Project for a New American Century

[Shogun]

While I agree with the tone of your criticism I do think that there is something to be said about trying to give the population of Iraq a voice in politics.

 

[Doug]

Of course "democracy" -- if we limit its definition to an elected government under enough rule of law to allow a reasonably fair electoral contest from time to time -- is better than any other system, except in the following situation:

Where a polity has no serious conflicts of interest, then government has little to do except to maintain order and protect its citizens from predators. But this situation never really exists, certainly not in the modern world. There are always multiple conflicts of interest, and democracy allows these to be settled, often via compromises, where otherwise there would be one side suppressing another, or periodic civil war.

The real question is not is democracy best, but is it always possible? Democracy requires a certain level of culture in the population, a spirit of compromise, a willingness to accept defeat this time, and a sense of fair play which permits the rule of law. No population meets these requirements 100%, but there must be a certain critical mass.

Not all populations at the moment have this critical mass. We can clearly see, in retrospect, what a disaster it was to turn the primitive populations of Africa over to their own rulers -- who had no intention of installing democracy.

But ... everthing changes. Note that a number of our allies in the Cold War -- such as South Korea and Taiwan -- started out as pretty nasty military dictatorships. It took a generation and a half, but they have become pretty good democracies.

Spain saw the triumph of a very authoritarian right-wing military movement, allied to fascism. Hundreds of thousands of its enemies were execute. It lasted this way for thirty five years and then ... whoosh, when the dictator died, the country become a democracy, painlessly. Same for Portugal.

Some countries went through phases of retreat from democracy, often as a response to perceived internal terrorist theats or the possibility of the triumph of extreme leftwing radicalism. Many Latin American countries experienced this. But now democracy is flourishing there, even in countries, like Chile, where the repression was severe.

In fact, there are more democracies now than there have ever been, and democracy, as a goal, remains immensely popular among the world's peoples. This is not to say that every person polled who pronounces himself in favor of "democracy" has a full understanding of it -- much of its popularity is probably motivated by the high living standard and personal security which the United States and the European countries have -- but it's a heartening sign, nonetheless.

Many countries are semi-democracies -- there are elections, and they are partly free, but some parties are forbidden to participate --- or their victory would not be permitted by the military, or some other strong organized group.

Turkey is like this, and many Latin American countries used to be. When the military didn't like the results of an election, it would stage a coup. Iran does not permit unreliable people to stand for its Parliament. Russia has moved to restrict the free political commentary and competition it had in the 90s.

Nonetheless, the world moves forward. Democracy is coming, like it or not. There are powerful forces who don't like it, so its coming will not always be peaceful.

 

[Psychoblues]

The PNAC'ers have a strong belif in wars that they will not personally fight. It's up to you if you want to fight for the PNAC'ers. That's Democratic, ain't it?

 

[Doug]

At last something Psychoblues and I agree on!

Only those who have performed, or are now performing, military service, should have the right to advocate foreign policy positions. (Actually, I do not go so far as that: I would just restrict the right to vote to veterans, but would allow non-veterans free speech.)

This was first persuasively argued, to my knowledge, by Robert Heinlein in Starship Trooper. I think he made a very good case.

No effective political voice to non-veterans!

 

[jillian]

No effective political voice to non-veterans!

I know you don't mean that. But you know what? There were an awful lot of chicken hawks who hadn't served in the military, got five deferrments from the military and whose kids didn't serve in the military who were very quick to send other people's kids to die in Iraq for no reason.

 

[Doug]

Jillian: I happen to agree with you that there is something distasteful about people who themselves will not face death or disfigurement, advocating policies that will result in others doing so, even if these others are volunteers. It's not really a rational response, but it's real. I can see how tempting it is to use it as a weapon against your opponents.

And, funnily enough, I only feel this way for conservatives. When liberals, like George Clooney or the National Council of Churches, urge us to intervene militarily in Darfur, I don't think, "chickenhawks!" -- odd, isn't it? I have tried to analyze why I have this illogical reaction, but I cannot explain it. Maybe I just expect less of liberals.

However, you should ponder on this: in the 1930s, outside of Germany, there were, broadly, two camps with respect to how we should assess Hitler's aims, in light of his belligerent nationalism, rearmament, willingness to use military force to get his way, etc, and how to respond to them.

