New at Reason

Warren|11.17.05 @ 10:11AM|#

All of human history leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the peoples of the Middle East are forever committed to killing each other and nothing can possibly change that.

|11.17.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Brothers, let us unite against our common enemy!

|11.17.05 @ 10:27AM|#

The People's Front of Judea?

Viking Moose|11.17.05 @ 10:28AM|#

the judean peoples' front?

|11.17.05 @ 10:29AM|#

No, the Popular Judean People's Front!

Viking Moose|11.17.05 @ 10:29AM|#

Matthew:

SPLITTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MP|11.17.05 @ 10:31AM|#

I vote No.

|11.17.05 @ 10:46AM|#

Rather than have the US stated policy be the spread of democracy, perhaps it should be the spread of anarchy. As quasibill notes, democracy is a sword with as many edges as there are interest groups fighting over the levers of government to control others.

Another consequence of this shift in goals is that Somalia could be held up as a foreign policy success!

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 10:49AM|#

Viking Moose,

You know, following the war Der Spiegel was headed by a who wrote for a Nazi publication?

|11.17.05 @ 10:55AM|#

The word "democracy" can be used in a number of different ways, ranging from the nightmare scenario where 50.00001% can enslave the other 49.99999%, to the sort of system that many on this site would prefer to call a "republic." Or many things in between, including Western Europe, California, the US system at different points in its history (although many would prefer the term "republic" for our system in various incarnations), Switzerland, etc.

Because of the range of meanings, I can understand why some might prefer the term "republic", but:

1) It's kind of silly to constantly harp on it. The administration certainly discusses other elements of freedom when discussing democracy. Whatever you think of their sincerity or competence, their speeches tend to include more than just elections.

2) If you're going to worry about the wide range of meanings ascribed to the word "democracy", let's not forget the wide range of meanings ascribed to the word "republic." Some dictionaries list multiple meanings of "republic", ranging from (paraphrase) "any system of government with representatives rather than referenda", "any system of government where the head of state is not a king", and so forth. Indeed, a significant fraction of the countries on this planet use the word "Republic" in their formal names. "Islamic Republic", for instance.

Viking Moose|11.17.05 @ 10:57AM|#

Hak:

no, didn't know that. wow!

|11.17.05 @ 10:58AM|#

I don't know what Der Spiegel is talking about, but I had thought that european soccer was the most capitalistic of sports. With the prevalence of advertising and the rise of successful teams to the highest levels of play and the demotion of the worst teams to lower levels. Whereas American baseballs shittiest teams still reap the benefits of being "major" league teams. etc. etc.

Did I read about that here?

|11.17.05 @ 11:00AM|#

sorry, I should google to try and answer my own questions before I post.

It was a

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 11:01AM|#

Viking Moose,

One of Adenaur's main aids during his Chancellorship was a bureucrat in the Nazi state. Of course, it took millions of people to keep the whole machine running, including all the deportations of Jews, etc. This is why any claim by a then alive German (well any old enough to realize it) that they didn't know about Nazi atrocities is basically a lie.

|11.17.05 @ 11:03AM|#

"It's kind of silly to constantly harp on it. The administration certainly discusses other elements of freedom when discussing democracy."

I don't agree. This isn't just about the administration, it's about this religious devotion to 'democracy'. And since the term is so malleable, it is very important to point out what democracies are, and that our country was NOT founded on an ideal of democracy. So focusing on democracy as the source of freedom has it entirely backwards, and is misleading.

Besides, it is useful for pointing out since the hawks harp on the fact that there have been elections in Iraq, and that is proof that peace and love and liberty are dawning in the middle east. I say that sort of thinking requires a willful ignorance of the domestic issues in our own country...

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 11:04AM|#

Viking Moose,

Obviouisly I am making exceptions for two, three, five, etc. year old kids.

You can't imagine the number of Germans who have been interviewed who were adults at that time who say things like "I'm not an anti-semite, but you know, there is an international Jewish conspiracy." The Nazis were quite adept at how the programmed German society.

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 11:05AM|#

VikingMoose,

Of course, as someone told me the other day, I'm just being tolerant of Nazis.

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 11:06AM|#

...intolerant...

Ed|11.17.05 @ 11:08AM|#

All this grousing -- by members of both parties -- is fueled by the election cycle in the U.S. which, if I am not mistaken, repeats itself every 62 days now.

MP|11.17.05 @ 11:09AM|#

Whatever you think of their sincerity or competence, their speeches tend to include more than just elections.

Their blather does not include any reference to a system of limited government, which was the thing that made this country great. Democracy is for chumps. An Republic of unrestricted power is an illusion. A Constitution that this 300 pages long is a joke.

This Administration couldn't have screwed up worse if they tried.

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 11:10AM|#

VikingMoose,

Of course, there are also the thousands of Germans who gave a place of hiding to Jews. Though most were found out, I believe around 1,500 Jewish people survived the Nazi depradations in Berlin alone due to their efforts.

Viking Moose|11.17.05 @ 11:11AM|#

dunno - i have no opinions about which sports might be "the most capitalistic" or anything.

and the sentiment in spiegel was a common one i experienced. the head of FIFA also expressed that sentiment on various occasions. you know: "everyone can play. you don't need fancy equipment, like you have to have with your capitalistic US sports. it's the peoples' game. it's the most democratic"
- pretty close quote of a spanish preppy to me, september 1998.

the problem with UFEA is, IMO, that it's always the same teams. there's a hierarchy that cannot be broken.

