How much influence does the US REALLY have in foreign societies?

[lawrocket 3]

I read an interesting opinion article in the Fresno Bee this morning that asked whether the US can really export democracy.

http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/story/594867.html

Quote

"Since the early part of the 20th century there has been a tendency in this country to assume that the rest of the world wants to imitate American democracy. Historically, that way of thinking was associated with liberalism in the U.S., so it was not surprising that after the end of the Cold War, the Clinton administration put great emphasis on the "enlargement" of the sphere of democracy in the world.

In recent years, however, a school of thought on the right that usually is called "neo-conservatism" also has strongly supported that goal. After 2001, that approach was increasingly reflected in statements by President George W. Bush."

He explains this is nothing new.

Quote

"The experience of countries such as Spain, Portugal, Chile and Brazil led some scholars to construct a model of a successful transition to democracy, and in the 1990s, many had debated whether that model would prove applicable to countries that had been under communist rule."

But then he throws the haymaker:

Quote

A fundamental defect in the ambitious statements about democracy promotion by elected political leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, is their implicit overestimation of the capacity of the U.S. to control developments in the politics of other countries. The expectations of those doing research on democratization and those working in democracy assistance programs usually are more modest.

Specialists on the subject recognize that the U.S.'s influence on the politics and society of other nations typically is marginal. Carothers explains, "Democracy support programs only have a moderate impact at best, mildly enforcing whatever domestic reform trends exist."

I give the guy a hand. He said it.

- Every country does NOT want to be the US.
- Every country does not want a democracy.
- The US trying to build democracies ain't new.
- Unless the country has an underlying trend toward democracy it won't happen. It cannot "conjure up groups that do not already exist."

Kinda does a good job of explaining Iraq what I refer to as the failed experiment.

Quote

Today, we can appreciate that a successful transition to democracy typically requires underlying conditions that take a long time to develop. Edward Mansfield, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, and Jack Snyder, a professor of international relations at Columbia University, warn that encouraging countries to introduce competitive electoral politics too soon not only risks stimulating instability and violence, but also is likely to make the establishment of effective democratic institutions in the future more difficult.

Sound familiar?

A fascinating article. I think he stopped short, though. I would simply put American arrogance at the top of the list. We aren't as influential as we wish we were.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,110]

>but also is likely to make the establishment of effective democratic
>institutions in the future more difficult.

An excellent and important observation. If/when the current US-supported Iraqi government collapses (which is likely IMO) the people of Iraq will get to choose between an Al-Sadr style theocracy and a US-style democracy. And right now, the US-style democracy is setting a terrible example.

[lawrocket 3]

It is soooo damned common sense! I credit the guy for shortly and simply stating what would take me a novel to state.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

I think it's a good article, and also applicable to all those countries, in the addition to the US, with the "we have the 'best' model" attitudes

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Exactly!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

- Every country does NOT want to be the US.
- Every country does not want a democracy.
- The US trying to build democracies ain't new.

Nor is the US destroying democracies (Chile).

But I question that there are people who prefer not to have any voice in their leadership. 'My brain hurts when I think.'

Lots of leaders who like alternatives to democracy, of course.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

But I question that there are people who prefer not to have any voice in their leadership.

There are lots of examples of them right here in the US. They are the ones that don't vote, despite being eligible to register to do so.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

But I question that there are people who prefer not to have any voice in their leadership.

There are lots of examples of them right here in the US. They are the ones that don't vote, despite being eligible to register to do so.

That's not at all the same as not being able to vote. Lazy voters can read polls and decide the less lazy are doing it for them.

[happythoughts 0]

I was wondering what political "experts" that we were sending abroad.


I am sure that 15% of our candidates time is spent avoiding problems stirred up by the needless, and probably baseless, racist/sectionalist/sexist comments of the other candidates.

Yep, we're role models.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But I question that there are people who prefer not to have any voice in their leadership.

There are lots of examples of them right here in the US. They are the ones that don't vote, despite being eligible to register to do so.

That's not at all the same as not being able to vote. …

Agreed. But it is the same as preferring not to have a voice in their leadership.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[base_nz 0]

Great article ...Thanks for the read!

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[lawrocket 3]

I wanted to bump this post because of the ideas of the author of the underlying post. One of the points that the author made is that change to democracy is based upon grass roots movement. The people get fed up with the government and become revolutionaries.

I hope we are seeing this in Iran.

I have long believed - and posted my belief - that the Iranian government and the Iranian People are two separate things. For the last few days, we have seen it full on.

This may be the grass roots movement - the People of Iran demanding that their voice be heard. No dictator. Their guy.

A am keeping Iran in my thoughts. I think that it will become a beacon of hope.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

The premise of the article is completely absurd and if one thinks the US intervenes in foreign countries for egalitarian democracy building exercises one would need to be a moron.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

that Any Iranian government and Any Iranian People are two separate things..

But to answer your original question .. "A lot" - some good, some not so good. - And that can also be said of other countries too.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[dreamdancer 0]

the entertainment industry has a lot of influence
(star trek and marvel comics - yummy)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

The premise of the article is completely absurd and if one thinks the US intervenes in foreign countries for egalitarian democracy building exercises one would need to be a moron.

