The Importance of Democracy

[ICantSpellDawg]

I like Pat Buchanan - his articles can be hair brained (such as the recent one about "WW2 - good for whom?"), but his arguments are usually consistent with his premise whether they it was false or not to begin with. What do you think about this one?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Onward the Revolution!
By Patrick Buchanan

Having cheerfully confessed he knows little about economics, John McCain is advancing himself as a foreign-policy president, a "realistic idealist," he told the World Affairs Council of Los Angeles.

But judging from the content of his speech, McCain is no more a realist than he is a reflective man.

Speaking of our five-year war in Iraq, McCain declares, "It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possible genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible and premature withdrawal."

Fair point. There is surely a great risk in a too-rapid withdrawal.

But if a U.S. withdrawal, after 4,000 dead and 33,000 wounded, and a trillion dollars sunk, runs the risk of a genocidal calamity, what does that tell us about the wisdom of those who marched us into this war?

What threat did Saddam ever pose comparable to the cataclysm McCain says we face if we pull out? Who, Senator, put American on the horns of so horrible a dilemma?

"Whether they were in Iraq before is immaterial," McCain warns, "al-Qaida is there now." And that is surely true.

But if al-Qaida was not in Iraq before we invaded, why did we invade? And if al-Qaida is there now, what was the magnet that drew them in, if not the U.S. occupation McCain himself championed?

Like Condi Rice, who regularly disparages the policies of every president from FDR to Bill Clinton, McCain enjoys parading the higher morality of his devotion to democracy-uber-alles.

"For decades in the Middle East we had a strategy of relying upon autocrats to provide order and stability. We relied on the Shah, the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family. ... We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these outdated autocrats is the safest bet."

Speaking of self-delusion, does McCain believe the "democrats" lately elected in Pakistan will be tougher on al-Qaida and the Taliban than Pervez Musharraf, who has twice escaped assassination for having sided with us?

Does McCain think this new crowd in Islamabad will be more pro-American than the general, when the people who voted them in are among the most anti-American in the Islamic world?

From Richard Nixon to George Bush I, we expelled Moscow from Egypt, won the Cold War, brought peace between Egypt and Israel, and created a worldwide alliance, including Hafez al-Assad of Syria, that drove Saddam's army out of Kuwait.

What has the Bush-McCain democracy crusade produced, save electoral victories for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Hamas? And if we dump the sultan of Oman, President Mubarak, and the king of Saudi Arabia, who does McCain think will replace them?

If undermining Arab autocrats is good for America, why is that also the goal of Osama bin Laden?

McCain proposes a "League of Democracies" to unite a hundred nations for peace and freedom. "Revanchist Russia," however, is to be black-balled from McCain's league and thrown out of the G-8.

What would this accomplish other than undoing the work of Reagan in bringing Moscow in from the cold, driving Russia into the arms of China, restarting the Cold War and recreating the Beijing-Moscow axis it was Nixon's great achievement to break up?

What McCain is proposing is a re-division of the world into the forces of light and the forces of darkness. Moral clarity at last! Has he forgotten the fate of that earlier rabbit warren of the righteous, the League of Nations?

Does our "realistic idealist" think a NATO of 25 nations that has mustered a piddling 16,000 soldiers, most of them noncombatants, to stand beside us in Afghanistan is going to confront a nuclear-armed Russia?

"Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests," said Lord Palmerston.

What is critical, especially in wartime, is not whether a regime is autocratic or democratic, but whether it is hostile or friendly.

Gen. Washington, at war with democratic Great Britain, is said to have danced a jig when he heard we had Louis XVI as an ally. During our Civil War, Britain built blockade-runners for the Confederacy, while the czar docked his ships in Union harbors. Russia "was our friend/When the world was our foe," wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes.

When Nixon launched his airlift to save Israel in the Yom Kippur War, autocratic Portugal let us use the Azores. Democratic France denied Reagan over-flight permission in the 1986 raid on Libya. Two brave U.S. pilots died as a result.

When McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton, British and French ships were unloading goods in Haiphong, while Ferdinand Marcos and the South Korean generals sent troops to stand with us and fight beside us.

