NationStates Jolt Archive

The United States has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations.


Please affirm or negate.
Any comments, sources, facts, arguments are useful.

The United States has a moral obligation to promote democracy in other countries.

Please affirm or negate.
Any comments, sources, facts, arguments are useful.
*negates*
We have been promoting democratic ideals, huh? This (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=366984) disproves our "pro-democratic" stance very well

the United States is not a Democracy. in fact, the Founders specifically and deliberately designed America to avoid it becoming a pure Democracy. if it's not good enough for us, why would we want to spread it to other countries?

The US has supported numerous dictatorships throughout the world.

the United States is not a Democracy. in fact, the Founders specifically and deliberately designed America to avoid it becoming a pure Democracy. if it's not good enough for us, why would we want to spread it to other countries?

True, let us consider democracy as a system of government which gives the people sufficient representation so as they hold the bulk of the decision making power.

The US has supported numerous dictatorships throughout the world.

The fact that the united states has supported numerous dictatorships does not address the issue of moral responsibility. We are arguing what we should do, not what we have done. If we can establish that democracy is a beneficial system of government, what better way to rectify our past errors than by promoting democracy? Also, we supported several dictators in order to oppose communist expansion. Does this not support the greater idea of democracy, as communism is its biggest threat? Does the ends justify the means? I don't know, I'm just trying to get as many ideas out there as possible.

Also, Letila, when in a seperate topic you list past US supported non-democratic regimes, do you possibly have an official list? I don't ask this to discount your assertions, but simply to have a more credible source than a jolt forumn.

The US should promote democracy... IF it leads to greater happiness and fewer dead people in the country in question. At the moment, it seems to be a 50-50 split as to whether it does or not, so I find it difficult to support spreading that particular American value.

Promote it, but don't ram it down their throats.

The US should promote democracy... IF it leads to greater happiness and fewer dead people in the country in question. At the moment, it seems to be a 50-50 split as to whether it does or not, so I find it difficult to support spreading that particular American value.

So an issue is moral only if it leads to a greater quality of life? Maybe. Morality is the key issue here.

Depends on how we're talking. If you mean militant invasion and placement of an American friendly dictator, then no. If you mean by setting an example for the rest of the world as the most powerful nation on Earth, then yeah.

We have a moral obligation to promote politcal freedom morally.

America has no right to promote democracy. Republicanism, sure, but not democracy.

The fact that the united states has supported numerous dictatorships does not address the issue of moral responsibility. We are arguing what we should do, not what we have done. If we can establish that democracy is a beneficial system of government, what better way to rectify our past errors by promoting democracy. Also, we supported several dictators in order to oppose communist expansion. Does this not support the greater idea of democracy, as communism is its biggest threat? Does the ends justify the means? I don't know, I'm just trying to get as many ideas out there as possible.
See my post just above. I'd agree that democracy leads to good things, but I don't think that the US are very good at spreading it, and I think that the blanket "freedom and democracy" justification is used to disguise a great many evils.

You can blow away a dictator, but you can't *force* people to be free.

That's a contradiction.

See my post just above. I'd agree that democracy leads to good things, but I don't think that the US are very good at spreading it, and I think that the blanket "freedom and democracy" justification is used to disguise a great many evils.

Please elaborate on said evils.

So an issue is moral only if it leads to a greater quality of life? Maybe. Morality is the key issue here.I'd agree pretty much with that assesment. Democracy is not intrinsically good. But it tends to lead to better things (or at any rate, fewer worse things).

America has no right to promote democracy. Republicanism, sure, but not democracy.

What is your basis for this? The fact that America has a Republican system, not a pure democracy? Or something else? Also, you say they don't even have a right, much less an obligation?

Please elaborate on said evils.
Evils... a fledgling democracy can, if left unchecked, turn into a tyrrany by majority. Oppression of minorities is the most common evil caused by democracy. Israel, Apartheid South Africa... democratic, but not really.

With regard to Iraq, the most obvious example of your statement, it gets... interesting. I'm all for a doctrine for the use of force that says we should intervene when humanitarian interests are at stake. However, if the bringing of tanks and guns (either along or independantly from freedom and democracy) doesn't lead to better security, better healthcare, better education and quality of life, then you've gotta wonder what we're doing there.

On the plus side, I don't think theres ever been a case of two democratic nations going to war with each other. That's definately a point in favour.

Quite simply, our government does not represent the people, by a person-by-person basis. Votes get ignored in our national election system, making it inherently corrupt.

However, whatever you call the system, America has no right to do anything more than promote democracy. It can tell nations they should become democracies, but it has no moral highground, its own system corrupt.

No nation, even with a seemingly perfect government, has the right to change another nations government forcibly. All nations are doing what they feel is the best course of action. America, or any one else for that matter, has only as much leeway as the most corrupt dictatorship in that matter.

America has no leg to stand on that makes it inherently correct. There is no fact that makes democracy, or corrupt republicanism for that manner, the best system. A dictatorship has pro's, so does democracy. Every nation has an equal right to govern the way they feel best.

Evils... a fledgling democracy can, if left unchecked, turn into a tyrrany by majority. Oppression of minorities is the most common evil caused by democracy. Israel, Apartheid South Africa... democratic, but not really.