One camp was for accommodating him, and doing everything possible to avoid provoking him. Closely allied to these people (many of them conservatives, I am ashamed to say) were the pacfists and non-Communist Left. In their own way, all of these people had illusions in Hitler and the Nazis.

The other camp, not a large one, saw that Hitler was a real danger, and that he needed to be confronted, and called for the democratic countries to re-arm and be prepared for war.

In the latter camp, as the Nazis and pro-Nazis of the time never tired of pointing out, were many Jews. They knew from the experience of their co-religionists in Germany that the Nazis were beasts, and could only be met by military strength.

And a particularly powerful argument of the pro-Nazis was this: THE JEWS WANT WAR!!! They want to send your sons to fight once again, but they themselves will not be found in the ranks of the ordinary working class boys who will have to do the fighting.

Of course, this was both true and false: when there was conscription, Jews served like everyone else. But it was also true that before and after World War I, when military service was voluntary, there were very few Jews to be found in the Army and Navy. And I suppose it was not unreasonable for a factory worker or farmer to suspect that in the event of another war, Jews were more likely he was to be found in the military specialties centered at a distance from actual combat.

So Jews who advocated a militarily-centered response to Hitler were vulnerable to the pro-Nazis who pointed out that they themselves were not serving. And I suspect this argument -- The Jews Want To Fight Hitler to the Last Drop of Your Blood -- found a lot of resonance with ordinary people.

Too bad, because whether or not we should have been preparing for war with Hitler was completely independent of the question of whether or not the people who advocated this policy would themselves be put in harm's way.

Fortunately, the great liberal team around Franklin Roosevelt understood the necessity of taking America into the war, and found ways to do so, albeit somewhat deceitful ones.

Today, liberals, lulled by sixty years of American military supremacy, living in security and unable to imagine a world in which we are not free of all serious external threat, cannot foresee that another situation might occur in the future in which the United States and the other democracies might have to pursue a military-centered policy.

So they draw on this tainted argument, which indeed is a powerful one, although irrational, to condemn a particular military-centered policy that they do not like.

But I think you should bear in mind an old proverb: do not spit into the well from which you may someday have to drink.

 

[jillian]

I have work to do now. But I'll try to get to this later.

Laterz!

 

[Paulie]

but Cheney and his cabal knew.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BEsZMvrq-I&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BEsZMvrq-I&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>



Well Dick, what the fuck changed?

 

[jillian]

Jillian: I happen to agree with you that there is something distasteful about people who themselves will not face death or disfigurement, advocating policies that will result in others doing so, even if these others are volunteers. It's not really a rational response, but it's real. I can see how tempting it is to use it as a weapon against your opponents.

A weapon? When people's policies are overly aggressive, unrealistic, expansionist and hark back to the days of imperialism, I'd say it's fair that they should have to think twice about why they're sending people to war and the fact that they wouldn't go themselves and wouldn't think of sending their children is a fair observation.

And, funnily enough, I only feel this way for conservatives. When liberals, like George Clooney or the National Council of Churches, urge us to intervene militarily in Darfur, I don't think, "chickenhawks!" -- odd, isn't it? I have tried to analyze why I have this illogical reaction, but I cannot explain it. Maybe I just expect less of liberals.

How many of our people are getting blown up in Darfur? How many innocent people are dying in a true genocide? One does a cost/benefit analysis and one has to ask, why NOT do something? Keeping people from dying is a noble endeavor. There's nothing noble about Iraq. Nothing.

I also think you might want to look at the vets in Congress and see where they stand on Iraq. It's the chickenhawks who are all gung ho for sending other people's children to die... not the ones who put themselves on the line.

However, you should ponder on this: in the 1930s, outside of Germany, there were, broadly, two camps with respect to how we should assess Hitler's aims, in light of his belligerent nationalism, rearmament, willingness to use military force to get his way, etc, and how to respond to them.

Hitler was aggressive, expansionist and was committing genocide and violating the borders of every country around him. Saddam wasn't. And just like this admin isn't "nazis", somehow trying to make this occupation palatable by using all types of gyrations to drawn some analogy, is off base and, frankly. I really hate whenever anyone diminishes what the nazis did by overuse of those terms and analogies. There was one Hitler.

