Any of you homos listen to NPR?

[Okla-homey]

I do.

I listened to a fascinating interview conducted by Host Scott Simon with this guy this morning:

http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1/

IMHO, OU, and the State of Oklahoma, are extremely fortunate to have Dr. Gaddis on the payroll.

I found it very satisfying that this guy, who has studied politics all his professional life, feels that some cultures are not suited to the establishment of democracy in the sense we understand it.

His thesis is that what is going on in North Africa (Egypt, Tunisia) probably won't result in the sort of liberal democracy we have embraced. Instead, some cultures, e.g. China, India, the Arab World, have no desire to establish a government involving our form of government in which politicians take their cues from the folks who elected them. Instead, they prefer "strong men" who will maintain order, irrespective of what the folks think is important.

This is huge. Particularly since US foreign policy has, for decades, sought establishment of liberal democracies world-wide.

He went on to state that our notion of democracy is rooted in the ancient Greeks' notion of it. Therefore, perhaps its not surprising that cultures that do not revere ancient Greek culture, do not cotton to those notions.

[SoCaliSooner]

Some people just aren't capable of democracy....

[reflector]

I can honestly say that I do not listen to NPR.

[Chuck Bao]

I don't listen to NPR but I have be warning people about the tide of anti-democratic rhetoric among the elitists for months.

[Okla-homey]

Some people just aren't capable of democracy....

I don't think its not that they aren't "capable" of democracy. I think its more about the fact they don't revere the concept enough to suffer personal sacrifice to make it so. And also, very importantly, that they feel if whomever is in charge keeps them safe and allows them to earn a living, its all good.

The thing about democracy many cultures find difficult, is the fact it implies an awesome responsibility. Namely, being involved and playing a role in your own governance. Some cultures just don't give a crap enough to take on that individual responsibility.

[yermom]

well, the US doesn't have a total democracy

i don't see anyone really having the chance to set up something like the US has with a pretty fresh country to do it in.

but really, if the populace of that country were to decide how it would be run, what are the odds that we would really like what they chose?

[OUHOMER]

i wonder how long we can continue? voter turn out is lacking, so many folks vote for no reason other than to say they voted, or some other lame excuse.
They don't pay attention to whats going on just vote the part line and move on.

They can be told 2 chickens in every pot and thats good enough. They dont ask how the chickens are going to paid for.

[C&CDean]

I've listened to NPR for some of the jazz/blues stuff. Never for news/political crapola/etc. Guess I ain't a homo.

[SoonerStormchaser]

No, but does listening to Radio 1 Abu Dhabi for four months make me effeminate? Non-stop Ke$ha, Katie Perry, Lady Gaga and Black Eyed Peas.

[GKeeper316]

hell i've been saying for years that the culture of the middle east (steeped in bedowin tradition) creates an environment that isn't at all condusive to democracy... plain and simply put... the arab people are not capable of governing themselves.

[jkjsooner]

I listen to NPR all the time. I didn't hear this interview but I'd be interested in hearing it.

I'm not so sure I'd put India in the mix though. I think they're moving more and more towards a democracy. They have huge problems with corruption (bribery being the worst) but that is another issue.

[Chuck Bao]

I strongly disagree. For two years now, we've been hearing that Thailand isn't ready for democracy. These elitists are saying that some people are too stupid and uneducated to be responsible enough in the voting process.

If you think that they are too stupid and uneducated to understand when they have been insulted, then you are making a grave error. This rhetoric gave rise to the Red Shirt movement in Thailand. I think the US intelligence community largely missed this in Tunsia and Egypt and elsewhere.

Saying that some countries would be willing to forgo democracy is just bunk. All over the world, people are the very same. They want a say in their government. If they don't get it, then they will raise hell.

[Sooner5030]

it hasn't always been so peaceful and calm in our democracy (representative republic).

we've had states default, civil war, the Army used against protesting/rioting labor unions, religious massacres like in Utah, etc, etc.

[salth2o]

I like NPR for "Car Talk" and "A Prairie Home Companion".

[Chuck Bao]

it hasn't always been so peaceful and calm in our democracy (representative republic).

we've had states default, civil war, the Army used against protesting/rioting labor unions, religious massacres like in Utah, etc, etc.

It hasn't. But is that any real reason to throw the whole concept out? Or, can you imagine the process of deciding which people are smart enough for democracy?

