Why does America try to force democracy?
 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._pr_wh/bush_10
I just got done reading that article, it's basically about how Russia is willing to work with the US on stopping the production of nuclear arms, but how America is trying to force them into a Democratic political system. I just don't see what is so special about Democracy that makes it this all-knowing system of Govornment... it fails here constantly, so why do we try to push it off on everybody else? I suppose i'm a little slanted, seeing as I consider socialism to be ideal... but it just seems stupid to me not to take help unless it comes from a mirror image of the US. Thoughts?

First, you're operating under the assumption that freedom is an imposition and not all people are capable of it. If you believe that, there's really no argument that can persuade you to think differently

Second, Democratic govts and markets actually improve people's lives.

Thirdly, democracy doesn't necessarily fail here just because your people don't get elected.

I do not think we force democracy or freedom. I think that without a little muscle from the U.S. some peoples would remain oppressed. The people of Iraq for instance had no army to fight Saddam. So what were they supposed to do? Throw some rocks and sharpen some sticks. If liberating people is forcing democracy then I guess we are also being forced into democracy. When you were born on U.S. soil you were not given a choice between governments of your liking. Therefore we have all been “forced” to accept something that was not of our choosing. The Iraqis are different. They COULD have told us to leave the minute we beat the crap out of Saddam. But they did not. So could the Germans and Japanese after WWII. The South Koreans could have done the same and so on and so forth. I just see a bit of a flaw in your logic is all.

You've got me pinned all wrong. I'm just saying - why cant a Democratic govornment work with a Socialst one for common goals... why does Russia have to change (If it doesnt want to) just to be accepted by the US as a functional partner?

Russians cant be/arent happy with their Socialist Govornment? Cubans arent happy with thier govornment? Thats silly. Honestly, I'm all about working with Russia... i just dont think their style of Govornment should have anything to do with the fact that they want to help us come to peaceful terms with Iran and NK over nuclear arms.

Yeah, the Cubans have a great healthcare and education system. World class indeed. Just look at the thousands of people who go to Cuba every year to access their superior health care system and educational institutions.

I apologize for the sarcasm, but people who have never really seen the true face of oppression cannot legitimatly defend such regimes

Well, they might have a fighting chance if it werent for a certain embargo......
But thats besides the point in the argument. Why are you avoiding the Russia thing as soon as I bring up Cuba... Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or is there a point? My basic question is this: Why are we not just working with Russia on the Nuke thing, why do we have to worry about the Democracy thing at this juncture?

America forces democracy for the same reason The U.S.S.R. used to force communism. Two like governments are better matches economically. In America's case, since we are one of the dominate economic powers on the planet, it is easier for us to gain an element of control or influence over another country if they are a democracy. It's actually fairly simple. The results are what's complicated.

Thank you for a sane and logical answer. Exactly what I was looking for.

Probably because we've seen a Russia that has crubed it's freedoms and resorted to a totalitarian regime. We've seen that Russia dominate world events for half a century. We've seen that Russia imprison millions of Eastern Europeans. We've seen that Russian murder and starve millions of people. We've seen that Russia attempt to place nukes 90 miles from our shores.

I think I can speak for millions more who don't want to see that Russia again. Do you?

Russia was moving democratic after the Soviet Collapse, however since Putin has been in office everything they worked for has gone down the shitter. Who is more wrong, us for "forcing" democracy on the Russians, or Putin for forcing a dictatorship on them?

You're implying that any form of Govornment outside of Democracy is inherently evil... nonsense.

No, I'm implying that a Russian government that is authoritarian in nature is evil. We've seen it before.


BTW, is Cuba is such a happy go lucky place, why do scores of peoplefloat into the open waters in an innertube to escape it?

Philosophically in the modern sense it seems to be well agreed that freedom is an inherent right of man, therefore it would seem some form of democracy is best suited. Plus Thinktank I hope you aren't getting the principle of democracy mixed up with the notion of democratic rule mixed up, there is a difference.

NCB, you're failing to understand the bigger picture here. I'm not saying i'm right and that you're wrong, i'm trying to better understand the situation. I'm certainly no expert, and i was under the impression that this website was about LEARNING. I pose these questions to you so that i can better understand, not so that you can belittle me.

Not having read through the entire thread, but forgive my ignorance, hasn't russia been a democracy since '93's constitution?

??? i'm confused. is Democracy and communism mutually exclusive? I thought one was a form of government, and the other a system of economy (one which has been mishandled by despots in the past... as i believe capitalism has also been mishandled by despots in the past - I don't want to bring up Hitler's name ooops I just did...)

They've been taking significant steps backwards in recent years. Various groups put Russia as a 2nd or 3rd rate Democracy these days due to stiffled political freedoms and press freedoms. In the last election Putin controlled over 70% of the media coverage, that's ridiculous considered there were over 7 parties running, the next closest party got something like 10-15% coverage, no other party got above 10. Plus Putin did some pretty hardcore democratic cutbacks in regards to the Beslan massacre, I can't remember off the top of my head what it was he did though, jsut remember people across the world were up in arms.

A little note. Just because a country is socialist does not mean that a country cannot also be a democracy. There are many socialist democracies and the U.S. has good relations with them. Russia is running into trouble, or should I say Vladimir Putin, is running into trouble because he is pulling some old school communist dictatorship bullshit like annexing its largest private Russian oil company for the state.

Communism is the political offshoot of socialism I believe, capitalism has democracy.

for the same reason thousands of Mexicans attempt to cross an inhospitable desert to get into the US: the streets are paved with gold.

I was using another government as an example (as often Americans have trouble looking inwards).
Democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. A political or social unit that has such a government.
Communism: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
-or-
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

I was refering to two governmental systems, democracy and communism, and those governments effects on global economies when they spread their respective forms of government. When Communist Russia (communist government and econemy) tried to "help" other nations to adopt communism, they were attempting to raise the economic compatability of the two nations or groups. When the econemies are intertwined, the larger, stronger econemy (Russia) is able to have an element of control or influence over the smaller econemy, and thus the government of the smaller country. This is also true of any form of government. A dictatorship will usually find trade and relations easier with another dictatorship. A democracy will find trade and relations much easier with a democracy.

