The American Experiment

[LaRondo]

The American experiment

by Helle C. Dale

The American experiment was unique and improbable in 1776, when Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence and the American colonies defied Britain, the most powerful nation on earth at the time.
As we look around the world at how difficult it is for democracy and freedom to take hold and flourish, America seems like a political miracle.

In 1787, when the Founding Fathers had hammered out the U.S. Constitution in Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin told an inquiring woman what the gathering had produced, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." Jefferson also knew how great the American experiment's appeal would be to others.

"The flames kindled on the 4th of July, 1776, have spread across too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume the engines and all who work them."

The self-evident truth that "all men are created equal; endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" remains the powerful philosophical and moral foundation of a successful foreign policy no less than it is the foundation of the American republic itself.

Yet, as we are seeing today, the advance of freedom and democracy is not a straight path, but one that also sustains setbacks.

Americans have kept their republic and built it to be strong, but it will only remain so under constant vigilance.
The bombing scare in Britain, where an ineffectual bomb was detonated in Glasgow airport and several other plots unfurled in London, helps remind us that freedom's enemies are as determined as ever.
After a full decade of progress following the end of the Cold War, democracy is still under attack and retreating in other parts of the world.

The Muslim Arab world presents a persistent and difficult challenge; China continues on its own path, which it hopes will prove that freedom and economic prosperity do not have to go hand in hand; Russia is taking the road toward a kind of authoritarianism of the past; in Africa, democracy's progress has been uneven to say the least; and some countries in Latin America are seeing autocratic populism resurging.

President Bush's ambitious declaration of the advance of freedom and democracy to be his banner causes has run into a tempest of radical terrorist opposition in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, calling into doubt a once promising Iraq policy.
Ironically, those on the left who in the past declared themselves democracy's champions have responded with cynicism to the goal of bringing freedom to oppressed nations. Advancing the American model of governance is regarded by some both here and in Europe as naive and imperialist. This is a sad state of affairs.

A Pew Research Center poll released last week on global views of America illustrates the problem. Public rejection of American democracy is prevalent in most countries.
This may reflect opinions about the way in which the United States has implemented its pro-democracy agenda, and also about America's democratic values themselves.
In 43 of 47 countries surveyed, a majority say that the United States promotes democracy mostly where it serves its interests, rather than as a matter of principle. Even more unfortunately, this cynicism also includes 63 percent in the United States itself. Only 45 percent of Americans have faith in American leadership in the world.

How to restore faith in the American political system -- and in its importance as a model for democracy to be exported and shared -- will, for the most part, be the job of the next president of the United States. Meanwhile, history will likely look more favorably on the vision of Mr. Bush than we see today.
By comparison, the star of President Reagan has been ascending since he left office, and it is worth recalling that the Berlin Wall fell during the presidency of Mr. Reagan's successor, the current President Bush's father. Mr. Reagan's vision of worldwide freedom earned him scorn at the time, whereas history has vindicated him.

As Mr. Reagan stated at Yorktown in 1981, "Our Declaration of Independence has been copied by emerging nations around the globe, its themes adopted in places many of us have never heard of.
Here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights.

We the people declared that the government is created by the people for their own convenience." As powerful as that message is, it has to receive constant reinforcement from those who remain convinced of its promise.

[Pooka]

One reason Democracy took root in America and is having a tougher time in the rest of the world is that America did not have thousands of years of history to overcome.

Another country where this was apparent was the south of Spain in the 900's. An Arab King set up a country there and invited all the Arabs that were into science and art to live there and the King would pay them a salary. There was a hugh brain drain out of the Middle East and the Kingdom's there went into a vast decline.

This King started his country with a clean slate that was much like the beginnings' of America. It worked for 740 years, so I calculate the US still has about 500 or so years to go. For further reading on this do some reasearch on "The Al-ahambra" which sort of translates into "The Red Dwelling Place." (Plese feel free to correct my translation if it needs it, and it likely does.)

America is also a country where anyone with the health and intelegence to work hard and spend wisely can make a life for them selves. I know Cubans that hit the beach just with the clothes on their back that have made good lives here. I also know a few Irainians that fled Iran in 1979 that made it here and are enjoying a life free of dictatorial rule.

One reason countries around the world are so slow to change their way of doing things is that it is just too easy for someone to say, "Forget it.", and move to Averica.

Pooka

[DieselAddict]

In 43 of 47 countries surveyed, a majority say that the United States promotes democracy mostly where it serves its interests, rather than as a matter of principle. Even more unfortunately, this cynicism also includes 63 percent in the United States itself. Only 45 percent of Americans have faith in American leadership in the world.

How to restore faith in the American political system

Does the author honestly believe that the US promotes democracy as a matter of principle rather than only where it serves the national interest? Talk about naive. Also naive is to expect every country to accept US-style democracy. Freedom is relative. Some in the muslim world want the freedom to implement and follow Sharia law. To them that's freedom. In the end democracy (as we know it) will come to all the places where people really want it and history proves this. Just give it time. No need to force it onto people, especially at our expense.

[LUVMBDiesels]

I actually agree with this article. The perception that these other countries have of us only promoting democracy where it suits our purposes is disturbing. More disturbing is that this perception is the majority in THIS country. I think this is the biggest problem we need to face up to.

I think that time will show that Bush was right in raising the banner of democracy...

[Honus]

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

...I think that time will show that Bush was right in raising the banner of democracy...

