↓
 
Home » Democracy, its spread, and the neocons (Part I)

Democracy, its spread, and the neocons (Part I)

The New Neo Posted on by

Neocons believe that the spread of liberal democracy–democracy with safeguards for human rights and liberties–would be of general benefit to the US, to the citizens of the countries involved, and to the world.

Although I’m sure there are some exceptions, most neocons also believe that the spread of liberal democracy to countries that have not known it before, or that knew it only briefly and/or erratically, is neither inevitable nor easy. But they believe it is possible rather than impossible.

Contrary to the notion of some critics, however, neocons neither prefer nor require that such transformation to democracy be accomplished by force–a peaceful evolution, relatively sudden or relatively gradual, is far superior. However, neocons are unwilling to rule out force under certain circumstances. A circumstance that could justify the use of force would be a country or leader constituting a serious threat to the US or its allies, one that doesn’t appear containable by other means. Neocons most definitely do not advocate warring on nation after nation for the sole purpose of installing democracies.

About the desirability of liberal democracy itself, neocons tend to be in basic agreement with Winston Churchill on the subject:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.

The authors of the Declaration of Independence thought liberty was both the universal desire of all humanity and an “unalienable right” of all human beings, and that this was a “self-evident” truth. (This fact, by the way, was one of the reasons even the framers knew–and many wrote in their private papers–that ultimately slavery would have to go, and that retaining it at the outset of the establishment of the country was a hypocritical, strategic, and ultimately tragic compromise with the high principles stated in the Declaration).

And, of course, the value of liberal democracy is not all that self-evident to the numerous tyrants who readily deny people liberty–and even life–for their own purposes (as the Grand Inquisitor understood all too well).

Why do I bring all of this up? In my recent discussion of the reasons neocons are so hated, commenter Loyal Achates (not a neocon, to be sure) advanced this critique of the neocon agenda:

Neo wonders why the liberals could be opposed to the advancement of liberal democracy by military means, and comes up with a rather elaborate psychological explanation. A simpler answer might be, I dunno, that so far it hasn’t actually led to liberal democracy but chaos and ruin. One might well ask why non-Communists are opposed to providing food for everyone by collectivizing the farms: duh, it doesn’t work and people starve.

Actually, I was wondering something quite different, since I disagree with Loyal’s notion that neocons predominantly advocate advancing democracy by military means. I certainly don’t, and I’ve not heard of anyone who does. Nor do I think that bringing democracy to Iraq was the only reason–or even the major one–for the invasion of that country.

But let’s put aside those arguments for a moment while I address Loyal’s assertion that we know that the idea of advancing democracy by military means is wrong in the practical sense because it’s already been proven that it just doesn’t work.

Loyal compares the promotion of democracy through military means to Communist experiments in collective farming, in that he feels both to be self-evident failures. But that’s only true if you define Iraq as a failure at this point (I believe this would be premature) and if you discount post-WWII Germany and Japan, both cases in which liberal democracy was imposed as a result of those countries’ defeat in war (they both had a stronger prior tradition of democracy than Iraq did, but in both cases it wasn’t all that strong and it wasn’t all that liberal).

That’s not to say that Iraq and Germany/Japan are similar places; they are not. But there’s no denying that the present form of liberal democracy in both Germany and Japan are direct results of their defeat in war, and a subsequent occupation and rebuilding effort spearheaded by the US. So it’s at least possible, under certain circumstances.

Loyal’s “neocon agenda=collective farms=failure” analogy also breaks down if you consider the fact that we have a great deal of evidence in the case of collective farming, multiple and repetitive failures in both economic and human terms all around the world with no apparent successes; whereas the number of attempts to impose democracy through military means just isn’t all that that large. And, among that small number, as I said, only Iraq so far could be arguably counted as an actual or potential failure. The others are successes. (South Vietnam, by the way, doesn’t count, since we were not trying to defeat South Vietnam itself and install a liberal democracy, but trying instead to conserve a system already in place in the South–with some rather violent changes of personnel along the way–and to stop the North from taking over and installing a Communist government.)

Another problem with Loyal’s argument is the errors made in postwar Iraq. Whatever one believes those errors to have been (in my case, I think that paramount among them was the failure to get the looters under control at the outset, and the kid glove treatment handed al Sadr), there’s a general agreement that there were a great many of them. If this is so, how can we measure whether or not any perceived failure in Iraq might have been a result of those errors?