[Sooner5030]

It hasn't. But is that any real reason to throw the whole concept out? Or, can you imagine the process of deciding which people are smart enough for democracy?

nope....just don't think that we should always compare results when our version has been around +200 and had plenty of problems throughout. No one can form a democracy and expect 1960-2010 results.

[Chuck Bao]

nope....just don't think that we should always compare results when our version has been around +200 and had plenty of problems throughout. No one can form a democracy and expect 1960-2010 results.

That is a cop out answer, in my opinion. Democracies take maturing with a number of rough patches. The key is always the constitution, the highest law in the land. Of course, the constitution has to be taken seriously. Thailand has had something like 19 constitutions because every time there is a military seizure of power they have to write a new constitution to pardon themselves for breaking the old one. It is ugly. It is unfortunate. It is still better than giving up on the hope of democracy.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Kill'm all...let God sort'm out.







:D

[Curly Bill]

I strongly disagree. For two years now, we've been hearing that Thailand isn't ready for democracy. These elitists are saying that some people are too stupid and uneducated to be responsible enough in the voting process.

If you think that they are too stupid and uneducated to understand when they have been insulted, then you are making a grave error. This rhetoric gave rise to the Red Shirt movement in Thailand. I think the US intelligence community largely missed this in Tunsia and Egypt and elsewhere.

Saying that some countries would be willing to forgo democracy is just bunk. All over the world, people are the very same. They want a say in their government. If they don't get it, then they will raise hell.

Gotta disagree with ya Chuck. Peeps all over the world are not the same, not culturally, not from a historical background, etc...I didn't read the link Homey posted, but I've read similar stuff before, and I have to largely agree with it. Not every people particularly wants, or is cut out for a democratic form of government. If they were, why haven't peeps in every country in the world risen up and demanded that?

[Chuck Bao]

Gotta disagree with ya Chuck. Peeps all over the world are not the same, not culturally, not from a historical background, etc...I didn't read the link Homey posted, but I've read similar stuff before, and I have to largely agree with it. Not every people particularly wants, or is cut out for a democratic form of government. If they were, why haven't peeps in every country in the world risen up and demanded that?

They have and most certainly will rise up given enough time. The benevolent dictatorship, like Singapore's system under Lee Kwan Yuen, is the very rare exception and not the rule.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Okla-Homey,

I have traveled extensively around the world. Democracy IMO, will only take hold where people are either monocultural or have given up tribalism. Given that, you can exclude most of Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus' and 'stan's and likely much of South America. We, Americans should not expect an overwhelming ray of democracy breaking out. Won't happen, these areas iddentified will always likely need strong leaders/thugs to keep people in line.

I stopped listening to NPR when they fired Juan Williams. Can't stand their liberal bent.

[Chuck Bao]

Okla-Homey,

I have traveled extensively around the world. Democracy IMO, will only take hold where people are either monocultural or have given up tribalism. Given that, you can exclude most of Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus' and 'stan's and likely much of South America. We, Americans should not expect an overwhelming ray of democracy breaking out. Won't happen, these areas iddentified will always likely need strong leaders/thugs to keep people in line.

I stopped listening to NPR when they fired Juan Williams. Can't stand their liberal bent.

Dude!!! These people have TVs and access to the interweb. The good life beckons.

[SicEmBaylor]

I do.

I listened to a fascinating interview conducted by Host Scott Simon with this guy this morning:

http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1/

IMHO, OU, and the State of Oklahoma, are extremely fortunate to have Dr. Gaddis on the payroll.

I found it very satisfying that this guy, who has studied politics all his professional life, feels that some cultures are not suited to the establishment of democracy in the sense we understand it.

His thesis is that what is going on in North Africa (Egypt, Tunisia) probably won't result in the sort of liberal democracy we have embraced. Instead, some cultures, e.g. China, India, the Arab World, have no desire to establish a government involving our form of government in which politicians take their cues from the folks who elected them. Instead, they prefer "strong men" who will maintain order, irrespective of what the folks think is important.

This is huge. Particularly since US foreign policy has, for decades, sought establishment of liberal democracies world-wide.

He went on to state that our notion of democracy is rooted in the ancient Greeks' notion of it. Therefore, perhaps its not surprising that cultures that do not revere ancient Greek culture, do not cotton to those notions.

There are times when you truly flabbergast me.