Thoreau:

sure, but knowing what is meant when conversing with a european about "democracy" is very important. For several reasons. Any misunderstanding they have will be assumed away as though YOU were at fault and therefore stupid. i watched the (admittedly a dickhead) US ambassador to denmark get into a discussion like that. it was really fun being the "fly on the wall" there. :)

"capitalism" = some sort of mercantilistic system (like the soccer) where there's a fixed set of haves and have nots. we'd attach a positive element to that word. just as "democratic" has a quasi libertarian component for us.

"free trade" or "invidualism" were also loaded buzzwords (snarl words, i guess). even the "right wing, pro business, pro EU" papers (no comment there) in denmark, germany, and austria use those words negatively, while they're positive for us.

Understanding that there are massive cultural differences in those words, and you can see how even a well intended comment by a US type can get the battle lines drawn.

while knowing this doesn't change attitudes or make for cooperative conversationalists, it is good to keep in yer back pocket, just in case (think: tim curry's character in Clue, "not the cognac. just in case!")

cheers!

VIking Moose|11.17.05 @ 11:12AM|#

Hak: i minored in german history and 20th cent lit.

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 11:14AM|#

Viking Moose,

Nazi lover. :)

gaius marius|11.17.05 @ 11:15AM|#

This isn't just about the administration, it's about this religious devotion to 'democracy'. And since the term is so malleable, it is very important to point out what democracies are, and that our country was NOT founded on an ideal of democracy. So focusing on democracy as the source of freedom has it entirely backwards, and is misleading.

agreed, mr quasibill.

MP|11.17.05 @ 11:18AM|#

i'd say that democracy begets [...] libertarianism

HA! gaius made a funny.

|11.17.05 @ 11:22AM|#

I wonder how so called conservatives can claim to be Hayekian while imposing democracy from the top down.

|11.17.05 @ 11:24AM|#

That's why they're so called conservatives.

|11.17.05 @ 11:27AM|#

David beat me to it, but I'll add my 2 cents anyway - they're called 'neo'-conservatives for a reason. Their policies betray their trotskyite beginnings...

Viking Moose|11.17.05 @ 11:28AM|#

Hak.

d'oh. :)

i'd'a gotten away with it, too. had it not been for these meddling kids and their dog, too!

now, kome over hier. und get into diz nice, varm schowar. ja. varm schowar. please to not vorry. it iz jest a schowar........

tell me, schnappschen, do yoo like lampz? ja. und your hair iz zo... ja. merkinz for eva. ja.

[froth froth]

----

we interrupt this fantasizing to report that the viking moose has gotten himself stuck in his leather outfit. apparently, one of the zippers got stuck. can anyone reach his leatherman? or call a plumber..... mercy.

still, NOBODY ever has a fantasy about getting tied up by and then ravaged by a liberal. :)

(thanks, PJ)

we now resume this rather twisted transmission.

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

ach. ja. mit det melon. schneaky little waif. ja. .................................

|11.17.05 @ 11:31AM|#

"But just as some officials overestimated how democracy would impose sudden serenity on Iraq..."

Wow, this is rich coming from Michael Young. How about talking about how some cheerleaders on the sidelines (like MY) constantly overstated both the thirst for and plausibity of a "democratic revolution" across the Mideast. During the same timeframe he references, Young made one longwinded, dogmatic post after another about how a revolutonary change in the Mideast was just around the corner. Zzzzzzzzz.

Why is this clown even carried by Reason any longer? He's been about as credible as your average NROer in predicting the course of events over the past few years--which means he has almost no credibility left whatsoever (and I say "almost" only because everybody has to rank above Victor David Hanson on the credibility scale).

|11.17.05 @ 12:00PM|#

"Finally, no administration should ever hail as progress what is patently an effort by dictatorships to sell it a defective bill of democratic goods."

I'd say the same rule should apply to political columnists. Ahem. Ahem.

Seriously, though, I don't see Bush backing off from democracy promotion. Look at his, and Rice's, public diplomacy regarding Ukraine, Lebanon (though that one is tainted by the effort to exploit the people's uprising to further his Middle Eastern power interests) and, recently, China. And look at their efforts in conflict resolution (a necessary precursor to democracy) in Palestine.

Admittedly, these efforts would yield better results were it not for the pariah status we've gained from our criminal power grad in Iraq, but they still provide a solid foundation for further democracy promotion as we go forward.

To those of us (know colloquially as "liberals") to whom democracy promotion has always been the lodestone of foreign policy, it's frustrating to see people with so little imagination that they can't conceive of a strategy or tactic that doesn't involve B-2 Spirits and armored divisions killing people on the other side of thet planet.

|11.17.05 @ 12:03PM|#

BTW, libertoids, there's a crucial discussion going on here, and across our contemporary agora, about the broad themes of realism vs. idealism in foreign policy.

And the response of most of you is to stare into your bellybuttons and hold forth on the failures of democracys qua mob rule. Sadly typical.

|11.17.05 @ 12:09PM|#

"And the response of most of you is to stare into your bellybuttons and hold forth on the failures of democracys qua mob rule. Sadly typical."

