More of the Same from John McCain

I think about the last thing we need is another leader preaching the New American Century manifesto. Teaming up against the oppressed people of the world is not the path to peace. This is scary.

Bloomberg.com:

March 26 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain called for a new ``League of Democracies'' to advance western values and said he'd explore a free-trade agreement with the European Union in a speech outlining his foreign policy positions.

``We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact -- a League of Democracies -- that can harness the vast influence of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests,'' McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, told the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.

Comments

[Curious Stranger]

I'm not sure how a League of Democracies is oppressing the oppressed. The New American Century manifesto was all about American primacy, not Democratic principles. This is also not an original idea. I'm not entirely sure what McCain is proposing as new here, but he has sponsored legislation in the past along these lines which might give us an idea (ADVANCE Democracy Act). Note that Obama was a co-sponsor and the House version of the bill had wide Democratic support.

[Curious Stranger]

In fact, I'd venture to say this endeavor is just about the complete opposite of the PNAC manifesto.

[Zen]

I think the thing you have to consider about McCain is he (as all political candidates do) will say what he needs to say to get the party backing & get elected. That includes kowtowing to the conservative wing of his party. Nothing new there.

But should he get elected I don't think McCain will be a Bush part deux. Far from it, I think he will surprise a whole lot of people both left and right on everything from foreign policy to environmental policy.

[Non-Prophet]

"that can harness the vast influence of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests" - McCain yesterday

"• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;" - linked manifesto

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for promoting Democracy. Building a "new world order club" just seems like an offensive idea to anyone living under a repressive regime. Do we need to do this to better team up against all of those wealthy non-Democratic nations who threaten us economically? I don't buy that. This is about trying to domino the mid-east through economic nipple twisting.

[Klayton Elliot Kendall]

America isn't a democracy, and it never has been. Not even close. When politicians like McCain start talking this way, it's code for: "When all the brown-skins are either dead or enslaved, then we whites can live in peace." Because, let's face it, this bullshit Wilsonian "League of Democracies" is a white male club designed to stabilize activities for the international corporate state, of which less than 1% of the world's population enjoys the fruits of citizenship. The rest of us (human resources) be damned.

[Pete]

Isn't it amazing how all the people ignorant or in denial in regards to our history, pretend to know so much about our present and future?

And to let their opinions be so easily manipulated day after day (like the club gives a fuck about spreading democracy)...no, more like, they can't get enough of the manipulation. They've been rick-rolled and they just can't stop watching, over and over, how many meat-spins can you handle?!

[Zen]

Man so negative.

[Curious Stranger]

I wish I had the magic crystal ball some folks here seem to have.

The Community of Democracies, which appears to be the basis of McCain's League of Democracies is about allying Democratic nations. The founding members were the US, Poland, Chile, the Czech Republic, India, Mali, and the Republic of Korea. It's since expanded to Mexico, Portugal, South Africa, South Korea, the Philippines, Mongolia, Morocco, El Salvador, Cape Verde, and Italy. All countries filled with rich white folks I guess.

Democracy is a good thing. Building a group to promote democratic values "seems like an offensive idea to anyone living under a repressive regime"? I can't follow that at all. They're offended that someone is trying to promote Democracy at the expense of repressive regimes?

[Non-Prophet]

CS, quite honestly, you read a lot more than most of us, know the issues better and are better informed generally. It is the "..defend our shared interests" (McCain) and "...challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values" (PNAC) part that gets under my skin. The rhetoric comes off as banding against the non-democracies to gain a economic advantage to be used as a tool of coercion. I think the world is polarized enough right now, and if anything I see "the club" as a hindrance to forward momentum for those that perhaps need to end regimes. McCain is talking about polarization for the reason of protection and economic leverage/manipulation. Do you see that as a way to usher in an age of peace?

[Pete]

Promoting democratic values...challenging regimes hostile to our interests..., oh yes I'm sure all the people living under repressive regimes will be welcoming those ideas with flowers!

I seem to remember us trying something like this recently. I seem to remember Poland being involved too. Hold on, let me get my crystal ball. Ah, yes I see now. I see lots of people who say they were much happier before our attempts to "promote" democracy upon them. I also see a lot more people who would still be alive if we hadn't.

Yeah, how dare they be offended by those ideas! We got interests and we know what's better for them. Maybe we can try again in Iran?

