Liberals (and neo-cons) (say they) like democracy.
But then you go and install or support a couple of democracies in the wackier parts of the world, and it turns out – not so much. Turns out that what large parts of the democratically empowered populace wants isn’t congenial to a Manhattan cocktail party audience.
Are there any liberals who would look at examples like this and (1) admit that “democracy” is not an end in itself, nor a panacea; (2) admit that some cultures aren’t ready for democracy; (3) draw lessons from these failed “democracies” to infer that unlimited popular enfranchisement, one-man, one-vote might have some downsides even in the civilized West; or (4) just throw up their hands, stick to the democracy-is-always-a-good position, and give it an vox dei, vox populi pass?
Or would it just be the implicit position of the NYT: No, not that type of democracy!
1.) Duh. Of course.
2.) I would agree that in order for democracy not to result in the oppression of minority it needs to be linked to other civic values like an appreciation of human rights and the rule of law. If we are to advance the cause of political freedom around the world, merely pushing for elections isn’t enough.
3.) It depends. Who do you think should be disenfranchised, and why? Then I can judge your proposal on its merits.
4.) I would argue that, in general, democracy is preferable to other methods of determining a leader. What would you prefer we switch to?
A representative democracy coupled with a poll tax or landownership requirement, so that those voting on how to distribute money or power are at least minimally invested in the body doing so.
Well, that. The goal isn’t democracy by itself, but liberal democracy…a democracy that respects human rights (for a specific value of human rights). So the idea is that, while Afghanistan is a democracy now, because it’s passing laws that systematically oppress half the population, it’s not a liberal democracy, and just because those laws have been democratically enacted doesn’t mean that we have to therefore say they’re good.
I suppose Huerta is a right-wing nutcase like me… but I can’t actually figure out what he’s arguing here, except that he doesn’t like the New York Times. Well, I don’t either, although it’s mostly because they’ve gone way into shallow non-coverage IMHO. Can somebody explain please? I don’t particularly seem to agree or disagree strongly with anyone on this issue: I will fight for democracies but I don’t exactly idealize them.
Huerta, I seem to be having some memory issues. Could you please remind which political party in America invaded Iraq under the guise of “creating democracy”, made a “commitment to install democracy” in every country of the Middle East, and had a policy of “supporting democracy” in every country in the world during the past eight years? What is the Democrats or the Republicans?
Why? Being good at accumulating stuff does not automatically confer superior political judgement. You might as well say that you believe America should be ruled by whoever can run the 100 yard dash the fastest.
The best government is the one that produces the wisest rulers. Liberal democracy (i.e. democracy supported by strong civic institutions) does a pretty good job of weeding out the crooks, the cranks, the morons, and the nutbars from the halls of power.
You’re not having any memory issues at all. It was the GD Republican Party under the leadership of a bunch of GD non-conservative neocons. GWB and his ilk. You haven’t seen the half of my posts slamming them, so sorry, no gotcha – re-read my OP and note that nowhere do I begin to endorse that clique (I don’t endorse any party qua party).
If there were not to be a large, centralized, and coercive taxing and spending authority as the “government,” your statement might be true. But in such a government (which I’d be happy to walk away from, at which point, I would not care as much who had the franchise), it is ever more true that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and there are some very perverse incentives created when those voting for the taxes/taxers do not bear any economic consequence (except perhaps a net transfer of wealth to them) from their economic decision to vote for someone who will tax the stuff. Put differently, if government didn’t have the power to put a gun to my head and take some of my “accumulated stuff,” I wouldn’t feel so strongly about having those making decisions like that be fellow stuff-earners. Put even differently, those without a lot of stuff seem awfully interested in the stuff of others and finding a way to shift it to them.
You may not endorse the GOP “clique”, but the implication in your OP is that the burden of responsibility for all these efforts somehow falls on the Liberals (oh, and the neo-cons, which you inexplicably add only parenthetically, as if they were some inconvenient afterthought) because they “say” they like Democracy.
I may “say” I like indoor plumbing, but don’t start asking me to defend my position if your contractor fucks up your bathroom renovation.