We are talking about America and Iraq most recently in this. We heald elections in Iraq, obviously. Did we ask them what kind of government they wanted? Maybe a true democratic decision would have been to allow them to vote on what form of government they want. We made no such attempt. We (America) determined that a democracy was the best thing for them, and they were asked to either go along with it (vote) or they can stay home and not be involved in the process at all. Now that Iraq is becoming a democracy, they will no doubt open up trade with other democracies of the world in order to try and rebuild their destroyed econemy. They need to bring legitimate monies back into the Iraqi financial world. Who will they trade with? I'll bet you $5 that America will be first in line for oil, their most valuable natural resource. We have our soldiers guartding their oil as we speak. We will buy their oil at a negotiable price and they will get some money out of it.

The country that controls the oil spigot controls the world.

I'm not belittling you, thinktank.

You say you're wonderinf why the USA is adamant about Russian democracy and I encapsulated 50 years of cold war history. Thst's essentially why the Admin is disturbed by events in Russia and the scaling back of Russian freedoms.


BTW, remember the schoolhouse terror thing. Afterwards, Putin vowed to "crush the terrorists". Since then, he's done nothing except seize more power and curb civil liberties, all in the name of fighting terror. Does that trouble you? It troubles me, and it apparently troubles the Bush Admin enough to speak up about it.

Strange statement.

Democracy is an old idea that came from Athens in Greece. Citizens vote to determine government policy, with various definitions of 'citizens' and levels of indirection on 'voting'.

Communism was put forward by Karl Marx as the inevidible result of social progress, in which human beings are no longer greedy, and work together towards the common good.

Capitalism is the theory that putting the means of production into the hands of those who produce is a good idea.

Socialism is Robert Owen's idea that cooperation should be the core part of economic philosophy, not competition.

Janey made a post about democracy and communism being mutually exclusive. She half asserted/posed a question that one was a system of economics and the other was a form of government. I was posting that both are forms of government, and under them they usually have their own system of economics being socialism and capitalism respectively.

Ah, gotcha.

Note that Communism isn't the same as Socialism, as far as Marx and Communists are concerned. Socialists are aware of and use incentives. A true marx-Communist society can only exist if the people themselves are 'beyond that'. Marx viewed (a flavour of) Socialism as an intermediate step between Capitalism and Communism.

I would hold that Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are all economic systems.

Democracy, Theocracy, Feudalism, Autocracy are all systems of government.

The term Communist has been used to describe a set of (mostly) Autocratic Socialist states.

I am not aware of a modern democracy that doesn't have at least some socialist leanings, nor capitalist leanings.

Anything that is not based in some sort of democratic principle will tend toward "evil". It's the whole power corrupts thing. After a certain size, you need some centralization for a societal unit to function. If there isn't democratic principles built into that centralization, there is no check on that governments power, or their ability to take advantage of it's populace. America "forces" democracy because it's the only way of knowing that the people have a say in the government. America doesn't want to be known to associate with dictators (at least currently).

Now if you want to argue that people shouldn't have a say in how they are governed, I would agree with that. But unless you take that stance some sort of democracy is the only form of supportable government.

Technically communism is a economic state, and not a form of government. But because communism is based on the government (or society) owning everything and dictating how markets run, it essentially gives that government all economic clout. So with that much power centralized, usually it's hard for people to be able to exercize the power necessary in a democracy. They have nothing to bargain with if they decide to change those in power. It becomes essentially an honor system, so democracy isn't dictated by the people but those in power, hence is not a democracy.

And Hitler actually didn't mishandle capitalism. One of the things that got him and the Nazis in power was their ability to turn around the German economy, which was in shambles after the Treaty of Versailles, and then the American Depression.

Say what you want, no system of government has ever worked as well as Democracy when factoring in quality of life, liberty, and protection of its citizens from oppression.

That's quite a bold claim. Do you have evidence of some kind to support that?

democracy: i wonder what the americans actually know about it? they do not have a functioning democracy.

correlate your illusions about american democracy with this:

http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/...on/000715.html

it is funny that bush likes to talk about democracy when he is the leading expression of a political movement that does everything possible to undermine it.

by the way, like most elements in the lists of political systems above, i do not know where this statement comes from:

but it seems more than a little--o whats the word--counter-intuitive given that the entire system is predicated on a seperation of ownership of the means of production from those who engage in the activites related to production. but maybe, somewhere, some capitalist ideologue did make such a statement--in the degenerate political climate particular to bushworld, such a person would immediate be labelled a comm-u-nist.

the idea that you can seperate economic and politics systems is incoherent. everything about a given economic order is the result of politics.
the modality of political activity might (and often is) shaped by economic ideologies (ideological assumptions about what the economy is, for example) and activity----but it does not follow from that that there is a hard division between politics and economics split--from a historical perspective, no-one in their right mind would argue there is. except maybe one or two residual stalinists---and other intellectual curiousities----american neoconservatives for example (who seem little concerned with questions of coherence or accuracy--power is all that matters)---or people whose jobs it is to rehearse the outlines of neoliberal ideology in its crudest form and who generally work in economics departments or students who not only take but actually believe econ 101....i suppose the list could go on....

Whoever said socialism is non-democratic doesn't seem to grasp the concept of democracy. Socialism most certainly is democratic, if the people who form that democracy so desire. This should be obvious.

Capitalism and socialism are entirely distinct elements from democracy. Communism is not the opposite of democracy, that would be authoritarianism. It is not difficult to have a capitalist authoritarian political system, in fact since 9/11 you're seeing it here in the States more and more (not that the States have ever been anywhere close to a democracy).

Why does America try to force democracy? Well, I certainly wouldn't agree that they are. The term "democracy" is assuredly used, but only as a marketing term. What is being forced is conformity. So, if the question is: why does America try to force conformity? The answer I would suggest is that conformity is necessary for control.

The same thing happens in the US as well, yet it doesn't seem to matter as much here. The only difference is that instead of just one person getting all the coverage it's two people.

Remember that 9-11 thing? Afterwards, Bush vowed to "crush the terrorists." Since then he's done nothing except seize more power and curb civil liberties, all in the name of fighting terror. Does that trouble you? It troubles me.

This is an important point. Democracy tends to cover a wide range of political and economic belief under one umbrella. Other forms of government tend to be much more strict or traditional.

I also believe that under a democratic system people tend to *feel* more free. That they have more freedom individually, and are not a "slave" of sorts to the state. Of course this does varry depending on the state/country, but in general it does hold true.