One camp was for accommodating him, and doing everything possible to avoid provoking him. Closely allied to these people (many of them conservatives, I am ashamed to say) were the pacfists and non-Communist Left. In their own way, all of these people had illusions in Hitler and the Nazis.

The other camp, not a large one, saw that Hitler was a real danger, and that he needed to be confronted, and called for the democratic countries to re-arm and be prepared for war.

In the latter camp, as the Nazis and pro-Nazis of the time never tired of pointing out, were many Jews. They knew from the experience of their co-religionists in Germany that the Nazis were beasts, and could only be met by military strength.

And a particularly powerful argument of the pro-Nazis was this: THE JEWS WANT WAR!!! They want to send your sons to fight once again, but they themselves will not be found in the ranks of the ordinary working class boys who will have to do the fighting.

Of course, this was both true and false: when there was conscription, Jews served like everyone else. But it was also true that before and after World War I, when military service was voluntary, there were very few Jews to be found in the Army and Navy. And I suppose it was not unreasonable for a factory worker or farmer to suspect that in the event of another war, Jews were more likely he was to be found in the military specialties centered at a distance from actual combat.

So Jews who advocated a militarily-centered response to Hitler were vulnerable to the pro-Nazis who pointed out that they themselves were not serving. And I suspect this argument -- The Jews Want To Fight Hitler to the Last Drop of Your Blood -- found a lot of resonance with ordinary people.

Too bad, because whether or not we should have been preparing for war with Hitler was completely independent of the question of whether or not the people who advocated this policy would themselves be put in harm's way.

Fortunately, the great liberal team around Franklin Roosevelt understood the necessity of taking America into the war, and found ways to do so, albeit somewhat deceitful ones.

Today, liberals, lulled by sixty years of American military supremacy, living in security and unable to imagine a world in which we are not free of all serious external threat, cannot foresee that another situation might occur in the future in which the United States and the other democracies might have to pursue a military-centered policy.

So they draw on this tainted argument, which indeed is a powerful one, although irrational, to condemn a particular military-centered policy that they do not like.

But I think you should bear in mind an old proverb: do not spit into the well from which you may someday have to drink.

See my comments above. I'm not going to address the false analogy further. Apologies.

And I think you might want to ask yourself what "liberals" are. They aren't some homogeneous anti-war group. There are people at certain fringes who don't believe in war for any purpose. But most people, when action is warranted, would be supportive. As you are aware, most of the country, including most democrats supported military action in Afghanistan after 9/11. It's the stupidity of going into Baghdad, deposing a sovereign leader who wasn't any kind of real threat to us militarily that most of us find incomprehensible.

Now... if they had been truthful, there would have been some type of acknowledgement that Saddam wanted to convert OPEC to the Euro as their trade standard. That would have destroyed us economically. It's a reason for this mishandled action that's never discussed. And it might have actually had some resonance... except then the rest of the world would have objected.

But this concept that "liberals" sit back and let the big brave neo-cons protect them is simply false. You might want to, again, look at the military service of our representatives in Congress to see that.

 

[Doug]

<b>Jillian</b>: Language is often inadequate to completely describe reality. I am aware that there are many different kinds of liberal, including some who recognize the threat of Islamism, and even some who supported the invasion of Iraq. And there are at least as many, if not more, strains of conservative, including some who were vehemently against the war from the beginning.

There was once a fellow who advocated attaching sub-scripts to words, so that we could distinguish among different kinds of one thing which had only one word to describe it. Didn't catch on, for some reason.

But in general, liberals are, now ... uncomfortable ... with using American military power, and conservatives ... well, less uncomfortable. So I use the over-simplifying short-hand terms "liberal" and "conservative" for these different orientations to using our military strength, while acknowledging that they will fail to fully capture the reality.

This represents a historic reversal, interestingly enough. Up to about 1950, it was conservatives who hoped that we could avoid engaging with the bad old world, and liberals -- I suppose because of their being more inherently internationalist -- who realized we had no choice but to do so.

This is why we were led into every serious war we fought in the 20th Century, save Gulf War I, by a liberal Democratic President. (And why the internal security measures of the Bush regime look so ... conservative ... compared to the really ferocious assault on opponents of his war carried out by, say, Woodrow 'Wilson.)