With regard to Iraq, the most obvious example of your statement, it gets... interesting. I'm all for a doctrine for the use of force that says we should intervene when humanitarian interests are at stake. However, if the bringing of tanks and guns (either along or independantly from freedom and democracy) doesn't lead to better security, better healthcare, better education and quality of life, then you've gotta wonder what we're doing there.

On the plus side, I don't think theres ever been a case of two democratic nations going to war with each other. That's definately a point in favour.

Good points, I wouldn't necessarily agree with you on Israel. I'm not under any dillusion that the Palestinian minority has the same representation as the Jewish majority, but because I would say their standard of living is higher than if they lived in an authoritarian state, and there are no GROSS violations of human rights.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to drop the "I-bomb," this is an important issue and anything anyone has on the subject that is constructive (in other words not "Bush/Kerry is a fascist/pussy) would be worth hearing, but please don't let it be the sole focus of this thread.

Excellent point about peace among democratic nations. However, IF ANYONE CAN think of an example of two warring democratic countries, that would be helpful too.

Depends on your working definition of "promote."
Regardless, I would most likely refute the notion. The United States has a moral obligation to fix itself and provide for it's citizens, firstly. Once we've proven to the world that we have a good system, then we can go around "spreading liberty."

I think the thing is, to what degree should we promote democracy? I'd say that setting a shining example to the world of what democracy can be like would be the best thing to do. I think that doing the Ann Coulter thing ("go in, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity") is (like Ann herself) completely insane.

Good points, I wouldn't necessarily agree with you on Israel. I'm not under any dillusion that the Palestinian minority has the same representation as the Jewish majority, but because I would say their standard of living is higher than if they lived in an authoritarian state, and there are no GROSS violations of human rights.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to drop the "I-bomb," this is an important issue and anything anyone has on the subject that is constructive (in other words not "Bush/Kerry is a fascist/pussy) would be worth hearing, but please don't let it be the sole focus of this thread.

Excellent point about peace among democratic nations. However, IF ANYONE CAN think of an example of two warring democratic countries, that would be helpful too.

In history? France and germany, ww2. Hitler was democratically elected.

Korean war too, NK vs SK. As far as i can remember, both the north and south were democratically elected leaders, though the north(and maybe south) leaders were rigged into office.

You can bring out points about any of those nations not being democracies, technically...but technically, there has never been a true democracy.

Quite simply, our government does not represent the people, by a person-by-person basis. Votes get ignored in our national election system, making it inherently corrupt.

However, whatever you call the system, America has no right to do anything more than promote democracy. It can tell nations they should become democracies, but it has no moral highground, its own system corrupt.

No nation, even with a seemingly perfect government, has the right to change another nations government forcibly. All nations are doing what they feel is the best course of action. America, or any one else for that matter, has only as much leeway as the most corrupt dictatorship in that matter.

America has no leg to stand on that makes it inherently correct. There is no fact that makes democracy, or corrupt republicanism for that manner, the best system. A dictatorship has pro's, so does democracy. Every nation has an equal right to govern the way they feel best.

What distinguishes flaws from corruption? I wouldn't say our election process is corrupt. I would say that there are flaws in the system but it isn't inherently unjust, and more a byproduct of inefficiency and human error. If you can find a source that shows votes blatantly ignored, I would love to see it, no sarcasm intended.

Also, I think it is false to say "all governments are doing what they feel is in their best interest." Obviously some regimes care little about their citizens and are motivated almost entirely by self-preservation. Leaders who FORCE their way into power have NO SOVEREIGNTY OR JUSTIFICATION to rule a population that does not consent to their authority. Nations may have a right to govern how they feel best, but what is to say the leadership of a nation is actually looking out for its nations best interest, except in the form of a popularly elected government? Governments who kill their citizens or act contrary to their basic rights, most prominently their right to life, fail under the social contract and have no legitimacy period. Maybe America shouldn't cast the first stone so to speak, but it is the world leader, and it cannot shun its leadership position because a few votes are ommitted.

In history? France and germany, ww2. Hitler was democratically elected.

Korean war too, NK vs SK. As far as i can remember, both the north and south were democratically elected leaders, though the north(and maybe south) leaders were rigged into office.

You can bring out points about any of those nations not being democracies, technically...but technically, there has never been a true democracy.


Your last paragraph would have been my response.

Nay.

The United States IS morally obligated to promote Civil Treatment of all People everywhere reguardless of political bias.
The removal of an accepted government is not needed to raise the Human Condition.
While I love living in a Democracy, I am not foolish enough to believe it is perfect.
A Monarchy or Theocracy or Soviet Socialist Society is completely capable of being a functioning nation--we should simply ensure the treatment of the people is as fair as possible.
Sorry if I sound simple minded, its just my opinion.

Depends on your working definition of "promote."
Regardless, I would most likely refute the notion. The United States has a moral obligation to fix itself and provide for it's citizens, firstly. Once we've proven to the world that we have a good system, then we can go around "spreading liberty."

Isn't being the most prosperous nation in the world proof enough that we have an effective system? I don't know. How else would you measure? Also, "in house" problems may take precedence, but does that necessarily negate our moral obligation?