As to why the US feels the need to force democracy on other nations, i have no idea. In the case of Iraq (or any invasion in which the government is removed) it is understadable. When you completely remove a government the only way for any new government to have any legitimacy what-so-ever is for the people of that nation to come together and hammer it out. That process requires basic democracy, atleast primarily. The government that arises from that process is a different story. Iraq will most likely end up being a form of Constitutional Republic, similar to the US but with more blatant Theocratic leanings.

As for Russia, i believe we are trying to nudge them back toward a "better" form of government. The US had made a hell of a lot of progress, after a very long struggle, and don't like to see that progress get stomped out. After all, we put a lot of effort into the cold war and the fall of the USSR, and don't want to lose the battle after we've already won it. Putin claims that he wants a form of democracy that is more in line with the history of Russia, unfortunately that history was a rather brutal one and many people don't want to see Russia slip back toward that direction.

"the modality of political activity might (and often is) shaped by economic ideologies (ideological assumptions about what the economy is, for example) and activity----but it does not follow from that that there is a hard division between politics and economics split--from a historical perspective, no-one in their right mind would argue there is. except maybe one or two residual stalinists---and other intellectual curiousities----american neoconservatives for example (who seem little concerned with questions of coherence or accuracy--power is all that matters)---or people whose jobs it is to rehearse the outlines of neoliberal ideology in its crudest form and who generally work in economics departments or students who not only take but actually believe econ 101....i suppose the list could go on...."

someone please tell me im not the only one that doesn't understand a word of this...

I remember you saying roachboy, you had no desire to comprimise, your purpose was to "defeat the right." If this is your goal, you really need to start speaking english. Your not doing yourself any favors.

matthew330, it is worded quite awkwardly, but I understand what he is trying to say.

Didn't Saddam hold elections too? Does that make it a democracy? HOw about Zimbabwe?

Anyways, I don't think Bush was necessarily trying to "force democracy" down Rasputin, I mean Putin's throat per se. I think he's sort of reminding him that Russia is (or was, supposed to be) a democracy in light of recent moves by Putin.

To answer your question in simple terms, refer to Woodrow Wilson and World War I. "we must protect democracy". Bushy and his friends feel that in order to ensure american security, they will spread peace via democracy.

Exactly what additional power has he seized and what civil liberties have US citizens lost. No abstract bullshit, real cases please

A few things to add...

1 thru 3) Ditto, ditto, and ditto, what ObieX said.

4) I'm surprised no one brought this up, but after the breakup of the communist USSR, the people adopted a deomcracy. No one... well not too many people, freaked out and were like "crap, it's democracy!" Most of those that did freak out didn't freak out for long. Not to mention that the people of Russia could have easily voted in a dictatorial governement by simply electing candidates who were in favor of reverting to that system (and those candidates definitely existed). Being that the Russian people chose to accept democracy, I feel Bush is right in asserting Putin's actual position to him, as he is having strong dictatorial tendencies. Putin should not be allowed to become a dictator unless the people legitamately choose him as such.

matthew--sorry you didnt get it.

there is sometimes a problem in trying to talk on a general level in a message board.
earlier in the thread, yakk posted a series of general propositions about various political systems and their relations to what was taken to be a list of economic regimes.
the list was really quite odd, and was certainly not anything that could or should be defended on either conceptual or historical grounds.
i could have chosen any number of points to go after, but this seemed the simplest.


i figured that you or others who occupy roughly your political position here could use the attitude i outlined toward the right in a single post in a thread some months ago as a way to dismiss whatever i say when you dont like it--go for it, friend--it really makes no difference to me---it seems like a thinly veiled ad hominem---which is the usual recourse for conservatives who (here as elsewhere) have nothing of substance to say.

the thread is starting to move away from its here is very strange intitial premises of debate. for example:

that democratic socialism can be opposed to democracy is simply nuts. i dont know anyone, anywhere (outside the planet limbaugh) who has actually looked at democratic socialism in any way who could possible maintain this position.
it not even worth laughing at.

what this argument from the planet limbaugh does reveal, however, is how far these folk are willing to go in their opposition to any redistribution of wealth---the right is willing to ridicule the very ideas of social justice, of economic justice, etc as correlates of their hatred of the redistribution of wealth (and along with that of the functionality of captialism--they prefer fictions like horatio alger stories, which they treat as documentaries).---democratic socialism has problems, but the one thing that you can say in its favor regardless is that it is a way of interacting with capitalism that takes those ideas seriously and tries to implement relations between capital and the rest of us built around them.

how dare anyone try to limit the absolute prvileges of the holders of capital, particularly in the interests of something as trivial as social stability?


that soviet-style "communism" can be opposed to capitalism is questionable--how you see it depends upon what you take as your point of departure--if you look at relations of production (how things were organized in actual production), it looked much more like a mutation of capitalism in terms of ownership that resulted in a system of production with all the worst features of capitalism fully intact, and even the minimal the brakes on exploitation capitalism provides at the structural level (that you can leave your job) removed...but i am sure that in a context where arguments like the above about democratic socialism are somehow operational that these questions will not even register.

another, even more obvious point:
you cannot say that "marx invented socialism"--unless of course you know nothing about the history you are talking about, in which case you can say what you want, and it can be understood as fantasy.
you cannot say that stalinism was the necessary result of marx's work or of a politics based on that work. this too is historically wrong, etc.

what is really funny is that you also hear conservative pundits equating actual democracy with socialism. the right is really not interested in anything resembling democratic debate, is not interested at all in ceding power to people in anything like a meaningful way.

manx is right: the present american regime uses democracy as a marketing category. democracy is to america as jiffy is to peanut butter--a brand name that indicates a general attitude, a way of patterning consumer demand. in bushworld in particular, the term democracy tells you no more about the nature of the american system in either its domestic or colonial variants than jiffy tells you about the nature of peanut butter.

Roach, please explain what you mean here. "rehearse the outlines of neoliberal ideology in its crudest form"

Try to speak in plain english for us lay people who don't have time to decipher your encripted statements.

Whats that mean: "students who not only take, but actually believe econ 101?"

Are you saying you don't believe in supply & demand or the production possibilities fronier? There's not much more to econ 101 than that.

For those of you that think cuba is just fine and it is only because of the US embargo that puts them in a bad spot, talk to my grandmother and her brothers and sisters as to why they fled cuba right before castro and after came to power. Why did they leave their homeland for the United States, Canada, and Germany? Was it neocon propaganda that caused their emmigration?