 

[Paulie]

Now... if they had been truthful, there would have been some type of acknowledgement that Saddam wanted to convert OPEC to the Euro as their trade standard. That would have destroyed us economically. It's a reason for this mishandled action that's never discussed. And it might have actually had some resonance... except then the rest of the world would have objected.

Wow. I have to applaud you for not only realizing this, but having the courage to admit it here where it would no doubt be scrutinized, and you be lambasted for saying it.

Not very long ago, this was still considered a "conspiracy theory", believe it or not. It's become more obvious, to more people though, as time goes on, and one does even a LITTLE research.

I mean, even GunnyL will admit to this premise. When I first joined here, I would never have suspected Gunny would have thought this, by reading his posts.

But saying it would have had reasonance, would you have supported, or do you support, the notion that we should invade countries on this premise?

Because this same thing can be said, and verified, for Iran. Venezuela, as well. I think some in here would admit that we should invade ANY country who goes against US interests economically, even if it pertains to their own native resources and sovereign interests.

And this said, why the need to hide the reasoning behind "terrorism" when clearly it's something else?

 

[jillian]

Wow. I have to applaud you for not only realizing this, but having the courage to admit it here where it would no doubt be scrutinized, and you be lambasted for saying it.

Not very long ago, this was still considered a "conspiracy theory", believe it or not. It's become more obvious, to more people though, as time goes on, and one does even a LITTLE research.

I mean, even GunnyL will admit to this premise. When I first joined here, I would never have suspected Gunny would have thought this, by reading his posts.

But saying it would have had reasonance, would you have supported, or do you support, the notion that we should invade countries on this premise?

Because this same thing can be said, and verified, for Iran. Venezuela, as well. I think some in here would admit that we should invade ANY country who goes against US interests economically, even if it pertains to their own native resources and sovereign interests.

And this said, why the need to hide the reasoning behind "terrorism" when clearly it's something else?

Well, thanks. But in case you haven't noticed, I can take the heat. ;o)

I think it's become pretty apparent that was one of the reasons. But you ask an interesting question. Would I have supported the notion of invading Iraq to protect us from economic destruction. Hmmmmmmmmm..... I think if I felt someone was trying to destroy me and my family economically, I would take every step possible to assure that didn't happen.... especially because of the actions of a two-bit dictator. So to be honest, I think while I would want to take every step possible to achieve a diplomatic end, I can't say that if a diplomatic resolution were impossible that I wouldn't support such an action. I don't know for certain as it wasn't posited to me under any type of duress. Obviously, I'd like to think military action could have been avoided. But no, I'd never allow someone to bankrupt my family and would stop it any way I had to, I think, if I'm going to be honest about it.

Not to derail this thread with yet another discussion on why we went to Iraq and whether we should have, but invading Iraq never really had anything to do with terrorism. The fundies weren't overrunning Iraq. And the PNAC was asking Bill Clinton as early as 1998 to do what they finally did in Gulf II. Certainly that predated 9/11 by an awful lot. 9/11 was the excuse and the impetus. But I've always thought that attacking Iraq when we were attacked largely by Saudis was akin to bombing Mexico in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. It did however send the exact "don't mess with Texas" attitude that Baby Bush wanted to convey. I have also alway thought, and this is pretty much borne out in Woodward's State of Denial, that Baby Bush had a deep-seated psychological need to go in and do what his daddy couldn't.... get rid of Saddam.

The larger question is why aren't we ending our dependence on foreign oil? Difficult to do when our VP constructs our energy policy with the heads of oil companies. So, the ultimate answer is we should be investing huge amounts of money in alternative energy... getting rid of foreign oil would defund the countries who fund the terrorists.... they'd become nasty, bitter, emasculated old pissed off men... but they'd be impotent to do harm without money.

 

[Paulie]

I think it's become pretty apparent that was one of the reasons.

What a shame though, that even the so-called "Liberal media" won't even acknowledge it, huh? I would think the nasty Liberals would want to be all OVER that, no?

That's why I believe there's something a little deeper.

So to be honest, I think while I would want to take every step possible to achieve a diplomatic end, I can't say that if a diplomatic resolution were impossible that I wouldn't support such an action.