Good points, I wouldn't necessarily agree with you on Israel. I'm not under any dillusion that the Palestinian minority has the same representation as the Jewish majority, but because I would say their standard of living is higher than if they lived in an authoritarian state, and there are no GROSS violations of human rights. I love the idea that minor violations of the rights we consider to be available merely by virtue of birth into the human species, I love the idea that minor violations aren't too troublesome, but I'll let that slide. Otherwise yes, I pretty much agree with you. It probably is better, however it is an example of where democracy fails to live up to the full expectation that we have of it, an equal society with freedom and justice for all

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to drop the "I-bomb," this is an important issue and anything anyone has on the subject that is constructive (in other words not "Bush/Kerry is a fascist/pussy) would be worth hearing, but please don't let it be the sole focus of this thread.Agreed. I brought it up only as an example of democracy failing, not to develop into a major debate point.

Excellent point about peace among democratic nations. However, IF ANYONE CAN think of an example of two warring democratic countries, that would be helpful too.Possibly India/Pakistan sometime in the '90s (Pakistan was taken in a coup four(?) years ago), but I have a feeling that it was calmer at that point. Probably not anything that could be described as a war so much as a series of battles and skirmishes (during the times when they were democratic).

Nay.

The United States IS morally obligated to promote Civil Treatment of all People everywhere reguardless of political bias.
The removal of an accepted government is not needed to raise the Human Condition.
While I love living in a Democracy, I am not foolish enough to believe it is perfect.
A Monarchy or Theocracy or Soviet Socialist Society is completely capable of being a functioning nation--we should simply ensure the treatment of the people is as fair as possible.
Sorry if I sound simple minded, its just my opinion.

Not at all a simple minded answer. However, isn't securing a system of government in which the government answers to the people the best way to secure the Human Condition, or as I like to call it Sanctity of Life. What about the cases where a dictator has ceased power by force contrary to the will of the people? This is not an accepted government as you point out. A good point is, Democracy is the most effective way of insuring that an accepted government is always in power.

In history? France and germany, ww2. Hitler was democratically elected.
He was elected democratically, but turned the country into a dictatorship soon after.

Korean war too, NK vs SK. As far as i can remember, both the north and south were democratically elected leaders, though the north(and maybe south) leaders were rigged into office.
Not sure about this, would have to check it out. You could argue also about it being a war by proxy between one democratic superpower and one non-democratic one.

You can bring out points about any of those nations not being democracies, technically...but technically, there has never been a true democracy.Yeah, I won't try to argue this one too far cos I meant any form of real representative democracy or republic.

Isn't being the most prosperous nation in the world proof enough that we have an effective system? No, that'd be a cum hoc ergo proper hoc. Bill Gates is incredibly rich, but I don't think anything more than he has a good strategy for making money. I wouldn't appeal to him as a moral compass. Similar for America. The US may generate vast amounts of capital, but that doesn't mean necessarily that anything but the money-making system is running smoothly.

I love the idea that minor violations of the rights we consider to be available merely by virtue of birth into the human species, I love the idea that minor violations aren't too troublesome, but I'll let that slide. Otherwise yes, I pretty much agree with you. It probably is better, however it is an example of where democracy fails to live up to the full expectation that we have of it, an equal society with freedom and justice for all

I'm not in any way trying to minimize the violations commited by the Israeli government, but it probably isn't an effective example. Not because it is unimportant, but because I am trying to persuade people, and more obvious violations are more effective. Also, many people already have a very established bias on this issue, which would further detract from my argument.

No, that'd be a cum hoc ergo proper hoc. Bill Gates is incredibly rich, but I don't think anything more than he has a good strategy for making money. I wouldn't appeal to him as a moral compass. Similar for America. The US may generate vast amounts of capital, but that doesn't mean necessarily that anything but the money-making system is running smoothly.

Ahh yes! Logical fallacies! With this, because of this. Thank you, good point. How would you measure the effectiveness of our government?

What distinguishes flaws from corruption? I wouldn't say our election process is corrupt. I would say that there are flaws in the system but it isn't inherently unjust, and more a byproduct of inefficiency and human error. If you can find a source that shows votes blatantly ignored, I would love to see it, no sarcasm intended.

Also, I think it is false to say "all governments are doing what they feel is in their best interest." Obviously some regimes care little about their citizens and are motivated almost entirely by self-preservation. Leaders who FORCE their way into power have NO SOVEREIGNTY OR JUSTIFICATION to rule a population that does not consent to their authority. Nations may have a right to govern how they feel best, but what is to say the leadership of a nation is actually looking out for its nations best interest, except in the form of a popularly elected government? Governments who kill their citizens or act contrary to their basic rights, most prominently their right to life, fail under the social contract and have no legitimacy period. Maybe America shouldn't cast the first stone so to speak, but it is the world leader, and it cannot shun its leadership position because a few votes are ommitted.

For the first paragraph, I will go with the majority of historians on this one. Namely, looking at the corrupt bargain of 1824. A horrible thing, but our current system allows for it to happen again, circumstances pending. I call it corrupt because a republic is based on representation of people, and in our system, not all votes are equal, some ignored. The electoral college is also under no obligation to vote as the states have. They could, as my history teacher nicely put it, could make paris hilton president on november 4th. That is more corrupt than any other part.

About the ignoring part, i meant in a looser way. Lets say 1 state has 50 electoral votes, and 30m population. The other has 40 votes, and 25m population.

The first state is a bush win. 50% of the state votes Bush, 49% Kerry, 1% nader. 15m votes for bush.

The second state is a kerry win. 100% win for kerry. 25m votes for kerry.