Because we think we are the end all of all governments. Are government works for us because that is the way it worked out. It isn't going to work for every country, because every country has different values, and that is what shapes a culture to what they are today. Unless your N. Korea, then you just got screwed.

How many American's left or started planning to leave the US on Nov. 3rd?

I wouldn't suggest that Cuba is fine, but there is little reason not to suspect that almost the entirety of their troubles are due to the US embargo. I'd certainly prefer an election process in Cuba, but elections are not the greatest thing since sliced bread - just look how absurd and abstract the elections are here in the States.

1.
econ 101 (macro and micro economics) is the systematization of the elementary features of market ideology.
it refers to that ideology for its justification, its content and its form
it does not, and cannot refer to economic activity as it unfolds in the social world.

"reality" is excluded a priori.

however, because these ideological exercizes are elaborated in quasi-mathematical language, they are understood as being more serious or descriptive than they are.

among the assumptions that leak from this space (fiction with equations) are:
the notion of the rational economic actor.
the notion of self-regulating markets
the coherence of the idea of supply and demand as descriptive of anything that operates in actually existing capitalism.
the notion of state intervention in economic activity as a distortion.

1a.

further explanation:

there is a very big, very well-known business school that is part of the university where i teach
the business school exerts a drag across how the economics department (which is part of another college) operates.

i get alot of students who have passed or are passing through this system.
i find that many of them forget that the elementary levels of economics as they encounter it is a series of models that refers to the wider economic ideology as its frame of reference, not to the social or the historical.

one result is that they try to use the categories they encounter through these modelling exercizes to group information, posit causal relations, situate actors, explain motivations, analyze the social or historical situation, etc.
they actually beleive that the models function analytically in the world.
that is what i referred to.

2.

on the language i use:

sometimes i have to revert to a more abstract language if i am trying to make a general point.


my choices:

either i write in these spaces in ways that more or less corresponds to how i think about these things

or i dont write here at all because some folk have trouble with the abstract stylistic choices i make, which follow from writing in a way that correlates to how i think.

i debate this from time to time as i sit here for longer than i should engaging in arguments that seem to run at about a 50/50 rate in terms of pointlessness.

it's funny, though:
i dont see many folk complaining about the problems that are entailed with writing in "common sense" terms, no matter how problematic the political claims that are explicitly made, and no matter how noxious the assumptions that inform them.

why is it that it is almost inevitably conservatives who complain about how i write?
what is the linkage between intellectual laziness and being on the right?

this is not to say that what i post is always totally clear--message boards seem to require a compression of thinking and encourage a speed in writing because they lure you into acting as though you are talking in a bar--even as, from time to time, you get seemingly arbitrary demands for standards of evidence that run counter to this model.

i just find it funny that it is always conservatives who complain.

I see what you're saying now, even if I disagree.

Its probably only the conservatives that complain, because they're the ones that disagree with you. Why would someone that agrees with what you are saying complain about the way you say it? Hell, half the people that read your posts, whether left or right, probably can't understand more than half of what you are trying to say anyways.

If you're having trouble with roachboy's posts, they built a website for you:

http://www.dictionary.com/

Sometimes, I do not initially comprehend some of his posts, but I take the time to read it a couple times and his opinions become clear. If you don't want to spend a couple extra moments trying to comprehend his post, you should ignore it entirely - otherwise we get discussions like this, which are critical of people with a larger vocabulary. And there's nothing defensible about that.

Burn.

Most of the time roach's opinions arent worth the extra time it takes to figure them out.

Manx.....I will hope that the above was not intended to insult the intellect of another member.

If it was.....Edit it
If it wasn't.....Dont get pissed Stevo

stevo - Before you can make such a declaration (which was probably done only to get chastised by a Mod), you'll have to demonstrate to us that you can even understand one of his posts.

Ignorance is bliss.

edit: tecoyah - My post was not intended to insult anyone. The simple fact is that roachboy has a vocabulary that is beyond average.

Dont worry tec. Its friday and I'm in a good mood. When I saw that I actually thought it was funny.

The great thing about message boards is you can ignore people when you want to.

And I don't have to demonstrate anything to you manx. Roach and I have had discussions in the past, I think he knows if I understand what he is saying, and if I don't, I ask him to clarify.

Just because one uses large words does not necessarily make them any smarter, it only means they've invested more resources into building thier vocabulary. While others, may decide to invest more in somthing like math, computer science, or economics, than history or english. Why use a big word when a small one will suffice?

But we should end this here for now, so that the thread can get back on track. unless...

Okay....Both of you.....either this stops now....or this thread does



Your Call

i run into this from time to time.
in itself it is not a big deal--i write something that i am thinking out as i write and it reads more like how i think.
it is not always easy to thread between a more academic mode and a more public one.
things can fall to either side of it.

the ambivalence about posting is a longer-term thing--nothing in particular about it at stake here beyond a kind of reinforcement of the ambivalence.

just so you know.

but thanks, manx.
and stevo: i assumed what you said in no. 47 was the case, so no worries about how far the response ran with me at least.

Thats what I figured

I never meant to imply that a larger vocabulary makes you smarter. But if you want to understand roachboy's posts, you're going to have to deal with a larger vocabulary than most people have. That's just the way it is.

As to the purpose of using bigger words - that is obvious, having a larger vocabulary enables you to convey more meaning. A group of basic words do not have nearly the detail of meaning as a group of more complex words. This goes directly to roachboys comment, to which I emphatically agree, that message boards are even more difficult mediums to convey meaning than a conversation or an essay.

tecoyah - There is no problem here.

*cricketts chirping*

Did someone place a carbomb under this thread, 'cause I came back and it seemingly exploded. There are little tiny pieces of it on the ground, but not much is left.

it seems that when you run into basic questions of political philosophy (how to generate typologies) and you try to address those questions, things can blow up.
it is better, apparently, if your categories are derived from the dominant frame of reference--which is itself the result of political actions--largely motored by the right

(if you control the frame of reference you control people's worlds---definitions of the types at play in a debate are one result of that control)

as for the car bomb metaphor: maybe yes, maybe no.

before this gets locked over semantics, just thought i'd add that the russian communists have protested putin's moves toward a putinocracy.

