Posted on 09/10/2002 4:18:52 PM PDT by Pokey78
Thank heaven our language has been freed from the chains of meaning. Otherwise I might have to point out that when America turned the ancient tyrannies (that's what lttle Mr. Wilson called them) of Europe into democracies we got.....oh what were the names of those men-of-the-people?
Helplessly hoping......
Cultural Jihad: ""...Excellent essay bump..."
You can't mean that. Unless you look forward to the prospect of drowning in the oceans of blood that will be unleashed by these revolutionary democracies at whose birth our government and military seems determined to preside like Wicked Fairy Godmothers--having learned NOTHING from history.
I will get back to you and others on some of the contentions raised against my little dissent (#22). But I just had to respond to your closing thought. It is precisely because I would hope to see more freedom among peoples, that I dissent from the idea of trying to foist Democracy on them. Democracy, as Madison observed so clearly in the Federalist Papers, is not a means to greater freedom. It is quite the opposite.
I will try to find the time to get back here, later today, to more fully develop my points. It is vital to understand the political/social dynamics involved in this argument. And it is sad how few Conservatives seem to do so. We have let the Left clothe a particular procedure for choosing Governments with a mystical power that it does not have. The key to freedom is a general understanding and acceptance by those who hold political power, however that power may be delegated or devolve, on the limitations on what is a legitimate exercise of political power. Americans once understood this concept as second nature. We no longer do so; and rather than lecturing the world on Government, we need a time for rediscovery of our own lost wisdom.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
WRONG!
We should turn them into glass. The Islamic ones anyway...
What would Democracy in Algeria or Egypt look like? Iran. That's what. Better glass than that.
I promised earlier to return, and augment my post #22. I have picked your comment as capturing the essence of the argument, here.
The requirements of "democracy," do indeed include an educated population, and a middle-class, as you suggest. Put, slightly differently, the basic concept requires three things to work anywhere:
1. You have to have a population with sufficient intelligence among the average member, to actually understand the functions and purposes of Government.
2. You have to have a population that has been educated in the enduring values of their own Society--a population which has a frame of reference within which to make decisions with respect to the application of Government to their ongoing existence as a people.
3. You have to have a population with sufficient leisure time to reflect on those who seek office, and how they measure up with respect to the functions and purposes of your Government.
You assume that having an educated middle-class, you will meet these criteria. But are you certain that the educated middle-class in Iran is potentially as dominant as the educated middle-class in Switzerland, where Democracy really has worked for an extended period? Are you certain that there is not a large under-class that may be easily exploited by demagogues, first as a swing vote, and then as a basis for obtaining an elective tyranny?
Yet, even if you are, we have but scratched the surface of the problem. As Madison pointed out, minorities are the real victims of Democracy. Are there not small tribal entities in all of the countries that the writer would, in effect, seek to remake, who have different social priorities than the middle-classes that you see being potentially dominant? For such as these, can anyone really suggest that "Democracy" has any connection whatsoever to Freedom?
Consider, for example, what would happen if the philosophy of the "Civil Rights" movement in America--something which some Conservatives are now actually embracing at this venue--were to be applied in Iran. Forcing these tribal groups into common schools; abolishing their right to confine their more intimate business dealings to their own, could very shortly destroy the existence of ethnic groups that have survived for many centuries. Does that serve the cause of Freedom?
Don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that Sadam is a champion of ancient small nations, now under the umbrella of modern Iraq. He has done monstrous things to some of these peoples. But a modern "Democracy," is scarcely likely to be much better. Far better, in such an environment, a Government where the leader--be he King, Emir, Caliph, or whatever--assumes that he is answerable first to Allah, for his stewardship of all of his peoples, than to a one-man, one-vote Democracy. For, it is very likely, that even with that educated middle-class, that even if a majority of that educated middle-class are men who value toleration; that all too soon, such new "Democracies," will degenerate into what you see now in country after country in Africa. How can anyone be certain that more "Democracies" in the third world, will not result in more Mugabe style Zimbabwes, where the mob, not the "Middle-Class" is supreme?
So it is not only a politically able mainstream, educated and affluent, that is required. It is a common identity, a shared tradition--in short a common value system. In America, we had great diversity among the States--and a very limited Federal Government, that only had authority to act in areas where we had a common value system.
But let me bring this subject very close to home. When Bob Dornan lost his seat in what had been a Conservative district in California, because of the influx from South of the border, was that evidence of "Democracy" working in America? Putting completely aside, his charge that many voted illegally; does anyone think that those voters who made the difference, really understood the traditional role of the United States House of Representatives, were really wedded to time-honored American values, or really should have been determining the future fate of the America we love?
There is no magic in counting noses. When counting noses, permits unconscionable men to gain power, it becomes a threat to all that is honorable and decent. This whole question of "Democracy," as a panacea for all human political problems, needs to be carefully reexamined. The more carefully it is examined, the more compelling will seem Madison's comment in Federalist Paper #10.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site [Where there are numerous articles relevant to this subject.]
William Flax
To attempt to establish freedom in a land is a noble and worthwhile cause, however, how likely it is to succeed I am uncertain. I would certainly like to see it succeed, and pray that it will, but we cannot imagine that merely by our actions of war that freedom and liberty will ring through Iraq. I believe the people there desire it, but it is our moral charge, if we invade, to assist them in establishing a good government respecting the rights of all- a hard thing, made even harder by the fact we are unlikely to accept a long-term (many years) maintainance of prescence there- if such a thing is even feasible. It is also self-aiding, as a good government is unlikely to sponsor activities harmful to our interests.
At any rate, it is unlikely things will grow worse for Iraq's people- though, again, they could if things go the wrong way. Revolutions and regime changes often precede genocide- ie Russia, Germany, Turkey, Cambodia. The US must move wisely and carefully- human lives ride upon our decisions.
TIA.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.