Exactly. But we weren't told on the news that diplomatic efforts were underway to stop an Oil Bourse, we were told that diplomacy failed in OTHER areas, pertaining more to terrorism and WMD, and such. An obvious blatant lie to go to war against a country, that even GunnyL would apparently acknowledge. He has said recently that it was really about oil, so that begs the question...why lie? And why is that not impeachable?

Not to derail this thread with yet another discussion on why we went to Iraq and whether we should have, but invading Iraq never really had anything to do with terrorism. The fundies weren't overrunning Iraq.

See what I mean? Anyone with half a brain knows this.

And the PNAC was asking Bill Clinton as early as 1998 to do what they finally did in Gulf II. Certainly that predated 9/11 by an awful lot. 9/11 was the excuse and the impetus.

This is a big reason why so many people think the government had at least SOMETHING to do with it, or at least lying about SOMETHING. It was just too damn convenient.

I have also alway thought, and this is pretty much borne out in Woodward's State of Denial, that Baby Bush had a deep-seated psychological need to go in and do what his daddy couldn't.... get rid of Saddam.

Yeah, but Dick Cheney knew better only 4 years before PNAC, whom Cheney was a member of, was pushing Clinton. What changed?

The larger question is why aren't we ending our dependence on foreign oil? Difficult to do when our VP constructs our energy policy with the heads of oil companies. So, the ultimate answer is we should be investing huge amounts of money in alternative energy... getting rid of foreign oil would defund the countries who fund the terrorists.... they'd become nasty, bitter, emasculated old pissed off men... but they'd be impotent to do harm without money.

Much agreed. How do you feel about hemp, for instance?

 

[jillian]

What a shame though, that even the so-called "Liberal media" won't even acknowledge it, huh? I would think the nasty Liberals would want to be all OVER that, no?

Because the liberal media doesn't exist. It's a construct of the right to try to destroy the credibility of the media. That said, media are corporations. Newscorp and it's siblings pull the strings and control the dollars... they are far from liberal and have a corporatist agenda. And they'll print what sells.

That's why I believe there's something a little deeper.

Ummmm... nah... I think it's business. These companies rely upon Bush's FCC to approve sales and purchases of media outlets. They simply aren't going to rock the boat.

Exactly. But we weren't told on the news that diplomatic efforts were underway to stop an Oil Bourse, we were told that diplomacy failed in OTHER areas, pertaining more to terrorism and WMD, and such.

You think the American public was going to be more responsive to a lot of gobbledygook about the dollar versus the Euro or to "let's get the bad guys who attacked NY".

See what I mean? Anyone with half a brain knows this.

Thanks... I guess.

This is why so many people think the government had at least SOMETHING to do with it, or at least lying about SOMETHING. It was just too damn convenient.

I think it's more opportunism.

Yeah, but Dick Cheney knew better only 4 years before PNAC, Cheney he was a member of, was pushing Clinton. What changed?

Haliburton?

Much agreed. How do you feel about hemp, for instance?

I have no problem with it.

 

[Paulie]

Because the liberal media doesn't exist. It's a construct of the right to try to destroy the credibility of the media. That said, media are corporations. Newscorp and it's siblings pull the strings and control the dollars... they are far from liberal and have a corporatist agenda. And they'll print what sells.

My question was more rhetorical, then anything else. So-called conservatives (status-quo conservatives, that is) love to talk about a Liberal media, and how Liberals in general are always coming up with ridiculous "anti-american" reasons why we really went to Iraq. So you would THINK that if there was really a liberal media, and the pundits on there are so damn liberal themselves, they would at least MENTION an oil connection.

Ummmm... nah... I think it's business. These companies rely upon Bush's FCC to approve sales and purchases of media outlets. They simply aren't going to rock the boat.

This kind of lying and deception in the media goes way back before Bush though. And all the networks are equally as deceptive, being as how they all pushed the same basic story to sell us the war. I mean, look at who lead the pack...the NY Times, for christ's sake!

You think the American public was going to be more responsive to a lot of gobbledygook about the dollar versus the Euro or to "let's get the bad guys who attacked NY".

Deception that absolutely warrants impeachment, which has become obvious. Why in the WORLD is impeachment off the table then? If we can't check and balance something like THAT, then what does that say about the state of this government, and this country?

I think it's more opportunism.

PNAC in 2000 (paraphrased): "For us to be able to get what we want, it'll take a catastrophic event, like a new Pearl Harbor".