Maybe a year or so ago, I started a thread on this very subject only it had to do with Iraq. It was a pretty long winded post, but I pointed out that for democracy and the rule of law to truly take hold, a society has to have a foundation and respect for liberal-western principles such as the sanctity of individual life and rights. My point was that there is no reason why we should continue our mission in Iraq when, ultimately, there's likely little chance that a democratic government will be sustainable after we leave.

Now, Chuck probably remembers this because he in particular came down pretty harshly on my point that some people simply aren't ready or suited for democracy. I think he even accused me of being racist. ;)

And, unless I'm "misremembering", you also disagreed with me. More to the point, this is the antithesis of everything the people you support within the Republican Party stand for. The candidates that you constantly champion have a firm and absolute world view that freedom and democracy are universal and that the goal and mission of US Foreign Policy should be to encourage and spread democracy and freedom to every nook and cranny of big blue ball we call Earth.

The disconnect in logic between this article and the causes you support truly astounds me.

I'm blown away. G'night!

[Okla-homey]

There are times when you truly flabbergast me.

Maybe a year or so ago, I started a thread on this very subject only it had to do with Iraq. It was a pretty long winded post, but I pointed out that for democracy and the rule of law to truly take hold, a society has to have a foundation and respect for liberal-western principles such as the sanctity of individual life and rights. My point was that there is no reason why we should continue our mission in Iraq when, ultimately, there's likely little chance that a democratic government will be sustainable after we leave.

Now, Chuck probably remembers this because he in particular came down pretty harshly on my point that some people simply aren't ready or suited for democracy. I think he even accused me of being racist. ;)

And, unless I'm "misremembering", you also disagreed with me. More to the point, this is the antithesis of everything the people you support within the Republican Party stand for. The candidates that you constantly champion have a firm and absolute world view that freedom and democracy are universal and that the goal and mission of US Foreign Policy should be to encourage and spread democracy and freedom to every nook and cranny of big blue ball we call Earth.

The disconnect in logic between this article and the causes you support truly astounds me.

I'm blown away. G'night!

Sic,
One day, if you rise above your ideology, you may come to the realization that a contemplative person can consider the world around him and draw conclusions that taken together, defy any definable label.

[SoonerBacker]

Some people just aren't capable of democracy....

Funny. That's what people USED to say about certain parts of Europe! They were too steeped in their autocratic/monarchial past to embrace democracy.

[87sooner]

I do.

I listened to a fascinating interview conducted by Host Scott Simon with this guy this morning:

http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1/

IMHO, OU, and the State of Oklahoma, are extremely fortunate to have Dr. Gaddis on the payroll.

I found it very satisfying that this guy, who has studied politics all his professional life, feels that some cultures are not suited to the establishment of democracy in the sense we understand it.

His thesis is that what is going on in North Africa (Egypt, Tunisia) probably won't result in the sort of liberal democracy we have embraced. Instead, some cultures, e.g. China, India, the Arab World, have no desire to establish a government involving our form of government in which politicians take their cues from the folks who elected them. Instead, they prefer "strong men" who will maintain order, irrespective of what the folks think is important.

This is huge. Particularly since US foreign policy has, for decades, sought establishment of liberal democracies world-wide.

He went on to state that our notion of democracy is rooted in the ancient Greeks' notion of it. Therefore, perhaps its not surprising that cultures that do not revere ancient Greek culture, do not cotton to those notions.


we haven't had a govt. that takes its cues from the folks that elected them....in my lifetime....

[Chuck Bao]

There will always be some bitching. We should thank our lucky stars that we can bitch. Some people in this world can't and you know that has to be frustrating as hell.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Dude!!! These people have TVs and access to the interweb. The good life beckons.

Yes, but there are some people (IMO) that may not get past their ethinicities/tribalism that will allow for a governing of all the people. Sometimes blood is thicker than anything else. I would like for you to be right, but in order for a strong democracy, I think people need to struggle for a common goal to make it a success.

[Chuck Bao]

Yes, but there are some people (IMO) that may not get past their ethinicities/tribalism that will allow for a governing of all the people. Sometimes blood is thicker than anything else. I would like for you to be right, but in order for a strong democracy, I think people need to struggle for a common goal to make it a success.

Like a common enemy? Like pick on your weakest neighboring country and go all out and make yourself feel all proud. That's what Thailand is trying to do by picking a fight to Cambodia. Good grief, poor Cambodia!

[MR2-Sooner86]

Ah the whole "lets spread Democracy around the world!" debate. Even though we're a Republic but that's another debate.