If the occupation in Iraq had been executed flawlessly in terms of tactics and Iraq was still experiencing the kind of sectarian violence that’s going on there today–then, paradoxically, this would be a stronger argument against the viability of the endeavor of establishing liberal democracy there in the first place. But the more inept the occupation is seen to be, the more any resultant problems can be regarded as flaws of execution rather than problems with the basic concept itself.

The bottom line is that it’s just not possible to tell much of anything from the single example of what’s happened in Iraq; as they say in science, the n is too small.

That’s not to say that Loyal couldn’t be proven right in the end, and that all future attempts similar to the one in Iraq, if tried (and they may never be tried), will inevitably end in failure. Maybe there’s just something about the endeavor that goes against the human grain in some basic way–as collective farming seems to–something that will make every effort ultimately fail.

But such a conclusion would be extremely premature. There’s not enough evidence at the moment to allow us to decide that all such efforts are doomed to failure, just on the basis of what’s happened so far in Iraq. And, in fact. there is some evidence that could lead us to conclude the opposite (post-WWII Germany and Japan). The preliminary answer might be that success depends on a host of conditions, including the previous experience of each country with democracy, whether the country has undergone the exhaustive process of a long war and a resounding defeat, whether it has a pre-existing strong sense of nationhood, how much effort and direction the postwar occupiers are willing to put into the process of reconstruction, how well they understand the particular conditions and demands presented by each country, and how much patience the American people has for the task.

[Part II coming tomorrow.]

Comments

Democracy, its spread, and the neocons (Part I) — 82 Comments

  2. What you do, is invade, set up a totalitarian regime, and wait for Stockholm Syndrome to set it in on the population. Then you introduce democracy and leave.

  3. Actually, I’d like to suggest the term, “welfare democracy”. Maybe conservatives would embrace the term — I would loosely define it as bringing or “giving” democratic values whereas, there is no sense of ownership or value among the recipients. Don’t Conservatives believe in value as defined by pulling yourself up by the bootstraps? Why should liberty be any different? The most valuable thing of all. I could be BS-ing though. Now I have to go make dinner (and fight the good fight).

  4. To give Aeneas’s pal credit, yes, there is something of a paradox inherent in _forcing_ people to accept the freedom to choose their government. However, of course, this is seldom how it plays out in reality. Normally there is a regime forcibly _preventing_ the people from exercising their freedom, and in those cases force is entirely appropriate to counter force.

    The unspoken dirty secret is that a lot of liberals (the modern political label, not the classical definition) aren’t very fond of democracy. They much prefer to have little cabals of “experts” (which naturally includes themselves) _telling_ people what to do. Letting people choose for themselves means they might not make the choice liberals want them to. For some reason that thought is completely horrifying to liberals.

    So they’re actually very sympathetic to non-democratic regimes, willing to overlook big piles of corpses, horrible human-rights violations, and all kinds of tyranny — because the tyrannies at least are tidy. They don’t have tiresome Creationists voting for the school board, or oil companies funding ads to affect energy policy. No dissent. No arguments. Liberals like that. They react very badly to being argued with.

    So while we see Iraq as a case of a loathsome, murderous dictator and his mafia gang of a government being deposed, liberals see something different. They see a mess. They see people choosing what seems right to them, rather than listening to experts. The liberals exaggerate and harp on the violence in Iraq because it supports their prejudices: that the people can’t be trusted to govern themselves.

    And of course democracy and freedom are messy. But so are the piles of corpses the liberals somehow fail to notice in orderly tyrannies.

  5. somuch:

    You wrote: “Don’t Conservatives believe in value as defined by pulling yourself up by the bootstraps?”

    ah, sir/madam…neocons are NOT classical conservatives, much to the dismay of “Real Conservatives”. We – I think – part at least to some degree – over the issue of isolationism. Neocons do believe in involvement outside of the continental US, but not particularly through conventional avenues, such as the UN. We tend to go for ad hoc alliances – see Iraq whether for good or evil – and behavior, not beliefs.

    In fact, one can observe (my own two cents) that the conservative Right and the radical Left have more in common than most people would think (they both are basically totalitarian in their thought processes).

    I’d like to continue this, but I have dishes to do…see ya later, alligator…

  6. Quite aside from the use of “military means”, there are some who would deny the value of advancing democracy as a foreign policy goal in general — examples would be the realpolitik exponents, who often find compliant dictators easier to work with, and, on the other political wing, the cultural relativists, who see such a goal as merely a form of American (or Western) imperialism. LA tends toward the latter, though he’s skittish about admitting it. His tactic, instead, is to refer to some mysterious “neocon” version of democracy, which he seems to define only in terms of some sort of “American can-do spirit”. We might wonder what version of democracy might be acceptable to such left-liberals, but we’d likely wonder in vain — their underlying cultural relativism will always subvert any attempt to arrive at, much less enunciate, any coherent foreign policy principles.

