Freedom and Democracy: Not Just Our Way — The Only Way
There is plenty of nonsense in yesterday’s L.A. Times editorial about the inaugural speech, but I want to focus on one particular statement that, I think, reveals much about how some leftists think:
Bush’s rhetoric Thursday chased itself around in circles, declaring that America’s goal — freedom and democracy, so that people can choose their own way — is not forcing people to adopt our way, which happens to be freedom and democracy.
Under this view, freedom and democracy are not necessarily the best way to run things — they just happen to be “our way.” People should be — you’ll pardon the expression — “free” to choose another way if they like.
One problem: without freedom and democracy, people can’t choose anything for themselves. Freedom and democracy are not just another “way” — they are the only mechanism by which people may truly “choose their own way.” A tyrant may choose dictatorship as a form of government — but his subjects do not. And if people truly have freedom and democracy, it can’t be forced on them. By definition, they are free to choose.
The self-anointed elite need to shake off this nutty idea that freedom and democracy are quaint Western concepts that aren’t necessarily right for others. Freedom, and the right of the people to choose their own government, are universal concepts. It is always a hard struggle for those concepts to take hold, because there are always those who will fight against them. But if people are truly going to choose for themselves, freedom and democracy are not just our way — they are the only way.
The key is the recognition of the free will ofmen and women. See the link re “stoning 13 yearold girl.”
Where’s the outrage about this stuff occuring.?
Read More Here
Comment by RonWright — 1/22/2005 @ 1:19 am
The key is the recognition of the free will ofmen and women. See the link re “stoning 13 yearold girl.”
Where’s the outrage about this stuff occuring.?
Read More Here
Comment by RonWright — 1/22/2005 @ 1:19 am
Sorry link was broken. This one should work:
Read More
Comment by RonWright — 1/22/2005 @ 1:29 am
Among the various democracies in this world, I am unaware of a carbon copy of ours. Can people not see that President Bush is acknowledging that different cultures may implement democracy in it’s own unique way and still be a people driven government?
Comment by Pat in NC — 1/22/2005 @ 8:49 am
“Bush’s rhetoric Thursday chased itself around in circles, declaring that America’s goal — freedom and democracy, so that people can choose their own way — is not forcing people to adopt our way, which happens to be freedom and democracy.”
You heard similar items from the elite media when nicaragua was having its election. The choice was posed between democracy — the contra types, and not-democracy — the sandinistas. This despite the fact that democracy meant they had a choice.
I suppose it was important to de-legitemize any sandinista victory before it happened.
Comment by actus — 1/22/2005 @ 10:14 am
Actus: contrary to popular leftist rhetoric, rigged elections are not “democracies.”
Comment by Xrlq — 1/22/2005 @ 12:48 pm
‘Actus: contrary to popular leftist rhetoric, rigged elections are not “democracies.”‘
You think the elections in 90 were rigged?
Comment by actus — 1/22/2005 @ 3:50 pm
No, but in that case there was no Sandinista victory to delegitimize, before or after it didn’t happen. If the Sandis had won that election, democratically or otherwise, the chances they’d have allowed another real election since are slim to none, and Slim just left town.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/22/2005 @ 6:38 pm
Okay, you got me. That is incredibly inane. Silly. Meaningless, even by LA Times standards. Bush said in his address that their chosen governments might not look like ours, but that the issue was their ability to choose.
I quite reading the LA Times a while ago - I just couldn’t stand the formulaic blather. I’m glad you exist, though, because this deserves to go down in the history of mindless journalism.
Comment by MaxedOutMama — 1/22/2005 @ 11:42 pm
‘No, but in that case there was no Sandinista victory to delegitimize, before or after it didn’t happen.’
They were running. And the comments that i was describing were being made about that election before it happened.
“If the Sandis had won that election, democratically or otherwise, the chances they’d have allowed another real election since are slim to none”
why not? they had one in 84 during a war. It wasn’t very good because of the war, but I can see the point that had the sandinistas won the aggression against them wouldnt return.
I know its important to make sure that the sandinistas were identified as not having democratic legitemacy in case they won a democratic election. It would just make it more obvious that our war was against a population rather than a cadre.
Comment by actus — 1/23/2005 @ 11:26 am
Like hell they did! Nicaragua’s 1984 “election” was about as legitimate as Iraq’s were in 1995 and 2002. The only reason 1990’s election was different was because of the massive international scrutiny, which in turn would not have happened without pressure from the Contras, and frankly, the only reason we can even be sure that that election was legit was because the party in control lost.