As I've heard from several Vietnam veterans. The South didn't give a ****. Communism? Democracy? They just didn't care. Most of these people spent their time in the rice fields and were poor as hell. Their life was the same as those in the North. The thing is the North's leaders weren't corrupt like the South's. The people for the most part didn't care and if they had a choice they would have welcomed the change to Communism.

Have we not learned from Vietnam?

You just can't go forcing people into a representative republic form of government. They have to want it. Iraq? It won't last long. These people DO NOT want our form of government and us trying to shove it down their throats isn't helping.

Want to help spread freedom and our form of government? Just live it. If we go about our lives and keep to ourselves, people around the world will go "I want that!" and soon will uprise themselves.

Let me ask you this, did another country come in and force the American colonies to uprise against England? No, we wanted to do it ourselves and came to our own conclusions and then asked for help. I think we should do the same.

[SoonerBacker]

What you say about the average South Vietnamese citizen was largely true during the war...Except for places like Hue' where the PAVN committed mass murder while they controlled the city.

However, I'd be willing to bet that they cared a little bit more when the communist government in Hanoi opened up the "reeducation camps. Also, the folks in Cambodia probably cared a little more after the communist Khmer Rouge opened the Killing Fields.

That "let's just go about our lives and keep to ourselves" thing sure didn't work very well in the 1930s. Just ask a WWII veteran. While we were minding our own business (relatively speaking), the Japanese were conquering large parts of China (and committing heinous acts against the Chinese people, ie Rape of Nanking) and the Nazis were well on their way to the implementation of the Holocaust.


Lastly, while no other country came in and forced us to rise up again England, it is also true that without the help of the French, the American Revolution would more than likely have failed.

[SicEmBaylor]

That "let's just go about our lives and keep to ourselves" thing sure didn't work very well in the 1930s. Just ask a WWII veteran. While we were minding our own business (relatively speaking), the Japanese were conquering large parts of China (and committing heinous acts against the Chinese people, ie Rape of Nanking) and the Nazis were well on their way to the implementation of the Holocaust.

You couldn't be more wrong. Neither of which were our responsibility. We didn't go to war to stop Japanese aggression in Asia nor did we go to war to stop German aggression in Europe. We went to war with the Japanese because they attacked us, and we went to war with Germany because they declared war on us a week later.

And, as for keeping to ourselves resulting in the war...the opposite is in fact true. The Japanese made the decision to attack because we cut off our oil exports that threatened their ability to expand. It was meddling that led to Pearl Harbor.



Lastly, while no other country came in and forced us to rise up again England, it is also true that without the help of the French, the American Revolution would more than likely have failed.

Again, what we're talking about here is a pragmatic foreign policy based solely on our own self-interests and an idealized Wilsonian style policy that the left and neoconservatives champion in which our foreign policy goals are based upon spreading American principles of liberal democracy and freedom. The French did NOT enter the war with England on our behalf because they believed in the Revolutionary principles of self-rule and liberty -- they entered the war based purely on their own pragmatic self-interests which are not based on some high-minded pie in the sky utopian idea of what the world should be like.

The point that I'm trying to make is that this is not a debate about isolationism v. a principle based foreign policy. The choice is between a pragmatic foreign policy and an idealized one. Let me give you an example, John McCain said on CNN a couple of days ago that it is never in the interest of the United States to deal with leaders who don't share our values. This is one of the most dangerous and ridiculous things I've ever heard a public official say. This is exactly the kind of idea that led Jimmy Carter to undermine the Shah in favor of that good religious man the Ayatollah.

The fact is, we ought to do business with whoever serves our interests which means at times working with some pretty scummy people. McCain seemed to be saying we shouldn't have supported Mubarak, but Mubarak has been a close ally to this country not to mention the fact that he has kept peace with Israel and been a stabilizing force in the region.

Our foreign policy should advance our self-interests and we ought not get involved in the domestic affairs of other nations because our leaders have some notion that everyone in the world has the heart of Thomas Jefferson just yearning to be free.

[StoopTroup]

A good portion of people are sheep. They will graze in whatever field offers them the best alfalfa. Usually that's the party that's not in power and is offering a future full of alfalfa.

Fox and the RNC aren't offering a future or a better field to graze in...they are trying to convince people that it's gonna all be gone soon if you don't put them in charge. My thought is that folks are afraid the folks that are offering them something to eat the next few years will fire them and leave them in the street without food or a future. It's all a bunch of bull poop as they've shipped a huge portion of our jobs away already.

