What has Bush done that is so un-democratic again?

Somehow Bush doesn't seem to fit squarely into this. America has been in the buisness of spreading democracy since the end of WW2. Bush was still in college when this hit stride. That being said, I know that he is involved with the process now. It's just that Bush simply can't be blamed (if someone must) for the direction this is heading in.

If you want to know about the roots of this, I think that the actions of Russia and America following WW2 would make for good studying. The spread of communism from the 60s through the late 80s (and even today) mirrors the spreading of democracy coming from America from then through now. The reasoning is hiddin somewhere in there.

So the issue was ... other people's opinions ... and not your opinion.

Naturally.

---------------

Since we're all defining "democracy" as whatever we personally feel it is, it is quite easy for me to "prove" that Bush is anti-democracy. He's lobbied for discrimination against gays - this is anti-democracy. He's lobbied for a useless social security reform - this is anti-democracy. He's started a useless war - this is anti-democracy. He's lobbied for and implemented increased surveilance of American citizens - this is anti-democracy. He's defended business at the expense of the environment - this is anti-democracy. He is the epitome of how cronyism has destroyed any remote semblance of democracy in the U.S. He's manipulated political discourse to polarize it to such a degree that when he says "democracy" 50%+ of the people ACTUALLY think he means democracy.

I could easily go on.

So, if we're not going to agree, or even begin to discuss, what democracy is and whether Bush is doing anything with it internationally, not a single one of you can demonstrate that Bush, and therefore American gov't, is not categorically in opposition to it.

We might as well just start making up words and arguing about what they mean.

Germany and Japan are interesting examples:
A large part of their success lay in the fact that we continued to occupy them to help guide their fledgling democracies and contributed to building their political institutions. We basically baby sat them until they were able to stand on their own. Plus, I believe they had less difficulty with insurgencies.

I believe Iraq would be better off and would have had an easier time if we had 500,000 peace keepers and administrators helping them along instead of this half-assed effort.

The main difference is that at least Japan and Germany (in general) had stability whereas Iraq is still kind of chaotic.

Maybe a Marshall Plan for Iraq (and Afghanistan while we're at it)?

Actually Manx I disagree with just about all of your points made. Thing is, love it or hate Bush is doing things by the books. War in Iraq: a war that the majority of Americans backed (read: 51+%, number was actually higher), a war that got approval by the congress elected by the people... now on the basis that he acted in good faith, how was that undemocratic?

Gay Marriage. Publically the MAJORITY of Americans are against it, more are for civil unions but I can't say off the top of my head if they constitute a 51+%, not withstanding, legislation was put forth into congress and it got voted down by the representatives of the people. Now you could maybe argue that the congress wasn't being democratic by truly representing the majority of the population who is against gay MARRIAGE, but don't put that on Bush. Also I can't be sure of this, but I don't think Bush has taken anything further away from homosexuals, granted he isn't trying to help them any.

I don't see how SS reform is anti democratic one way or the other, hell I don't even know how democracy would factor into this issue. Just as an aside, because you don't agree with his policies doesn't make it anti-democratic.

To the point though, Bush has done everything by the books, as laid out by our constitution. He puts forth legislation to the congress they vote it into law, he signs it. I think you are misplacing your blame here.

Perfect. That's exactly what I was thinking. Japan and Germany were totally united during WW2 (I mean germany was united, and Japan was united). They were not countries where the people were at odds with the government. When they lost they were occupied by huge amounts of troops from many different countries. Before WW2, Japan knew stability, and before WW1 and in the breif time before WW2 Germany knew stability. Iraq simply is not this way. Saddam was hated by many Iraqi peoples (in other words they learned not to trust their government).

Iraq will only succede with the combined help of many many nations. If we were to get support from the UN or some major nations like Russia, Germany, France, or Italy, it would be more likely that they'd come out of it a strong democracy. Also location must be taken to mind. Germany was a part of Europe, surrounded by budding democracies. Iraq is surrounded by Iran (Islamic Republic), Kuwait (nominal constitutional monarchy), Saudi Arabia (monarchy), Jordan (constitutional monarchy), Syria (republic under military regime since March 1963), and Turkey (the only democracy). Just something to think about.

That's quite impossible. You can only disagree with one of them - that being my definition of democracy - as the rest of my post is based on that definition.

Since my definition of democracy is essentially that which is good for the people (not simply the majority), Bush has been entirely opposed to it.