Bush would win. The fact that you can win a state with only 50% of the people, meants that many votes dont count. In the first state, some 15m votes were ignored for kerry. Thats 15m people who wanted kerry, but their votes made no difference in the voting count.

Thats why I see it as corrupt, and ignored votes.

--------

Second paragraph. The only way I can see a leader being justified as needing to be ejected is one that is purposely not trying to make the nation better. One that is working directly against it to make it a worse nation. A dictator who doesn't care for human rights still might be trying to make his nation better. The only people who need to be ejected are the ones who are using their position to make the nation worse.

A dictator can make moves often better than a popularly elected leader. He doesn't have to worry about being voted out of office if he does something unpopular, even if he thinks its right. A popularly elected leader cant function best when popularity comes into play. Take a school-yard type of thinking. Is the popular kid the best class president, or the nerdy guy with tons of free time, who is more knowledgable on the subjects?

America needs to fix its own democracy before it can go round the world promoting democratic principles. And to all those people who cant shut up about the distinction between democracies and republics, get over it. Republics are a form of democratic government, not some special catergory of their own.

Ahh yes! Logical fallacies! Thank you, good point. How would you measure the effectiveness of our government?
It depends on what you think the purpose of it is. I'd say that broadly it was to provide happiness to its citizens, although that definition would have to be nuanced a bit. Therefore I'd say a quality of life index would be the best measurement of it's effectiveness that I could think of on the spot.

America needs to fix its own democracy before it can go round the world promoting democratic principles. And to all those people who cant shut up about the distinction between democracies and republics, get over it. Republics are a form of democratic government, not some special catergory of their own.

Yes, important as the difference betweeen a democracy and the U.S. Government is, it has little relevance as far as this thread goes. Maybe phrasing it as "democratic ideals" instead of democracy would be better, I will ammend the first resolution.

The United States should first promote democracy within their own country. What kind of freedom can one experience in say, Detroit? The freedom to get shot by crack heads, dope dealers, mafia, or white militia people? And what kind of democracy has the most crazy and obfuscated election registrations possible?

Besides, with this election, you get the choice between a liberal namby-pamby Kerry, and a liberal butt-kissing Bush. Neither of them has what it takes to do what is needed, nor do any of their syncophants. And how come neither of them will appear on Howard Stern???

Long live The Doobie Brothers!

A dictator can make moves often better than a popularly elected leader. He doesn't have to worry about being voted out of office if he does something unpopular, even if he thinks its right. A popularly elected leader cant function best when popularity comes into play. Take a school-yard type of thinking. Is the popular kid the best class president, or the nerdy guy with tons of free time, who is more knowledgable on the subjects?
This is part of my point regarding democracy as imperfect. The thing is of course, dictators are rarely motivated by enlightened, selfless interests. In theory though, I think a benevolent dictatorship might be the best kind of government. The trick would be keeping it benevolent.

He was elected democratically, but turned the country into a dictatorship soon after.

Yes, with the power to do so granted to him. Again, this is in the ideal of being a technical democracy or not. America has the electoral college, which can be used to vote anyone they want in. They dont have to follow the states. Hitler wasn't a dictator by somes accounts. He can be seen as a democratic leader who simply used his given powers to lead the nation in a time of crisis. When the threat of nations around him disappeared, it could have become democratic, and he could have ended his term(playing devils advocate, but still).

Not sure about this, would have to check it out. You could argue also about it being a war by proxy between one democratic superpower and one non-democratic one.

Except both are corrupt/flawed democracies. Communism in its pure form is pure democracy, and thats what they were going for, even if it didn't occur. America wasn't democratic either, they were a flawed republic, not even striving for democracy.

Yeah, I won't try to argue this one too far cos I meant any form of real representative democracy or republic.

Bolded Replies

The United States should first promote democracy within their own country. What kind of freedom can one experience in say, Detroit? The freedom to get shot by crack heads, dope dealers, mafia, or white militia people? And what kind of democracy has the most crazy and obfuscated election registrations possible?

Besides, with this election, you get the choice between a liberal namby-pamby Kerry, and a liberal butt-kissing Bush. Neither of them has what it takes to do what is needed, nor do any of their syncophants. And how come neither of them will appear on Howard Stern???

Long live The Doobie Brothers!

I don't know exactly what you are advocating for here. I'm sure most people would rather live in Detroit, than say... Pyongyang. All that aside, you feel we have no moral obligation to spread democratic ideals?

America needs to fix its own democracy before it can go round the world promoting democratic principles. And to all those people who cant shut up about the distinction between democracies and republics, get over it. Republics are a form of democratic government, not some special catergory of their own.
Now I disagree. It would be hipocritical to be removing splinters while you've got a plank of your very own, but thats not the case really. America, for all its flaws, ain't that bad. Could be better, and should be, especially if they're to promote democracy, but its doing pretty well really.

This is part of my point regarding democracy as imperfect. The thing is of course, dictators are rarely motivated by enlightened, selfless interests. In theory though, I think a benevolent dictatorship might be the best kind of government. The trick would be keeping it benevolent.

Yes, Enlightened Despotism does seem to have its advantages, but it doesn't take into account basic human nature. As they say, absolute power, you know the rest.