It's getting close to making sure we all have a future. I'm one that is tired of being told the end is near. The end of being the next Bill Gates or Walton Family might be here but the Middle Class can rebuild and put a stop to all of this if they invest in their future and demand to get these folks on the board of Directors of many of these Corporations off the Board. One good way would be to offer them nothing unless they help stop the folks in charge from trying to suck the life out of these Companies for personal gain. I'll never believe that you can't get someone to run a Business based on a small Salary and promise of bonuses once the Company is healthy and profitable. We've all been duped over the last 30 years and it's not only the RNC and Fox that was a part of it....I just think it's high time they quit slinging the blame.

[olevetonahill]

Am I the only one who is surprised at how many "HOMOs" have answered Homeys question
At least Yall are out of the closet now :D

[SicEmBaylor]

Am I the only one who is surprised at how many "HOMOs" have answered Homeys question
At least Yall are out of the closet now :D

Hey, you just posted in here as well. Welcome to the club!

[olevetonahill]

Hey, you just posted in here as well. Welcome to the club!

Nuthin said about 'Posting" Im talkin the ones who ANSWERED his question .;)

[The Profit]

I like NPR. It is not the normal "in your face" type of journalism or talk radio (not to be confused with anything journalistic). NPR normally has great guests with varied opinions.

[SoonerBacker]

You couldn't be more wrong. Neither of which were our responsibility. We didn't go to war to stop Japanese aggression in Asia nor did we go to war to stop German aggression in Europe. We went to war with the Japanese because they attacked us, and we went to war with Germany because they declared war on us a week later.

And, as for keeping to ourselves resulting in the war...the opposite is in fact true. The Japanese made the decision to attack because we cut off our oil exports that threatened their ability to expand. It was meddling that led to Pearl Harbor.






I think you misunderstood my original post here, Sic 'em. I never said that we DID go to war to stop German or Japanese expansion. I know that both either attacked or declared war on us! But what put them in the position where they were POWERFUL enough to do that? It was appeasement! The rest of the world (including us) stood by while they violated treaty after treaty and agreement after agreement. If someone had stood up to them SOONER, maybe they could have been stopped without 4 years of war. While we didn't "go to war" to stop their expansion, I am saying that perhaps we would have been better off in the long run if we HAD used military force against both of them earlier. Both were threatening U.S. interests.

Hitler expanded the boundaries of Germany several times, in clear violation of treaties and agreements while everyone just sat around saying, "WE HAVE TO LET HIM DO THIS! WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER WAR!"

As to the expansion of Japan! They thumbed their noses at the League of Nations AND the U.S. efforts to stop them through peaceful means for nearly a decade before Pearl Harbor. (That is why I used the parenthetical "realatively speaking" in my earlier post). Yes, we used economic sanctions against them to try to stop it! WHY? Because their actions threatened American interests in the region. The Phillipines, Guam, Wake Island, etc were American territories threatened by Japanese expansion.

The strange thing is, Sic 'em, I think we basically agree. Our foreign policy should be based on protecting the interests of the United States. I was just trying to point out in my earlier post that total isolationism is not now and never has been a practical foreign policy. Japan attacked us because we threatened their expansion through economic sanctions. But if we had taken a more resolute stand when they attacked Manchuria, for example, perhaps the attack on Pearl Harbor could have been avoided.

If we (or the British, French) had taken a more resolute stand when Hitler first started rearming Germany in direct violation of the Versailles Treaty, I know he could have been stopped much easier. Of course, Americans didn't see it as any of our business since we never ratified Versailles, and the majority of British/French citizens and politicans were so afraid of another war, they chose to appease Hitler and watch him rearm reoccupy the Rhineland, take over Austria, take the Sudetenland, then conquer the rest of Czechosolvakia - ALL WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT. But alas, no one there OR here thought it was any of our business.

I don't know if I clarified anything with that or not. I'm just attempting to make the point that "minding our own business" isn't always the best policy to follow. Unless by that you mean taking frim stands to protect our national and international interests. As I said, Sic 'em, I think we basically agree on this.