(As an aside, the majority of American's did not support the war without the blessing of the UN. Without that blessing, the number was somewhere around 28% in support. But that's a discussion that has been rehashed countless times to no avail.)

It was an evolution versus a revolution. We did rebel against irresponsible government, which is how our "Family Compact' & 'Chateau Clique' were brought down, but then again it was less of a guns and swords and more pens and laws sort of thing. Unless of course you count the 1837 rebellions: martial law in Montreal, race riots in Niagara Falls, Mackenzie's abortive march up Yonge Street in Toronto and the skirmish at Montgomery's Tavern, and Ducombes musturing in Hamilton and the battle of Sainte-Eustache...

It all continued in 1838 too...

Unfortunetally, I find your particular style annoying to read. Sentances run on into rambling phrases, and concepts aren't broken apart. I don't read verbally, so the lack of verbal effect from capitalization doesn't matter -- capitalization provides structure that makes parsing easier for me.

I don't like having to work at just reading the words, it gets in the way of understanding the meaning behind the words.

Good day.

The problem is that America's military adventures look, from the outside, to be an attempt to ensure the return-on-investment of the US military and on the industry that supports the US military.

Some of them may be argueing in favour of letting people self-determine their own destinies, and at the very least don't hold a gun to their heads and say "make up your own mind".

This thread is about forcing democracy on people.

Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Republic, thank you very much.

There are differences. In practice, I would put forward that the powers and limitations of the state (and it's head) are limited as much by tradition in Canada as they are by the rules of law.

Actually, democracy was given to and/or grew in Canada. There where revolts, but no "successful" ones.

Those where pretty long coat tales then! A gap of about 100 years exists between the US's revolts against crown rule and the British North America act. Another 125 years passed before Canada reincorperated itself as an independant nation (until 1982, Canada's existance and fundamental law was an act of British parliament. In 1982, Canada's existance and fundamental law became an act of Canadian parliament.)

GB was a constitutional monarchy before the US revolted. The lack of representation in the British parliament was, as far as I am aware, one of the core complaints of the American people.

"Taxation without representation".

GB is still a constitutional monarchy.

Part of that was the victory not only in the battle field, but in the battle of ideas.

German fascist docterine was discredited. The Japanese emperor claimed he was not divine.

Both nations where being run by cults of personalities. The personality was dead and defeated, and the new ideas where more interesting.

Assuming GWB is a saint, GWB is a saint -- I'll grant you that. Assuming false, I'll fly to the moon.

The problem is, GWB stated as president things that where not true, and convinced the nation to go to war on the basis of these "facts".

I think it comes down to whether you believe a democratic-type government is the best type of government for all people and whether you believe that most people want to rule themselves through a democratic governement. If you do, then you probably agree with bush, if you don't, then you probably have a problem with him.

that only works if you make some seperation between the principles that bush throws about and the actual type of pseudo-democratic regime he presides over in the states. i dont see how this split would work. it seems somewhere between naieve and disengenuous.

yakk:

if i wrote for you i would be concerned about your various problems with the lack of caps.
but as it stands, i dont.
so i am not.

i am not sure that you want to start playing the game of formal criticism of how arguments are structured with me, however...it would be really easy to go line by line through your posts above and leave nothing standing at the conceptual level.
it seems about par for the course that you would couple an expression fo aesthetic displeasure (and nothing more) with a series of arbitrary assertions about content.

What principles might you be speaking of?
Are you suggesting that what bush says and does regarding foreign policy is contrary to what freedom loving americans believe?

It seems to me that if american pseudo-democracy is good enough for me it is good enough for anyone else.

You all speak of dictatorships as evil, which is completely untrue. A government is only as good or bad as the person in charge. It is hence possible to have a fantastically wonderful dictatorship, or a completely horrific democracy. "Democracy", through the inclusion of the majority of the populace, limits its own ability to be greatly evil (assuming a widely-shared definition of evil), but at the same time limits its own ability to be as good (same assumption) as a dictatorship has the possibility of being. We just happen to have had multiple runs of some very nasty dictators.

the problem with dictatorships is that hegemony tends to lie in the same hands for a long time. It perpetuates itself and unless you have benevolence at the top, your're out of luck.