Russian Liberals, Communists Protest Putin’s Crackdown on Democracy

besides the purported benefits to the respective countries, we're trying to get this to work in certain places (iraq, russia) so it will be easier to change other difficult areas in the future. i'm sure we'd be happier (and less worried from a strategic standpoint) with a democratic china, but i'm not sure if/how we can facilitate this change right now.

as it has been said, a democracy is compatible with our economic system. and it would seem that democratic allies are more likely to "agree to disagree" than actually use military force against one another.

it remains to be seen if this can work in the middle east and beyond...

you have to be pretty bloody naieve to characterize problems with the basic terms you use to understand the world as "semantics" in way that that implies definitions do not matter

for example: "democracy"--which the americans do not have--is "compatable" with "our economic system"--the statement means nothing. a prime example of the pseudo-analysis that floats out from the right---pseudo-analysis that it is not about understanding, but rather about cheerleading---as if the current order is so fragile that only an endless, limitless circle jerk can maintain a sense of plausibility.

maybe it is.

either way, i am tired of this.

I'm curious roach -- who no capitalization? I know of a few reasons why people don't capitalize, just wondering why you do it.

For the actual question: I have read a rather cute essay that claims that the Americaism philosophy believes that their brand of society is the only true brand, and every other form is evil to greater or lesser extents. In effect, Americanism is the ideological descendant of Manifest Destiny and Puritanism.

[quote="roachboy"]but it seems more than a little--o whats the word--counter-intuitive given that the entire system is predicated on a seperation of ownership of the means of production from those who engage in the activites related to production. but maybe, somewhere, some capitalist ideologue did make such a statement--in the degenerate political climate particular to bushworld, such a person would immediate be labelled a comm-u-nist.

The "in the hands of those who produce" was ... rather ambiguous. "In the hands of those who cause production" might be better. In theory, capitalism allocates capital to people who are good at generating capital and (relatively) stingy at consuming. Those who are productive (either with their capital, or with their labour) gain wealth, which can be either consumed or used to generate more wealth.

I spoke about marx and communism -- I was under the belief that he invented the philosophical basis for communism (as opposed to socialism). I was aiming for the theoretical ideals behind each concept.

I would actually claim that capitalism and democracy are not all that compatable.

Capitalism allocates decision making power by how well you produce and hoard capital.

Democracy allocates decision making power by 1 unit per vote, with a usually pretty good coorelation between people and votes (note: the US senate doesn't have this).

edit: added attribution to trickyy

it seems that discussing the usage of words can be called semantics. but i guess i should have left that alone, even as a joke.

perhaps i'm using the term "democracy" too loosely. [EDIT: actually webster says i'm fine] what i actually mean, but don't feel like saying every time, is an American/European style of leadership (more similarities than differences here). given that the idea of other countries conforming to this general model has been called "democracy" in various media for a while, it seems that the term would be understood in the context of this discussion as well. should i call this the occidental-style gov't, or is there a better term out there?

regarding the question of the thread, i gave a two minute summary of my interpretation of our actions...basically economic and (militarily) strategic reasons. if our similarites with european and japanese gov'ts is not the reason for strong/flexible trade relations, and certain powerful countries should not be, based upon their systems of gov't, primary concerns of our intelligence community, enlighten me.

EDIT: and since my last post was unclear, i did not mean to imply that the ideas of democracy and captialism, or whatever you want to call these terms, are somehow mystically linked. i meant that instituting democratic gov'ts -elsewhere- makes it easier for us to do business -elsewhere-.

Definitions of words is clearly important to ensure that there is some collective foundation to a discussion.

Democracy, as it is frequently used, is entirely divergent from the dictionary definition of the term. If you ask yourself if you even wanted the dictionary definition of democracy, you would probably say no. The dictionary definition of the term is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. Modern, Western, "democracies" are not democracies at all, they are republics. One of the primary intentions, ostensibly anyway, of these modern republics is to protect the minorities from the majority.

Which goes back to my point that the use of the term democracy, particularly as applied to U.S. foreign policy, is nothing more than a marketing term. Historically (and by that I mean all of the past 60 years), the US has not worked to create (force) American/European styles of leadership. Rather the US has demonstrably worked to create (force) styles of leadership that are beneficial to US interests (conforming to the will of the US). Repackaging that as "democracy" doesn't change the reality of it into an American/European style of leadership (as if that were some form of ideal to begin with).

Personally, I live in a constitutional monarchy, not a republic.

I would assume that it's the same between ideological impracticality, intellectual arrogance and being on the left.

I'm curious what your point is here. Are you saying that your statement is as ridiculous as Roach's? Or are you saying that both are true?

I'm skeptical that you mean the first, because you could have said:

Or you could have compared it to something else. You chose things that I think many would agree with. Hell, I agree with those choices some of the time.

That leaves the second choice. Given "ideological impracticality" and "intellectual laziness", my choice is clear, and I know who I want on my team. How many things in this world were once deemed "impractical"? Just about everything?

As far as intellectual arrogance, there seems to be plenty to go around. That is an old charge from the 'right', but that seems to float everyone's boat these days.

There is a third option, of course. That being you disagree with Roach's assessment, but think yours is valid. But I'd like to think no one is THAT arrogant.

But maybe that's just impractical of me.

I think both statements are fairly ridiculous when trying to have a true discussion. I chose two things that (as you pointed out) are usually associated with the left point of view. I could just as easily show where many liberals are intellectually lazy, or right wingers impractical. I think making such assumptions does not lead to any fruitful discourse. It is easy to dismiss a differing viewpoint just because it differs from your own, and then validate your dismissal by believing a stereotype about any who hold opposite opinions.

And FYI, I AM that arrogant ;) .

Manx that was cute. Dictionary.com, i'm adding that to my favorites right now. Just so my motives aren't questioned, roachboy's posts are worthwhile chores. 90% of them i have to read 10 times to make sense of them. He does phrase things oddly. The post i commented on i read multiple times. I'm not an idiot, i couldn't make sense of it. If you are the bridge of intellectualism between he and i, feel free to translate. If the point your trying to make, your unable to convey to a relatively bright fellow, you probably don't have one and i'm calling bullshit...bullshit disguised in pseudo-intellectualism. And wouldn't you know, this i s a prime example...

"Definitions of words is clearly important to ensure that there is some collective foundation to a discussion."