PNAC one year later (paraphrased): "Well I'll be a monkey's uncle, boys! A new Pearl Harbor just happened this morning! That only happens once every 50 years or so! Let's kick things up a few notches now, ay?"

You can at least see people's cynicism?

Haliburton?

Haliburton existed in 1994 though. If Dick and them only decided in 2002 that an Iraqi invasion was all the sudden necessary because of the new opportunity which was presented via 9/11, and they saw dollar signs, then why is the company not DISMANTLED, with various people sitting in prison or having been hung from a rope, including Dick himself?

I'll never understand that.

Maybe if the 60&#37; of people who want him impeached did something more than just bitch and moan about it, and followed the lead of people like Sheehan, something might actually be done about it.

Many of the same people who will clearly acknowledge that the Iraq was based on something other than the story sold to us, will for SOME reason simultaneously call people like Sheehan a loon and a kook for trying to get some kind of justice and vindication out of it.

I just don't get it.

 

[José]

Doug,

I intended to type a small reply and ended up writing a treatise!

My advice to the members of the board:

DO YOURSELF A FAVOUR, GET A FUCKING LIFE AND SKIP AT LEAST 90% OF WHAT I WROTE FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR SANITY!!!!

I&#8217;m not joking, people, I&#8217;m being totally serious.

I&#8217;d be the first one to skip at least 80% of this massive amount of posts.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Doug
Jos&#233;: You have an interesting and unusual viewpoint, which is worth discussing.

However, your post is marred by at least one error: you imply, to the extent of supplying spurious quotations, that the neo-cons are in favor of the Chinese people being ruled by an authoritarian government since democracy is not possible for one billion people. This may be the position of some people -- possibly the "realists" -- but it is directly contrary to the neo-conservative position.

Those geopolitical strategists do not rationalinalize China&#8217;s gerontocracy or the occupation of Tibet and I certainly didn&#8217;t have them in mind when I cited these cases even though I didn&#8217;t make it clear I was not referring to them. MEA CULPA.

I included China because I was democratically lambasting both sides of the political spectrum for their lack of true commitment to democratic principles

Example of the lack of real commitiment to democratic principles (left side of the political spectrum):

The rationalization of the chinese dictatorship and the glorification of China&#8217;s rise to superpower status as a way to break US hegemony in the world.

Any concern about the fact that the chinese model being implemented in China and exported to many neighboring countries is a mix of politically closed society, state capitalism and (limited) economic freedom is immediately dismissed by the overriding need to find any country, no matter how dictatorial, able to reduce the US hegemony and the nefarious influence of the world&#8217;s big bully.

Example of the lack of real commitiment to democratic principles (right side of the political spectrum):

The hidden desire to force a rapid transition to democracy that will cause the country to collapse into chaos.

The combination of politically and economically open societies has generated the biggest wave in prosperity human societies have ever seen.

But ironically these individuals&#8217; hidden agenda prescribes democracy as a catalist for national desintegration, social anarchy, political chaos, poverty and possibly even civil war in China.

This prostitution of democratic ideals is particularly sad because there are plenty of noble reasons to support democracy in China if the prosperity of 1 billion fellow humans is more important to you than the elimination of an economic/geopolitical rival to the US.

The chinese government is well known for spending million of dollars in pharaonic, totally inefective programs squandering the economic resources of China with impunity and this is how dictatorships will always work:

What the government wants, the government gets.

No independent legislative and judicial branch to hold them acountable, no free civil organisations to put pressure on them, nothing at all.

People who truly believe in democratic values want to see the democratization of China as a way to change this situation and give the chinese citizen a voice and they have no problem with a gradual transition if it means a smoother transition.

People who want to see a speedy transition to democracy and market economy are just using it as a pretext to cause the economic and political collapse and possibly, desintegration of the country, to eliminate a future competitor of the West.

Of course they will never admit it cuz it would defeat the whole purpose of their plan.

This is not a generalisation. There are many conservatives who support a democratic China for all the right reasons.

Example of the lack of real commitiment to democratic principles shared by both sides of the political spectrum:

The idealisation of the Kingdom of Tibet as a kind of paradisiacal Shangri-la ignoring the fact that the meager economic resources of that impoverished asian nation were, for centuries, diverted to maintain an enormous, parasitic religious hierarchy.