[SicEmBaylor]

I think you misunderstood my original post here, Sic 'em. I never said that we DID go to war to stop German or Japanese expansion. I know that both either attacked or declared war on us! But what put them in the position where they were POWERFUL enough to do that? It was appeasement! The rest of the world (including us) stood by while they violated treaty after treaty and agreement after agreement. If someone had stood up to them SOONER, maybe they could have been stopped without 4 years of war. While we didn't "go to war" to stop their expansion, I am saying that perhaps we would have been better off in the long run if we HAD used military force against both of them earlier. Both were threatening U.S. interests.

Hitler expanded the boundaries of Germany several times, in clear violation of treaties and agreements while everyone just sat around saying, "WE HAVE TO LET HIM DO THIS! WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER WAR!"

As to the expansion of Japan! They thumbed their noses at the League of Nations AND the U.S. efforts to stop them through peaceful means for nearly a decade before Pearl Harbor. (That is why I used the parenthetical "realatively speaking" in my earlier post). Yes, we used economic sanctions against them to try to stop it! WHY? Because their actions threatened American interests in the region. The Phillipines, Guam, Wake Island, etc were American territories threatened by Japanese expansion.

The strange thing is, Sic 'em, I think we basically agree. Our foreign policy should be based on protecting the interests of the United States. I was just trying to point out in my earlier post that total isolationism is not now and never has been a practical foreign policy. Japan attacked us because we threatened their expansion through economic sanctions. But if we had taken a more resolute stand when they attacked Manchuria, for example, perhaps the attack on Pearl Harbor could have been avoided.

If we (or the British, French) had taken a more resolute stand when Hitler first started rearming Germany in direct violation of the Versailles Treaty, I know he could have been stopped much easier. Of course, Americans didn't see it as any of our business since we never ratified Versailles, and the majority of British/French citizens and politicans were so afraid of another war, they chose to appease Hitler and watch him rearm reoccupy the Rhineland, take over Austria, take the Sudetenland, then conquer the rest of Czechosolvakia - ALL WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT. But alas, no one there OR here thought it was any of our business.

I don't know if I clarified anything with that or not. I'm just attempting to make the point that "minding our own business" isn't always the best policy to follow. Unless by that you mean taking frim stands to protect our national and international interests. As I said, Sic 'em, I think we basically agree on this.

That's fair enough. I thought you were making the point that our entry into WWII was based on spreading democracy and stopping Japanese and German aggression and that the French did so for similar reasons during the Revolution.

I do agree with you. We can't always keep to ourselves, but I only believe in becoming involved in those incidents which pose a direct threat to our nation's sovereignty. I believe in dealing directly with the threat, but I don't believe in sticking around for 10-15-20 years in a futile nation building effort.

For example, I obviously agree with the decision to attack the Taliban and Al-Queada in Afghanistan, but I don't believe we should have become involved in a nation building effort. Let the UN or other international relief organizations deal with the aftermath.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I do.

I listened to a fascinating interview conducted by Host Scott Simon with this guy this morning:

http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1/

IMHO, OU, and the State of Oklahoma, are extremely fortunate to have Dr. Gaddis on the payroll.

I found it very satisfying that this guy, who has studied politics all his professional life, feels that some cultures are not suited to the establishment of democracy in the sense we understand it.

His thesis is that what is going on in North Africa (Egypt, Tunisia) probably won't result in the sort of liberal democracy we have embraced. Instead, some cultures, e.g. China, India, the Arab World, have no desire to establish a government involving our form of government in which politicians take their cues from the folks who elected them. Instead, they prefer "strong men" who will maintain order, irrespective of what the folks think is important.

This is huge. Particularly since US foreign policy has, for decades, sought establishment of liberal democracies world-wide.

He went on to state that our notion of democracy is rooted in the ancient Greeks' notion of it. Therefore, perhaps its not surprising that cultures that do not revere ancient Greek culture, do not cotton to those notions.


Plato wrote in The Republic that he didn't think democracy was a great idea -- that it would lead to demagogues getting elected, which would lead to tyranny.

Some people might point to Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez as an example of what Plato feared. Poor indigenous people elect some guy who promises to get for the common folk what they deserve because the rich folks have been ripping them off all these years. Naturally, Chavez is a disaster for the country. However, the "ruling class rich folks" deserve a good share of the blame. One clear distinction between the U.S. and Latin American countries, such as Venezuela, is the concept upward mobility. The is too much of an attitude there that if you're born poor, that is your station - so you'll stay poor, you dumb****. For the most part, poor people don't climb into the middle class or upper class either through marriage, education, or commerce. Whereas in the U.S., we all love stories of poor folks hitting the big time. Is there a better story than a migrant workers' kid living in the back seat of a car who grows up to become an astronaut with an electrical engineering degree?