Well, that is a massive misrepresentation of what is being argued, but that's par for the course for you, Joe, so I'll just respond in kind:

And the response of Joe is to wish and pine for an uber-human to be elected President and in each Congressional seat, so that all of these flawed institutions will be run in the way that he deems proper, all the while alleging everyone else is navel gazing while firmly having his nose planted in his large intestine...

Peter K.|11.17.05 @ 12:09PM|#

Of course Henry provides no evidence, just assertions.

Young could have zoomed out to look at say China and Uzbekistan.

All the Fortune 500 execs with business in China talk the Communist Party's line about democracy and human rights because it helps the bottome line. Meanwhile Bush asserts that Taiwan's democratic institutions have helped its prosperity.

Uzbekistan didn't like America criticizing the way its dictator has his troops shoot pro-democracy demonstrators, so it took away the US's base there and cozied up to Russia which now combines the worst of both worlds: Mafia capitalism and KGB police state tactics.

But at least China and Russia don't support Israel, right Henry?

MP|11.17.05 @ 12:10PM|#

BTW, libertoids, there's a crucial discussion going on here, and across our contemporary agora, about the broad themes of realism vs. idealism in foreign policy.

For people like me who believe in non-interference, discussing the right way to interfere is pointless.

|11.17.05 @ 12:12PM|#

Well, well, joe, your interventionist stripes come out.

To me, idealism in foreign policy is that we can really affect (or is effect?) change, particularly by force.

To me, realism in foreign policy is that we should militarily leave other nations alone. You want to trade with them? We should trade with every country. You want to send diplomats? Fine. But we should never, ever get our troops involved unless there's a clear and present danger to our country.

So clearly, Iraq, Somalia, Romania, etc were all unacceptable places for us to be militarily. Afghanistan, I can give a pass to, since we thought Osama was there.

Tell me, joe, if Kerry would have been the one to get us into the Iraq mess, would you have been more forgiving? As long as he did it for the right reasons?

|11.17.05 @ 12:15PM|#

quasibill,

The thread hasn't turned into a dispute about parsing the definition of the word "democracy," and harping on the shortcomings of its most extreme form? thoreau didn't have to break in and make the obvious point about the common use of the term "democracy" to mean "liberal, republican governance?"

Gee, and to think I was accusing you of over-literalism and avoiding the point...

|11.17.05 @ 12:21PM|#

Oops, Romania should be Yugoslavia, but I think ya'll coulda figured that out.

|11.17.05 @ 12:23PM|#

Lowdog,

"To me, idealism in foreign policy is that we can really affect (or is effect?) change, particularly by force."

I think that is an unnecessarily cramped and distorted view of foreign policy. What "force" was involved in Jimmy Carter's efforts to link aid to human rights in Central America? In Clinton's mediator role in Northern Ireland? In Reagan's Berlin Wall speech and arms reduction treaties?

"To me, realism in foreign policy is that we should militarily leave other nations alone." Nonintervention is not what realism is about. There are numerous realist uses of force - going to war on behalf of the tyrants in South Vietnam being the most obvious, and training the Contras in torture practices being another.

"Tell me, joe, if Kerry would have been the one to get us into the Iraq mess, would you have been more forgiving? As long as he did it for the right reasons?" When are you talking about? When Saddam was a CIA asset in the late 70s? When we drove the Iraqi army out of Kuwait in 1992? We were well involved in "the Iraqi mess" before Bush decided to make our involvement several degrees of magnitude worse in 2003, so I'm not sure what question I'm answering.

fyodor|11.17.05 @ 12:25PM|#

When our foreign policy goal is to spread democracy, and by force if necessary, then discussing whether this is even a good thing would seem perfectly relevant. Perhaps, joe, your ridicule is based on the belief that spreading democracy is obviously a good thing. And maybe you're right. But once again, you're doing what you love to accuse other of, assuming your conclusion. Yes, you've entered a world here where the belief that democracy, and therefore spreading it, is necessarily good is openly challenged. If you think that's just so off base that all you can do is ridicule it, then I wonder why you bother? If you think the folks here have enough hope to warrant dialogue, then it might make more sense to actual explain why they're wrong.

But then, why do I bother? :-)

Personally, I'm with Winston C. on democracy.

|11.17.05 @ 12:26PM|#

Our involvement in Yugoslavia saved many thousands of lives, and led to the removal of an odious dictator, and his replacement by a democratic, rights-respecting government. This was achieved without the loss of a single American life, without the creation of an insurgency, without spawning an increase in terrorism, and with only the lightest presence of American troops over the medium and long term.

|11.17.05 @ 12:30PM|#

Yes, fyodor, I am assuming that liberal, republican governance is better than dictatorship, and that the intermural spats we have about exactly which form of liberal republican governance are negligeable compared to the difference between, say, the Uzbek regime and any democratic government that exists on the planet today.

You gotta problem wid dat?

|11.17.05 @ 12:34PM|#

Well, I don't agree with linking aid to human rights. I don't think just giving people aid is a good idea to begin with. Just liberalise your trade for everyone instead of trying to micromanage. You would think that the obvious failures of micromanaging would be apparent by now.

Playing mediator and encouraging arms reduction are noble goals, but where did I say I was against them? I said "force" and I really meant "force", as in bombing and invading a locale. Threatening force is a little more tricky, but if we thought someone was rattling their sabre at us, to threaten them back would be a proper use of our force.