  7. Two points – first you forgot one liberal democracy that was born through violence that anyone voting in our elections should be familiar with – the United States of America. It was a war after all, not the revolutionary coffee break and sit-in of 1775-1783. Of course, this was an *internal* war instead of an external force – but it is still a democracy founded by violence and war (same thing could be said of France – and theirs was particularly bloody, violent, and corrupt). So there are plenty of times that violence solved problems and installed a democracy – in fact that is more the norm than it just sorta peacefully happening. Generally speaking non-democracies or republics VERY rarely just give up and go into retirement after a good talking too and protest – especially true of violent dictators who have no compunction against killing dissidents.

    Secondly, I have issue with the part about maybe the errors having caused it. Yes, a single example is too small (and, in fact we have a much larger n than 1 and it shows it is quite possible), however those mistakes are pretty much unavoidable.

    It reminds me of the socialist/communist that insist that it will work if only the right people do it and those mistakes were not made. While it may not be those *exact* mistakes there will always be similar ones. None of the ones we have made are grossly incompetent (regardless of what the left likes to say) and are – by comparison to past “nation building” operations – quite mild.

    If it doesn’t work it isn’t because of the mistakes. It is because, for whatever reason, the people in that area do not want or are unable to sustain a liberal democracy or because we gave up before we won.

  8. Another reason I disagree with the left’s “you can’t impose democracy at the point of a gun” assertion is that that’s not what we’re doing.

    Those who don’t want democracy have guns, too, and our guns are simply trying to stop their guns from “imposing” totalitarianism.

    This may sound weird to certain relativists out there, but I believe that certain rights are fundamental to everyone, even if their societies don’t think so. Even if 95% of a population believes that women should have to wear a burqua and should never be allowed to leave the home without a man, the 5% that don’t want to wear burquas shouldn’t have to wear them. Period.

    Therefore, we’re not “imposing” a damn thing, we’re just keeping thugs from “imposing” their notions of neo-slavery.

  9. If it doesn’t work it isn’t because of the mistakes. It is because, for whatever reason, the people in that area do not want or are unable to sustain a liberal democracy

    And in the case of Iraq, the reason why it cannot work is that Iraq is an Islamic country, and Islam is incompatible with democracy.

  10. |quote|This may sound weird to certain relativists out there, but I believe that certain rights are fundamental to everyone, even if their societies don’t think so. Even if 95% of a population believes that women should have to wear a burqua and should never be allowed to leave the home without a man, the 5% that don’t want to wear burquas shouldn’t have to wear them. Period.|quote|

    So you wouldn’t impose any particular restrictions on nudists (sometimes referred to as Naturalists)?

    Leg, ankle, breast, and even hair — have all been definitions of immodesty.

  11. “…Winston Churchill on the subject…“:

    You know that you are in trouble with your argument if, in order to support it, you find it necessary to paint Churchill as a democrat. He was, of course, a nasty little imperialist, which is probably why he is a Neocon idol.

    By quoting Churchill you are limiting yourself to a very narrow audience. If you start quoting Churchill in India you will not get a very favorable reception. And if you quote him in Iraq you are liable to drastically limit your life expectancy. The truth is that Churchill is venerated by a minority of English speakers. Even in Great Britain you will find that he is not well regarded by a large segment of the population.

  13. As time goes on, I feel as though the post war Japan/Germany examples are less relevant to Iraq. There is something about the Arab/Muslim mentality that doesn’t sit right with a liberal democracy. Some assumptions I had at the start of the war are now under question:

    1) “Of course people want freedom/democracy.”
    Umm, it seems like some groups of people like having a “strong leader” or want their government based on religion.

    2) “With the rise of the internet and a free press, people can make their own decision about what is really going on and choose a better life for themselves”
    Well, this doesn’t seem to happen either, e.g. Lebanon, where most of the people don’t mind that Hezb is still around. The free flow of information was mostly used for propaganda.

    I don’t know what it would take to “force” a group of people to change their mentality around to what W or Den Beste envision.

  14. It’s one thing to argue about the reasons we went to war. It’s quite another to misrepresent the reasons and then argue with the misrepresentations as if they were true.
    On that subject comes Wild who hopes we forget the nearly dozen reasons advanced for going to war. That we forget the sneers that Bush had so many reasons because he couldn’t make up his mind.
    You’ll have to work a bit harder, Wild.

