Full Version: Does America wish to "export democracy"
Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Batista, Noriega, Saddam, Marcos, the list is long and lurid. It is nearly impossible to find a country where we haven't killed democracy to install a dictator. I got this idea from the Chavez debate- it is apparent that the US propaganda machine is going into full swing to demonize the popularly elected leader of that country- no doubt to install a military junta friendly to the US- So the question is:
"Why has the US so often supported dictators over democratically elected governments?"
If you do not agree that the US supports dictators over democracy- please provide examples.
"Why has the US so often supported dictators over democratically elected governments?"
If you do not agree that the US supports dictators over democracy- please provide examples.
Why has the US so often supported dictators over democratically elected governments?
Because we feared that a democratically elected government would be less friendly to U.S. interests than the dictator. Often, the U.S. assumed that left-leaning opposition movements were Soviet fronts. Sometimes they were. Since the end of the Cold War, I think the balance has shifted favorably toward democracy.
If you do not agree that the US supports dictators over democracy- please provide examples.
MacArthur did a pretty good job transitioning Japan from a dictatorship to a constitutional democracy.
Getting rid of a dictator can be costly. The U.S. has facilitated the peaceful removal of dictators with whom we'd previously been friendly -- once it became clear that they would soon be overthrown by their own people.
When I say the U.S. "facilitated their peaceful removal," I should clarify that the U.S. helped Ferdinand Marcos and Baby Doc Duvalier escape justice. Reagan thought the alternative would have been bloody civil war. The Philippines are still struggling with democracy, and Haiti so far has failed at it... But would they have been better off if Marcos or Duvalier had stuck it out to the bitter end?
[Replying to myself, adding this:] Finally, when listing the U.S.'s failures, remember there was another "imperialist" power involved in the Cold War:
Kim Jong Il, Ceausescu, Honecker, Zhivkov, Jaruzelski, Hungary 1956, Prague 1968; the list is long and lurid. Though often begun as popular movements, the communist regimes aligned with the Soviet Union were anything but democratic. Start an opposition political party, go to prison. Even Communist Party leaders who talked about liberalization (like allowing other political parties) might face Russian tanks arriving to "correct" them -- lest the country fall to the forces of capitalism. (This was the Brezhnev Doctrine, as practiced in Prague in 1968.)
The U.S. generally supported dictators when the alternative looked like a permanent expansion of the Soviet sphere of influence. I say "permanent" because the Brezhnev Doctrine was intended to act as a ratchet. Once a nation had discovered the glories of socialism, it would not be allowed to renounce them.
The U.S., on the other hand, had no policy of opposing multi-party democracy in our allies. Our friend Marcos called an election in 1986 and lost. Did we send in the tanks? No, we just got him out of there. Pinochet's reign had a similar end. Are there any examples of the Soviet Union allowing one of its friendly dictators to be overthrown? (Before the whole thing collapsed, I mean.)
Because we feared that a democratically elected government would be less friendly to U.S. interests than the dictator. Often, the U.S. assumed that left-leaning opposition movements were Soviet fronts. Sometimes they were. Since the end of the Cold War, I think the balance has shifted favorably toward democracy.
If you do not agree that the US supports dictators over democracy- please provide examples.
MacArthur did a pretty good job transitioning Japan from a dictatorship to a constitutional democracy.
Getting rid of a dictator can be costly. The U.S. has facilitated the peaceful removal of dictators with whom we'd previously been friendly -- once it became clear that they would soon be overthrown by their own people.
When I say the U.S. "facilitated their peaceful removal," I should clarify that the U.S. helped Ferdinand Marcos and Baby Doc Duvalier escape justice. Reagan thought the alternative would have been bloody civil war. The Philippines are still struggling with democracy, and Haiti so far has failed at it... But would they have been better off if Marcos or Duvalier had stuck it out to the bitter end?
[Replying to myself, adding this:] Finally, when listing the U.S.'s failures, remember there was another "imperialist" power involved in the Cold War:
Kim Jong Il, Ceausescu, Honecker, Zhivkov, Jaruzelski, Hungary 1956, Prague 1968; the list is long and lurid. Though often begun as popular movements, the communist regimes aligned with the Soviet Union were anything but democratic. Start an opposition political party, go to prison. Even Communist Party leaders who talked about liberalization (like allowing other political parties) might face Russian tanks arriving to "correct" them -- lest the country fall to the forces of capitalism. (This was the Brezhnev Doctrine, as practiced in Prague in 1968.)
The U.S. generally supported dictators when the alternative looked like a permanent expansion of the Soviet sphere of influence. I say "permanent" because the Brezhnev Doctrine was intended to act as a ratchet. Once a nation had discovered the glories of socialism, it would not be allowed to renounce them.
The U.S., on the other hand, had no policy of opposing multi-party democracy in our allies. Our friend Marcos called an election in 1986 and lost. Did we send in the tanks? No, we just got him out of there. Pinochet's reign had a similar end. Are there any examples of the Soviet Union allowing one of its friendly dictators to be overthrown? (Before the whole thing collapsed, I mean.)