To root one's attitude toward nations based upon their internal politics rather than their foreign policies is ideology. And policies rooted in ideologies, from Trotskyism to democratism, end up on the Great Barrier Reef of reality.

btw - I disagree more than I agree with this particular idea of his.

[Papewaio]

To root one's attitude toward nations based upon their internal politics rather than their foreign policies is ideology. And policies rooted in ideologies, from Trotskyism to democratism, end up on the Great Barrier Reef of reality.

What on holidays enjoying the sun, surf and turf?

[ICantSpellDawg]

C'mon, no thoughts?

Other than Pape's tidbit?

[macsen rufus]

Meh! A string of soundbites doesn't make a coherent argument. Whilst he raises some valid points, he also raises some bunkum too.

The main impression I get, though, is that he's effectively saying we have a choice between pragmatism and principles - and if you choose pragmatism then you have to abandon the claim of holding the moral high ground. And IMHO that's a choice America's leaders are incapable of facing up to.

[naut]

Meh! A string of soundbites doesn't make a coherent argument. Whilst he raises some valid points, he also raises some bunkum too.

Aye. Agreed. Some of those points are a fair stretch.

[Kralizec]

Democracies aren't necessarily friendly to eachother. And it's easier to win an autocrat over than to get an entire nation to like you. That said, I think that overall the long term benefits of having, say, a democratic middle east outweigh short-term realpolitik advantages.

[Fragony]

What is critical, especially in wartime, is not whether a regime is autocratic or democratic, but whether it is hostile or friendly.

Agree with this. Democracy's tend not to fight eachother but it's a system that naturally evolved here it shouldn't be treated as something to export. I think you should always go for the short term solution because that is what you can currently understand, it might not help but it's less likely to make it worse, the world isn't a static place, deal with what you have if that happens to be autocrats do business with the autocrats.

[Adrian II]

[..] the world isn't a static place, deal with what you have if that happens to be autocrats do business with the autocrats.

I agree, do business with them, but only as far as necessary. And democracy may not be fit for export like porn, ammunition or tulip bulbs, but it is the most rational (i.e. least irrational) form of government and it should be encouraged wherever possible.

Dictatorships should know their place in the pecking order. Their leaders have no place in civilized company. Oh, and their Olympic Games are vulgar publicity stunts.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree, do business with them, but only as far as necessary. And democracy may not be fit for export like porn, ammunition or tulip bulbs, but it is the most rational (i.e. least irrational) form of government and it should be encouraged wherever possible.

Dictatorships should know their place in the pecking order. Their leaders have no place in civilized company. Oh, and their Olympic Games are vulgar publicity stunts.

It's not really the most rational, but it seems to be the most beneficial to us in the long term. I say target the worst offenders & make alliances with the more benign dictators as friends.

[Fragony]

I agree, do business with them, but only as far as necessary. And democracy may not be fit for export like porn, ammunition or tulip bulbs, but it is the most rational (i.e. least irrational) form of government and it should be encouraged wherever possible.

Dictatorships should know their place in the pecking order. Their leaders have no place in civilized company. Oh, and their Olympic Games are vulgar publicity stunts.

Human beings are rational and democracy is inevitable in the long run, but it has to come from within, nobody wants to be disliked that is normal and in end leaders are also normal human beings. But if you enforce democracy it will work against you every time because enforced democracy is force like all other and people don't like being pushed around. Dictatorships actually do know their rank in the picking order and are cautiously trying to fit in but human nature also has a way of preservation that's why you need to be cautious, baby steps.

[Adrian II]

Human beings are rational and democracy is inevitable in the long run [..]

Both notions are rightly disputed.

If pushed to put a percentage on it, I would say humans are 10% rational and 90% emotional/instinct-driven. That is not a bad thing, it helped us survive (until now...). Overestimating the human sense of reason, now that would be a bad thing. That's why democracy is good: it is a rational institution that serves man best because of what he is, an incomplete animal at best.