  15. By quoting Churchill you are limiting yourself to a very narrow audience.

    On the contrary, Churchill is highly regarded everywhere, as a great man who steeled his country in a time of peril. It’s only some islamofacists, and a few odd trolls who think it’s smart to spit on his name.

    As for why we invaded Iraq, there was that little issue of putting an end to state-supported terrorism throughout the mideast, beginning with the Saddam regime.

    By the way, Ricey, how are your war crimes trials coming along? You haven’t been saying much about them lately I’ve noticed — no trouble, I hope? I mean, this is supposed to be a country based upon law, isn’t it? Hmm?

  16. “In the absence of evidence that Iraq was in possession of WMD why is it that we invaded Iraq?”

    Because the French, Russians, Brits, etc. thought Iraq had WMD, but lied, I tell you they lied. They are all liars.

    And so is someone who could actually write the above sentence I’ve quoted.

  17. (South Vietnam, by the way, doesn’t count, since we were not trying to defeat South Vietnam itself and install a liberal democracy, but trying instead to conserve a system already in place in the South–with some rather violent changes of personnel along the way–and to stop the North from taking over and installing a Communist government.)

    It doesn’t count because there were no free and fair elections in South Vietnam – had there been it is most likely would have resulted in the reunification of Vietnam – under which ever political system that country decided on without outside interference.

  18. “If this is so, how can we measure whether or not any perceived failure in Iraq might have been a result of those errors?”

    Through a careful analysis of what those failures were percieved to be.

    So if one is the apparent failure to curb the looters in the outset of the war, we could ask what might have happened if they had been contained. Then we could weigh that against other factors – Iraqi public opinion; the historical factors i.e history of past foreign interventions in Iraq; religous/ethnic divisions in the population; how Iraqis view occupation and the United States; etc.

    When you do that it becomes somewhat easier to see – as it was accurately predicted remarkably well before the war – that the idea of bringing democracy to Iraq through conquest and subsequently through a military occupation was doomed from the outset.

    Regardless of the ‘mistakes’ made during the war and occupation.

    The single biggest ‘mistake'(though I think it was less a mistake and more just a case of a complete lack of regard for the Iraqi people, their land , culture history)was not providing employment – which was in an abundance after over a decade of U.S bombardment and war. Everything was subcontracted out while the already starving population stood by watching, basically…

  19. Germany and Japan were both highly advanced, enlightened nations – it’s a fallacy to use them as a succesful example of bringing democracy at the point of a gun.

    Democracy is a natural progression in socio-economically advanced nations….

  20. “On the contrary, Churchill is highly regarded everywhere, as a great man who steeled his country in a time of peril. It’s only some islamofacists, and a few odd trolls who think it’s smart to spit on his name.”

    Wild is quite correct, Sally – he is not revered very much at all.

    The very simplistic reason for this stature are his speech’s during the Battle of Britain when the Nazis were bombing England – and then his motivational qualities were brilliant.

    But beyond that, in England, nobody thinks Churchill some kind of political mastermind – on the contraire, I can assure you.

    Are you making this up as you go Sally?

  21. … I can assure you.

    I’m sorry to have to tell you this, Anony, but you really can’t assure me or anyone else. You might as well “assure” us all that your mother ship is hiding behind a comet … though, given some of your other assurances, I suppose you might not think that far-fetched.

  22. “As for why we invaded Iraq, there was that little issue of putting an end to state-supported terrorism throughout the mideast, beginning with the Saddam regime.”

    Of which the evidence against Iraq was nil – apart from his invasion of Kuwait. which he of course had long departed from.

    And we can be absolutely certain that “putting and end to state-supported terrorism throughout the mideast”was never a goal because the biggest example of state-sponsered terror in the ME is Israel – the no-contest, hands-down Champion of state terror.

    Funded in small measure, by the U.S.A.

    Havin said that – returning to the original topic of neoconservatism – it’s helpful to know that neoconservatives believe strongly in lying to the public to achieve their goals – that is it for the greater good to advance untruths to gain the support necessary to obtain their true goals – which isn’t about democracy at all.

    It’s simply about power…

  23. “You might as well “assure” us all that your mother ship is hiding behind a comet … though, given some of your other assurances, I suppose you might not think that far-fetched.”

    Oh?

    And which one’s did you have in mind, missus?