Apparently there is some sort of definition for what "realism" is in relation to foreign policy. That's why I prefaced what I had to say with "to me". Obviously, being mostly a non-interventionist, I do not agree with training the Contras or with our little adventure in S Vietnam.

By "Iraq mess", I'm talking about our present 'conflict' there. I know you think, as I do, the American people were lied to by Bush and Co about why we 'needed' to go over there. My question is if Kerry had made a more 'honest' assessment of the situation and still decided to go in, would you have supported the invasion? All I'm saying is that I still wouldn't have.

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 12:38PM|#

I think the solution to the middle east is lots of pot. Maybe we could send over pot-smoke spewing airplanes. Or create giant blowers to blow pot smoke from giant bonfires of burning marijuana.

Rich Ard|11.17.05 @ 12:41PM|#

That'd certainly solve the military's recruitment issues, Hak. :)

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 12:42PM|#

Rich Ard,

Its time we got creative with terrorism. :)

theOneState|11.17.05 @ 12:42PM|#

quasibill,

1. No, I'm talking about the people oppressed by their own governments who probably don't share your distaste of democracy.

2. I said nothing about Iraqi women or Iraqi democracy. Nothing. The middle east is actually kinda big. So I obviously didn't make any claims about whether Iraqi women are better off now than they were a few years ago.

|11.17.05 @ 12:43PM|#

Actually, Lowdog, it's the problems with failing to micromanage your aid, defined as keeping it out of the hands of bastards, that became obvious on a certain Tuesday, four years ago. Although, to me, it was pretty obvious the day some of our aid recipients gunned down an arch-bishop while we has celebrating mass.

"I said "force" and I really meant "force", as in bombing and invading a locale." Fine. Many people feel that way. Just, please, don't confuse the question of force vs. hands off with the question of realism vs. idealism.

Lowdog, and honest assessment by a person as competant as Kerry would not have led to the decision to go in. That's not a question: It's a koan.

Dick Ard|11.17.05 @ 12:43PM|#

Or create giant blowers to blow pot smoke from giant bonfires of burning marijuana.

Good call - all we've been sending over there lately are suckers.

/rimshot

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 12:47PM|#

Pot, fuck yeah! Coming to save the motherfucking day!

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 12:49PM|#

Arguing over Iraq is such a hopelessly pointless exercise. We're committed to the task at hand. Its best to see it through now that is the case.

fyodor|11.17.05 @ 12:52PM|#

You gotta problem wid dat?

Not especially, since as I believe that I made clear, albeit subtly, that I agree.

Still, some folks here evidently do have a problem wid dat. To my mind, they make some good points, even if I ultimately disagree. I see no point in expressing my disagreement with them (or with anyone with whom I disagree) by merely ridiculing them. You do. Well, go figure.

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 12:54PM|#

fyodor,

Remember, joe is part of the mafia here. He'll cut you for talking like dat. :)

MP|11.17.05 @ 12:55PM|#

it's the problems with failing to micromanage your aid

If only the right people, the good people, the wise people were in charge...

clarityiniowa|11.17.05 @ 12:57PM|#

Observation:

Realists use more carrots than sticks.
Idealists use more sticks than carrots.

Discuss.

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 12:57PM|#

MP,

Joe has been reading too much Adams and not enough Madison. You can't depend on good people.

|11.17.05 @ 12:57PM|#

Here is the main paragraph from the article that raised my interest:

"A more obvious parallel question is whether the U.S. can even return to the cold realism that guided policy under the first Bush administration. As 9/11 showed, that approach posed a genuine national security threat, as disgruntled Arabs, associating Washington with their own domestic persecutors, retaliated against the U.S. Conversely, absolute, inflexible devotion to democracy at the expense of more practical consideration of interests is simply not sensible."

Please -- can those of y'all who follow foreign policy and events more closely than I do offer your opinions as to what extent he is correct that 9/11 was retaliation for a realist foreign policy?

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 12:59PM|#

MP,

Its nice to see joe is still in touch with his Puritan roots though.

fyodor|11.17.05 @ 12:59PM|#

thoreau,

I haven't read every post, but I think some of the folks here who denigrate democracy actually prefer anarchy. And/or they think that what has succeeded in the US has not been democracy so much as limited government, so to install the former without the latter is pointless. I don't know that I agree, but I don't see their points as mere pointless haggling over "mob rule" versus "republic."

But perhaps I should leave that to them to say.

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 1:00PM|#

MP,

Its nice to see joe is still in touch with his Puritan roots though.

|11.17.05 @ 1:01PM|#

And for the record, I hope that my predictions are wrong and that Iraq becomes a liberal republic. If so, I will spend the rest of my days hunting crows and consuming them.

fyodor|11.17.05 @ 1:06PM|#

vabs,

Well some people say that among the terrorists' grudges is our "support" of the Saudi and Egyptian regimes. I forget if this was among the greivances actually expressed in Bin Laden's statements. Either way, I kinda wish they'd just retaliate against those governments directly if that's really their beef.

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 1:08PM|#

fyodor,

Yes, that was one of his complaints.

Taking down the Saudis and the Egyptians is part of the strategy of attacking the "near enemy."

Dick Ard|11.17.05 @ 1:09PM|#

re: clarityiniowa

And that's why I think realism will trump idealism - it's easier to hold a carrot over someone's head than it is an anvil.