[Klayton Elliot Kendall]

Yes, democracy is a good thing. I wish we had a little of it here, and in those other countries on the list.... Imagine what a different nation America (a plutocratic empire) would be if the voices of the lower 90% weren't silenced by the 10% with wealth and the 1% with political power. I bet for starters that over half our income tax dollars (and most of the $10 trillion national debt) would cease to line the pockets of the richest 1% of Americans by way of hefty government contracts to a handful of global military-industrialists. Hell, it'll never happen. 300 million Americans would have to open their eyes first. 300 million Americans would have to take responsibility for the carnage they've inflicted on Africa, south-east Asia, South America, and the Middle East over the last 50 years. 300 million Americans would have to demand an end to the enslavement of a billion Chinese at the hands of western corporations. Impossible. Instead, we'll get more John McCains trumpeting the values of Freedom, Jesus, Lockheed Martin, and Wal-Mart. Does "America" even exist anymore? Aren't we just fooling ourselves into thinking this presidential election means anything? The nation-state is an obsolete 19th century concept. The corporate-state is the only political entity that matters in today's world, and we don't get to vote for its leaders.

[Curious Stranger]

NP: The "our" in those statements would seem to refer to the League of Democracies. Whereas the "our" in PNAC's manifesto explicitly refers to the US and the need to keep anyone else from joining the "our".

Pete: Iraq was NOT a multi-lateral action. There was no real interest in making it a multi-lateral action. In fact, the PNAC mindset is specifically hostile to multi-lateralism The gauze of legitimacy provided by the Coalition was thrown on for PR purposes. McCain would seem to be talking about getting the groundwork laid for multi-lateral agreement *before* the next crisis arrives. This isn't about the word Democracy, which has been mis-appropriated by this administration, it's about the principle.

Klayton: Do you vote? Why or why not? Do you vote for candidates that have a realistic possibility of winning? Why or why not?

And let me make very clear that McCain will never get a vote from me. His decision to serve as Bush's conductor on board the Iraq train when it was well off the tracks already made that decision for me.

My point here is just want to make the point that there is nothing inherently hostile to the oppressed of the world in Democracy. Now, for those like Klayton that don't believe Democracy is anything but a marketing campaign, they clearly can't agree with me. But I'd wonder what they'd propose as an alternative in the real, imperfect world.

[Zen]

I sometimes wonder if our etched in stone expectation that the powers that be are out to fuck the world for personal profit and gain doesn't in some way contribute to that exact happening. There's just no faith in the potential for goodness in a man's actions anymore is there? For peace loving people we progressives sure are an untrusting and angry bunch. Bush said "if you're not for us, you're against us." Is the liberal belief really any different?

[Curious Stranger]

Amen Zen.

[Curious Stranger]

One other question for Klayton - do you own stock and if so, do you actively participate in shareholder meetings?

[Pete]

I don't see how Multilateralism matters.

Explain how exporting democracy works. Explain how it will work in developing countries who are completely justified in mistrusting us after we've been enslaving them with debt for the past half century. Then, explain how we will export democracy to wealthy, successful regimes such as China, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela while you're at it. And for a real challenge, explain how we could possibly implement democracies throughout Africa, replacing the existing complex tribal structures which I would wager most people know very little about.

I don't even care about major details, like what type of democracies, exactly, would you be exporting (liberal, presidential, parliamentary, monarchy, direct, representative, yadda yadda, etc.). I'm also ignoring the fact that, historically speaking, Democracy has barely even begun to be established in the west - many current democracies have been tyrannies or oligarchies for much of the 20th century. Many EU countries were fascist or dictatorships until the 70s, many of the new ones were tyrannies until the 90s and would be better classified as oligarchies than democracies anyway.

I just want to know where the hell you get off not only deciding what's better for people (countries), but actually supporting policies of coercion to force your ideals on them...policies which even go so far as to bomb the shit out of them if necessary?

Since NP's keeping tabs on how much of and what everyone around here reads, and has the almighty measuring-tape to decide who "knows the issues" best, and has crowned you the biggest-e-peen-commenter, I'd really love to hear the answer to that. Do you have some kind of crystal ball that tells you what's best for them? Does it tell you that the lives don't matter...that the ends justify the means?

I'm all for Democracy, but I don't believe a decent working Democracy is something that can be forced...multilaterally or not. Besides, you can have democracies that are complete and utter failures, as well as fully competent autocracies where the population is healthy, happy, protected, fairly taxed, etc. Looking from an economic perspective, some of the biggest successes in developing countries have been in Asia: Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, many of which were autocracies during their initial growth. Point being, we should pay more attention to how well governments perform than what type of government they are.