Quite a contrast with the U.S. where we've done **** such as give a free 160 acres to settlers, free public school education, heavily subsidized college education (not just for poor people but all in-state students, and tuition tax credits for all), earned income credits, and a whole ****-load of other income redistribution.

Anyone who ever played the game of Monopoly knows that the player who has the best combination of skill and luck eventually gets everything and all other players are left sh!t-out-of-luck. Some level of income redistribution is likely necessary to assure an appropriate level of upward mobility opportunities for the have-nots who have the burning desire to get ahead in life. Can we manage this without falling into the cradle-to-grave welfare state?

The only thing the elites in some Latin American countries gave the have-nots was the middle finger - not middle class opportunity. So socialist dickwads like Chavez occasionallly gain power, and once they're in place it's difficult to get rid of them.

Now Plato thought everyone would be better off if philosophers ruled -- those who were best-informed, lovers of wisdom. Maybe we should only allow those with Ph.D.s the right to vote.

Democracy is a journey and as many have already mentioned the U.S. is most accurately discribed as a republic, in which the majority can't take away fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. Some posters become livid when a federal judge blocks a law passed by our legislators or by ballot initiatives. But that is the nature of a republic.

I'm not smart enough to know what is best for countries in the middle east, but self-governing certainly was a gradual thing in the western world, and would need to be gradual elsewhere for stability's sake.

The city-states of the golden age of Greece may have had only 10 or 15 percent of its population who were eligible to vote. The U.S. started with white males only. Much later adding women and blacks.

Native Americans weren't allowed to vote on their own leaders until 1971!

[soonercoop1]

Sometimes to see what the liberal/progressives are up to...:)

[Okla-homey]

A good portion of people are sheep. They will graze in whatever field offers them the best alfalfa. Usually that's the party that's not in power and is offering a future full of alfalfa.


Truer and more prescient words have never been spoken. Take ol' Adolf Hitler for example. He offered the German people order (ordnung) from relative chaos. And a chicken in every pot. Oh, and a Volkswagen (peoples car).

Hitler was also masterful and stirring up a bright flame from their smoldering indignance arising from the Treaty of Versailles - particularly since not a single Allied foot had entered Germany in WWI. Thus, many, especially the veterans, felt they remained unconquered, but double-crossed by their own government when it threw in the towel in 1918.

And where did it get the German people? Things in Germany were lovely for about a decade - unless of course you were Jewish, mentally retarded, homosexual or a gyspy. That fine standard of living and resurgent national pride ultimately led to their absolute ruin.

Please also remember, before we go to patting ourselves on the back and harrumphing at the mention of the word "democracy", our forebears in Europe only embraced it after well over a thousand years. And what passes for democracy in the United States, is closer akin to a Roman republic than a democracy. And even that republican ideal was a pretty ragged version for much of US history. For over a century, unless you owned real property and were literate, you couldn't vote in most states.

All that to say, I believe there are peoples on this Big Blue Marble we inhabit who either aren't ready for, or are unwilling to endure the personal sacrifices necessary to establish a liberal democracy. This is evidenced by the fact so much of the planet has not adopted that form of government.

[Curly Bill]

A good portion of people are sheep. They will graze in whatever field offers them the best alfalfa. Usually that's the party that's not in power and is offering a future full of alfalfa.

Fox and the RNC aren't offering a future or a better field to graze in...they are trying to convince people that it's gonna all be gone soon if you don't put them in charge. My thought is that folks are afraid the folks that are offering them something to eat the next few years will fire them and leave them in the street without food or a future. It's all a bunch of bull poop as they've shipped a huge portion of our jobs away already.

It's getting close to making sure we all have a future. I'm one that is tired of being told the end is near. The end of being the next Bill Gates or Walton Family might be here but the Middle Class can rebuild and put a stop to all of this if they invest in their future and demand to get these folks on the board of Directors of many of these Corporations off the Board. One good way would be to offer them nothing unless they help stop the folks in charge from trying to suck the life out of these Companies for personal gain. I'll never believe that you can't get someone to run a Business based on a small Salary and promise of bonuses once the Company is healthy and profitable. We've all been duped over the last 30 years and it's not only the RNC and Fox that was a part of it....I just think it's high time they quit slinging the blame.