    You may as well continue your blabbering charade because if comes down to actually debating Sally, your likely to look even more foolish than you do with your trivial attempts at destroying the debate.

    And reading the crap that you wrote about Churchill leads me to believe you simply don’t have a clue what your talking about. But go on – you fancy yourself the grandma of the board – give us your history of Churchill and how he is so widely regarded in the ‘world'(or your, very -very – small world at least)….

  24. “it’s helpful to know that neoconservatives believe strongly in lying to the public to achieve their goals”

    Unless you can come up with indisputable evidence, I have to classify that one as an “out-of-ass” statement.

  25. It’s neoconservative doctrine – Wilsonian stuff – ‘lying for the survical of the state’.

    If you don’t know that than you don’t know anything about neoconservatism – for the neo-con’s the ends jusfify the means.

    I don’t need to do research for you.

    If you’d rather not believe that -than don’t. Most of the neo-con supporters on this board believe what they want to believe regardless of what the facts are no matter what you show them, anyway…

  26. Amusing to watch anonymous trolls talk about “trivial attempts at destroying the debate”, isn’t it? As though they had any idea of “debate” or how to participate in one.

    As for Churchill’s role in history, look it up, Anony — the exercise will do you good.

  27. Israel, by the way, doesn’t engage in terrorism but does defend itself. Which is what really drives the Jew-haters even crazier than they already are.

  28. “believe what they want to believe regardless of what the facts are no matter what you show them, anyway…”

    Pot, meet kettle…

    TC, if your rants do so little to convince us neokool-aid drinkers, why do you bother? Really?

    And yet, you continually return, spewing falsehoods and non sequiturs, expecting some kind of paradigm shift or philosophical awakening?

    Do you have nothing better to do with your life?

  29. You might recall, Ariel, that it was Paul Wolfowitz’s own admission that the WMD story was simply the most ‘convenient’ one available – and that regime change, preventative(imaginary)war-was the real rationale.

    You could find this crucial part of neoconservative doctrine on the wikipedia entry at one point- don’t know if it’s there anymore though.

    Maybe Sally took it back to her mothership..

  30. Actually I’m hope with a pretty bad back injury if you must know, stumbley.

    “spewing falsehoods and non sequiturs,”??

    No kidding? Show us one of each and I’ll be impressed stumbley…

  31. “most convenient”, that is that it was the most salable does not constitute a policy of lying. Sorry but it doesn’t. Go read the Joint Resolution for all the reasons, many of which are out of the Clinton administration, which was not “neoconservative”.
    Finally, if one man says something, it doesn’t mean that that something is a characteristic of an entire group.
    You’re really stretching.

  32. If you ask arbitrary chosen pedestrian on Moscow street whom they consider to be the most wise and worthy British politicians, two names would lead the list: Churchill and Thatcher.

  33. Also, TC, from what I’ve read of your comments you are as guilty of “filtering” information to fit your prejudices, Weltanschaung if you will, as anyone here. Pot and kettle, as has been written earlier.

    I’ll stand by “out-of-ass” as typifying your statement.

  34. TC, I’m very familiar with the pain and debilitation of back injuries. I hope your recovery from your back injury goes swiftly and well.

  35. The one single factor most influential to success or failure of liberal democracy everywhere is the proportion of middle class (that is, bourgeoisie). This class is also most cosmopolitan in its attitudes, and easily conforms to modernity even in very obsolete and traditionalistic societies. Pre-revolutionary Iran is a good example. Alas, this cosmopolitan class was not big enough there and could not prevent popular revolt, just as in Old Russia. But under free market economy baked by strong police and military force (as in Chile) this class can be formed amazingly fast.

  36. When is the left going to liberate, even poorly, a country? 56 years of ‘Free Tibet’ bumper stickers just doesn’t seem to be effective. Or, is it on to ‘Free/Save Darfur’? Where is the modern Lincoln Brigades of today? Gone to Starbucks everywhere, I guess. Onward the vanguard of Apple Powerbooks! Free WiFi and winter in Costa Rica, compadres!

    Yup.

    Inspiring.

    .

  38. This is a particularly good piece today, Neo-. Thank you for your efforts.

    I have to take exception about the failure of collective farming. The once exception [that may support your larger point] is the Israeli Kibbutzim.

    They have been commercially successful for several generations, although they seem to be evolving away from their original socialist model. They are turning into something very much like the capitalistic farms for which they had been the counter-example.