And Zen,

I believe the opposite - the expectation of potential world-fucking serves as a defense mechanism to future fuck-shocks (read The Shock Doctrine). When we are aware of the reality of what is happening, we are better able to deal with that reality. Not everyone wants to nor has the ability to slip into that delusional, detached, masturbatory state where all is love, bliss, happiness, where McCain is just a big fluffy environmentalist easter bunny who will drop chocolate-covered love bombs on Iran - some of us actually prefer reality. It's not being negative, it's being realistic. There is plenty faith in the potential for goodness in a GOOD man's actions; we just don't have any good leaders, let alone any who have earned our trust. Also, what's with your need to label people angry based on their comments? Can you really judge the emotional content or aren't you really just projecting? When Bush says "us" he means his people. When liberals say us we mean the people - yes, there is a big difference.

[Pete]

This isn't about the word Democracy, which has been mis-appropriated by this administration, it's about the principle.

Exactly. So how could you blame Klayton above for believing the word Democracy is nothing more than a marketing campaign after it has been used as such? It seems you're just asking to be rick-rolled again!

In the end it doesn't matter if they say it's about "Democracy" or "WMDs." They will still bomb repeat bomb repeat bomb the shit out of people as long as it serves the "principle" (ie. the interests of the corporate-state.)

[Curious Stranger]

"I just want to know where the hell you get off not only deciding what's better for people (countries), but actually supporting policies of coercion to force your ideals on them...policies which even go so far as to bomb the shit out of them if necessary?"

Where am I supporting policies of coercion and bombing the shit out of people? Promoting Democracy doesn't mean bombing the shit out of people. The Community of Democracies hasn't bombed anyone.

"Since NP's keeping tabs on how much of and what everyone around here reads, and has the almighty measuring-tape to decide who "knows the issues" best, and has crowned you the biggest-e-peen-commenter, I'd really love to hear the answer to that. Do you have some kind of crystal ball that tells you what's best for them? Does it tell you that the lives don't matter...that the ends justify the means?"

Again, I'm not for forcing anything on anyone. People, when given an informed choice - and importantly, physical and economic security - are going to choose more representative forms of government over less representative forms. Do you disagree? And the only person bringing up e-peen's is you. I'm trying to have a discussion, it's early for name-calling.

"I'm all for Democracy, but I don't believe a decent working Democracy is something that can be forced...multilaterally or not. Besides, you can have democracies that are complete and utter failures, as well as fully competent autocracies where the population is healthy, happy, protected, fairly taxed, etc. Looking from an economic perspective, some of the biggest successes in developing countries have been in Asia: Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, many of which were autocracies during their initial growth. Point being, we should pay more attention to how well governments perform than what type of government they are."

Again, not forcing - promoting. Go look at any ranking of national prosperity, health and wellness and you'll see the first 20 or so spots are nearly entirely Democratic nations. And you've made a good point - several of those nations you mention voluntarily transformed from autocratic to democratic. No one forced them. They were prosperous and secure enough to do so - largely because of Western assistance. That's the kind of scenario the Community of Democracy is working towards. Clinton-stye boat-lifting.

Do you believe there are any "real" Democracies in the world? If there aren't, as you seem to be implying, then isn't it possible your view of what a Democracy is is a bit utopian for the real world? What would have to be done for one of these fake Democracies to become a real one in your eyes?

[Zen]

"When Bush says "us" he means his people. When liberals say us we mean the people..."

Does "the people" include Bush / Cheney & their supporters? How about Dobson and his followers? Are they too not "the people", ignorant though they may be? Are you open enough to include them?

And there is a big difference between awareness and expectation (my word), between what is now and what we expect to be. What purpose does it serve to preach peace yet ALWAYS expect war?

Am I projecting anger? May well be pete. If that's what you need to think.

[Non-Prophet]

I still don't see why you guys (Zen and CS) think that I should have faith that the "Democracy club" has good-will and selfless altruism as its primary objective. I have much more faith in it being about banding nations together to consolidate power for the reasons of manipulating the global economy and for energy policy security.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but the altruism lie is the reason we are given for being in Iraq today. My trust is all used up. Too much unfounded trust makes a fool out of a person. Both of you guys know we have been repeatedly flat out lied to about the reasons for being in Iraq. I think my suspicions and cynicisms are well earned and justified.

[Pete]

"Where am I supporting policies of coercion and bombing the shit out of people?"

Were you not in support of the Iraq war? You didn't need a crystal ball to see what was going to happen, just common sense. Just as common sense will tell you that things like S/H-109 represent more of the same - you don't have to look further than the vague wording.

"The Community of Democracies hasn't bombed anyone."