Hakluyt|11.17.05 @ 1:10PM|#

Threadjack

BTW, Sarkozy is polling in the mid-60s right now, about 15% higher than he was before the riots.

|11.17.05 @ 1:11PM|#

"The thread hasn't turned into a dispute about parsing the definition of the word "democracy," and harping on the shortcomings of its most extreme form? "

No. It has nothing to do with democracy in its "most extreme form" and everything to do with the inherent nature of democracy. As someone else noted, if we were exporting a belief in fundamental human rights, I could at least applaud the intention. But exporting "democracy" is a different thing entirely, even if you think that the generally accepted term is what you state. To believe that there is a generally accepted term displays a willful ignorance to the wide ranging debate on many, many subjects that you can witness on this very site, day after day. People throw democracy around as the basis for freedom, but in the next sentence will say the state can't do that!

If democracy were the lodestone of this country, we'd vote on every point of the Constitution at a regular basis, say every 4 years. I'd fear that situation mightily, as should you.

|11.17.05 @ 1:13PM|#

"I don't know what Der Spiegel is talking about, but I had thought that european soccer was the most capitalistic of sports. With the prevalence of advertising and the rise of successful teams to the highest levels of play and the demotion of the worst teams to lower levels. Whereas American baseballs shittiest teams still reap the benefits of being "major" league teams. etc. etc."

"the head of FIFA also expressed that sentiment on various occasions. you know: "everyone can play. you don't need fancy equipment, like you have to have with your capitalistic US sports. it's the peoples' game. it's the most democratic"

Really, it has always seemed to me that the very nature of soccer is individualistic (for a team sport) above all else, and much more so than any American team sport I can think of. You can interpret how "democratic" that makes it.

Ironically, American football appears to be the most top-down, despotic team sport conceived of. Its economics seems to head down a road that would otherwise be highly frowned upon on by most on this board: a salary cap, almost communistic "revenue-sharing" schemes, humungous barriers to entry, and rewarding the least successful products the most as policy are the most blatant examples. Really, most American sports do business this way, but the NFL is the worst offender.

Any similarity soccer in Europe has has been a result of small groups of guys aspiring to the same deathlock on competition - the breakaway of the Premiership (England) from the rest of the League economically as an example. There are also situations in Italy and Spain in particular where historical ties to fascist leaders aggrandize some teams above all others (still going on continually with Real Madrid). However, the root of the economics of soccer in Europe are much less anti-competetive (perhaps ironically so) than American sports and the EC decsion on Bosman only increased that (even as attempts at economic anti-competetiveness were brewing).

Even with the Premiership/Rest of FA split in England, the basic roots of competetive success and business acumen leading to success and higher standing (and competetive suction and poor business practices - witness Leeds United - leading to a fall in esteem) permeate the game of soccer more so than any American team sport.

|11.17.05 @ 1:14PM|#

Why do people who use the word "republic" get a free ride, while people who use the word "democracy" are lectured on the evils of mob rule?

To be fair, thoreau, it was you who introduced the word "republic" into this thread. No one here complaining about the word "democracy" seems to be arguing that the word "republic" is better.

Rather, the folks who mind the spreading of "democracy" as policy are suggesting that spreading "freedom" or "liberty" would be more appropriate, less problematic, and less rhetorically malleable. The end is Liberty: Democracy -- or a liberal, democratic republic -- is but a means.

But seriously, if we could install the government of Hong Kong or Singapore in Iraq today, the Iraqi people would be orders of magnitude better off than any democracy that is likely to come from the current exercise.

|11.17.05 @ 1:15PM|#

Sorry for the attempted threadjack down the sports line, BTW.

fyodor|11.17.05 @ 1:15PM|#

I should add that killing civilians anywhere is a lame, inefficient, especially vile and ultimately inexcusable way to try to "retaliate" against any government.

fyodor|11.17.05 @ 1:20PM|#

Timon19,

Regarding your critique of the NFL, as long as it's all arrived at via mutually cooperative decisions as opposed to coercive tactics, there's no violation of libertarian principles. But perhaps you know that already.

|11.17.05 @ 1:21PM|#

"See, I don't get the harping on mob rule that inevitably comes up when somebody uses the word "democracy." "

Well, I never harped on mob rule - I specifically mentioned our modern government. While it is not currently mob rule, it is trending in that direction, and you can point to scholars such as Podhoretz and Scalia, who are supposedly conservative, who favor majoritarianism. So you and Joe are the ones arguing with the strawman when you talk about "mob rule".

And again, the very basis of the argument about democracy is flawed. It is not the basis of our country or its vision of liberty. Limited government was. Democracy was but one (and a very limited one at that) tool used to restrain the government. And Tocqueville was very prescient in noting the danger of democracy - that it gave legitimacy to tyrranical acts. Like when Wilson said that draftees were volunteers, because "we the people" were the government!

Democracy CAN be a bulwark against tyrrany, but only in a homogenous society that already harbors such values. Outside of that experience, democracy ultimately devolves into tyrrany of the majority.

MP|11.17.05 @ 1:24PM|#

And/or they think that what has succeeded in the US has not been democracy so much as limited government, so to install the former without the latter is pointless.