    Jim [a UC Berkeley graduate and also a changling like yourself]

  39. Well now, Churchill said many things over the years; some true, some great, and some expedient. I suspect his praise of democracy dates from the WW2 years when he was junior partner to FDR and Stalin and such talk was de rigueur.

    Leaning towards the paleo myself, I did welcome the neocon reenforcements, still do. Truth to tell, they have more intellectual wattage than we have, and in this talkative age that does count. Their faith that everybody would be decent and reasonable like Americans, if given the chance can get a little wearing sometimes; but nobody’s perfect, right?

    I would say that if the neo’s have a weakness (not our Neo), they seem to lack the grit for the long haul; maybe their enthusisam makes them susceptible to disappointment. Anyway it wasn’t a pretty sight seeing so many of the very people who encouraged Bush to this war turn on him just before the last election. All sail, no ballast; but maybe that’s for us sullen lumpish paleos to supply.

  40. falsehood: (noun)
    2 : absence of truth or accuracy

    -from Merriam-Webster

    “You might recall, Ariel, that it was Paul Wolfowitz’s own admission that the WMD story was simply the most ‘convenient’ one available – and that regime change, preventative(imaginary)war-was the real rationale.”

    Take a look at Neo’s post above. WMD story “convenient”= inaccurate and untrue.

    If I’m feeling energetic, I’ll look through your screeds for a non-sequitur.

    Hope your back gets better, I really do. That kind of pain is no fun.

  41. You say it’s too early too tell, but list a lot of conditions on which success may depend, so let’s see how Iraq stacks up:

    1. The previous experience of each country with democracy

    Iraq: None.

    2. Whether the country has undergone the exhaustive process of a long war and a resounding defeat

    Iraq: Nope.

    3. Whether it has a pre-existing strong sense of nationhood,

    Iraq: None.

    4. How much effort and direction the postwar occupiers are willing to put into the process of reconstruction,

    Iraq: There has been quite a lot of effort but not much direction so far, I would say.

    5. How well they understand the particular conditions and demands presented by each country,

    Iraq: Given the experience so far I think we can all agree the answer here is “Not too well.”

    6. And how much patience the American people has for the task.

    Iraq: Remains to be seen. But given the answers to the previous five, how much should they be required to have?

    Also, you (like so many others) trot out Germany and Japan as positive examples of “imposing democracy.” Someday we should try to list all the reasons why Germany and Japan may or may not be relevant to the Iraq experience…

  42. Not sure exactly what you guys are arguing about but here is the Wolfowitz quote in question:

    WOLFOWITZ: …The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people… The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it’s not a reason to put American kids’ lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there’s the most disagreement within the bureaucracy…”

  43. I’ll disagree slightly with #1.

    Iraq was a Constitutional Monarchy (Hashemite) from about 1923 to 1959 (57?). They had a bicameral legislature with one House elected by the people, much like the USA until amended. While there was upheaval after upheaval, causing the British to step-in again, they did have periods of stability. “None” is too strong, “Limited” would be better. Much like the Japanese and Germans.

    As for the relevance of Japan and Germany, I would prefer a Ben Franklin close.

  44. UB,
    I think you meant to comment to a different post of Neo’s, “Oh, those lying neocons”. Given your comment, you also need to reread her post carefully (that was not intended as a slam).

  45. Actually, Churchill is most highly thought of amongst the American right. Elsewhere his known failings make up a bigger part of the picture. He was a well known antisemite and an admirer of Mussolini amongst other things.

    But, as you are all so enamoured of him, I’ll leave you with one of his most observant quotes.

    “”America can be called upon to do the right thing once they’ve fully exhausted all other options.”
    -Winston Churchill

  46. TC – for the back injury try a warehouse worker type of support belt. You can pick one up at Home Depot. I use one and it allows me to continue to function if I get a bad spasm. They are undetectable if worn under clothing.
     

  48. “Doesn’t seem to be getting through to the world outside your borders.”

    Dang…who’d a thunk it? When they have the best and most balanced news sources in the world (who are certain to give the US and Israel unbiased coverage), and when 3,850 of them are interviewed out of a population of, oh….millions? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!

    /sarcasm

  50. “TC, if your rants do so little to convince us neokool-aid drinkers, why do you bother?” Simple, stumbley. “The agitatory activity of speech is bound to have mass influence” Mein Kampf, pg, 704. While what is done here is not necessarily “speech”, the general principles apply. Most who read the words here are simply “surfing through” for whatever reasons. His words are intended to reinforce those whose beliefs or ideologies are already “adverse” to the general notions displayed here. And besides, one or two here and there may actually be enticed to become a little brownshirt like himself. It’s called “Propaganda”.

