It was the policy of the United States government under President George W. Bush that democracy was the answer to what ailed Iraq. The United States government and influential writers such as Thomas L. Friedman and Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times support democracy in Egypt, Tunisia, and throughout the Arab world. I believe most Americans do too.
I believe that democracy has done fine enough in Iraq and that is tribute to President Bush's vision and the Iraqi people's practice. And the U.S. imposed democracy on Japan after World War II, and that could not have worked out better. Those, among others, are encouraging precedent, and those precedents have encouraged presidents and carpel tunnel afflicted wretches alike.
I don't believe democracy will be the outcome in Arabia any time soon, but I will be proved wrong or right about that. The issue in this post is whether it is in the United State's best interests to be supporting democracy in other countries. I believe that most Americans, including presidents and New York Times writers, believe that democracy in other countries will, by its nature, be good for America. But is that true?
Adolph Hitler ran for president of Germany in April, 1932 against the incumbent, Paul von Hindenburg. In a democratic election Hitler came in second, receiving 35% and over 11,000,000 German votes. In the July Reichstag elections Hitler's Nazi party won 37% of the vote and became far and away the largest party in that legislative body. Hitler was appointed Chancellor in January, 1933. In March, 1933 Hitler and the Nazis got 43.9% of the vote. Over 17,000,000 Germans voted for them.
The People's Republic of China has never had democratic elections. Yet, I have never read any account whatsoever that has argued that Mao Zedong would not have been elected had free elections been held.
There are instances, and these are two of them, where clearly the will of the people of the nations involved was in support of ruthless, homicidal dictators. They have not been "good" for their people, not for the American people, not for humanity. There are instances, and these are two of them, where the people of other nations have clearly expressed their will to oppose the United States, it's security, and it's values.
I do not believe that it is in America's best interests to support democratic movements in foreign countries without considering whether the government that those people wish will be hostile or friendly to American security and values.
I believe that democracy has done fine enough in Iraq and that is tribute to President Bush's vision and the Iraqi people's practice. And the U.S. imposed democracy on Japan after World War II, and that could not have worked out better. Those, among others, are encouraging precedent, and those precedents have encouraged presidents and carpel tunnel afflicted wretches alike.
I don't believe democracy will be the outcome in Arabia any time soon, but I will be proved wrong or right about that. The issue in this post is whether it is in the United State's best interests to be supporting democracy in other countries. I believe that most Americans, including presidents and New York Times writers, believe that democracy in other countries will, by its nature, be good for America. But is that true?
Adolph Hitler ran for president of Germany in April, 1932 against the incumbent, Paul von Hindenburg. In a democratic election Hitler came in second, receiving 35% and over 11,000,000 German votes. In the July Reichstag elections Hitler's Nazi party won 37% of the vote and became far and away the largest party in that legislative body. Hitler was appointed Chancellor in January, 1933. In March, 1933 Hitler and the Nazis got 43.9% of the vote. Over 17,000,000 Germans voted for them.
The People's Republic of China has never had democratic elections. Yet, I have never read any account whatsoever that has argued that Mao Zedong would not have been elected had free elections been held.
There are instances, and these are two of them, where clearly the will of the people of the nations involved was in support of ruthless, homicidal dictators. They have not been "good" for their people, not for the American people, not for humanity. There are instances, and these are two of them, where the people of other nations have clearly expressed their will to oppose the United States, it's security, and it's values.
I do not believe that it is in America's best interests to support democratic movements in foreign countries without considering whether the government that those people wish will be hostile or friendly to American security and values.