There are no shortage of people who believe that simple Democracy is the panacea to the world's ills. "If only people could vote." bah. And I disagree with joe regarding the outward image of what the US Government promotes as foreign policy. They promote Democracy for Democracy's sake. There is no underlying promotion of Republic.

I don't know that I agree, but I don't see their points as mere pointless haggling over "mob rule" versus "republic."

Correct. This is totally not the case. I firmly believe that the fundamentals of the US setup, a collection of Republican governments with a Federal/Republican cooperative body, is likely the most optimal political setup us lowly humans have stumbled across. But WHY is the key question? It is not simply because people have a voice. It is because of the many layers of checks and balances and power sharing which in theory has the optimal effect of minimizing the state. The goal in the creation of this country was not to give everyone a voice. It was to remove the dominance of a single voice and then restrict the interference of government.

Has anyone EVER heard recent (last 50 years) US foreign policy be at all related to constricting the power of the state? No. It has been all about the transference of the power of the state from one form of governence to another. That is one huge reason why I find "Democracy Promtion" so valueless. Beyond my objection to interferring with other nation states, we have traditionally promoted our structure of governence without promoting the fundamentals that make that structure worthwhile.

As can be seen here, the structure is not foolproof. When you have branches that give-up responsibility (states sucking off the Federal tit, SCOTUS deferring to Congress, a President without a veto) the grand plan falls apart. Still though, I promote this structure as better than all others, but what I am REALLY promoting is the underlying goal of minimizing the state that the Republican/Federal structure can help to achieve.

|11.17.05 @ 1:26PM|#

"I should add that killing civilians anywhere is a lame, inefficient, especially vile and ultimately inexcusable way to try to "retaliate" against any government."

Or to try to change or punish that government.

|11.17.05 @ 1:29PM|#

fyoder,

Thanks. Of course, another realist policy action would be aggressive intervention against Arab governments when it suits our interests. I have to wonder if Young also sees US aggression as a causal factor of 9/11.

|11.17.05 @ 1:29PM|#

joe:

Someone already said it, but I have to laugh at the thought of not micromanaging enough being the problem.

Again, there must be actual definitions of "realism" and "idealism" in foreign policy...I'm not that up-to-date to actually be aware of this, until now. So, let's just leave it at that I am a non-interventionist, which you are obviously not.

Finally, you seem to have an aweful lot of faith in Mr Kerry. But even if I could have been guaranteed that he wouldn't have taken us to war, I still wouldn't have voted for him. I still would've voted LP. But I guess that's just because I'm an idealist (and not in the foreign policy sense). :)

Not that it matters at this point, anyway...

I do tend to agree with Hakluyt - now that we've already fucked up by going into Iraq, we might as well see it through. :/

|11.17.05 @ 1:31PM|#

"Timon19,

Regarding your critique of the NFL, as long as it's all arrived at via mutually cooperative decisions as opposed to coercive tactics, there's no violation of libertarian principles. But perhaps you know that already."

If the stories from the early discussions (Art Modell, Lamar Hunt, et. al.) of TV revenue sharing (among other things) are true, there may have been some coercion, at least minimally. Ultimately, there was agreement, but it was by no means unanimous, as I remember.

Similarly, the barriers to entry bit sure does seem cartel-ish.

Certainly, it's not a completely controlled economy, but the principles are underlying shouldn't give libertarians warm fuzzies, IMO.

As for the nature of the game itself, American football is tremendously autocratic. Hockey is probably least so among North American-created sports (I wholly reject the idea that soccer is not an "American" sport - this oughta get some tomatoes thrown my way:) ).

clarityiniowa|11.17.05 @ 1:36PM|#

"Who is your lord?"

"We don't have a lord!"

"Right, we're an anarcho-syndicalist collective. We take it turns to act as a sort of... executive officer for the week. But all decisions of that officer must be ratified by a simple majority in the case of purely domestic affairs...

"Shut up!"

"Or a two-thirds majority..."

"WILL YOU SHUT UP!"

|11.17.05 @ 1:48PM|#

I haven't read every post, but I think some of the folks here who denigrate democracy actually prefer anarchy.

Libertarians who believe in democracy, or even in limited constitutional federal republican government, don't believe so simply because they like such governments. They believe so because they think it is the best way to guarantee and protect a libertarian society. Liberty is the end, and particular government fundamentals are the best means to produce it.

Similarly, anarchists are not anarchists because they like anarchy. They are anarchists because they believe anarchy, rather than attempts at limited government, is the best way to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.

clarityiniowa|11.17.05 @ 2:09PM|#

Nothing wrong with democracy IN THEORY. A democracy of rationally self-interested, intelligent people of goodwill is what I think of when some well-meaning Libertarian describes their version of anarchy to me. The trouble with democracy is the same as that with anarchy or, I'm afraid, any Libertarian scheme - human nature.

We are not primarily, inherently, good or evil. The problem is our abilty to choose to act rationally or irrationally, constructively or destructively. The larger the population, and the more complicated the politics, the more difficulty there will be with any essentially lawless system, or lack of a system.

What's missing from this thread is a discussion not of democracy versus republicanism, but law vs. lawlessness, and governments of law rather than of men. The latter clause is the most potent differentiation for me, by the way, between a democracy and a republic.

|11.17.05 @ 2:28PM|#

OK, maybe I did argue against "the posters in my head" to some extent.

|11.17.05 @ 2:44PM|#

Democracy is awesome!

