the Democracy, stupid

[Joseph Tracy]

To a large degree you are right that even the language of democratization has fallen away for the reasons you mention, but human rights is a deeper gut version of the same ideal and it has appeal because it is not just  an ideal but a basic human appetite/want/moral foundation. We want to be defended from arbitrary violence and abuse of power.  This is a core principal of all political arrangements.

One thing though that there is increased skepticism about  and one ingredient of the majority grass roots opposition to this plan is the increasing distrust for the language of "our national interest". Everyone is becoming appropriately intuitively sure that this 'us' does not include them. That they, in fact will be the ones to pay for the interests of that particular 'us'.

This is why there is a good chance this will fail in the Congress. A large majority of citizens and congress people are opposed.

This is far from a done deal though the press will be on. 

I do not agree that the issue with Iran is nuclear weapons. There has never been an ounce of evidence of actual work on nuclear weapons. We wish to destroy their ability to function and prosper as an independent state and to handle the so called advanced  technologies of the west.  


On Sep 5, 2013, at 8:14 AM, alice wellintown wrote:

> If there was ever a serious commitment to spreading democracy in the
> region it has faltered, lost all tracktion and support in the current
> administration, and Obama is determined to abandon efforts to foster
> democracy in the Middle East, in the world.
> 
> 
> Obama is now convinced that holding democratic elections often hinders
> efforts to maintain ethnic peace, social stability, and economic
> development.
> 
> He is also convinced that elections in countries without liberal
> values create illiberal democracies, which pose grave threats to
> freedom and to the US.
> 
> 
> On 9/5/13, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
>> At the risk of having another Carville label pasted to my posts,
>> surgically sliced into collateral damage, orphaned children, their
>> faces black, their lips squeezed tight and blue,  might I suggest that
>> the obvious focus on Iran often neglects to the obvious focus on
>> democratization. And, the obvious solution, to use diplomacy first,
>> and the courts, Iinternational Court, or the UN or some other body, is
>> no solution at all for, again, the fairly obvious reaon that ignores
>> democratization.
>> 
>> Joseph is arguing from his high ground. And who doesn't agree with him
>> on moral grounds? No one here, not even the strawmen Monte bakes up or
>> the shadowboxing phantoms of Joseph's lesser angels, whoever they are.
>> 
>> Many things motivate this US policy, that will soon send rockets into
>> Syria. Iran, of course, is a major one. The US policy in the region
>> for some 60-odd years, has been motivated by oil and Iran and
>> Israel...and so on. And the US policy is still fixated on Iran and
>> preventing Iran from gaining power and influence in the region, in the
>> world. Having a bomb will, of course, make Iran more powerful, so
>> preventing Iran from building a bomb is job one.
>> 
>> Bulding democracy in the region, has been a stated objective for some
>> time. How serious the US about this objective, how far down the list
>> of competing objectives this one sits is subject of intense debate.
>> 
>> Right now, looking at Obama and his motivation, his so-called
>> Pivot-plus policy has pushed the democratization objective so far down
>> the list that it is little more than a footnote, something Bill
>> Clinton talked about and Obama dreamed of but has competeley given up
>> on.
>> 
>> So, the moral high ground argument, so often attatched to the nobel
>> spread of democracy, whil a useful tool for critique of the US policy,
>> is obviously insigniicant to a discussion of ehat motivates current
>> policy.
>>