Democracy Does Not Necessarily Equal Freedom

I hate to piss all over Bush and the freepers parade, but the election in Iraq doesn't mean shit, in the long run.

First of all, the dumbing down of America has a vast majority of our countrymen believing that Democracy means freedom. Sure, I agree that democracy is a healthy part of a free society, but it is just a part of freedom.

If we still taught history in this country, most Americans would be familiar with the phrase "tyranny of the majority". That is what gave rise to our bill of rights. Even after their passage, the "majority" denied basic rights to many Americans.

Without having to go through the litany of abrogated rights from the birth of our nation until this very day, let me give one historical national example and one historical international example. Both of which are in our own life times or that of our parents.

First, here at home. Most Southern sheriffs were freely elected under state election laws. Although they passed the "democracy" test, how many young African-American men really felt "free" in their jurisdictions. This is in my life time in the 1950's and 60's. It was also in the birth-place of modern democracy.

Next, the German election in 1930 elected a proportional government. The Nazi Party received a hefty portion of that vote. The elected members of the Reich-Stag gave the vice-chancellery to a guy named Hitler. We all know how that democracy turned out.

I love democracy and I believe in its precepts. However, if a people are not steeped in the tradition of tolerance, respect for individual liberty, and an undying devotion to the rights of each citizen, democracy alone will not produce freedom.

I'm afraid that no matter how many of these Iraqi elections we watch or purple (in this case red) fingers are thrust in front of our faces, freedom will never take hold in the Arab world in our life-time.

Takes an understanding of the rights of the individual, the separation of the state from the church, and a certain amount of acclimatization......and vigilance, once you have the thing, to the ability of the government to take it away.

The ME in general has none of these things at the moment. The customs and culture are different.

.

but are the Arabs incapable of having their societies evolve into free ones? It was common to hear such things said about majority Catholic countries 30 years ago: think of Spain, Portugal, Latin America all under dictatorships. Or Eastern Europe under communist rule - the assumption was made by many that the Slavic people could not handle the finer points of freedom and self-rule.

This election, the third time this year the Iraqi people have been consulted on matters of state, is just a step on a journey that will take a lifetime. But if they are to enter the modern age and let freedom take hold, it has to start somewhere and sometime.

I don't want to have to spend American lives and treasure for 30 years to make it evolve, maybe.

What's next, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia? How much are we supposed to endure.

I agree with candidate Bush in 2000. "I'm against the idea of nation building".

Call me what you want, but I believe freedom begins at home.

You can't be the world's superman, waging war after war. Still, it doesn't make the situation hopeless, nor does it mean the West can't use its influence to promote democracy, as it did in Latin America and Eastern Europe.

With the way China is growing economically, demand for political reform is inevitable. I just hope it goes peacefully.

China's younger leaders are much more liberal, global, and reform-oriented than the older generation, which is running the show. Eventually the liberal generation will come to power and slowly start enacting political reforms. Many in the party know that political reform will have to be undertaken sooner or later. They just do not want to give up their grip on power just yet...

It will be a slow process, but democracy is inevitable. Elections are already being conducted regularly at the village and township level.

In democracies, one must submit to the authority of other men, whether or not he or she even wants to. Thus, democracies (especially capitalist democracies) are characterized by the human control of other humans. Such subordination and attributions of superiority violate the principles of basic equality that many hold. If everyone is equal, why must one submit to the authority of another? It can be likened to slavery...

This is why so many people in the Islamic world are apathetic (and even repulsed) by the idea of democracy and Western notions of freedom and liberalism. They believe that any such system will lead to humans suboordinating other humans. Many find more comfortable submitting to the authority of an unquestioned, perfect deity than submitting to the authority of corrupt, selfish men...

Hitler was never voted into any office and certainly not by the Reichstag... I keep seeing this mistake on this board all the damn time. Hitler was reluctantly appointed by president Hindenburg after being badgered by his advisors. At the time the country was being pulled to both extremes... on the right you had the Nazis, on the left the Communists... the industrialists and bankers thought it better to go with the Nazis so they convinced Hindenburg to appoint him Reich-Chancellor (not VICE-chancellor) thinking that they could control him and the Nazi party through him. They hadn't forseen Hindenburg's untimely demise and the rest is history.

Held a dominate position in the German government at the time. All their seats were freely elected.

By splitting hairs, you don't change the point. Hitler was put into power by a democratically elected government following an election that he participated in by campaigning for the Nazi party.

I'm sure that this point is not lost on you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

never mind Iraq. Bush lets them spy on us at home. What the f k is that all about???

just to score short-term domestic political points. Get a grip.

"if a people are not steeped in the tradition of tolerance, respect for individual liberty, and an undying devotion to the rights of each citizen, democracy alone will not produce freedom."


I'm afraid a lot of people are missing out on this lesson. It's like what O'Reilly is trying to whip up people with his stupid "War on Christmas"/Hate the Liberals campaign. And then gets support - no doubt - when the gov't wants to spy on all of us.

It's also one of the better arguments that supports this thesis:

Pornography is a left issue http://feministantipornographymovement.org/leftissue.htm



If people are only concerned that they can do whatever they want with no regard for the rights and well-being of others in society (outside of their little group) - then we can end up with a pretty fucked-up society as far as I'm concerned.

Someone summed up an opposing view recently with this statement, "Fuck being progressive -- I'm for FREEDOM". (We are not supposed to bother him with concerns about sexism or racism or anything like that - that would infringe on his "freedom".)