Yes, with the power to do so granted to him. Again, this is in the ideal of being a technical democracy or not. America has the electoral college, which can be used to vote anyone they want in. They dont have to follow the states. Hitler wasn't a dictator by somes accounts. He can be seen as a democratic leader who simply used his given powers to lead the nation in a time of crisis. When the threat of nations around him disappeared, it could have become democratic, and he could have ended his term(playing devils advocate, but still).
He was also elected through quite a bit of foul play, and while he was running it, there was no democracy in Germany. At any rate, I think my statement stands, merely by virtue of the fact that whether Nazi Germany was democratic or not is highly debateable.

They could, as my history teacher nicely put it, could make paris hilton president on november 4th. That is more corrupt than any other part.

I wonder of Paris Hilton, if elected President, would bring back the old Clinton Administration "Cigar Policy" in the Oval Office? The military would get designer clothing, and there would be a big bowl of condoms at every Cabinet meeting. New meaning would be brought to State Dinners at the White House; though these would be little different from those in Rome 2000 years ago.

This is part of my point regarding democracy as imperfect. The thing is of course, dictators are rarely motivated by enlightened, selfless interests. In theory though, I think a benevolent dictatorship might be the best kind of government. The trick would be keeping it benevolent.

Then again, dictatorship is benevolent in ideal. Dictatorship is the ideal of one man or party choosing things. You can have a corrupt dictatorship that has no plan to help the nation, but even a dictatorship like hitlers or saddams, for example, were going for their nation being better. They were imperfect, but they were going for the betterment of the nation. Democracy has bad examples, as does dictatorship.

Yes, Enlightened Despotism does seem to have its advantages, but it doesn't take into account basic human nature. As they say, absolute power, you know the rest.
Yeah. Its a bit too optimistically utopian. The trade off is power to change vs will of the people. Representative democracy... not a bad bit of middle ground.

I wonder of Paris Hilton, if elected President, would bring back the old Clinton Administration "Cigar Policy" in the Oval Office? The military would get designer clothing, and there would be a big bowl of condoms at every Cabinet meeting. New meaning would be brought to State Dinners at the White House; though these would be little different from those in Rome 2000 years ago.

Does this have to do with anything?

He was also elected through quite a bit of foul play, and while he was running it, there was no democracy in Germany. At any rate, I think my statement stands, merely by virtue of the fact that whether Nazi Germany was democratic or not is highly debateable.

And examples like this are in most nations histories, America's included. Again, I direct toward the corrupt bargain of 1824. Our system still allows such a thing.

Then again, dictatorship is benevolent in ideal. Dictatorship is the ideal of one man or party choosing things. You can have a corrupt dictatorship that has no plan to help the nation, but even a dictatorship like hitlers or saddams, for example, were going for their nation being better. They were imperfect, but they were going for the betterment of the nation. Democracy has bad examples, as does dictatorship.

Ideal and reality are as different as apples and oranges. Benevolent or not, Hitler and Saddam were perversions of government, who knows the quality of their intentions, but no stable person could say they succeeded. Keep in mind the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

I feel I should clarify from my original position.

I'm a big fan of democracy, I'd like to see it everywhere. I don't think that US promotion is the best way to do it, not least cos of all the baggage that it would bring with it (consumerism and globalisation for example). Also, while wanting democracy to be spread, I wouldn't say that it was a moral obligation to do so. It is a flawed system, and there can't be an imperative for promotion of a flawed system.

I don't know exactly what you are advocating for here. I'm sure most people would rather live in Detroit, than say... Pyongyang. All that aside, you feel we have no moral obligation to spread democratic ideals?

Actually, have you been to Detroit? Way more people live in Pongyang! People have been seeking their freedom by moving out into the suburbs. Then when the suburbs turn into dumps, they move yet again. The whole rotten city effect has spilled across the border. In my hometown, the government spent the greater part of 40 years driving business and people out of the downtown core. They built Taj Mahals and Futureslums in the suburbs. Now people are really trapped. They can't go downtown because of the crack dealers; they can't go uptown because of gang warfare and grow-ops. This is no freedom for people.

Democracy is People Power, and the people need to be empowered to be the guardians of the governance of a nation. I am not saying that the people as a mass are the government. What I am saying is that the people need to regain their power of setting the governance, the overall policy, of the administration.

Bush bullied and terrorized his own people with the evil that was launched by some crackpots. Going to war may not be a noble cause, but it may be a requirement. But to launch a war to destroy what governance was entrenched in Iraq... Then to have no actual plan for the aftermath, when they simply stole away the governance of the Iraqi people... No wonder why the US is hated.

The Bush Administration itself is not to blame, they are the management of the executive. We have to fact the fact that there is no governance, no overall policy, except for the policy of sucking up to every special interest group for the simple means of staying in power, for the sake of power.

North Koreans have a choice; they elect to live in a form of fear, but we may not understand the comfort they derive in other ways. They do not have to worry about government corruption or issues or policies. These are simply handed down. So their life is easier because they do not need to worry about such things. They can concentrate on finding a lawn to eat for supper instead...

I do not beleive that imposing a form of governance on another nation has anything to do with morals or obligations. It is simply a national raison d'etre of Realpolitik. Should other people be free - of course. Should other people be organized into republican democracies? - that is a question for the Bismarcks of the world.

Does this have to do with anything?

Not really, just that you mentioned that Paris Hilton could be elected President. I doubt that she could even say "moral obligation", let alone understand such matters...