I actually think that the US has often intervened for those sorts of reasons--and that it's a huge mistake and needs to stop.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Quote

The premise of the article is completely absurd and if one thinks the US intervenes in foreign countries for egalitarian democracy building exercises one would need to be a moron.

I actually think that the US has often intervened for those sorts of reasons

Yeah I'm sure there is a massive list

[pirana 0]

Quote

The premise of the article is completely absurd and if one thinks the US intervenes in foreign countries for egalitarian democracy building exercises one would need to be a moron.

Quite right. If democracy came about as a side effect, I suppose it would be a bonus; but the emphasis is really on economic domination. Whatever model serves commerce is allowed.

In a cruel irony however (another Why Things Bite Back story), propping up of regimes friendly to commerce and cruel to their own citizenry for the purpose of lining the pockets of an elite class tends to backfire in the long run.

We really only turn to military backed domination these days when commercial tactics don't pan out. Prop up some greedy bastards, make them and their cronies filthy rich, get them to sign a bunch of contracts promising to spend billions on projects hiring certain specific companies; and if that fails, route them from office and find somebody that wants to play ball.

Democracy tends to be unpredictable. Conducting foreign investment is most profitable under a strong authoritarian regime.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The premise of the article is completely absurd and if one thinks the US intervenes in foreign countries for egalitarian democracy building exercises one would need to be a moron.

I guess I am a moron for considering nation-building to be an objective. Why is the US trying to build a democracy in Iraq? For window dressing?

Bush and Congress were foolish enough to think that they could build a democracy in Iraq that would spread through other countries, thus increasing security of the region.

Of course, this helps with other things, but we usually we get along better with democracies. We have better relations, more security, blah.

Considering that Nation-Building is one of the goals of Stability and Support Operations, which includes such goals as Promote long-term stability; Develop sound and responsive democratic institutions; Develop supportive infrastructure; Promote strong free-market economies; and Provide an environment that allows for orderly political change and economic progress. (Hmmm. Sound like Iraq?)

How about peacekeeping? What do you think the UN does?

I guess I'm a moron. I thought I had worked on stuff like that in the past. Here I had thought American leadership was so dumb that they actually thought they could do it. I guess I'm a moron for not crediting their genius.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[grimmie 186]

I heard Mike Gallagher on the radio today lambasting Obama for not doing anything about Iran's situation. He was so over the top on his blabbering about how great it was that Bush went to Iraq and we spread democracy in the Middle East. He went on about asking the people of Normandy if we should have gotten involved or not.
Comparing WWII to an Iranian uprising...geez...
I think we need to just step back and let the Iranian people get ride of the hardliner, old school regime on their own.
What should Obama and the USA do about the situation????

[lawrocket 3]

My thoughts?

Let it play itself out. Don't directly interfere. But provide support for the opposition.

Let this thing keep on going. The Ayatollah, I believe, gave a short term victory but a long term loss to Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah came out with his speech saying that the vote will stand and stating that opposition will be held responsible for bloodshed.

He lost the opposition at that point - possibly the worst thing he could have done to strngthen the long term resolve of the opposition.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Quote

The premise of the article is completely absurd and if one thinks the US intervenes in foreign countries for egalitarian democracy building exercises one would need to be a moron.

I guess I am a moron for considering nation-building to be an objective. Why is the US trying to build a democracy in Iraq? For window dressing?

You can't build democracy in a country you terrorise and then occupy. The US is trying to build a system which will inherently benefit them - they call it democracy just like the last 10 times they've tried t.

Quote

Bush and Congress were foolish enough to think that they could build a democracy in Iraq that would spread through other countries, thus increasing security of the region.

The invasion of Iraq was undertaken with the accepted expectation that it would increase the likelyhood of terrorism. The US is fine with 'security of the region' under dictators.

Quote

Of course, this helps with other things, but we usually we get along better with democracies. We have better relations, more security, blah.

"Democracy tends to be unpredictable. Conducting foreign investment is most profitable under a strong authoritarian regime."

Quote

Considering that Nation-Building is one of the goals of Stability and Support Operations, which includes such goals as Promote long-term stability;

Like Iraq the first time around.

Quote

Develop sound and responsive democratic institutions; Develop supportive infrastructure; Promote strong free-market economies; and Provide an environment that allows for orderly political change and economic progress. (Hmmm. Sound like Iraq?)

You forgot to add - 'in name only'.

Quote

I guess I'm a moron. I thought I had worked on stuff like that in the past. Here I had thought American leadership was so dumb that they actually thought they could do it. I guess I'm a moron for not crediting their genius.

Certainly seems that way.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

You can't build democracy in a country you terrorise and then occupy.

Absolutely. That's why we shouldn't be trying to do it.

I think it's insane that the US really does try to do such things. I have no idea why my tax dollars are spent on it.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

You can't build democracy in a country you terrorise and then occupy.

Absolutely. That's why we shouldn't be trying to do it.

Just to play devil's advocate, didn't we terrorize, occupy, and then help build democracy in Japan in the aftermath of WWII?

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You can't build democracy in a country you terrorise and then occupy.

Absolutely. That's why we shouldn't be trying to do it.

Just to play devil's advocate, didn't we terrorize, occupy, and then help build democracy in Japan in the aftermath of WWII?

Again we have this word democracy with it's two sneaky meanings - A traditional definition and in this case 'the center of an Asian system which we can dominate' definition.