As to its inevitability, I don't agree with you either. After the demise of God, so bluntly announced by Nietzsche, humanity has yet to understand (and cope with) its full consequences. One of those consequences is that our sense of linear (hence predictable) history is false. That was originally a Christian notion. We must come to accept that progress, in every sense except sheer physical motion, is not guaranteed or even probable, it is just a possibility.

In short, I don't share wide your wide-eyed, pinko liberal optimism about mankind.

[Furious Mental]

"it might not help but it's less likely to make it worse"

I would say such things as the "secret bombing" of Cambodia and the backing of the Afghan mujahideen rather put paid to that claim.

[Viking]

Onward the Revolution!
By Patrick Buchanan

To root one's attitude toward nations based upon their internal politics rather than their foreign policies is ideology. And policies rooted in ideologies, from Trotskyism to democratism, end up on the Great Barrier Reef of reality.

Good grief. Policies rooted in ideologies?? Just like what policy is rooted in an ideology?

If you act in accordance with an ideology and ignore the reality, you'll get smacked. If you follow an ideology but also take note of the reality and act thereafter, you'll not.

If one really believes in democracy, then it is something to fight for. Democracy is certainly not more "right" in some countries than other. What this merry fellow is talking about is what would benefit the US the most. It seems he could not care less about human rights and democracy elsewhere, after all America got it! Screw the rest.

But if you enforce democracy it will work against you every time because enforced democracy is force like all other and people don't like being pushed around. Dictatorships actually do know their rank in the picking order and are cautiously trying to fit in but human nature also has a way of preservation that's why you need to be cautious, baby steps.

Forced democracy? What's that?

[Fragony]

Forced democracy? What's that?

My point why?

[Viking]

My point why?

Could you come up with some examples of forced democracy? When nation A invades nation B, removes the dictator and tells the people to vote or die? And how are people getting "pushed" by democracy? Sure those that had benefits of their gov friends and relatives will not like democracy; opposed to the masses that make up 8/10 of the population.

[HoreTore]

Could you come up with some examples of forced democracy? When nation A invades nation B, removes the dictator and tells the people to vote or die? And how are people getting "pushed" by democracy? Sure those that had benefits of their gov friends and relatives will not like democracy; opposed to the masses that make up 8/10 of the population.

I'd say that most African "democracies" can be called forced democracies, as well as Iraq and afghanistan and the russian zone. The elections in these places never result in anything remotely resembling "the will of the people", it will always come out as one group wants it. Also, there is no concept of power-sharing, it's more like electing a dictator, which is very different from a democracy.

Forced Democracy is a nice term, thanks Fragony.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Could you come up with some examples of forced democracy? When nation A invades nation B, removes the dictator and tells the people to vote or die? And how are people getting "pushed" by democracy? Sure those that had benefits of their gov friends and relatives will not like democracy; opposed to the masses that make up 8/10 of the population.

Japan, post WW2.

[Furious Mental]

One of the notable things about Buchanan is that he doesn't understand that it is usually precisely the sort of tunnel vision, which sees only short-term political expediency, that has created the situations where he says it is necessary to cooperate with dictators, and which has generally come back to bite the US and others on the arse eventually.

A perfect example is the Arab autocrats whom he says have to be relied on- without decades of Western support for them and help from anti-communist crusades like the induced collapse of Afghanistan, where would Al Qaeda be now? Probably nowhere. But we have Al Qaeda and so now according to Buchanan we have to cooperate with whichever illegitimate despot will cooperate in killing them, even if being associated with such rulers guarantees that we will be fighting Al Qaeda forever.

Same goes for Hezbollah and Hamas- did it ever occur to him to that part of the reason for the ultimate rise of these movements is that the US government didn't dissuade its ally from putting its proverbial foot in it by blundering into Lebanon, colonising the West Bank and destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority?

And the Persian Gulf- first support the Shah and then when he gets turfed out support Saddam Hussein, and when he stabs you in the back what then? Put an army in the Arabian peninsula, bomb the buggery out of Iraq and raise the ire of Islamic nutcases I guess.

If Buchanan had half a brain he would realise that stable democracies, even if they don't always let the US use their air space to bomb other countries or help with pointless conflicts in the third world, don't generally start wars or have such a lack of control over their territory that other can use it to start wars.