Ideal and reality are as different as apples and oranges. Benevolent or not, Hitler and Saddam were perversions of government, who knows the quality of their intentions, but no stable person could say they succeeded. Keep in mind the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

I dont believe in hell.

I can understand an argument against saddam. He pocketed large amounts of money. Even though he was a pretty good leader on a national level. He was pretty good at being moderate at least, etc. But I would rather not elaborate on that, I can't explain it as well as others.

Hitler, however, was defidentally working for his nation. He had mental problems, and he didn't succeed in his goals, but he was a great leader. Just because you fail in something, it doesn't mean you are bad.

I do believe that a nation should be able to be attacked if it provokes war, which hitler did. However, I have no quarrel with how he ran his nation internally. He pulled it out of its depression and made it quite productive.

Not really, just that you mentioned that Paris Hilton could be elected President. I doubt that she could even say "moral obligation", let alone understand such matters...

My point was that the electoral college can vote anyone they feel like. They are under no obligation to vote for what the states do. The US system could become a dictatorship.

Negative

The U.S. has never had any obligation to spread democracy. It was never in the Constitution. You should read it, in fact, it says we need only go to war, if the homeland or American interests are threatened, and we've been doing that pretty well.

Democracies are prone to corruption, and you're taking a big risk installing one, so we the people of the most crafty Americas, install dictatorships. I mean, why else would we spend millions on a war, without collateral? What you think we want to spread those expensive democracies? Why? Dictatorships are much cheaper, and a better investment, since manual labor helps our economy a lot more.If people don't like it, they can come to America. Dictatorships are much more producing, and we make more money. More money=more power. I mean, seriously, would you rather trade with a guy that has to pay his workers livable wages, and thus raise the prices of goods, or a guy that uses sweat shops to get twice the product with less costs

And that's it. That's the big secret. To America, and any other practical minded country in Europe, the world is nothing more than a big market. European countries a jealous that America took the control of that market, and is now exploiting it, and not inculding their cut of the cake. That's why we hate China. China is a threat to the market.

Hitler, however, was defidentally working for his nation. He had mental problems, and he didn't succeed in his goals, but he was a great leader. Just because you fail in something, it doesn't mean you are bad.

I do believe that a nation should be able to be attacked if it provokes war, which hitler did. However, I have no quarrel with how he ran his nation internally. He pulled it out of its depression and made it quite productive.
I think probably we can almost unanimously agree that Hitler was bad. He was a good leader, but he was walking towards a cliff and shooting large chunks of his followers along the way.

Nazi economic policies: very good. Nazi jew-murdering policies: very bad.

Actually, have you been to Detroit? Way more people live in Pongyang! People have been seeking their freedom by moving out into the suburbs. Then when the suburbs turn into dumps, they move yet again. The whole rotten city effect has spilled across the border. In my hometown, the government spent the greater part of 40 years driving business and people out of the downtown core. They built Taj Mahals and Futureslums in the suburbs. Now people are really trapped. They can't go downtown because of the crack dealers; they can't go uptown because of gang warfare and grow-ops. This is no freedom for people.

Democracy is People Power, and the people need to be empowered to be the guardians of the governance of a nation. I am not saying that the people as a mass are the government. What I am saying is that the people need to regain their power of setting the governance, the overall policy, of the administration.

Bush bullied and terrorized his own people with the evil that was launched by some crackpots. Going to war may not be a noble cause, but it may be a requirement. But to launch a war to destroy what governance was entrenched in Iraq... Then to have no actual plan for the aftermath, when they simply stole away the governance of the Iraqi people... No wonder why the US is hated.

The Bush Administration itself is not to blame, they are the management of the executive. We have to fact the fact that there is no governance, no overall policy, except for the policy of sucking up to every special interest group for the simple means of staying in power, for the sake of power.

North Koreans have a choice; they elect to live in a form of fear, but we may not understand the comfort they derive in other ways. They do not have to worry about government corruption or issues or policies. These are simply handed down. So their life is easier because they do not need to worry about such things. They can concentrate on finding a lawn to eat for supper instead...

I do not beleive that imposing a form of governance on another nation has anything to do with morals or obligations. It is simply a national raison d'etre of Realpolitik. Should other people be free - of course. Should other people be organized into republican democracies? - that is a question for the Bismarcks of the world.

I'm aware that Detroit might not be the most pleasant place to live. However, I don't understand how you can actually assert that you would rather live in Pyongyang. Also, if I'm not mistaken you are saying that people can have comfort in taking their rights away so they don't have to fear them being taken away in the future. Confiscate rights, so as to not have rights infringed upon? Be killed so as not to die? What? You feel that North Koreans have a choice? Who would choose to live in poverty and fear? North Koreans certaintly do not have a choice, why do you think they prevent them from ever leaving the country? So they are unaware that another possiblity exists, because if they were aware, they would choose it. By the way Raison d'etre and Realpolitik are seperate, though similar ideas.

Also, if I'm not mistaken you are saying that people can have comfort in taking their rights away so they don't have to fear them being taken away in the future. Confiscate rights, so as to not have rights infringed upon?
Well, there is a rather Huxly-esque arguement that if you stop people wanting to do particular things, then banning them has no tangible effect.

I dont believe in hell.

I can understand an argument against saddam. He pocketed large amounts of money. Even though he was a pretty good leader on a national level. He was pretty good at being moderate at least, etc. But I would rather not elaborate on that, I can't explain it as well as others.