Conservatives attempted to install democracy in Afghanistan (and Iraq) and cozied up to Pakistan. You can try to offer some Scotsman fallacies about how “true conservatives” wouldn’t get involved in the affairs of other nations, but you and I both know that there’s one candidate who conservatives voted for: Bush. You might plausibly argue that some Liberals are on board with those policies, but a reasonable post wouldn’t have limited your criticism to Liberals and parenthesized “neocons.”
Are we to infer from your use of the phrase “Manhattan cocktail party audience” that working-class Texans are OK with the legalization of rape? Or is it just that you personally are OK with marital rape? Perhaps you misspoke and you’d like to clarify what you meant to get across by limiting the distaste for marital rape to Manhattan elites.
Nobody disputes that Democracies sometimes yield bad outcomes: witness Bush and torture. Virtually everyone also admits that Democracy requires certain cultural values that aren’t everywhere present. Question four is obviously rhetorical. So putting aside the straw questions and the rhetorical one, we’re left with what you really came here to debate: Should we conclude from the failure of Afghani Democracy to abide by their Constitution that one-man, one-vote has downsides in the West?
On its face, this question seems nearly nonsensical. So perhaps you can draw out what you think the failure of the Afghani government to abide by their Constitution has to do with one-man, one-vote—a term which in the United States refers to the way in which congressional districts are drawn. Or, if you’re referring to universal suffrage, why you think the failure of the Afghani government to abide by their Constitution means certain citizens in the United States should be disenfranchised. Be especially clear about why it means we should disenfranchise the poor.
History has shown us that barring government intervention wealth tends to pool at the top. This shouldn’t be surprising. The economy is a dynamic system and left to its own devices a dynamic system will find its own equilibrium.
But there’s nothing magic about the equilibrium point. It isn’t necessarily where the economy is strongest or most productive. And it isn’t necessarily where the greatest good is experienced by the greatest number. It’s just an arbitrary point of stability.
If we want America to be strong and productive and free we need a different distribution of wealth than the one our economy naturally tends toward. So we tax the rich more than the middle class and the poor, and we spread the wealth around.
No part of my thread depends on my proving my legitimacy as a conservative or non-conservative. It only requires that I be critical of certain liberals.
No, I expect a Texan would say in many cases: “Well obviously you can’t have unlimited democracy; look what happpened when they tried it in sand land and legalized rape!”
Only if we have a system in which “the poor” get an equal (not pro rata) say in who will run a government that decides what to do with “the rich’s” money, given that the answer “the poor” arrive at will often be: take it at gunpoint and give it to us. I hoped my earlier upthread post about how lessening the coercive tax/spend/redistribute power of government would assuage my fears of this got that across. It’s just that I don’t see Government “governing least” any time in the foreseeable future. (Of course I’m also pessimistic about getting back the poll tax or any of the other constraints on the tendency of democracy ---------> mob rule).
I very much doubt that anyone at the NYT is under the illusion that making a country into a democracy automatically solves all of its social inequities, nor do I further infer that the failure of this happening in Afghanistan has thrown their editorial staff into a tizzy. Democracy is not an end to itself, but is instead the best means to an end. Afghanistan becoming a democracy did not solve all of its social problems, and no one expected that to happen. But those problems existed with or without democracy, and arguably, would only be exacerbated under any other political system. What’s important now is that the country has the best of all possible tools to shape itself into a free and prosperous society. Wether they are able or willing to use it for that purpose remains to be seen.
Yes, but if you wish to be critical of certain liberals by attacking their ideals, your thread depends on establishing that those ideals are actually held by liberals. For the last eight years, “spreading democracy” has been the mantra of the Republicans. And since last fall, I’ve been hearing that liberals are all socialists.
Meanwhile, those with a lot of stuff have already demonstrated that they not only can find ways to shift the stuff of others to themselves; they’ve already done it. If you want a government who won’t shift property around, then you should want it to be chosen precisely by those folks who haven’t already done such property-shifting in the private domain.