling to the old habits of central control. There are governments that still fear and repress independent thought and creativity, and private enterprise — the human qualities that make for a — strong and successful societies. Even when these nations have vast natural resources, they do not respect or develop their greatest resources — the talent and energy of men and women working and living in freedom.
Instead of dwelling on past wrongs and blaming others, governments in the Middle East need to confront real problems, and serve the true interests of their nations. The good and capable people of the Middle East all deserve responsible leadership. For too long, many people in that region have been victims and subjects — they deserve to be active citizens.
Governments across the Middle East and North Africa are beginning to see the need for change. Morocco has a diverse new parliament; King Mohammed has urged it to extend the rights to women. Here is how His Majesty explained his reforms to parliament: “How can society achieve progress while women, who represent half the nation, see their rights violated and suffer as a result of injustice, violence, and marginalization, notwithstanding the dignity and justice granted to them by our glorious religion?” The King of Morocco is correct: The future of Muslim nations will be better for all with the full participation of women. (Applause.)
In Bahrain last year, citizens elected their own parliament for the first time in nearly three decades. Oman has extended the vote to all adult citizens; Qatar has a new constitution; Yemen has a multiparty political system; Kuwait has a directly elected national assembly; and Jordan held historic elections this summer. Recent surveys in Arab nations reveal broad support for political pluralism, the rule of law, and free speech. These are the stirrings of Middle Eastern democracy, and they carry the promise of greater change to come.
As changes come to the Middle Eastern region, those with power should ask themselves: Will they be remembered for resisting reform, or for leading it? In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad, as we saw last month when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy. (Applause.)
For the Palestinian people, the only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy. (Applause.) And the Palestinian leaders who block and undermine democratic reform, and feed hatred and encourage violence are not leaders at all. They’re the main obstacles to peace, and to the success of the Palestinian people.
The Saudi government is taking first steps toward reform, including a plan for gradual introduction of elections. By giving the Saudi people a greater role in their own society, the Saudi government can demonstrate true leadership in the region.
The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East. (Applause.) Champions of democracy in the region understand that democracy is not perfect, it is not the path to utopia, but it’s the only path to national success and dignity.
As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop — as did our own. We’ve taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice — and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey.
There are, however, essential principles common to every successful society, in every culture. Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the military — so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite. Successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial rule of law, instead of selecting applying — selectively applying the law to punish political opponents. Successful societies allow room for healthy civic institutions — for political parties and labor unions and independent newspapers and broadcast media. Successful societies guarantee religious liberty — the right to serve and honor God without fear of persecution. Successful societies privatize their economies, and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption, and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights of women. And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people. (Applause.)
These vital principles are being applied in the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. With the steady leadership of President Karzai, the people of Afghanistan are building a modern and peaceful government. Next month, 500 delegates will convene a national assembly in Kabul to approve a new Afghan constitution. The proposed draft would establish a bicameral parliament, set national elections next year, and recognize Afghanistan’s Muslim identity, while protecting the rights of all citizens. Afghanistan faces continuing economic and security challenges — it will face those challenges as a free and stable democracy. (Applause.)
In Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council are also working together to build a democracy — and after three decades of tyranny, this work is not easy. The former dictator ruled by terror and treachery, and left deeply ingrained habits of fear and distrust. Remnants of his regime, joined by foreign terrorists, continue their battle against order and against civilization. Our coalition is responding to recent attacks with precision raids, guided by intelligence provided by the Iraqis, themselves. And we’re working closely with Iraqi citizens as they prepare a constitution, as they move toward free elections and take increasing responsibility for their own affairs. As in the defense of Greece in 1947, and later in the Berlin Airlift, the strength and will of free peoples are now being tested before a watching world. And we will meet this test. (Applause.)
Securing democracy in Iraq is the work of many hands. American and coalition forces are sacrificing for the peace of Iraq and for the security of free nations. Aid workers from many countries are facing danger to help the Iraqi people. The National Endowment for Democracy is promoting women’s rights, and training Iraqi journalists, and teaching the skills of political participation. Iraqis, themselves — police and borders guards and local officials — are joining in the work and they are sharing in the sacrifice.
This is a massive and difficult undertaking — it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed — and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran — that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. (Applause.)
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. (Applause.)
Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)
The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom — the freedom we prize — is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind. (Applause.)
Working for the spread of freedom can be hard. Yet, America has accomplished hard tasks before. Our nation is strong; we’re strong of heart. And we’re not alone. Freedom is finding allies in every country; freedom finds allies in every culture. And as we meet the terror and violence of the world, we can be certain the author of freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom.
With all the tests and all the challenges of our age, this is, above all, the age of liberty. Each of you at this Endowment is fully engaged in the great cause of liberty. And I thank you. May God bless your work. And may God continue to bless America. (Applause.)​

 

[Windship]

Bush says U.S. must spread democracy
Maura ReynoldsTimes Staff Writer


WASHINGTON -- President Bush laid out a broad vision Thursday of an American mission to spread democracy throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world, saying, "Freedom can be the future of every nation."

Engendering democracy across the Middle East "must be a focus of American policy for decades to come," the president said in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, a federally funded foundation that promotes reform abroad.

He offered no new program for promoting democracy nor any specifics for how the United States will encourage what he called the "global democratic revolution."

