"It was not a mistake, as some have argued, to expand NATO and the EU into Eastern Europe. It was a significant strategic advance for democracy and free market capitalism."
-Nicholas Burns, Boston Globe.
Mr. Burns puts it more directly than others have. Thomas L. Friedman wrote that "we" should get all that we can out of the genocide that was then just beginning in Egypt. "It" is the pursuit of happiness. That is the soul of America, that is Nicholas Burns' and Thomas L. Friedman's soul.
It is apodictic that democracy and free market capitalism are synergistic. The "human right" that Official America most consistently advances is democracy. Democracy is good. In promoting democracy in other countries Official America promotes the human rights of other peoples. One level deeper, American support for democracy abroad supports government by popular consent. Government of, by and for is good.
America, official and unofficial, has had chance to think about the applicability of "democracy is good." Sometimes the bird hits the air pump with democracy. Democracy produced Hitler; Democracy produced Mohammad Morsi. Democracy resulted in genocide in the first; it resulted, by one degree of separation, in genocide in the second. Democracy produced Robert Mugabe, Salvador Allende, Vladimir Putin. Democracy is not always good, not even for the human rights of the voting democrats.
In all of the instances above, maybe with the exception of Putin, America thinks "real" democracy was "high-jacked." And it was. More or less. Maybe with the exception of Putin, again. There was the form of democracy, i.e. there were elections, but then the victors hollowed the content, protection of minority rights for instance, being "inclusive." Protection of minority rights and having an inclusive government do seem to be part of the content of democracy, of government of, by and for. Those and more, are how Official America defines the content of democracy in any event, whether they are included in any "official" definition of democracy.
In all those instances, however, America does not go the one level deeper, does not go the one level deeper as it is reflected in American policy, that is. That is, however short of "real" democracy America thinks the governments are in those instances, still those governments are (or were) of, by and for the people. To take the most extreme example, Hitler was a terrible, terrible dictator, of course. However, no one can argue that he was not supported by at least a plurality of the German people. And the same with Morsi, Mugabe, Allende and Putin.
America has thought of all this and has concluded that those instances are forgettable exceptions to the rule "democracy is good," which American foreign policy most consistently pursues. In other instances, for example China, where there was never the hint of democracy under Mao Zedong, but where also there was no doubt that Mao's dictatorship was supported by the Chinese people, that's another exception, America thinks. Policy's the same: democracy is good. Official America thinks democracy is a human right but there are these exceptional humans, not that democracy is not a human right, not that democracy isn't for all humans.
As a human right, democracy is emphasized by Official America because democracy is the hand maiden to free market capitalism. And here we come back again to Nicholas Burns. Mr. Burns is exceptional in making this link explicit. Official America likes it to be implicit, we like to emphasize the human right, democracy. But, Official America really does believe, knows, that democracy and fee market capitalism are joined at the hip. (The Chinese, man, they are really exceptional.) Mr. Burns joins them at the hip. But, Official America cannot even make the argument that free market capitalism is a human right. First, because it's not, like, human, right? Capitalism is a tool, a machine, it is not a human anything, it is a tool to make money. Second because, my God, how many different economic systems have their been that the peoples of the world have tried? That they still try. Third, and we'll leave it at third, the capitalist machine is pretty inhumane sometimes, right? It has not eradicated poverty, you have these immense asymmetric distributions of wealth, America itself has had to "tweak" the machine several times to: avoid depressions, provide a social "safety net," there's "free trade" and then there's "fair trade," etc. And etc. Capitalism is like the legend of the shark: So primitive, inhuman, so perfectly predatory that it must always advance in order to aerate its gills, gobbling up more and more as the only thing it knows how to do, or it will die. In capitalism, if a company is not growing it dies. Official America does not mention the shark, it does not mention capitalism if it can avoid it; when it can't avoid it Official America shows prospective buyers Big Macs and Four Wheel Drives and big houses and toys. Official America's argument, when it includes free market capitalism at all, is a sort of capitalistic "buy one, get one free." Buy democracy, get capitalism. A lot of people are down with all that. Nicholas Burns is down with all that.
Some people are not down with all that.
Some people are not down with democracy and free market capitalism. Hitler was not down with capitalism. The German people were not. Nor the Japanese. Both of those peoples emphasized race or ethnicity over making money. Nor, of course, were the Soviet Russians. (But they're all gone now. We won.). The Chinese are down with capitalism, they're not down with democracy. Putin's Russia is pretty much down with capitalism, is down, more or less, with democracy but puts, at least recently, more emphasis on ethnicity through language. None of them are, or were, down with inclusiveness (Or maybe Putin wants to be too inclusive.), which is one of the components of democracy. America thinks. Putin's "intellectuals" reject inclusiveness, they reject "North Atlantic liberalism," they reject America. Putin's intellectuals see America and its form of democracy and its free market capitalism, and they see a shark. They see the expansion of NATO and the EU just as Nicholas Burns does, as a "significant strategic advance." By a shark. The expansion of NATO and the EU into eastern Europe was not a mistake. That's what Nicholas Burns thinks.