When you look at it that way, neither has the Bush Administration. They just develop the policies that direct the armed forces. The CD is committed to "defend democracy where it is threatened." It would be naive to think they are above promoting coercion / war as means to "support resolutions and other international activities aimed at the promotion of democratic governance."

They've only been around for a few years, and appear to be just another way we can influence UN votes at the moment - another tool we can use to "look after our interests."

"People, when given an informed choice - and importantly, physical and economic security - are going to choose more representative forms of government over less representative forms. Do you disagree?"

You can live under the rule of a dictator, where that dictator's views are representative of the people. You can also live in a "democracy" (like the US) where governmental policy does not always represent the people.

"Again, not forcing - promoting...That's the kind of scenario the Community of Democracy is working towards. Clinton-stye boat-lifting."

Exactly the same type of naive thinking which drew so much support for the Iraq war.
At the risk of being labled a name-caller again, only a fool takes power at its word.

For one of the warmest, friendliest people I've known, someone who I don't believe I've ever heard say anything mean about anyone (except Richard Stallman maybe), and for someone who certainly does do a fine job of keeping themselves informed, I've always been puzzled by your naivety in regards to the Iraq war. Maybe you weren't naive, and just driven by fear or something else - I'm still interested in hearing a straight answer.

"Do you believe there are any "real" Democracies in the world? If there aren't, as you seem to be implying, then isn't it possible your view of what a Democracy is is a bit utopian for the real world?"

lol wut.

"real" "fake" "implying"?
Thought you were trying to have a discussion. Lying, misrepresention, etc. is worse than name calling in my mind. I already offered and noted several types and examples of democracies (all real) - re-read my 1st 2 paragraphs. Maybe you're the one with the utopian view of "Democracy"? You haven't answered as to what types of democracies you'd like to see "promoted" around the world or how you'd promote them.

[Pete]

NP - well said.

Zen,

Does "the people" include Bush / Cheney & their supporters? How about Dobson and his followers? Are they too not "the people", ignorant though they may be? Are you open enough to include them?

Of course. But not at the expense of others. That's their way.

And there is a big difference between awareness and expectation (my word), between what is now and what we expect to be. What purpose does it serve to preach peace yet ALWAYS expect war?

And what purpose does it serve to ALWAYS expect peace? You're only setting yourself up for dissapointment.

Am I projecting anger? May well be pete. If that's what you need to think.

Not about what I need to think, it's about your need to comment unconsciously externalized emotional attributes in order to avoid your own anxiety.

[Curious Stranger]

To NP: "I have much more faith in it being about banding nations together to consolidate power for the reasons of manipulating the global economy and for energy policy security."

Can't it be about all of the above? Like I said, without physical and financial security, you can't develop the institutions needed for a healthy Democracy.

To Pete:

"Were you not in support of the Iraq war?"

Woah woah woah. No I wasn't. I was resigned to the fact that it was happening, and I wasn't opposed to the removal of Hussein, because he was clearly a bad guy, but I specifically sounded warnings about Bush's inability to follow-through with his gauzy words about Democracy and the danger of the path we were on. You can see this here: http://blog.curiousstranger.org/2003/03/my-feelings-on-war.html (note this is a temporary home archiving my old typepad site, so please don't post any comments over there).

"They've only been around for a few years, and appear to be just another way we can influence UN votes at the moment - another tool we can use to "look after our interests.""

First off, it's not just us. More than 80 countries participate in the Community or the UN Democracy Caucus (which is an extension of the Community). Secondly, yes of course it's so we can look after our interests. It is in our interest for there to be more Democracies in the world, because Democracies have higher levels of human development and are more peaceful. Is something bad because it is in our interest?

"You can live under the rule of a dictator, where that dictator's views are representative of the people. "

Name one, and cite your evidence that the dictators views are representative of the people.

"I've always been puzzled by your naivety in regards to the Iraq war. Maybe you weren't naive, and just driven by fear or something else - I'm still interested in hearing a straight answer"

You've perceived my feelings on Iraq completely wrong. Read my old blog posts as mentioned above.

"I already offered and noted several types and examples of democracies (all real) - re-read my 1st 2 paragraphs."

You mention China, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. China and Saudi clearly aren't Democracies. Venezuela, by all international yardsticks I've heard of, is a democracy, although one which has made some unfortunate choices in my view. Later you mention Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Thailand. Hong Kong should be a democracy, but due to colonial misteps is back in Chinese hands. South Korea and Taiwan have extremely vibrant and active democratic systems. Singapore is democratic, but as far as I'm aware Malaysia and Thailand are not. I don't really see any problem with any of these democratic systems. Ordinary citizens have a voice in their government. They can rebuke poor leaders and reward good ones. Are they perfect, no. Are we perfect, no. I fail to see why any of this is an argument against promoting representative democratic values in the world.