However, the speech was his most detailed and far-reaching explanation of a theme he first sounded in the run-up to the war in Iraq. "The freedom we prize is not for us alone," he said, "it is the right and the capacity of all mankind."

Egypt, a key U.S. ally in the region, to embrace democracy and praised other Arab allies -- Morocco, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- for taking first steps toward political reform.

His speech came at a time when public opinion polls indicate that Americans are becoming anxious about setbacks -- and increasing casualties -- in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The president urged Americans to take a long-term perspective on the conflict in Iraq. "Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for and standing for, and the advance of freedom leads to peace," he said.

Critics said the president's remarks were long on abstract principles and short on specific methods to achieve them.

Joseph S. Nye, dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, said Bush's remarks reflected traditional foreign policy goals but appeared aimed at putting events in Iraq into a broader context.

"What Bush is doing here is quite consistent with a long strand of American foreign policy," Nye said. "But is he trying to put a democracy blanket over his Iraq policies? Yes."

Bush repeatedly evoked history, comparing the battle against Iraqi insurgents to U.S. assistance during the Greek civil war in 1947 and the Berlin airlift that began in 1948.

As then, he said, "the strength and will of free peoples are now being tested before a watching world. And we will meet this test."

He did not reprise past warnings about an "axis of evil." But Bush said that Iran, which he linked with Iraq and North Korea in coining the term, should "heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people or lose its last claim to legitimacy."

He equated Syria with Iraq, noting that "dictators in Iraq and Syria promised the restoration of national honor, a return to ancient glories. They've left instead a legacy of torture, oppression, misery and ruin."

The president provided a new grouping of countries where the U.S. commitment to global democracy is being tested: Cuba, Myanmar, North Korea and Zimbabwe. He called those nations "outposts of oppression in our world."

The speech occurred before Bush signed a bill setting aside $87.5 billion to fund military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming year. "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution," the president said.

"It's democracy lite," said Dmitri K. Simes, a scholar at the conservative Nixon Center in Washington. "It's like apple pie. Who could disagree with the idea that the people of the Middle East deserve democracy? The question is, what credible steps are you prepared to take to get there? What are you willing to spend in soldiers' lives?"

Bush took issue with those who argue that the Middle East is culturally or religiously incapable of becoming democratic. And he insisted that Arab countries should have the right to develop democracy in ways that suit their cultures and values.

"Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not and should not look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop, as did our own," Bush said.

The president said little about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but blamed "Palestinian leaders who block and undermine democratic reform" for the lack of progress toward peace.

He also pointed mild but direct criticism toward two critical allies -- Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

"By giving the Saudi people a greater role in their own society, the Saudi government can demonstrate true leadership in the region," Bush said. "The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East."

Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former senior State Department official in the Bush administration, said the speech sends the message that "Islam and democracy are compatible."

"It's not meant to change things overnight, but it's essentially a signal that the U.S. is no longer going to sustain what you might call a democratic exception for the Islamic world," Haass said.

But James M. Lindsay, a vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations, said it was important to note that Bush used the word "freedom" more frequently than "democracy," suggesting that the administration is still reluctant to engage in the long, slow work of building democratic institutions.

"It's as if he means that the contribution America can make is taking out tyrants and giving other people the opportunity to develop democracy on their own," Lindsay said. "We deliver freedom, and it's up to them to build democracy."

Edward S. Walker Jr., president of the Middle East Institute and a former ambassador to several Arab countries, said he doubted the speech would be well-received in the region because suspicion of U.S. motives -- and Bush -- was so intense.

"People will probably misinterpret it as another example of 'democratic imperialism,'" Walker said. "The speech touched the right tone, but it's not going to be heard."

Times staff writer Sonni Efron in Washington contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2016, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad

 

[Windship]

 

[Windship]

I just threw that one in.

 

[Windship]

NEWS
US President Obama says 'Democracy is on the ballot' in US election
The US president has made his most stirring speech yet against Republican candidate Donald Trump. Obama has warned that a Trump presidency would be a threat to democracy and undo eight years of progress.






US President Barack Obama warned that "democracy itself" was on the ballot in this year's presidential election during a fiery campaign event in Cleveland, Ohio on Friday.

In what was perhaps his most stirring speech yet against Donald Trump, Obama denounced the Republican candidate as a "dictator-in-the-making." The president also singled out Trump's purported business acumen and newfound rage against the "global elite" for ridicule.

"This is a guy who spent all his time hanging around, trying to convince everybody he was a global elite ... and flying around everywhere and all he had time for was celebrities," Obama told a group of young voters. "Suddenly he's going to be the champion of working people? Come on, man."

Long-term problems for democracy

On a more somber note, Obama highlighted that the toxic nature of this year's presidential campaign could pose long-term problems for US democracy.

"Civility is on the ballot," Obama said. "Tolerance is on the ballot. Courtesy is on the ballot. Honesty is on the ballot. Equality is on the ballot. Kindness is on the ballot," he continued. "All the progress we made in the last eight years is on the ballot - democracy itself is on the ballot right now."

 

[Windship]

I guess we invaded Iraq to spread Republicanism, right?

 

[Windship]

Lol, if we dont live in a Democracy, why are we fighting for it?