Hitler, however, was defidentally working for his nation. He had mental problems, and he didn't succeed in his goals, but he was a great leader. Just because you fail in something, it doesn't mean you are bad.

I do believe that a nation should be able to be attacked if it provokes war, which hitler did. However, I have no quarrel with how he ran his nation internally. He pulled it out of its depression and made it quite productive.

The existence of an escaton is hardly relevant to the point I'm making. Just because an example or quote is made by a religious figure, or contains a religious reference, doesn't automatically discount its wisdom if you are not a religious person.

Saddam was hardly a moderate, he held the view of a minority over the majority, and murdered his own people. Yes failure does not have moral implications, however a government that fails its people, especially by infringing upon their cardinal right to live, is a bad government.

It is easy to forget that the Kurds and Jews were citizens of their respective nations. How can you say the government properly advanced these citizens?

Well, there is a rather Huxly-esque arguement that if you stop people wanting to do particular things, then banning them has no tangible effect.

Yes, but Aldous Huxely's entire intent in writing A Brave New World was to critique gratuitous behaviors in popular society. What I am trying to get at, is that Huxely advocated for a free and moral life style that accorded life with its proper dignity. Huxely would probably not have looked kindly on North Korea.

Yes, but Aldous Huxely's entire intent in writing A Brave New World was to critique gratuitous behaviors in popular society. What I am trying to get at, is that Huxely advocated for a free and moral life style that accorded life with its proper dignity. Huxely would probably not have looked kindly on North Korea.I was referring to BNW, not to Huxley's actual socitarial views.

Negative

The U.S. has never had any obligation to spread democracy. It was never in the Constitution. You should read it, in fact, it says we need only go to war, if the homeland or American interests are threatened, and we've been doing that pretty well.

Democracies are prone to corruption, and you're taking a big risk installing one, so we the people of the most crafty Americas, install dictatorships. I mean, why else would we spend millions on a war, without collateral? What you think we want to spread those expensive democracies? Why? Dictatorships are much cheaper, and a better investment, since manual labor helps our economy a lot more.If people don't like it, they can come to America. Dictatorships are much more producing, and we make more money. More money=more power. I mean, seriously, would you rather trade with a guy that has to pay his workers livable wages, and thus raise the prices of goods, or a guy that uses sweat shops to get twice the product with less costs

And that's it. That's the big secret. To America, and any other practical minded country in Europe, the world is nothing more than a big market. European countries a jealous that America took the control of that market, and is now exploiting it, and not inculding their cut of the cake. That's why we hate China. China is a threat to the market.

We do alot of things that aren't mentioned in the constitution. An isolationist stance simply isn't practical after 1914. Besides, the constitution and morality are seperate issues. Law and morality are not connected. Many would say they should be, but they aren't.

With this in mind, maybe installing Democracy isn't the practical thing to do. But is it the moral thing to do? We once had forced labor in the United States, very practical (though decreasingly with the rise of technology), yet hopefully you would agree that it was very immoral. Are we obligated by the morality that America has sought to exemplify, to improve the quality of life, and uphold the sanctity of life, in countries where it has been deprived by a system of government which does not give its citizens representation?

I was referring to BNW, not to Huxley's actual socitarial views.

Yes, by all means, it is something you would see in Huxley's work, but I think that definitely strengthens the case that such an argument is absurd.

In a poor country? No. I mean, most of the population won't know who they're voting for, unless the nominee goes all over the country. Democracy is never a good thing at first. Morally, or practically. I personally care little for morals, but even though, the people would probably not even know, who is running, and when they get their ballot, they're going to vote randomly, or who ever gets talked of best by people. It won't represent what the people might want. Practically, it's also dumb. A country needs to make money fast, if it wants to get on the world stage for anything. Getting a constant flow of income always comes first, then needs(food, dricking water, ect.), and finnaly, standert of living. All dictatorships with enough room to grow, eventually become democratic. It's a proven fact, and very interesting to watch. Take for example China. At one time, most of the people couldn't read, and didn't own televisions, now as the country grows, and settles these numbers go up. Eventually, the people of China will call out for a voice, and if the government doens't provid it at first, they will eventually.

Now, why do I know I'm right? Look at Europe. It started off as Kings, and Lords that put down the serfs, it then started to become more King power, less lords, then the kings started giving out rights, then came little things, like premitive parliaments, then acual elections. While this happens, the Monarch loses power, and becomes more a figure head.

In a nutshell, of that long ass post. Dictatorships, are a must for young wild countries, democracy, are for mature countries. It's a lot like a farm; The seeds are sowed, the seeds grow, they mature, are harvested, and then it all starts over again.

I don't see any way that the United States can LEGITIMATELY espouse a philosophy they have never tried.

The United States is (are) a Republic, and a Federal Republic, at that.

I don't think that they should attempt to enforce 'democracy' (of any kind) on anyone, for the simlpe reason that it isn't necessarily the 'best' political model.

Example: Look at the Kibbutzim of Israel... what are they? They are socialist communities (although this is becoming progresively less and less true), because that was the 'best' form of government for an agricultural community with limited resources.

Example: Look at Christiania... what is it? Truly... it is an Anarchy, and, therefore, closer to a 'true democracy' than any of the powerful so-called 'democratic' governments of the 'west'. They have no 'leader', and all decisions are made collectively. This works just fine with the population they have (about 900 people), but would it carry over to a nation the size of China?

