“Democracy or Friendship?” – The US Role in Supporting Democracy July 31, 2012
Posted by Chris Mark in Laws and Leglslation, Politics.Tags: democracy, Dr. Heather Mark, Egypt, Isreal, mark consulting group, US foreign policy, USAID
trackback
Heather Mark completed her PhD in Public Policy & Public Administration ‘several year’ ago. Her Dissertation was titled: “The Role of the United States Foreign Policy in the Global Adoption of Democratic Governance”. The US has long espoused the position of supporting democracy. Does the US actually practice what it preaches? Here is an excerpt from Heather’s dissertation:
“As the twentieth century wore on, however, the threats to democracy became less specific, but presidents and policymakers continued to use the ideology to frame their policy statements. This begs the question: “Do the actions of the United States actually further the cause of democracy, as policymakers indicate?” If the U.S. public knew the effect of U.S. actions on democracy, would the rhetoric still be as effective?”
Download and read her dissertation here. Make your own decisions regarding the US’s role.
Global Security, Privacy, & Risk Management 
Personally, I think democracy is a terrible idea best coined by the definition of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The concept of a Constitutional Republic (the system of governance that America was founded upon) is designed to protect minorities and individuals from the mob rule that inevitably ensues wherever democracy is allowed to run rampant. The rights of the individual should never be abridged in favor of the “common good” as voted upon by a mass of people. The rights and property of individuals in a constitutional republic are safeguarded from fiat confiscation and suspension, as the will of a voting mob (such as the 99%er occutard movement) is checked by the rule of law. In a democracy, a person’s wealth, intellectual property, land, rights to fundamental freedoms such as speech, thought, religion, self-defense, trial by jury, etc. are under constant threat of extinction whenever a power-grabbing politician can convince 51% of the voting bloc that it is in the “common good” for such things to be suspended, regulated, restricted, confiscated, etc. This is especially true in the wake of tragedies or crises that spark a large emotional response in people who all too often do not have access to all of the facts and vote according to emotion and rhetoric. Some people in this country are quite adept at leveraging these events to further their own agendas that result in greater restrictions upon American freedoms. This has been allowed to happen because of the shift in perception among Americans that we live in a democracy rather than a constitutional republic. Historically, democracies rarely last more than 200 years, as this is roughly the amount of time it takes for the majority of people to recognize that they can vote themselves free gifts from the public treasury. Once this happens, it is only a matter of time that the majority of the people will vote for those politicians who promise the greatest amount of free wealth from the public treasury. This inevitably results in a fiscal collapse, which is invariably followed by some form of dictatorship. Historical examples abound. No democracy lasts through the ages.
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” -Rahm Emmanuel
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt
No offense but your definition is inaccurate. Please read page 10 for a definition. “Democracy” is the existence of ‘processes and institutions to affect government.’. Our form of government has democratic aspects, as does that of France, Israel, etc. etc. The definition is not static nor does it describe a single type of government. There are governments that are more or less democratic…
No offense taken. It’s good to be put in one’s place now and again. I don’t mean to drone on about semantics, but I’m afraid that the the definition/points I’ve made are what many advocates of democracy believe it to be, at least in my experience. Perhaps my association with such is what has left such a bad taste in my mouth from democracy advocates. But don’t get me wrong, I love my right to vote as much as the next guy. I just choose to not vote for any measures or people that seek to limit freedom in the name of safety or fairness.
I agree with you. Many people who propose to understand the concept are ill informed. It is also frustrating when people equate an economic system (socialism, communism) to a political model.