What the heck are you trying to say.....words mean things? is that all. By the way, it would be "Definitions of words ARE clearly important". You wrote 17 words to make a point that could have been said in three. "Collective foundation to a discussion"???

Yes words means things, i agree. So does articulation. Work on it. Your argument, if you indeed have one, would travel just a bit further.

mishandled in the sense that the there was little democracy evident in his tenure as the boss...

Threadjacking (don't bother looking it up) seems to be a sign of forementioned arrogance.

This discussion is simply about America forcing democracy. While this clearly makes for a very open and wide range of discussion, this does not include all topics of discussion. In order to show respect to the thread starter for giving you something to discuss, we should strive to keep the "spirit" of thge thread in every post. That being said...

America does have vested interest in countries we have interfered with in a governmental manner. When we had to rebuild Iraq, we need some way to justify the war financially (for the investors, i.e. the federal government) and ethically (to everyone who cares that so many people dies in the war). The showing of how we 'liberated' the people is the show for the peopel who care, the oil and strategic military location are the justification for the $200 billion we had to put into this. The democracy we are establishing there is important for borth groups.

On the one hand, we have those who were outraged by the war. They (we) knew that the reasons for going to war were feeble at best, and were almost certianally covering for the true motives. The WMD search being called off and the links to 9/11 spoke in volumes for this group, who is now more sure than ever that this was wrong. So how do you make these people happy? We show that we are truely giving the people of Iraq freedom, the right that the people of this group hold so dearly. The powers that be are hoping that this will act as at least one positive among the negative. The hope that these people can enjoy a freedom that perhaps they have never known is quite relavent.

On the other hand, we have an organization that has a considerable investment in Iraq. As I said before, and we all know, the U.S.A. will probably spend in excess of $200 billion on the war and reconstruction when all is said and done. What return can we expect for this investment? We have the second largest oil source (as I recall, feel free to correct me) almost at our beck and call. We will almost certinally be first in line for the Iraqi oil that we have earned with blood and money. This oil source is also a hair's breath away from the largest oil source on Earth, Iran. As we now have military bases in Afghanistan and building in Iraq, we will be more than ready for the staging of more military might to show the Iranian royal family that we are certinally in control. Watch the news and you'll no doubt see that America and several other countries are worried about the Iranian nuclear weapons problem (in the same fashion that we were once forried about the Iraqi WMD problem, mind you). What would America be like with control over the first and second largest oil sources in the world? All powerful.

"The power that controls the oil spigot, controls the world."

This is why I think America forces democracy. It makes it much easier to control it's colonies. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Easy - The Patriot Act allows Federal Agents to institue a conspiracy charge to a case, meaning they bypass any need to show evidence or legal cause to lock somebody up and keep them from speaking to an attorney. Ashcroft put over 1000 people in jail, many of them US citizens, and was not able to get even 1 conviction. Some of those people sat behind bars, not even allowed to see family, for over a year. Bush has siezed power and money from the state and local governments and rolled it up to the Federal level (Constitutional ammendmants to overide State Laws??) to the point that he has become the most flagrant Democrat of the modern era. But this again is off topic...

The US has actually had a pretty bad track record of encouraging democracy to other countries. I would argue it is much easier for us to deal with a dictator who we can keep on our payroll, than trying to win over the hungry masses of said country. For example, we installed the Shah in Iran, we gave Saddam the money and weapons to destroy his political opponents and take rule of Iraq, we funded the Taliban and gave them the weapons to organize an army to fight Russia, and Saudi Arabia uses our guns to silence any democratic revolutionaries that pop up in that US supported kingdom.

Putin was a KGB leader who saw his country fall to pieces under Yeltsin. When Putin was elected into power, people were hungry and homeless in what had been only 10 years earlier a proud, powerful country. Putin is scary because he is effective, determined, and grew up thinking of us as the enemy. We are preaching "democracy" because we need other leaders in Russia to step up and take some of his power away. He has too much influence in the Middle East and is gaining more credibility in world politics every day.

Lastly, for all of the "capitalists" out there arguing against the evils of socialism - obviously the US has never subscribed to a capitalist ideal or free market goals. We institute trade embargos and tariffs around the world, we bail out airlines and subsidize farmers, and we give NO BID contracts to companies our buddies run while refusing to do any business with a company headquartered in France and think it's clever. You are a socialist - live with it, comrade.

yakk: on the non-use of caps
i dont like them aesthetically--i dont like how they look--they dont do anything (like change pronunciation)--so i don't use them when i don't have to.
that and i think i use no caps to split one type of voice off from another--so if i post here in this mode, i do it in a particular style--if i use more formal conventions, i find it all too easy to slip into a more formal/academic voice. in which i am much more careful--which means that things take even longer to set up and argue.


==============


as for the question of definitions in general that has been circulating through here of late:
if you read the review i posted earlier--which refers to a book by a linguist (lakoff) about the nature and effects of conservative strategies at the level of frame of reference/discourse control, you should be able to see why i come at the question of definitions the way i do here:

if you control the categories, you control how people can organize their thoughts about the worls around them
because you control the general terms that folk use to organize information
so if you drain all content from the term democracy
or if you insist that democratic socialism=stalinism=fascism=evil
you are working to undermine informed, coherent debate
or at least to make the terms of debate track along a particular ideological logic

with the result that debates tend to turn in little, self-immolating circles within the general fram of right ideology without being able to step outside that ideology

there is nothing that runs more counter to any illusion of democracy than a concerted campaign to monopoloize the frame of reference within which it can function.
this is not about debate: it is about population management, opinion management
as a political actor under this scenario, you do not have any power: you are a problem to be managed
whence the suggestions that bushworld can be characterized as a soft totalitarian system: totalitarian in its aspirations to control meanings and thereby to control political life: soft in its reliance on manipulation of discourse rather than on direct physical coercion. at least so far.

it is curious still to see debates about types of political systems get caught in the strange loops provided by right ideology.
the chaos in this thread follows in part from this--and as an index of how things go when a challenge is presented to the definitions that shape these loops.

conservatives here are true to form: they shift straight into ad hominem rather than actually defend their arguments and the terms that underpin them.

such is the dominant mode of non-debate in bushland: when challenged, try to act as though nothing has happened and ridicule the message. as if that can be passed off as logic.

well, in the narrow confines of bushworld, maybe that is what passes for logic.

but what it does not, and cannot, pass for is anything like democratic process.