Different governments suit different people at different times, and for different needs.

It is 'immoral' for the United States to try to 'impose' ANY form of government on anyone else... and flawed logic to try to 'promote' it to anyone else.

Especially since they have yet to try it...

I don't see any way that the United States can LEGITIMATELY espouse a philosophy they have never tried.

The United States is (are) a Republic, and a Federal Republic, at that.

I don't think that they should attempt to enforce 'democracy' (of any kind) on anyone, for the simlpe reason that it isn't necessarily the 'best' political model.

Example: Look at the Kibbutzim of Israel... what are they? They are socialist communities (although this is becoming progresively less and less true), because that was the 'best' form of government for an agricultural community with limited resources.

Example: Look at Christiania... what is it? Truly... it is an Anarchy, and, therefore, closer to a 'true democracy' than any of the powerful so-called 'democratic' governments of the 'west'. They have no 'leader', and all decisions are made collectively. This works just fine with the population they have (about 900 people), but would it carry over to a nation the size of China?

Different governments suit different people at different times, and for different needs.

It is 'immoral' for the United States to try to 'impose' ANY form of government on anyone else... and flawed logic to try to 'promote' it to anyone else.

Especially since they have yet to try it...
I have to agree with the above.
The citizens of Kuwait are quite happy without democracy, as the the citizens of Bruni. they enjoy more freedoms than those in the US other than the choice to choose thier leader.
Also many cultures don't fit into a happy democratic model.
The statement that the US has a moral obligation assumes democracy is best, which has not been proven.

Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you, thier tastes may not be the same!

O.W

US-installed democracy: You can have any leader you want, as long as he takes orders from us. (haven't heard of any US-installed female leaders)

[...] A country needs to make money fast, if it wants to get on the world stage for anything. Getting a constant flow of income always comes first, then needs(food, dricking water, ect.), and finnaly, standert of living.

I am quite sure that "getting a constant flow of income" takes longer then the three days humans can go without water/drinkable fluids. My priorities would be to have a living population, thus needs are first and foremost.

The United States has a moral obligation to promote democracy in other countries?

1. Has it? Why?
2. Has it succeded in this anywhere? Where?
3. How about democracy in US itself?

"The United States has a moral obligation to promote democracy in other countries."

If so, United States should learn the names of 'other countries' first.

There is a joke about that: United Nations made a worldwide poll asking: "Please give us your opinion about the shortage of food in other countries of the world." The poll resulted in a total failure: Western Europeans failed to understand the word 'shortage', Africans had trouble understanding 'food', Asians didn't quite get the meaning of 'opinion', Easter Europeans couldn't guess what does 'please' mean, and Americans didn't know what 'other countries of the world' were.

The United States has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations.


It's hard to argue with vague meaningless rhetoric, but here it goes:

1. What's so f-ing great about democracy? What the hell ever happend to freedom, liberty, independence, and self-determination?

2. Moral obligations are things that people have. The United States is not a person.

Also, Letila, when in a seperate topic you list past US supported non-democratic regimes, do you possibly have an official list? I don't ask this to discount your assertions, but simply to have a more credible source than a jolt forumn.

Google "Patrice Lumumba" and "Joseph Mobutu".

Lumumba was democratically elected president of the newly independent ex Belgian Congo in I think 1960. he was hunted down and killed by belgian soldiers while the US and belgium colluded to support the military dictatorship of Joseph Mobutu. There was a US government investigation in I think the 1970s.

Google "Patrice Lumumba" and "Joseph Mobutu".

Lumumba was democratically elected president of the newly independent ex Belgian Congo in I think 1960. he was hunted down and killed by belgian soldiers while the US and belgium colluded to support the military dictatorship of Joseph Mobutu. There was a US government investigation in I think the 1970s.

Wasn't the whole issue in Haiti this year, over a dictator empowered by the United States?

Also, didn't the US arm and equip Iraq? (As a buffer against radical tendencies in Iran).

We have no obligation to anyone but ourselves. That we DO provide foreign aid and help when needed by others is a measure of our compassion, not some OBLIGATION.

I am quite sure that "getting a constant flow of income" takes longer then the three days humans can go without water/drinkable fluids. My priorities would be to have a living population, thus needs are first and foremost.

People can boil water if they want to be safe.

escaton
Huh? Enlighten me please. Not finding it in the dictionary or encyclopedia.

I think it comes down to this. The government doesn't have a moral obligation to do anything overseas, perhaps even in US for that matter. Indiviuals, even if amassed as a group, can perhaps have a moral obligation to do things based on their religion. But it's too general a statemnet to say that "America has a moral responsibility to promote democracy."
Plus remember, when promoting something you maybe put up a couple billboards, buy some ad time on TV and radio, in newspapers and magazines, maybe do a bulk mailing. Promotion does not and should not involve bombing a sovereign nation into submission to overthrow a dictator.

The United States has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations.

The USA never had any obligation to drop cluster bombs on markets, torture and humiliate civilans, detain people without defensor nor status for an unlimited time, bomb wedding parties or send Lynndie England anywhere... Can't hear the words "human rights" in the mouth of an American without giggling any longer, and yet I've been supporting Amnesty International for years... Human rights and democracy have always been just a lame excuse for well understood US own vested interests, so why all the hypocrisy?