ST, you ever read "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter?" I'm thinking you might be one of the characters come to life. I am going to hedge a bit because I have another 100 pages to finish it, but so far it's looking good. :D

[The Profit]

Truer and more prescient words have never been spoken. Take ol' Adolf Hitler for example. He offered the German people order (ordnung) from relative chaos. And a chicken in every pot. Oh, and a Volkswagen (peoples car).

Hitler was also masterful and stirring up a bright flame from their smoldering indignance arising from the Treaty of Versailles - particularly since not a single Allied foot had entered Germany in WWI. Thus, many, especially the veterans, felt they remained unconquered, but double-crossed by their own government when it threw in the towel in 1918.

And where did it get the German people? Things in Germany were lovely for about a decade - unless of course you were Jewish, mentally retarded, homosexual or a gyspy. That fine standard of living and resurgent national pride ultimately led to their absolute ruin.

Please also remember, before we go to patting ourselves on the back and harrumphing at the mention of the word "democracy", our forebears in Europe only embraced it after well over a thousand years. And what passes for democracy in the United States, is closer akin to a Roman republic than a democracy. And even that republican ideal was a pretty ragged version for much of US history. For over a century, unless you owned real property and were literate, you couldn't vote in most states.

All that to say, I believe there are peoples on this Big Blue Marble we inhabit who either aren't ready for, or are unwilling to endure the personal sacrifices necessary to establish a liberal democracy. This is evidenced by the fact so much of the planet has not adopted that form of government.




You make a great point. Hitler was a good example, but the same could have been said about Tito in the old Yugoslavia, the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, etc. Do you think today's modern methods of communication (i.e. internet, Facebook, smart phones, etc.) are helping to turn the sheep into wolves. If so, this doesn't sit will with the Saudi Royal Family, King of Jordan, etc.

[delhalew]

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Democracy will likely work in Irag. Not so much on Afghanistan. I also think it could work in Iran.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Actually, I think Hitler lost the election. The people rejected him, but he got himself appointed chancellor and worked his way into power through that appointment.

[jkjsooner]

A good portion of people are sheep. They will graze in whatever field offers them the best alfalfa. Usually that's the party that's not in power and is offering a future full of alfalfa.

Fox and the RNC aren't offering a future or a better field to graze in...they are trying to convince people that it's gonna all be gone soon if you don't put them in charge. My thought is that folks are afraid the folks that are offering them something to eat the next few years will fire them and leave them in the street without food or a future. It's all a bunch of bull poop as they've shipped a huge portion of our jobs away already.

It's getting close to making sure we all have a future. I'm one that is tired of being told the end is near. The end of being the next Bill Gates or Walton Family might be here but the Middle Class can rebuild and put a stop to all of this if they invest in their future and demand to get these folks on the board of Directors of many of these Corporations off the Board. One good way would be to offer them nothing unless they help stop the folks in charge from trying to suck the life out of these Companies for personal gain. I'll never believe that you can't get someone to run a Business based on a small Salary and promise of bonuses once the Company is healthy and profitable. We've all been duped over the last 30 years and it's not only the RNC and Fox that was a part of it....I just think it's high time they quit slinging the blame.


StoupTroup, that's a great post.

I especially agree with your criticisms of the board of diretors and executives. However, I think you're slightly wrong in the part I bolded. I guess it depends on how you define "healthy and profitable."

One of our problems is that the CEO's compensation has shifted too much towards incentives based on the stock price. If by "healthy and profitable" you mean the stock price and/or short term profit statements then I'll have to disagree. We have a compensation structure that encourages CEO's to do whatever they can to get the stock price up as fast as possible. Long term health and profitibility is a secondary concern.

We need shareholders to actually take charge and force companies to be run in the shareholders long term best interest. Unfortunately, I can't see how that is going to happen without major reform. Too many shareholders have no idea that they indirectly own stock in XYZ as they have their money in mutual funds. Even if they knew they owned part of XYZ, the fact that they own it via a mutual fund means they have no direct say in XYZ anyway.

[The Profit]

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Democracy will likely work in Irag. Not so much on Afghanistan. I also think it could work in Iran.



I am not so sure that Democracy will work in Iraq. Oh, it will while we are there, but when we leave, the Shiites are going to kill all of the Sunnis, and the Turks are going to kill all of the Kurds. Then, either some strong-armed despot will rise to power, or Iran will move it and increase the size of its territory.