Let's just worry about exporting capitalism and let democracy follow. Some societies are not ready for democracy. In many societies democratic rule is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. Impoverished fools may well vote for socialist government which will simply result in greater poverty.
Milton Friedman
A vote for socialism is a vote for tyranny.
The two worst foreign policy Presidents in the last 50 years are GW Bush and Jimmy Carter, both valued democracy over current national interests. They are both idiots. Iran has whupped both of them. Wilsonian idealism be damned.
No one understands the stupidity of promoting democracy as well as Pat Buchanan
Excerpts From
George Woodrow Carter
by Pat Buchanan
November 12, 2003
.
QUOTE
Fundamentally, there are only two ways of coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion - the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary cooperation of individuals - the technique of the marketplace.
Milton Friedman
A vote for socialism is a vote for tyranny.
The two worst foreign policy Presidents in the last 50 years are GW Bush and Jimmy Carter, both valued democracy over current national interests. They are both idiots. Iran has whupped both of them. Wilsonian idealism be damned.
No one understands the stupidity of promoting democracy as well as Pat Buchanan
Excerpts From
George Woodrow Carter
by Pat Buchanan
November 12, 2003
QUOTE
Traditional conservatives believe in the Eisenhower formula of Peace through Strength and the Washington-Jefferson policy of nonintervention in the affairs and wars of nations that do not threaten us.
Wilsonians believe that unless the whole world is democratic, we are not secure. America's first crusade was Wilson's war "to make the world safe for democracy." It succeeded in making the world safe for the British Empire, which added a million square miles, and paved the path to power for Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. Wilsonism was a glorious failure, though his disciples will never concede it.
Wilsonians believe that unless the whole world is democratic, we are not secure. America's first crusade was Wilson's war "to make the world safe for democracy." It succeeded in making the world safe for the British Empire, which added a million square miles, and paved the path to power for Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. Wilsonism was a glorious failure, though his disciples will never concede it.
QUOTE
Before Bush sets off destabilizing regimes, he might recall what Carter reaped after his human rights hectoring helped topple Somoza and the Shah: Soviet-backed Sandinistas in Managua and the Islamic republic of the ayatollahs in Teheran.
.
Typically those who worry about the "readiness" of societies for democracy have a rather fanciful view of the history of its adoption in the West.
In nearly every case it took years and years of fighting and bickering to come up with a stable government, even in the US. Some places were worse than others, thos with a longer history of authoritarian rule and and entrenched elite like France for instance.
Now that was a mess....
The reason the US has not been willing to truly export democracy has been a combination of defining our national interest narrowly around economic and geopolitical ends...
...and the blinding short-sightedness of our policy-makers which marks most of our domestic errors as well.
Few policies now are designed to outlast an election cycle or two.
Democracy takes time but it is nearly always better for all involved, including us.
Support for democracy was likely the smartest move in the Bush platform, it's a shame he's made such a mess of it because now the "money talks" crowd will have all new reasons to support oppression abroad in order to make a few bucks.
In nearly every case it took years and years of fighting and bickering to come up with a stable government, even in the US. Some places were worse than others, thos with a longer history of authoritarian rule and and entrenched elite like France for instance.
Now that was a mess....
The reason the US has not been willing to truly export democracy has been a combination of defining our national interest narrowly around economic and geopolitical ends...
...and the blinding short-sightedness of our policy-makers which marks most of our domestic errors as well.
Few policies now are designed to outlast an election cycle or two.
Democracy takes time but it is nearly always better for all involved, including us.
Support for democracy was likely the smartest move in the Bush platform, it's a shame he's made such a mess of it because now the "money talks" crowd will have all new reasons to support oppression abroad in order to make a few bucks.
QUOTE
Milton Friedman
A vote for socialism is a vote for tyranny.
The two worst foreign policy Presidents in the last 50 years are GW Bush and Jimmy Carter, both valued democracy over current national interests. They are both idiots. Iran has whupped both of them. Wilsonian idealism be damned.
A vote for socialism is a vote for tyranny.
The two worst foreign policy Presidents in the last 50 years are GW Bush and Jimmy Carter, both valued democracy over current national interests. They are both idiots. Iran has whupped both of them. Wilsonian idealism be damned.
I agree. To try to shove a particular form of “democracy” down the throats of any group is going to take lots of time. Better, as you say, to insure Capitalism has a firm foothold and then look to insure individual freedoms.
I don't agree with shoving a US friendly monster down the throats of innocents is exactly what the US stands for either,
You okay with the lists of evil we have done to those countries?
You okay with the lists of evil we have done to those countries?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 31 2007, 05:19 PM) 
I don't agree with shoving a US friendly monster down the throats of innocents is exactly what the US stands for either,
You okay with the lists of evil we have done to those countries?
You okay with the lists of evil we have done to those countries?
Not sure you are speaking to me.
Certainly during the cold war we did some bad things abroad – but nothing compared to the SU.
Today Capitalism gives millions of jobs and billions of $$$ a year to the developing world. Certainly nothing “bad” about that.
Bill Gates pays to vaccinate more people every year than all the free governments on earth.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.