  53. Sorry again, justaguy. The person who can’t read or think is our old friend Wild Rice. And apparently, stumbley!

    I love that the sample of 3,850 proves that 80% of all Arabs don’t trust the US or Israel.

    Preview is still my friend.

  55. You are having trouble.

    The survey doesn’t claim to “prove” anything of the sort. Nor would any pollster claim such.

    Polling is an indicative science. The pollsters have very good credentials in this case and are probably pretty close to the mark.

    The populations of the 6 countries polled have access to a far better and greater range of news services than Americans have.

  56. I think the main differences between neocons and liberals when it comes to foreign policy has to do not with whether spreading liberal democracy is a good thing, but with the role that the United States can and should play in achieving that end.

    Neocons tend to look skeptically on the ability and/or willingness of international organizations to advance liberal democracy, while looking positively on the ability and willingness of the U.S. to do so. Internation agencies are largely corrupt and are used as cover for foreign states that are far more concerned with selfish ends. The U.S., by contrast, is largely sincere in wanting to advance liberty.

    For liberals it is just the opposite. The U.S. may claim to act out of a desire for liberty, but often its actions are corrupted by selfish motivations, and anyway it’s really not possible for a single country to advance liberty much on its own. Strong international organizations are therefore needed, as it will only be through diplomacy and increased inter-dependance that liberty will be spread.

  57. “The populations of the 6 countries polled have access to a far better and greater range of news services than Americans have.”

    Now I know you’re a useful idiot.

  58. justa: “America can be called upon to do the right thing once they’ve fully exhausted all other options.”
    -Winston Churchill

    That’s great. True in Iraq, ca. March 2003, certainly.

  59. “The populations of the 6 countries polled have access to a far better and greater range of news services than Americans have”

    That was truly one of the most outrageously ignorant statements made anywhere at anytime. Only a hardcore bigot could come up with that one. (Function: noun
    Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
    : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.)

    As of March, 2006, 42% of Americans had braodband, 73% had home access to the Internet, many more through work. That was a year ago. In addition, America is one of the few countries that allows an unfettered flow of information. No hate laws blocking information, no blocking of political information against the government, no blocking of religious information, etc.

    What a total maroon.

  60. I may believe in being charitable and understanding, part of my liberalism, but that statement deserves nothing but LOL ridicule. If I so desired, I could at this moment have everything from The Guardian to the Australian, Al Jazeera to the Jerusalem Post, open on my browser in multiple windows.

    What a maroon.

  61. Ah yes that extreme rightwing “civility” that we here so much about.

    But of course, media laws are the entire story aren’t they Herr Exceptionalist? When you were there you’d have noticed all that. Funny how all the US, European, British, Asian and Middle Eastern networks broadcast there with all that censorship that you carefullyallude to without actually saying.

    The US has one of the least competitive news agency ownership regimes in the world.

    But what would I know? You’re all experts on the world outside your borders.

  62. Missed my entire point. And your entire post proved your bigotry.

    We all have access, you total idiot. The internet changed it all. In little more than a decade. But many countries have restrictions.

    “The US has one of the least competitive news agency ownership regimes in the world”. Which is a totally specious argument.

    As for civility, how could you ever recognize it? How could you possibly recognize that for which you have no understanding? That which you have never practiced?

    Sie sind noch eine intellektuelle Dirne.

  63. Not even close to good. You’re getting sloppy old man.

    The argument is not specious in any way. It goes directly to the point that I addressed, if you can remember back that far.

    You’re just trying to change the goalposts and flailing with silly statistics that prove nothing.

    I can get a lot more information from a far more widely varied number of sources more easily in Dubai than I can in New York.

    Your US exceptionalism won’t let you recognise that there is a dearth of perspective in the US media.

    We all know it, and we all know that most of you don’t, nor could admit it were you cognisant. The problem isn’t bigotry on my part, it is exceptionalism on yours.

    See, that is polite.

    As a gatekeeper you’ve really lost touch. You and neo both seem a little disheartened.

    There’ll be more death and destruction soon to cheer you up I’m sure. That’s what you are good at. Death and misery is your main export these days after debt after all.

    Silly old coot.

  64. Oh and Ariel, you’ve never read the Gaurdian, ever.

    Stick to the Murdoch philoIsraeli press. It’s much safer in your condition.

  65. Oh and Ariel, you’ve never read the Gaurdian, ever.

    Stick to the Murdoch philoIsraeli press. It’s much safer in your condition.