Take off your leftist blinders, if only for a brief moment, and think about it. If the Sandinistas had truly “won” a legitimate election in 1984, don’t you think they might at least have come close to winning one since? Even if 1990 was a fluke, it’s not as though the Nicaraguan people haven’t had any subsequent opportunities to vote the Sandinistas back in. Power has changed hands since then, just not to the Sandis that so many western leftists wanted the Nicaraguan people to want in power.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/23/2005 @ 3:20 pm
‘and frankly, the only reason we can even be sure that that election was legit was because the party in control lost.’
Thats a funny standard.
‘If the Sandinistas had truly “won” a legitimate election in 1984, don’t you think they might at least have come close to winning one since?’
They’re gaining nowadays. And I think the 84 elections were bad because the opposition didn’t run and was during a war. I said they weren’t good.
Plus its hard to tell what people are voting against — the sandinistas or the war and damage the US promises if the sandinistas have power. This is part of the ‘will they elect the sandinistas or will they elect democracy’ mindset of the elite press.
Comment by actus — 1/23/2005 @ 3:56 pm
One problem: without freedom and democracy, people can’t choose anything for themselves.
The idea that the author was getting at is that democracy may not lead to Western-style constitutionalism, replete with the liberties that we tend to see in the West (freedom of speech, property, due process, etc.).
By definition, they are free to choose.
Obviously, and the author’s point that you missed is that it isn’t a sure thing that they’ll choose a constitutional democracy or republic. They may choose theocracy, for instance.
Comment by jpe — 1/23/2005 @ 6:14 pm
Hardly. How else can you be sure any country has legitimate elections? Power doesn’t have to change hands every time, of course, but if it never does, at some point the governing party’s incredible “winning” streak will be called into question.
As to your elite media, I’d like cites. I don’t remember a single mainstream media source casting the 1990 election in terms of democracy vs. not-democracy, though they would have been fully justified in doing so if they had. Quite the contrary. Throughout that era, the liberal media spun every possible ambiguity in the Sandinistas’ favor. For years they credulously reported as fact nearly every Sandinista allegation of a Contra atrocity, rarely reported that the Sandis had more political prisoners than Somoza had ever had (and buried it well behind the “jump” when they did), downplayed their complete lack of a free press, ignored the threats the Sandis posed to surrounding countries, mocked the notion of “freedom fighters,” and pretty well handed the Sandinista regime about as much propaganda as they conceivably could without lying through their teeth. The spin campaign continued up until the very end, when they topped things off by predicting a huge Sandinista victory in 1990. And now you’re complaining that they didn’t spin the news for your favorite dictators enough?
Comment by Xrlq — 1/23/2005 @ 9:02 pm
‘Hardly. How else can you be sure any country has legitimate elections? Power doesn’t have to change hands every time, of course, but if it never does, at some point the governing party’s incredible “winning” streak will be called into question.’
I know. Its just funny because so many parts of this country are one party states.
‘downplayed their complete lack of a free press’
There was an opposition paper funded by the government that was waging a war on them! We wouldn’t tolerate that here!
‘The spin campaign continued up until the very end, when they topped things off by predicting a huge Sandinista victory in 1990.’
The NY times editorialized that the opposition was better suited to fix nicaragua than the sandinistas. Perhaps they knew the US would continue its war if the Sandinistas won. Perhaps Nicaragua knew as well. The fix was in.
Comment by actus — 1/23/2005 @ 9:33 pm
Gov’t by Democracy is one option.
Gov’t by Death Squads is the other (in reality).
Those who want the US out of Iraq, now, are supporting gov’t by death squad in Iraq (in reality).
Thos who wanted the US to leave Vietnam after 68 were supporting gov’t by Vietnamese Death Squads. In reality — which is what really happened. But anti-war Leftists deny what they really supported — they wanted some Unreal “peace without genocide”. Not an option.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 1/24/2005 @ 4:18 am
Speak for yourself. Maybe you don’t value freedom of the press, but some of us do. The U.S. is chock full of papers that criticize our administration, in war and peacetime alike. Heaven forbid that an “opposition paper” be allowed to survive in your so-called democracy. By your logic, the Bush Administration should shut down the New York Times, an “opposition paper” that has routinely opposed it. If anything, the Bush Administration would have the better argument, as the NYT’s penchant for attacking one of the major parties is matched only by its softness for the other. La Prensa, by contrast, was just as tough on Somoza in his day as it later was on the dictatorship that followed.
