Alex And America. Hate It Or Love It?

[Almighty Colin]

JR, I agree that the words "freedom", "justice" , and "democracy" are overused and are buzzwords that are often used to justify many actions. I've thought about these. Why are these words used so much in America? What is the historical antecedents to our modern usage of these words? Are they still relevant?

I dont have much to say about "justice". It's a very relative term and too vague too even pin a precise definition on it. "Plato's Republic" includes an incredible discussion led by Socrates on the subject of justice and the relativeness of the concept. Definitely worth a read for anyone interested.

The concept of "freedom" played a pivotal role in the founding of America. Today, people often mean freedom of speech when they think of freedom. Early American documents though show a total concern with the concept of freedom from despots and tyranny - most specifically King George III. Many of the early Americans were republicans who believed that the US should be a true Republic, that people should choose representatives who would literally "represent" their interests. These early Americans didn't believe there should be one leader and many didn't even think there should be a central government at all. This didn't work out too well as there was much infighting and it threatened to tear early America apart. Eventually, a federal government was formed and a president was put in place partly to keep the congress in check. There was agreat battle between these republicans and the "Federalists" who believed in a more central government. What actually resulted was a balance of these two views -- a theme that I think is most important in the governance of a nation. Balance between competing ideologies and systems that are designed to moderate that balance.

When a president of the United States proclaims and invokes the concept of "freedom" they usually mean this latter kind - freedom from tyranny.

What freedom would mean in time ebbed and flowed in those early days. Note the stretch of time between 1776 and 1789, from the Declaration of Independence to Washington becoming president. In that time. Congress was trying to decide what system would best allow decisions to actually be made and yet not allow too much power to be invested in one any office or institution.

Declaration of Independence. 1776.
Articles of Confederation. 1781.
Constitution. 1787.
Washingon became president. 1789.

Many were so worried that a leader would assume monarchial powers like back home that they
didn't want any central government or a president at all. No central government seemed great in practice but didn't work for a variety of reasons.

All of these changes had to do with "freedom". That people would be free to choose their representatives, that people would be free to change their leaders , that people would be free from tyranny and control, that people would be fairly represented but that government would not grind to a halt and split.

"Democracy", from the greek "Demos" meaning people. Government of the people. A Democratic Republic. People would choose their representatives but the states would choose
the president. The system was unique as such but with antecedents mostly in ancient Greece and Rome.

"Freedom and Democracy" meant something then and they still do today. Democracy has been
spreading the world over and continues to do so. America has fought over these principles before, both successfully and unsuccessfully.

If Afghanistan should continue down what looks like the path to democracy, should we proud of our role in that change from a government of tyranny to a government of consent? Should Americans, British, and Australians be proud of their country's role in converting Iraq from a government of control to a government of the people?

When can sovereignty be violated and when can it not? Does the world become "safer for
democracy" when there are more democracies? Is ideology worth fighting for? It seems to me that as more and more countries becomes democracies there are less and less interested in fighting for more. Maybe we've reached some critical density? If we judge the current decision of the US to go to war by what it's leaders say, we are once again - at least partly - fighting to spread the democratic ideal. George Bush speaks extensively of the importance of installing democracy in Iraq and the process may very well occur. Planning for such is very well under way in Afghanistan and it seems to me it will happen. But who knows such things for sure?

America has no monopoly on the concepts of democracy and freedom. She has been instrumental in their spread but not alone. Americans are proud of their country's heritage and it's role in the spread of these ideologies. One things these messageboards can do is help us to
understand the ideas and thoughts of people from different places and cultures. I am interested in what others think of the concepts of "freedom" and "democracy" and how important they are to them.

In my reading of history, people pretty much take the positions that would benefit themselves the most. Many in America believe that democracy in Iraq is more important than Iraq's sovereignty - that Iraq is a place to plant the first seeds of Democracy in the Middle East - and that this will reduce the terrorism threat from the whole region if elected governments spring forth from those seeds. Many elsewhere believe that sovereignty is more important than the democratic ideology various other reasons. Still others think that planting seeds in the desert is a risky agricultural practice.

Some people think the UN should play center stage in world politics because it agrees with their views. Some Americans think that US sovereignty is more important than the UN because it disagrees with their views. I have little doubt that if the UN authorized military action, many opposed to military action would think the US bought members of the UN off. I also have little doubt that if the UN never does authorize military force that many Americans will think of US sovereignty as more important than the UN and that the UN is "worthless".

We all contradict ourselves in these views sometimes thinking sovereignty is the most important principle, sometimes thinking worldly institutions are important, sometimes thinking they are irrelevant. No one is right or wrong in any sense of the word.

I have never been able to resolve these differences in myself and I have never heard a completely consistent viewpoint regarding world politics from anyone or anywhere. What seems to happen is that everyone acts in what they believe is their own best interest and forms their views accordingly. Maybe it has something to do with Godel. Logic, consistency, and politics
are the strangest of bedfellows.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 28 2003, 10:44 AM