At least with democracies, the 'unfairness' of a dictatorship of a majority will last until the next election. So, there are built in checks and balances with democracies, which should ensure that change at the top can happen. Unforutanately, sometimes this means very little. I mean, is there really a qualitative difference between the Conservatives or Liberals? or the Democrats or Repubilcans? depending on the times, todays liberals can be more conservative than yesterday's tories.

It also comes down to whether you believe your belief in your own rightiousness validates using force on others.

Do you really have that much faith, that much certainty, that democracy is what everyone wants right now?

Not everyone is so certain of this that they are willing to hold an atomic bomb to people's heads and say 'become democratic or die'.

edit
Not a problem! Like I said, have a good day.

I think I know what you are trying to say here. But it is not as if we are fighting a whole country that does not want to be democratic, and forcing 20 million people to 'become democratic or die'. I think the turnout the iraqi's had last month clearly shows that the majority of the populace want to belong to a democratic society.

Democracy isn't about what everyone wants. Its about what most people want. And yes, I believe most people want democracy right now.

This conclusion is lacking evidence.

How do you know that the high turnout is not simply due to the natural desire to change the present state of total chaos? Simply because the only form of change available to them is this pseudo-democracy doesn't mean they support the concept of this pseudo-democracy.

Put another way,

Anything is better than total chaos. That doesn't mean whatever single option you have available is exactly what you want.

Yes it does. IF they didn't want it they didn't have to participate. The fact that they voted demonstrates that they want to participate in it.

It wasn't a single option. single option is "Saddam: YES, Saddam: NO" The iraqi people were given hundreds of different options. If they didn't want to choose one they didn't have to get their finger dipped in the purple ink.

No. The fact that they voted demonstrates that they prefer anything else over what they presently have.

That's all it demonstrates.

By single option I mean this pseudo-democracy or total chaos. If I had a single option I'd take totalitarianism over total chaos. Most people probably would, if only to get the water running again. That doesn't mean most people want totalitarianism. They want running water.

What they presently have will change, whether they vote or not. This they know. They know that if they don't voice their opinions now, via ballots, the radical fundamentalists will eventually take control. SO by voting, they demonstrated that they prefer democratic change and some say in the governance of their lives over present 'chaos' or future tyranny.

So my question to you, Manx, is do you believe that democratic-type governments are right for all people, and do you believe that the majority of people want a democratic-type government?

Again, no.

First of all, the majority of Iraqi's are this "radical fundamentalist" you speak of. So that they voted does not mean they support pseudo-democracy, it means they support "radical fundamentalism", potentially a tyranny of it.

But really, the simply want anything but what they currently have. If the only means of getting anything else is to cast a vote is a pseudo-election, that is the action any rational person would take. It does not mean they support the concept of pseudo-elections.

Your conclusions are clearly not based on any evidence.

I think most people do not care.

Most people want food to feed their kids, clean water and less violence. If it takes a "benevolent" dictator to achieve that, most people would be more than satisfied. If it takes "democracy" to achieve that, most people would be more than satisfied.

But, you still proved my point.

The only thing I have done with your point is to prove it false.

I don't know what point you are talking about, but I'm referring to the one I stated earlier about, "whether you believe a democratic-type government is the best type of government for all people and whether you believe that most people want to rule themselves through a democratic governement. If you do, then you probably agree with bush, if you don't, then you probably have a problem with him."

You said yourself that you don't, on all counts. Thats the only point I was trying to make.

If you are a fan of democracy and think it should be spread, you are probably with bush.

If you don't think democracy is for everyone, you are probably not with bush.

Oh that point.

I never responded to it in anyway, in agreement or not, because this thread doesn't have a definition of democracy.

You might as well have said:

If you are a fan of detrio and you think it should be spread, you are probably with Bush.

If you don't think detrio is for everyone, you are probably not with Bush.

At which point, we could discuss or argue over the definition of the term "detrio".

...And I wonder why it is so hard to talk politics with liberals...

I thought that the consensus of this board was that there is no country that is a pure democracy, and when we talk of democratic states, we mean the ones with an elected legislature and head figure. Mostly we speak in reference to american-style democracy.

Why does everything have to be so gosh-darn complicated?

It's not complicated, well, it is, but that's the way the world is.

I don't like American-style democracy. Nor do I consider it in any way "democracy", so let's call it something else - how about Blindly-supported-corruption-disguised-as-freedom?

I am not a fan of blindly-supported-corruption-disguised-as-freedom and I don't think it should be spread, so I am therefore not with Bush.