I love how your argument has morphed about the “elite” press. First they all had the gall to cast the election between your pet despots and the democratic parties that followed as a fight between democracy and not democracy. Now, when pressed for an example, the best you can do is to claim that one major newspaper editorialized that the other should win. Funny, I don’t see you complaining when the same “elite” media routinely endorses Democrats over Republicans.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/24/2005 @ 7:04 am
jpe:
It doesn’t appear likely that they are going to choose a theocracy.
http://nytimes.com/2005/01/24/international/middleeast/24shiites.html?hp&ex=1106629200&en=dbf716e113fd9e97&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Comment by Patterico — 1/24/2005 @ 7:24 am
‘Speak for yourself. Maybe you don’t value freedom of the press, but some of us do. The U.S. is chock full of papers that criticize our administration, in war and peacetime alike’
I’m not talking about being critical. I’m talking about being funded by the not the opposition, but someone waging basically a total war on our country, population and social services. I don’t think that would be tolerated. It ought to be, but I don’t think it would.
I’m not critical of the Times for choosing democrats over republicans. That seems like a pretty discretionary policy choice — the sorts of things we would see. I would be critical if they identified one of those as the choice of democracy, rather than the act of choosing. Perhaps they knew that the act of choosing wasn’t so democratic when further war was promised if they chose the incorrect side.
And it hasn’t ‘morphed’ into elite press. My first post mentioned it.
Comment by actus — 1/24/2005 @ 11:28 am
I didn’t say anything “morphed” into your silly claim about the not-quite-liberal-enough-for-actus media being “elite.” I said that your argument about the “elite” media itself morphed. Originally, you implied that the media generally portrayed the 1990 election between your favorite despots and the democrats who opposed them as one between democracy and not democracy (which it was, but that’s another matter). Now, when pressed for specifics, the best you can do is state generally that the New York Times endorsed the other party.
As for your silly cop-out about U.S. funding of La Prensa, no such funding would have been needed if your pet despots hadn’t practically squeezed them out of existence first. The paper thrived under Somoza without our help, and would have fared just as under the Sandis, had they not been even more despotic than he was.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/24/2005 @ 4:28 pm
My bad on the elite media. I got them confused with the 84 elections. The 90 ones were just post-hoc praise for the practice of bullying people into making our choice and calling this a democracy.
‘The paper thrived under Somoza without our help, and would have fared just as under the Sandis, had they not been even more despotic than he was.’
It existed under somoza while he killed their editor, a relative of Violeta Chamorro, IIRC.
I don’t know how La Prensa became so short of cash, but I do know that its pretty enlightening that it existed with funding by an aggressor. Not a very free press by our standards, but markedly progressive for the region. I mean, La Prensa would criticize the military! Who even dared to this in the neighborhood?
Comment by actus — 1/24/2005 @ 6:55 pm
Your Orwellspeak is unbecoming. One side stood on the side of freedom and democracy, while the other sought to steal elections, stifle dissent and socialize the entire region. Rather than call the aggressors “aggressors” and the bullies “bullies,” you shamelessly apply both labels to your own country for opposing them. I know, I know, “don’t question our patriotism, blah blah blah blah blah.”
You deserve to live in a communist dictatorship.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/24/2005 @ 8:47 pm
‘ Rather than call the aggressors “aggressors” and the bullies “bullies,”‘
I do. The side that’s a hemispheric superpower, that attacks during unilateral cease fires and then complains when they’re broken, that threatens further war, starvation and economic destruction when its choice isn’t picked by the people is the spade that gets called a spade.
None of this, of course, excuses the fact that the sandinista’s fight back, or try to bring their imperfect but better human rights records to the rest of central america, and they should be called out for that too.
So should we look at any priests and nuns anyone murders. The white american ones being more important than the local brown ones, sadly.
‘You deserve to live in a communist dictatorship.’
I would prefer sandinista nicaragua to duarte’s el salvador. At least in the former you can complain about army human rights abuses. Its a start. And there IS an opposition paper.
Of course, I’d much rather live here in DC, with its Salvadorean refugees waving FMLN banners.
Its my own country. Which did the wrong thing. But I don’t confuse my country with the people who run it — especially when they break the law.
Comment by actus — 1/25/2005 @ 6:14 am