-Nicholas Burns, Boston Globe.
Mr. Burns puts it more directly than others have. Thomas L. Friedman wrote that "we" should get all that we can out of the genocide that was then just beginning in Egypt. "It" is the pursuit of happiness. That is the soul of America, that is Nicholas Burns' and Thomas L. Friedman's soul.
It is apodictic that democracy and free market capitalism are synergistic. The "human right" that Official America most consistently advances is democracy. Democracy is good. In promoting democracy in other countries Official America promotes the human rights of other peoples. One level deeper, American support for democracy abroad supports government by popular consent. Government of, by and for is good.
America, official and unofficial, has had chance to think about the applicability of "democracy is good." Sometimes the bird hits the air pump with democracy. Democracy produced Hitler; Democracy produced Mohammad Morsi. Democracy resulted in genocide in the first; it resulted, by one degree of separation, in genocide in the second. Democracy produced Robert Mugabe, Salvador Allende, Vladimir Putin. Democracy is not always good, not even for the human rights of the voting democrats.
In all those instances, however, America does not go the one level deeper, does not go the one level deeper as it is reflected in American policy, that is. That is, however short of "real" democracy America thinks the governments are in those instances, still those governments are (or were) of, by and for the people. To take the most extreme example, Hitler was a terrible, terrible dictator, of course. However, no one can argue that he was not supported by at least a plurality of the German people. And the same with Morsi, Mugabe, Allende and Putin.
America has thought of all this and has concluded that those instances are forgettable exceptions to the rule "democracy is good," which American foreign policy most consistently pursues. In other instances, for example China, where there was never the hint of democracy under Mao Zedong, but where also there was no doubt that Mao's dictatorship was supported by the Chinese people, that's another exception, America thinks. Policy's the same: democracy is good. Official America thinks democracy is a human right but there are these exceptional humans, not that democracy is not a human right, not that democracy isn't for all humans.
As a human right, democracy is emphasized by Official America because democracy is the hand maiden to free market capitalism. And here we come back again to Nicholas Burns. Mr. Burns is exceptional in making this link explicit. Official America likes it to be implicit, we like to emphasize the human right, democracy. But, Official America really does believe, knows, that democracy and fee market capitalism are joined at the hip. (The Chinese, man, they are really exceptional.) Mr. Burns joins them at the hip. But, Official America cannot even make the argument that free market capitalism is a human right. First, because it's not, like, human, right? Capitalism is a tool, a machine, it is not a human anything, it is a tool to make money. Second because, my God, how many different economic systems have their been that the peoples of the world have tried? That they still try. Third, and we'll leave it at third, the capitalist machine is pretty inhumane sometimes, right? It has not eradicated poverty, you have these immense asymmetric distributions of wealth, America itself has had to "tweak" the machine several times to: avoid depressions, provide a social "safety net," there's "free trade" and then there's "fair trade," etc. And etc. Capitalism is like the legend of the shark: So primitive, inhuman, so perfectly predatory that it must always advance in order to aerate its gills, gobbling up more and more as the only thing it knows how to do, or it will die. In capitalism, if a company is not growing it dies. Official America does not mention the shark, it does not mention capitalism if it can avoid it; when it can't avoid it Official America shows prospective buyers Big Macs and Four Wheel Drives and big houses and toys. Official America's argument, when it includes free market capitalism at all, is a sort of capitalistic "buy one, get one free." Buy democracy, get capitalism. A lot of people are down with all that. Nicholas Burns is down with all that.
Some people are not down with all that.
Some people are not down with democracy and free market capitalism. Hitler was not down with capitalism. The German people were not. Nor the Japanese. Both of those peoples emphasized race or ethnicity over making money. Nor, of course, were the Soviet Russians. (But they're all gone now. We won.). The Chinese are down with capitalism, they're not down with democracy. Putin's Russia is pretty much down with capitalism, is down, more or less, with democracy but puts, at least recently, more emphasis on ethnicity through language. None of them are, or were, down with inclusiveness (Or maybe Putin wants to be too inclusive.), which is one of the components of democracy. America thinks. Putin's "intellectuals" reject inclusiveness, they reject "North Atlantic liberalism," they reject America. Putin's intellectuals see America and its form of democracy and its free market capitalism, and they see a shark. They see the expansion of NATO and the EU just as Nicholas Burns does, as a "significant strategic advance." By a shark. The expansion of NATO and the EU into eastern Europe was not a mistake. That's what Nicholas Burns thinks.