You forgot "and so much want democracy, they are willing to give up clean water/have themselves killed/etc in order to get it".

Remember, this is about forcing democracy.

I'm a fan of democracy. I think it should be spread. I suspect that many people would enjoy it's fruits.

I don't think invading nations, blowing up cities, using false evidence, institutionalized torture, and having abysmal reconstruction plans is the best way to do it.

War is neither the only nor the best way to move to democracy. I know the myth of the revolution is in the hearts of Americans, it isn't the only way. You can take those in power in non-democratic societies, and threaten them with death and destruction -- or, you can convince them that democratic capitalism is benefitial to both them as well as to their people.

Leave war as the last resort, not the first.

fair enough. And you still managed to prove my point.

Once I replaced your terminology with mine, yes.

ok. you can get the last word.

no no, it's all you ;)

You speak as if the US left the UN in 1990. What the hell was going on there for 14 years? War planning?

Democratic capitalism is usually NOT the best for those in power in non-democratic countries. That's why it oftem seems it must be forced, there's no other way to get a ruling power to go against its self interest.

And I personally don't believe it's always best for the people, either. If you have some very centralized power, it is much easier to react swiftly to changes in a country. Democracy ensures that people have a say, but usually at the cost of efficiency.

Again, if there isn't a democracy in place the general population is totally at the mercy of the ruling power. If they are benevolent, the people will thrive. But as far as I know, there has never been a benevolent rulership sustained for any meaningful sort of time.

its and it's

Usage Note: Its is the possessive form of the pronoun it and is correctly written without an apostrophe. It should not be confused with the contraction it's (for it is or it has), which should always have an apostrophe

Don't be a spelling/grammar Nazi.

This isn't Fark.

It can be. Democratic capitalism generates a hell of alot of money and wealth.

I'd rather bribe a dictator than blow up the city he is hiding in. Its cost, in terms of lives, wealth and currency, is so much cheaper it isn't funny.

As an example, look at GB's royal family. They are richer now than they where at the height of their pre-constitutional monarchy power.

I don't understand what your statement means. I suspect it may be referring to the first gulf war?

Even a benevolent dictator isn't smart enough to run a society nearly efficiently enough to develop the amount of wealth a democratic capitalist society can.

Unless, of course, the benevolent dictator chooses to run the society as a democratic capitalist one, or some reasonably close approximation thereof.

I don't know of a means of motivating people that works as broadly (on as many people) and as accurately (towards the 'common good') as the profit motive. Both Democracy and Capitalism give people with the lust for power something not completely destructive -- and usually productive -- to do.

There can be alot more wealth generated, but what wealth there is will be more heavily spread out. In most dictatorships, the majority of the wealth is either in the hands of the dictator or his supporters. ANd if enough of the supporters have sufficient wealth, you will usually have more of a oligarchy situation.

And the main reason the royal family can be considered richer is because they are no longer footing the bill for the country, and have become more like an amusement park. If the royals hadn't squandered their wealth on building their army, they probably would have had more pure material wealth.

The dictator wouldn't have to run his country like a democracy, just keep capitalist principles. Make sure that the citizens get enough of the pie to not be too discontent, but not enough to ever challenge your authority. This can be seen in Nazi Germany and somewhat in communist China.

I think you might be linking democracy too closely to capitalism. I'm not saying this ideal non-democracy has ever existed, or even will ever exsist. But it just seems logical that if a government was run by one or a small group of people with absolute authority, they could react more effectively to any problems faced by their nation. The flipside is that if they are wrong on a decision, the consequences could be much worse as well.

well... because EVERYBODY knows that Canadian Democracy is the only right way to do it. :thumbsup:

that's not complicated eh?

No ideal government
 

I'm of the belief that socialism is the ideal form of government, but it is something that human beings cannot succeed at. The people in charge of these communist regimes always end up hording the wealth while everyone else lives "equally". Its's human nature to take advantage of power, and that's why socialism fails. Castro is a man I admire very much for standing up to the US government, but i don't like the fact that he's wealthy. Seriously, practive what you preach! He's extremely rich, but his idealogy insists on everyone living equally? come on. Communism can only thrive on the integrity of those who practice it.
But, we really haven't given communism a fair chance, have we? Afterall, America has been trying to crush communism wherever it springs up since the Russian revolution.
So until coummunism can be used correctly, we're stuck with the immoral capitalist insitution called the United States. Look at where capitalism has us as a society: we have a corporate lacky as a president who is willing to wage unjust war for oil, the mass marketing of sexuality for the purpose of profit, and media brainwash.
Don't get me wrong, I love this country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I'm just frustrated with how may problems need to be addressed.
I'm rambling now. wanna discuss more?