The so called right wingers and leftists need to wake up to the fact that their &#8220;heaven on Earth&#8221; was, in fact, a theocracy ruled by buddhist monks much in the same way Iran is ruled by Islamic clerics today with the religious elite taxing every single farmer (almost the entire population) and using the revenues to build more and more monasteries and recruit more and more monks and the ordinary citizen having no say in the matter.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Doug
The problem is this: the United States is not strong enough, by two orders of magnitude, to simply force "democracy" into exisence all over the world.

For instance, you mention Tibet. (And, interestingly, note that the old regime which the Chinese ousted there was far from being a model government.) But what should we actually do about Tibet? Break off recognition of China? Arm and finance a Tibetan Resistance?

The fact is, that we must maneuvre in a world where we have to have priorities, and allies who are far from being what we would like them to be.

We are forced to compromise, and to be pragmatic. This will naturally sometimes make us look hypocritical. There is no other way to proceed, however.

So very true, Doug.

Let me add that more than one time, America was forced to choose between supporting secular dictatorships in the Middle East and allowing the islamic take over of the whole country, many times by &#8220;democratic&#8221; means!!!

Poor US of A, so many times it finds itself stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place.

And although I&#8217;m not crazy enough to advocate the breaking off of diplomatic relations with China, I can certainly point out the flagrant inconsistency between the cuban embargo and China&#8217;s status as most favourable nation (Wisely, the Kennedy administration wanted to disperse the cucarachas throughout the US because they knew they would end up creating a powerful lobby down there if they all flocked to the same state).

But anyway, I was not referring to the official positions of the US administrations, Doug.

I was mentioning the blatant inconsistency between the principles laid out in that document and many of the political positions of the authors, since this is the topic of the thread.

More broadly, I was criticizing the tacit alignment or automatic disagreement between many political scientists and the press with the official foreign policy of their countries or its unspoken directives.

I&#8217;m old enough to remember the absolutely disproportionate amount of criticism directed to China and Saudi Arabia by western intellectuals and press during the 80&#8217;s and 90&#8217;s.

For every article lambasting the saudi theocratic monarchy you could find 20 criticising China.

This is surprising because the fact that theocratic dictatorships are in general more opressive than secular ones is standard fare in political science, since they tend to include a broader encroachment on the citizens&#8217;s personal life(the only kind of secular (or rather, atheist) dictatorships that comes close in terms of repression are fully fledged stalinist states like North Korea).

There seemed to be a tacit agreement in the West to avoid the exposure of the true nature of the Saudi regime: a country where monarchic absolutism and the most strict implementation of islamic theocracy converge to create a tremendous dictatorship that puts China to shame and would certainly work perfectly well as the absolute zero of any scale measuring civil rights.

It goes without saying, this has changed dramatically after 9/11.

And for people who value the promotion of democratic values regardless of any political alliance or commercial partnership this was very disapointing because China and KSA were exactly the same kind of dictatorships in 9/10/2001 they were in 9/12/2001.

This kind of implicit alignment between political scientists, press and the public opinion with the general directives of their governments is what I have a problem with.

When Rumsfeld, Wolfwowitz and so many others speak as geopolitical strategists devising international policies for the US government it&#8217;s absolutely reasonable to expect them to take realpolitik and pragmatism into consideration supporting a course of action based on moderate engagement but when they speak as private individuals, as political analysts who truly believe in their own document they have a duty to criticise all totalitarian states regardless of any geopolitical consideration.

Hell... the US government has enough spokesmen to do the talking for it...

And God knows Dana Perino is at least 1 million times more attractive than that sorry bunch of old men with saggy faces!!!!

I remember an interview with Richard Perle in which the interviewer was struck by his unprecedented frankness and asked what had happened.

He replied he was not a member of the Bush administration anymore and was free to speak his mind from that moment on.

So that would be the right time for Mr. Perle to start criticizing all repressive governments not only the ones that happen to be at odds with the US foreign policy!

The same should be expected from the american press (in their editorial part) otherwise there is hardly any difference between western media outlets and the good old Pravda.

And I didn&#8217;t even mention the fact that the entire group (even the gentiles) supports democracy for arabs living in Iraq and jewish racism for arabs living in Palestine in flagrant contradiction with their own manifest.