And going back to your original post: "Point being, we should pay more attention to how well governments perform than what type of government they are."

We have, and Democratic governments perform better by and large. Again, look at any of the many indexes of prosperity and wellness. The UN Human Development Report is a great place to start (http://hdr.undp.org). The top tier of its Human Development Index (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/), which measures: "the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living," is dominated by Democracies. Are there non-Democratic nations in the upper tiers? Yes, but they are clearly in the minority. Are there Democratic nations in the lower tiers? Yes, but again, they are clearly in the minority. The entire report is a good read.

[Pete]

I agree. I am going about arguing against imposing democracy the wrong way and you are completely missing my points. It's the same question I've been asking you for almost 5 years that I've always felt you've been dodging.

All of this time, I was under the impression that you were initially in support of the war. Am I the only one who thought you were pro-war, even after the war began, at least for the reason that you thought the war was an opportunity to "promote democracy"? I don't recall that post on your blog. The reasons for my impression are a result from 2 other practically identical discussions we've had here and my blog (which unfortunately was deleted) in 2003 and 2005.

Quotes from you here - http://nonprophet.typepad.com/nonprophet/2005/06/bush_on_iraq.html (this thread was an awesome re-read!)

"I never had a problem with the idea of toppling Saddam." - Surely you knew that would mean war.

"We have little choice but to leave the place in better shape than we found it." - While this is not a pre-invasion/occupation concept, it is important because I think it is another example of your opinion that we need to impose / force democracy (or whatever WE think is better) on them.

Then you quoted the NYT editorial that "summed up your thoughts" which states "He(Bush) told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq." This implies that even though we don't know if we are capable of producing a stable and democratic Iraq, that somehow the idea of doing so is a noble or just cause.

"the "dreamworld" I'm hoping for includes a Middle East without dictators, hopefully with democratic representation for the peeps..." - Hoping is one (almost harlmess) thing. Supporting action in forcing that change is another.

I could be wrong, but I don't think I'm the only one who has taken Curious Stranger as someone who supported the war, or, at the very least, thought that since we're in the war, we should try to force Iraq into a stable Democracy - telling them how WE think they should live, how THEIR country should be ran.

I could go on, but this always non-ends the same. You just keep dodging the question.

It doesn't matter if Democracy is the greatest thing evar!!1 You have failed high school history in that you have not understood the lessons learned by colonist countries: you can't just go around forcing your "enlightened principles" on people!

I have given up hope that I will ever get an answer as to what makes you think you can.

[Curious Stranger]

First off, I'll point out that that post is more than 2 years after the war started, so any "support" that might be gleaned for the war from those comments is more likely resignation with the facts on the ground and the reality that we had to try and clean up the mess we made. Second, here's my entire comment, which I still stand by 100%

" I never had a problem with the idea of toppling Saddam. I had a problem with Bush lying about the reasons why. If he had come to the American people *before* the war and actually explained the ideas he's now presenting, the American people could have made an informed decision. That decision probably would have been to not go , and Bush and friends knew this so they had to pump the WMD angle. And now, since the American people were not allowed to make an informed decisions about the real reason for the war, surprise, support is eroding - possibly dooming the whole enterprise (which may well have been doomed from the start because of the poor to non-existant planning)

In any case, its all in the past now. We have little choice but to leave the place in better shape than we found it. As all you outdoorsy types know, it's the responsible thing to do."

If Bush had made an honest effort to get the American people and our allies onboard with the idea of toppling Saddam to give the Iraqi people a chance at self-determination, we'd be in an entirely different place right now. Congress could have made a choice free of the politics of fear, and that choice very well might have been to not go to war. Of course, Bush didn't do this. He chose the WMD angle because it was much less work, especially in the immediate post-9/11 era.

As for the NY Times editorial, I think the preceding sentence is important:

"Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq."

2 years *after* the war started, and after it was clear to everyone but the most dim bulbs that the WMD threat was non-existent, he started the full-court press on the democratization angle. People wanted to have this discussion in 2002, not 2005. Too little too late.

"It doesn't matter if Democracy is the greatest thing evar!!1 You have failed high school history in that you have not understood the lessons learned by colonist countries: you can't just go around forcing your "enlightened principles" on people!"

Germany, Japan and India. The largest democracy in the world and 2 of the most prosperous. I'm pretty sure I learned about them in high school history.