MP|11.17.05 @ 3:05PM|#

Twba,

Exactly.

Peter K.|11.17.05 @ 3:51PM|#

MP,

At who's expense is this irony? Turkey has a Muslim party running its government and the worst its done was deny the Allies a northern route into Iraq before the war.

(After that the US should have economically brought the hammer down and choked the shit out of their economy, but no America's supporting their entry into the EU.)

Israel doesn't like the Middle East democratizing and was against Hamas participating in Palestinian elections, but Bush wouldn't support them on that.

This article is evidence against those who say there's been no progress in the Middle East because of the war.

Cornholio, the rabid moose|11.17.05 @ 3:54PM|#

Timon:

fine.

but it was just quoting someone on FIFA. not interested in your opinions on the NFL or on football or anything like that.

bringing that up would be like bringing up how the brits tried cheating their way to euro 96 and still lost. heh. fuckers didn't have to travel. still lost. gasgoine on that team = GLAD they lost.

MP|11.17.05 @ 3:56PM|#

This article is evidence against those who say there's been no progress in the Middle East because of the war.

Voting = Progress?

|11.17.05 @ 4:09PM|#

Moose:

I'm not sure any of the bureaucrats at FIFA know what the hell they're actually talking about. They probably wouldn't know "democracy" if it bit them in the ass.

It's a toss up between the IOC and FIFA for Most Corrupt, Idiotic and Out-Of-Touch Leadership Among International Organizations Not Named "UN".

On another note, I hear there was some nastiness in Turkey as their boys crashed out of the playoff with Switzerland. And the Aussies managed to qualify for once! Let's hope the US gets a favorable draw.

the silliest MOOSE of them all|11.17.05 @ 4:14PM|#

:)

and art modell is the biggest asshole of them all. he and dick pound (what a name!!!) can go to hell :)

cheerio!

|11.17.05 @ 4:16PM|#

"and art modell is the biggest asshole of them all"

That is the closest thing to objective Truth I've seen in some time.

Viking Moose but there are tho|11.17.05 @ 4:26PM|#

and prayeth what might be the source of your hatred of the scourge of all pox and boils on airbrushed centerfolds' bums?

i grew up in NE ohio. that is the source of my affliction :)

|11.17.05 @ 5:31PM|#

quasibill, give me a freaking break. Every speech Bush has ever made about "democracy" has included discussions of human rights, limited government, capitalism, religious freedom, freedom of conscience, and all the other tenents of liberal republicanism. The willful ignorance is being displayed by those who hear the term "democracy promotion" being expressed in reference to George Bush's foreign policy, and think that the issue of unalloyed power of the mob is somehow relevant. This isn't about "the wide ranging debate on many, many subjects that you can witness on this very site, day after day." This is about democracy as it is understood by normal people, and by this administration - a variety of the liberal, democratic system of republican government we have in this country.

|11.17.05 @ 5:40PM|#

"Has anyone EVER heard recent (last 50 years) US foreign policy be at all related to constricting the power of the state?"

Our efforts towards the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan come to mind.

|11.17.05 @ 5:50PM|#

Moose:

Grew up in NE Ohio (between Canton and Akron).

Live in NE Ohio (Cuyahoga Falls).

It's been snowing most of the day. I always hate the first day of snow, even if none of it sticks, because I know what's ahead.

Oh well. Soon enough I'll be in a MUCH warmer place.

fyodor|11.17.05 @ 6:12PM|#

"Has anyone EVER heard recent (last 50 years) US foreign policy be at all related to constricting the power of the state?"

A properly constricted foreign policy would have nothing to say about the power of the state.

|11.17.05 @ 7:24PM|#

And joe just applauded Bush's vision of democracy.

Now, if only Bush was competent enough to implement it...

|11.17.05 @ 7:48PM|#

...art modell is the biggest asshole of them all.

I disrespectfully submit that Art Modell couldn't hold a candle to Robert Irsay.

Viking Moose|11.17.05 @ 8:11PM|#

Ken - check this out from the indy star:
"There were many stories about Irsay's 12 years as owner of the Baltimore Colts, and no shortage of former players and coaches - even relatives - willing to speak ill of the man..."

woah!

Timon19:

cool. i am from chagrin...

|11.17.05 @ 8:28PM|#

What's missing from this thread is a discussion not of democracy versus republicanism, but law vs. lawlessness, and governments of law rather than of men. The latter clause is the most potent differentiation for me, by the way, between a democracy and a republic.

Without some measure of responsiveness, no government is good for long.

...but being responsive to certain segments of society can be part of the problem. A lack of adequate protection for minorities--consider the experience of Native Americans and Jim Crow--is a problem. Grafting democracy to some sick tree isn't necessarily the answer; indeed, it can exacerbate the problems. ...and I remain unconvinced that introducing democracy is a net benefit to the United States in all cases at all times.

It has to do with risk. When I'm lookin' at a potential project, if the numbers don't crunch, I just don't do the project. People think of speculative development as an inherently risky business, but if I can't put a circle around the risk, if the worst case scenario doesn't crunch as a net positive, then I don't bother to look for funding much less break ground.

Foreign policy is a little different. In speculative development, saying no to project just means you forego potential profits; in foreign policy, however, the consequences for failing to take on a project can be devastating. I think that was the case in Afghanistan; not responding was more indeterminately risky than responding, but that wasn't the case in Iraq.