But this particular logical inconsistency can&#8217;t even be called a &#8220;dictatorship A is more lambasted than dictatorship B&#8221; issue.

This is sheer lack of academic seriousness of astronomical proportions.

I have met and debated political science with many professional clowns in my life who were able to articulate a more coherent political thought.

 

[José]

As you probably noticed, Doug, I don&#8217;t think about international politics through the traditional categories of right and left.

I prefer to discard these political labels and &#8220;classify&#8221; people by the level of fidelity they maintain to the core values of the modern democratic state.

For example, despite all the endless debates about the wording and true meaning of the first amendment the fact remains that secularism is one of the main pillars of the political system conceived by the french encyclopedists together with some of John Locke&#8217;s ideas.

So when I see an individual supporting a greater level of promiscuity between state and religion (school prayers, governmental help to religious organizations that almost always end up informally proselytising people, etc, etc) I don&#8217;t call them conservatives, right wingers, etc...

I look upon them as individuals who have a lesser degree of commitment to the basic values of the democratic state (or clowns, when I&#8217;m really fed up with their lack of respect for democracy).

And to give you an even more practical example: Venezuela.

What you have in Venezuela is the cooptation of the Legislative and Judiciary branches by the Executive while maintaining an exterior democratic facade.

I need to make an important distinction now.

I&#8217;m not referring to the &#8220;normal&#8221; ascendancy the Executive branch generally has under the presidentialist system of government.

We all know the perfect equilibrium between the 3 branches only existed inside the mind of Monsieur Montesquieu and affiliated french encyclopedists.

Moderate preponderance of the Executive branch happens in all democratic states, particularly those who follow the presidentialist model, even in the US.

I&#8217;ll be the first one to admit the fact that the line separating &#8220;normal&#8221; and &#8220;excessive&#8221; preponderance of the Executive in presidentialism is fuzzy.

But what is happening in Mr. Chavez&#8217;s Venezuela has already crossed that line a long time ago.

Through a popular referendum Chavez managed to rewrite the constitution in order to &#8220;tame&#8221; the two other branches of government, ironically using the democratic process to destroy democracy.

John Adams, two centuries ago, had already exposed the reasons why Venezuela is not a democratic state:

&#8220;A government of laws not of men.&#8221;

In Venezuela, Chavez&#8217;s persona carries more weight than the rule of law.

A government of laws not of men is what we call democracy (or rather, one of the main features of the modern democratic state).

A government of (charismatic) men not of laws is what we call autocracies or populist dictatorships.

Elections are a kind of &#8220;poster boy&#8221; of the democratic system, I mean, the most visible part of the democratic system.

Show people a country without reasonably fair elections and everybody will know it is a dictatorship.

Show the same people a country with elections but without the rule of law, without independent Legislative and Judiciary branches to oversee and put a stop to the Executive&#8217;s constant manipulation of constitutional laws and only a few political scientists will recognise the system as an autocracy or other forms of authoritarian rule.

Chavez knows this perfectly well and consequently will never abandon the thin outer shell of &#8220;democracy&#8221; that envelopes his populist dictatorship.

I don&#8217;t call people who consider Chavez a democratic leader liberals or leftists.

I think about them as people who are unable or unwilling to make a serious, dispassionate comparative analysis between the key elements of a democratic state and the true nature of Chavez&#8217; government.

 

[José]

Instead of paying attention to a series of unimportant, secondary arguments and political labels supporting diverse opinions on a myriad of issues, from secularism to authocratic governments, I simply skip them all and make a direct, dispassionate comparison between the issue at hand and the basic principles of the political system I claim to support, namely, the modern democratic state.

The more the individual is willing to compromise the basic values of democracy in order to accomodate the foreign policy of his own country or defend his own bias or place in the political spectrum due to group mentality, the less serious I consider him to be.

You cannot support democracy in the US and autocracy in Venezuela at the same time, or democracy in theory and the promiscuity between state and religion in practice, and still expect to be taken seriously.

To make a long story short, Doug:

I consider the political spectrum pretty useless because you have a series of issues in which both sides distance themselves from the values of democratic states.

So my political worldview is not divided between right wingers and leftists but between serious political thinkers and clowns.