korovadroog@hotmail.com

later

The problem does not lie in the government as much as it lies in those responsible for the government. Socialism could absolutely work, if it wasn't for a few very selfish people. The same can be said of Democracy. It's a shame that selfish people seem to be the most ambitious. Perhapse there is a link between ambition and selfishness....Everyone is either frustrated or blind. That's the way it's always been and I think that's the way it will always be. If you aren't disapointed at your government at all, you need to pay better attention. I don't see anything as much worse now than it was 5 or 10 years ago. Right now we're in a part of the socio-political cycle. We are coming from liberty and headed towards authoritirian. After a time of being under authoritarian rule, we will rebel and return to liberated. Then it'll happen all over again. I hope my daughter get's to see the liberated part, it's wonderful.

if im not mistaken mr putin put his political opposition in jail! thats not right... is it? hes taking away peoples freedom, he tried to rig and election, that is not moral. in democracy the PEOPLE hold the morals not one man. the people dictate what is wrong and right through who we elect.

everyone should have the right to govern themselves and not rely on one person for food water clothing shelter etc.

if im not mistaken hte soviets were fighting us as well, it was called the cold war. why is it always america who did wrong, it gets old.

Why do you admire him for standing up to the US goverment? What has he ever stood up for other than things that benefit himself?

America had really little to do with the USSR until after WWII. And it should be obvious that the only reason that the US tried to "crush communism" was because we were jealous. We saw the utopian state that was soviet Russia and didn't want anyone else to experience those joys :rolleyes: .

I don't understand, is it capitalism that is immoral, or the United States, or both? Are other capitalist countries moral? Or does only true morality spring from communism? We aren't stuck with immoral communist countries like China?

Where's the proof? I thought the "no blood for oil" was 2003 propaganda. Most liberals seemed to realise that there was no direct pipeline of oil from Iraq to the White House, and changed their tune. But I will admit, it was a catchy line while it lasted. I could see how it would be hard to let go of.

What would you consider the "liberated" part? And What is the authoritarian? Is it merely dependant on what party is in charge? Because I personally notice no difference between now and 10 years ago in what is or isn't allowed. I would actually say that because of the growth of different communication mediums (one of which is the internet) there is more allowed and being challenged at this time than most others. That hardly seems to me to be authoritarian.

And on a more abstract note, assuming that this is truly a more authoritarian time, do you believe that authoritarianism has it's place in society?

Think a lot bigger than ten years as far as the cycle. Poltical parties are nice and all, but they don't have any real meaning in the long run. Platforms change. Motives change. The democrats and republicans are entirely different today then they were before the world wars.

The authoritarian/libertarian cycle is one that has continued since human communities evolved from packs. It is not a matter of right and wrong - authoritarian can be right, and libertarian can be wrong, and visa versa - it is simply a matter of political change, political philosophy, and social motives. Like I said before, the real test of a government, and even a society, is when selfish people take power. If they are allowed to stay in power, he society has failed. If they remove the selfish people from power and try to fix the system so as to prevent similar problems in the future, it has evolved.

To address the thread, democracy isn't bad or good. It is simply a tool that can be used as the user sees fit. The problem is that when a system is forced on a people who do not want it, it is not so much the form of government that is detremental, but those who force it. America has 'given' Iraq a democracy so that trade and possible economic and political domination will be much easier.
Absolutely. I am a libertarian right now because those who seek to shift us to authoritatians are doing so for clearly selfish reasons. If someone had the good of all people in mind in moving towards authoritarian rule, then it is fine. Motives play a strong part in how I see people.

Anything that is not based in some sort of democratic principle will tend toward "evil". It's the whole power corrupts thing.

If I erase some words and fill in the blanks, you get a funny result.
BTW, remember the 9/11 terror thing thing. Afterwars, Bush vowed to "defeat terrorism". Since then, he's done nothing except seize more oil and lessen citizen rights, all in the name of fighting terror. Does that trouble you? It troubles me, and it apparently troubles the rest of the world enough to speak up about it.

Just Kidding, guys.

It's stll a good point and something to think about.