I remain wary that a greater threat to the American people may emerge from that wreckage, greater than the one we destroyed. ...and that's talking about the reward side of the risk/reward analysis; that's assuming democracy sticks! The risk side is even worse. There's no way of knowing how long we'll be there, what we'll do if there's a civil war, whether we'll be compelled to return. We still can't put a circle around that risk.

Measure this against where we were, with the threat Hussein presented to the American people essentially contained by the coalition.

I wish the entire earth was covered with governments that respected rights, had the rule of law, a free market, were ethnicity and creed blind, democratic governments. Until that's the way it is, I expect our leaders to balance the best interest of the American people against the risks. ...If that makes me a realist then I guess that's what I am.

Having said that, it doesn't seem to me that overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran was in our best interest. ...nor myriad other pragmatic mistakes.

|11.17.05 @ 8:30PM|#

"There were many stories about Irsay's 12 years as owner of the Baltimore Colts, and no shortage of former players and coaches - even relatives - willing to speak ill of the man..."

There was a whole hell of a lot of people in Baltimore who had plenty to say about him--long before he left.

|11.17.05 @ 11:12PM|#

V. Moose,

democracy = a + B(rifraf) + e.

the derivative of rifraf/demo is positive, as is the beta coefficient. for them, at least.

lim (t --> inf) d(democracy)/dt = inf

Ahh!! The controls system has failed. The plant has poles and zeros in the right half-plane!

|11.17.05 @ 11:18PM|#

thoreau,

If you're going to worry about the wide range of meanings ascribed to the word "democracy", let's not forget the wide range of meanings ascribed to the word "republic."

"Islamic Republic", for instance.

Or People's Republic of China.

My objection to "democracy" is on two fronts, the first well said by MP.

we have traditionally promoted our structure of governence without promoting the fundamentals that make that structure worthwhile.

The second being that in the long run, I do not believe We the People (or any other people) are really smart enough to rule themselves. It degenerates to mob rule because, well, people turn into a mob.

I'm not sure who is smart enough to rule in the long run. I'm just saying, we still need a better political system than anything that anybody has come up with yet.

The real goal isn't the system, democracy or republic. The real goal is insuring liberty for all, to the greatest possible extent.

Which is achieved by minimizing government involvement to the greatest possible extent.

|11.17.05 @ 11:21PM|#

Hak,

I think the solution to the middle east is lots of pot. Maybe we could send over pot-smoke spewing airplanes. Or create giant blowers to blow pot smoke from giant bonfires of burning marijuana.

Weapons of mass halucination? :)

Sorry but it won't work, nobody's really figured out how to make chem weapons work well. Just to hard to dispense over wide areas.

No, ya gotta get 'em all to smoke it themselves. Need a new bumper sticker:

Make bongs not bombs

|11.17.05 @ 11:23PM|#

Hey, fuck the smoke. Do Iraqis like brownies?

|11.17.05 @ 11:39PM|#

Here's a plan.

If Islam is against drinking, then pot must be worse. So all Bush had to do was pay Columbian drug lords to fly their planes over the ME and dump pot laced brownies by the shitload.

Everybody in the ME gets wasted and chills out. Bin Laden, in retaliation, starts crashing jet planes into obscure fields deep in South American jungles.

All you have to do is keep both sides well supplied with airplanes. It's gotta be cheaper than our current foreign aid plan.

The war on drugs has been turned against the war on terrorism. Two problems solved.

Now see, this just proves that Bush is a total idiot. Because I thought of this and he didn't.

Save the world. Make bongs not bombs.

V Moose|11.18.05 @ 1:18AM|#

Kahn!

LOL!:))))))

awesome!

|11.18.05 @ 4:29AM|#

Am I the only one who had to look up "alarum"? I mean, I like expanding my vocab and all, but why not just say "alarm," if it's just an archaic spelling?

|11.18.05 @ 9:43AM|#

Here ya go joe:

Log onto Free republic. Start posting your ideas of what our government is and how it should run. Read your responses. Focus especially on the 1st amendment, what it means, and how it can act to restrain the rule of the mob.

Then tell me if there is a broad consensus as to the underpinnings of our "liberal democracy". And then tell me if what is envisioned by the Iraq Constitution even vaguely resembles your vision, or if it resembles the vision of the freepers.

As I said, if democracy was what is the basis, then we'd vote on the entire Constitution every four years. And while yes, Bush mentions human rights as an aside, it is really democracy that he and his buddies see as the necessity. His calculus is much like the underpants gnomes:

Step 1: Impose democracy.

Step 2: ?

Step 3: Human rights!

The problem isn't that they haven't found the right step 2 yet, it's just that it just doesn't work that way - it's entirely backward.

|11.18.05 @ 12:01PM|#

Oh well. Soon enough I'll be in a MUCH warmer place.

Are you planning to retire and move to Florida or dying and going to hell?

Have you given any thought as to whether you'll be able to tell the difference?

|11.18.05 @ 12:42PM|#

Carl, I also looked it up. And I agree with you, why not just say "alarm?"

|11.18.05 @ 1:06PM|#

Much too young to retire. Probably not all that near death, either, though...

...my imminent trip to the UAE (again) always holds that possibility.

(Seriously, I've never been close to fearing for my life there)

Reason.com