Where's tecoyah when you need him?

OK....I was going to leave this alone, as it is a relatively well vieled insult.

We all know as well that this is by far the most heated part of Tilted Forum Project, and thus must be Heavily Moderated to maintain the community we all care about.The line I refer to in here is a fine one....and some of you are quite skilled at walking it , without crossing over. In my opinion this is an excellent example of intellectual prowess, and CAN be useful in debate.

That said, I am asking everyone to think carefully about what we post in here, and work a bit harder to respect each other. On the flip side of this request is a Plea for everyone to grow a bit thicker hide, and realize where you are.....this IS after all, the politics forum.

So you're telling me that you cannot distinguish any difference, other than number of words, between these two sentences:

"Words mean things"

"Definitions of words are clearly important to ensure that there is some collective foundation to a discussion"

Is that what you're telling me? Do you honestly not see a significant difference in meaning or were you simply hoping to be snide without having a valid point?

I'll pretend you are honestly incapable of seeing the obvious difference, and point it out to you:

Communication is a function of pattern recognition. Letters grouped to form words grouped to form sentences grouped to form opinions are contingent on compatible pattern recognition from all the parties involved in the communication. We are all using the same letters, those belonging to the English language. So we must ensure that the words we are forming with those letters are understood to mean something as specific as possible across each and every participant. Otherwise, the sentences become long strings of divergent meaning and the opinions become garbled messes of endlessly questioned and never understood sentences. We have a foundation of letters that are all agreeable, so we are able to form words that are recognized as words by all participants. The next step is to ensure that the definitions of the words that are used are, as close as possible, agreeable. Without that foundation of agreeably defined words, sentences are meaningless and opinions are pointless.

Now, I tried to shorten that down to 17 words for you, but it was clearly too concise. You suggested it could have been shortened to 3 words, but I don't see how. Maybe I could have shortened it to a single letter? How about "X". Perfection in articulation.

America "forces" democracy on other countries to promote its own self (not selfish, although by reading this thread not many would agree) interests. Some sort of democracy clearly favors American interests. Values, economics, and political structure as well as stability all play a part. It may be only my opinion that democracy affords the greatest number of people the greatest amount of freedom.


But asking " Why does america Force democracy on other countries?" seems like loading the question. The same as simply stating "America forces democracy on other countries. Why does it do that? " Though you haven't established the premise.

I read the article and I don't get "forcing democracy" from it. Encouraging...yes....Differences in approach?....surely. Were you truly wondering why? or did you already believe so and were attempting to justify that belief?

Either way you might consider these questions....I do constantly..

Why wouldn't The United States encourage the spread of democracy?
What peoples willingly submitted to communism?
Socialism and Democracy are ultimately about capitalism, Isn't the debate about who controls the capital?....

nofnway - It would be interesting to hear your definition of "forcing" vs. "encouraging". I would imagine once you point a gun at them surely you still don't refer to it as encouraging?

My question is: what makes you think America does not force democracy? What, for you, makes this a case of "encouragement" instead of forcing?

In his recent speech before the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush pledged that the United States would embark on a decades-long commitment to bring democracy to the Middle East. He did not say we'd ask them if they want a democracy, or encourage a democracy. He is commited to bring democracy to them. The problem is that the Middle East lacks the conditions, such as a democratic political history, high standards of living, and high literacy rates, which stimulated democratic change in, for example, central Europe and East Asia. The belief that the United States can accelerate this process is based on the same fatal conceit that brought down the Soviet empire: namely, that governments, and especially foreign governments, can realistically dictate noble ends. Ronald Reagan understood this as well as anyone. President Bush's speech deliberately drew comparisons to President Reagan's June 1982 speech, in which Reagan predicted the imminent demise of Soviet communism because it failed to respect individual rights and to reward individual creativity. And we all know of Reagan's mistrust of government. Revealingly, the United States spent hundreds of millions of dollars on democracy programs in the Middle East during the 1990s with no noticeable impact. Instead, as the president declared, the success of freedom rests upon the willingness of free peoples to sacrifice. But the people of the Middle East, not the people of the United States, must make these sacrifices. Indeed, heavy-handed attempts to force democracy upon the region by military conquest will ultimately prove counter-productive toward those ends, as the events in Iraq are showing us every day. Global terrorism is UP since 9/11. Global terrorism is UP since the so-called victory over Iraq. This is the problem with the democracy we have been trying to plant. Osama would not have attacked had we not interfered with the Middle East. What he did was wrong, of course, but remember that it was not simply some "anti-american attack with no rhyme or reason". Sorry, I'm getting off subject.

Who's idea was it to spread democracy in the Middle East? Who invaded Iraq (based on lies) in order to remove the authoritarian government? Who is spending $200 billion+ to rebuild Iraq? Who uses the most oil? Who's been trying to spread democracy since the end of WW2? All signs point to "forced" instead of "encouraged".


(Thanks to Patrick Basham and Christopher Preble for some good ideas for this post, credit where due).

"Communication is a function of pattern recognition. Letters grouped to form words grouped to form sentences grouped to form opinions are contingent on compatible pattern recognition from all the parties involved in the communication. We are all using the same letters, those belonging to the English language. So we must ensure that the words we are forming with those letters are understood to mean something as specific as possible across each and every participant. Otherwise, the sentences become long strings of divergent meaning and the opinions become garbled messes of endlessly questioned and never understood sentences. We have a foundation of letters that are all agreeable, so we are able to form words that are recognized as words by all participants. The next step is to ensure that the definitions of the words that are used are, as close as possible, agreeable. Without that foundation of agreeably defined words, sentences are meaningless and opinions are pointless"

ahh, i see. ....so...letters mean things?

Are you trying to get banned? That was simply rude and insulting. Please, this discussion is about America and the spread of democracy. I implore you, let's keep this civil. This communitry is based on respect.

Do you have a response to anyone's thoughts on the subject?

it wasn't funny, not even a little bit?

wow, i was rude AND insulting......hell, at least i did both in three words. BTW..how was Manx's not? Please, you want this discussion to stay about America and the spread of democracy, quit provoking me, unless of course your trying to get me banned. Which couldn't be the case, because this community is all about respect right?