  66. Like I said your a bigot and an idiot. And obviously behind the times. And the ageist comments simply reinforce my first sentence. Again confirming you’re a bigot. Given they would only have meaning to a bigot. Just like the philoIsrael press comment only works for bigots.

    Would you like the urls to Guardian Unlimited: Culture Vulture, Newsblog, or Mortar Board? You see I have the ability to open over 36 different news sources, of which 6 are US, everyday with a single click. I can then see what I want to read that day. Al Jazeera (english) is there, and the Guardian, and the Times, etc. All on my Toolbar. And I don’t doubt that Dubai has the same access. But if you can’t access it from New York, if you’ve ever been there, you need to check your internet access. Or add more bookmarks.

    Your argument was specious because it is obsolete, past tense.

    Thank you also for proving my point on civility. You don’t know what it is, condescension isn’t it.

    As far as exceptionalism, that’s your own prejudice. As far as news, having all the info doesn’t mean you understand it. See bigot definition above, Ariel | 02.16.07 – 1:45 am |, grasp its meaning and you’ll see what stands in your way.

    God, are you so behind the times.

  67. You certainly do get worked up about an argument that you are having by yourself.

    You really are an uncivil old man aren’t yo?. I understand that you’ve led an unfullfilling life as a hack salesman for an ungrateful drug company. And that you missed out on a decent sex life. And that you are poor because your job was crap and didn’t pay much because all the good jobs were taken by smart people. But try not to be bitter old man.

    Why try so hard to glorify in dishonest fashion , the country that did all that to you?

    I think old man that it is you who is a little “behind the times”. We are not talking about internet access. If we were, I’d have pointed out that anywhere in the UAE has faster bb than any public access anywhere in the US. It is on a par with Canada.

    There are no content restrictions as you are well aware but unwilling to admit.

    Either address the point or admit defeat. Or, (being charitable to the mindnumbingly unintelligent here) go and have a lie down and dream of the good times you missed out on.

  68. Justa’s just a troll, Ariel. As I’ve said before, arguing with him is like arguing with a piece of software — there really isn’t any “him” there at all. The person (or persons) behind the facade is a piece of work, it’s true — obsessive, neurotic bigot, among other nice things — but the words spewed here are devoid of any human meaning.

  69. Sally,

    I know. A nasty, dishonest, bigot as the above illustrates. Give him enough rope and he hangs himself. And that was just part of what I was doing…

    He is, after all, Justaninanedweeb. Just read his last comment.

  70. He’s from the bottom of the world, what do you expect?

    Sad…most of the Kiwis I know are really great people.

  71. Stumbley,
    We have a friend who lives in Kiwi land. She is also a great person, so was her ex.

    I think Sally summed it up well regarding Justaninanedweeb. Obviously, he must have a turd in his pocket when he wrote “we” above, as I was only ever talking about the Internet regarding “access” to news. Glad to read that Dubai has faster broadband, although he was making a kindergarten argument along the lines of “my daddy is bigger than yours, so see how much better I am”.

    He is really stuck on “exceptionalism”, which most countries have in one area or another, remember the French comments when we had race riots, and have you ever heard Bahamians regarding their crime rate v. most of the world? “Obsessive, neurotic bigot” fits the bill.

    Anyway, enough with him. I should learn to heed my own advice. Some people are pure wastes of time.

  72. Stumbley,

    If your still in touch with some of those Kiwis, ask them if they know about the search for “Flat Stanley” back in 2003. Caused a bit of a stir with the police in one area of NZ. I won’t say more at this time.

  74. The fact that Arabs do not trust US and Israel is so obvious that I really wonder what idiot need to do polls to figure it out. Arabs are the most benighted and psyhotic race on the Earth, and would greatly suspect any policy which they can approve. You need not wary about it any more than Hiroshima bomber crew about approval of Jeps.

  75. Yeah black is white, night is day, Ariel. You obfuscate like a child.

    Sergey, the polling was commissioned by the Brookings Institute, one of your neocon think tanks. Send them an e-mail telling them that they are “idiotic”.

    “Arabs are the most benighted and psyhotic race on the Earth”

    You’re a prince among kings. You’re clearly a neofascist.

  80. You need to visit Baghdad and not in the safe confines of the Neocon green zone. Go live with the liberty you wax so prosaically about.

    How about that? It’s called getting mugged by reality and not armchair politcal philosophy.

  81. But, Charles Frith, you’re not over there assuaging your guilt either. Real people are dying in your name, and all you do is cry about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