It just hit me: many people who's opinions, based on their posts on this board, would be identified as liberal/democrat are now trying to make arguements AGAINST democracy. The very people who dislike Bush because of his supposed undemocratic policies. Isn't he always compared to Hitler/Mussollini/facism in general? Do liberals/dems hate Bush so much that no matter what he supports, they immediately have to take the opposite side? He has also came out against AIDS, what's next, a thread supporting HIV? And now when he states his support for democratic principles, and tries (not even overtly in the case of Russia) to help ensure that people across the world will be able to choose their government, you instantly have to take the other side. Has hatred of Bush blinded people to any objective thought whatsoever?

I think many people are afraid that Bush's sudden interest in Russia and the Democratic Process over there seems a thinly vailed excuse to go over and break off the diplomatic talks Russia has been leading with Iran. Fans of democracy see it cheapening the ideal when it gets used like a Trojan Horse.

That's a fair enough argument, but that's not what's being put forth in the thread. In the thread, people aren't saying Bush is using democratic principles for political leverage, they are arguing against democracy.

Yeah, the general idea being that the US wants to establish "colonies", especially in the Middle East which I don't agree with. To many people get involved as you push down to local gov't levels and you loose any meaningful control. We are forced to move forward in Iraq if for no other reason than to salvage our moral high ground in the eyes of the world.

My opinion is that historically we have preferred autocratic rule to do our bidding in the middle east. Poor country, single ruler with ego and the want of weapons. We can stock his military for him and in return we have indirect clout to help ensure our share of oil. Until they inevitably get tired of infidels holding purse strings over them.

If nothing else I have to give the Saudi's credit where it is due. They know you leave the dance with the one ya came! 30 years later and we still act like newlyweds!

I would have said people are against forcing democracy. The idea would be that the ends do not justify the means. If Bush is forcing democracy, than that is a bad thing.

Democracy is a good thing, and I would be thrilled to see it spread the world over. But getting into this war with a bad premise, no plan, and great PR throughout doesn't fill me with confidence.

Intentions matter.


And for you to read that people are argueing AGAINST democracy is proof indeed that words don't mean the same thing to different peopole. That conclusion is just wrong, and if it were pointed at me (which I don't think it is) I would be sincerely insulted.

I've been called unpatriotic enough times since the start of this war not to take offense at related thoughts.

and please: no one can get you banned. our own behavior either does that or doesn't. no one is to blame but ourselves for what we each write.

I was provoking you to stay on subject, as opposed to you who are prevoking a fight. If you get banned, it will be no one's fault but your own.

America isn't a democracy, so it's moot. "We" are against people using the government towards selfish ends. We are against killing of innocent people, and the needless endangerment of our friends and family who choose to serve our country in the armed forces. The mistake is automaticlly asuming that democracy is the right government for Iraq right now. In 50 years, it may be perfect for them, but we simply don't know. All I know is that America decided that Iraq would be a democracy.

Bush is anti-abortion, and I agree with him whole heartedly on that. Therefore, I do not automatically take the opposite side.

I think that a true democracy can work really well. Canada is doing alright.

If America isn't a "true democracy", then neither is Canada. Both would be termed republics, more accurately. But the thread is about 'forcing democracy" not forcing republics. In common usage, democracy is usually used to term any government where the people have a say in either who represents them or what laws are put into place. In that sense, both America and Canada are democracies.

And I really don't understand people saying that X country isn't ready for democracy. Are people in Iraq not smart enough to rule themselves? Or does the Iraqi disposition somehow lead itself to domination? Again, people are essentially saying that it's not always best for a country to have self-rule.

Inteligence is only one factor in the developmental process of a country. With America and Canada, we have countries that revolted themselves and implimented democracy themselves. Like I said before "Today, the Middle East lacks the conditions, such as a democratic political history, high standards of living, and high literacy rates, which stimulated democratic change in, for example, central Europe and East Asia." The process from autocratic past to democractic future that we have seen in many countries is a very delacite one. In trying to build a democratic Middle East, the president and his neoconservative advisers ignore the one of the most basic principles of human existence: people don't like being bossed around. They particularly don't like being bossed around by foreigners.

In common use? A democracy is a democracy. It is not some term with a flexable meaning.

It's not that the people in Iraq aren't smart enough, I think it has more to do with they need time to "learn and develop" institutions conducive to democracy. You can't just give them instant democracy. I think alot of them are shell-shocked cause they aren't used to freedom and being allowed to think for themselves. Just give them some time and "gentle guidance" and I think they'll be alright (oversimplification, but to show point).

When did Canada revolt? Didn't GB just give them their independence?

I would disagree heavily with that statement. Democracy can refer to the principles of self-government, or the more textbook definition-a government ran directly by the people. If you use the second definition, the only democracy ever was in ancient Greece-and I would argue against that form of democracy simply because it places too much burden upon the citizens. (and honestly I can argue against any form of democracy, but that's not the issue)

It seemed to be a big issue for you just 3 posts ago.

One exemption. One could argue that Canada was on the United State's coat tails on that one. The point was that democracy was not introduced to them by an outside force. They decided on the change when it was necessary. No one invaded them and removed their government from power, then made them a democracy. True change comes from within, not from without.

Willravel, you are not a mod, quite pretending like you are. With that, let this worthless convo continue...

While I am not a moderator (nor do I wish to be, a little too much responsibility), I am free to point out when you are acting in an innapropriate manner. If I broke rules and was deliberatly rude to people, it would only be fair for someone to call me on it. While in other boards it might be excusable to treat people with disrespect, TFP has higher standards of behavior. It is these standards that make this the great community it is.

I think the issue with this is not democracy itself, but whether it is truely forced or if it is just encouraged. While I have cited the Iraqi war as an example, it is not the only source on this subject. Maybe Japan or Germany should be brought up in this. These are two countries that are functioning well. I'd be curious of the question being asked in the frame of these examples.

Sometimes a little encouragement is all you need to get going in the right direction. I think that a swift or hard kick in the ass constitutes as encouragement.

Good point.

I would think those "Democracies" were pretty forced. Where does Italy fall? Great Britain (they were a monarchy well after we established out gov't--do you think we inspired some change there as well?)? Mexico? etc., etc.

They all seem to much better off for it.

I would like to give my personal thanks for yet another of your constructive, well-thought out posts. Keep up the good work! :thumbsup:

The issue wasn't my personal opinion, but people who complain about Bush's supposed anti-democratic actions and then turn around and argue against democracy when Bush comes out in favor of it.