Maybe so, especially if historians gloss over the part where Bush raises that banner only after his other reasons for invading Iraq were shown to be false.

You are probably right. History probably will treat W better than he is being treated right now.

He's still a lying piece of poop.

[AustinsCE]

She's gotta be on the war machine payroll to attempt to assert that the Founders of this country thought of invasion and global dominance as the definition of freedom. You'll be free, dammit, whether you like it or not!

Kind of a divide and conquer strategy. If you don't like continual war, you hate the founding fathers/America. The US is God, these other countries and the stupid citizens need to get on board. It's them damn Muslims and Chinese. Reel everyone in with the Jefferson this and that deist Franklin, then Bush is good, spreading democracy to the savages, with guns and bombs, and radioactive material. You'll see, it just looks bad right now.

[cudaspaz]

So instead of your bickering about all the mess.

Why not explain your personal vision of American eutopia?

Also explain where the founding fathers went wrong, or what events went wrong after.

I personally think they should have been much more clear on the second ammendment article when it comes to an individual right to keep and bear arms since obviously many people ignored the federalist papers and insist that it only applies to the militia.

I also think that the original intent was a no brainer to the founders and they really did not expect it to turn into such an anti gun fiasco with the elitists ignoring the fact that "the people" applies to the article of the second ammendment just the same as it does with all the other articles.

I will agree that slavery was a horrible mess and leave it at that, but it seems that just as this country has come so far to come together, there are other forces tearing it apart starting from the politicians down.
I think that this would be the perfect time for this country to come together towards the bedrock principles of this nation, you know the ones that say the government works for the people, not the other way around?

But......I guess the socialist ideaology, and moral relativism is too tempting for many who have become reliant of the government's intercession into every aspect of life.

[cudaspaz]

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

She's gotta be on the war machine payroll to attempt to assert that the Founders of this country thought of invasion and global dominance as the definition of freedom. You'll be free, dammit, whether you like it or not!

Kind of a divide and conquer strategy. If you don't like continual war, you hate the founding fathers/America. The US is God, these other countries and the stupid citizens need to get on board. It's them damn Muslims and Chinese. Reel everyone in with the Jefferson this and that deist Franklin, then Bush is good, spreading democracy to the savages, with guns and bombs, and radioactive material. You'll see, it just looks bad right now.

So you are saying we need to sit idly by as Islam tries to convert and kill in an effort to dominate the world?

[DieselAddict]

He could have raised it in places like Saudi Arabia or Darfur where it was much more needed than in Iraq.

[Botnst]

Yeah, attack peaceful trading partners and invade places that have no strategic interest. Now there's a winning strategy.

Maybe we could have one of those nonaggressive war thingies.

[LaRondo]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Yeah, attack peaceful trading partners and invade places that have no strategic interest. Now there's a winning strategy.

Maybe we could have one of those nonaggressive war thingies.

You're being sarcastic.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

He could have raised it in places like Saudi Arabia or Darfur where it was much more needed than in Iraq.

Exactly how, pray tell, would you define Saudi Arabia or Darfur as being more "in need" of democracy than Iraq?

- Peter.

[DieselAddict]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Exactly how, pray tell, would you define Saudi Arabia or Darfur as being more "in need" of democracy than Iraq?

- Peter.

Saudi Arabia is a much more backward state than Iraq ever was. In Saudi Arabia women have no rights and can't even go outside without the company of a male relative and without being covered head to toe. If a woman gets raped, she's jailed or stoned to death for adultery. Saddam's Iraq by comparison was a much more secular and modern state. As long as you didn't oppose the regime, you didn't really have much to worry about. If spreading democracy was really the intent of Bush, why didn't he invade Saudi Arabia instead? This point should clearly demonstrate that the US never spreads democracy on principle but only where it's believed it serves the national interest. In this case, Saddam became an enemy of the US and hence was removed, while the Saudi royal family, regardless of how little regard they have for human rights, is our friend because it sells us cheap oil and doesn't openly oppose us.

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Saudi Arabia is a much more backward state than Iraq ever was. In Saudi Arabia women have no rights and can't even go outside without the company of a male relative and without being covered head to toe. If a woman gets raped, she's jailed or stoned to death for adultery. Saddam's Iraq by comparison was a much more secular and modern state. As long as you didn't oppose the regime, you didn't really have much to worry about. If spreading democracy was really the intent of Bush, why didn't he invade Saudi Arabia instead? This point should clearly demonstrate that the US never spreads democracy on principle but only where it's believed it serves the national interest. In this case, Saddam became an enemy of the US and hence was removed, while the Saudi royal family, regardless of how little regard they have for human rights, is our friend because it sells us cheap oil and doesn't openly oppose us.

An excellent analysis. You can take it one step further, pointing out that Saudi Arabia's religious class were deeply involved with Al Queda, and all but one of the 9-11 attackers were Saudi, Bin Laden is a Saudi, and Saudi Wahhabist schools spread Radical Islam around the globe. I would rephrase your statement "If spreading democracy was really the intent of Bush, why didn't he invade Saudi Arabia instead?" to "If spreading democracy TO REMEDY ISLAMIC TERRORISM was really the intent of Bush, why didn't he invade Saudi Arabia instead?" Bush's act in invading Iraq was obviously disconnected from 9-11 entirely. Americans who bought the baloney that it was will see their history written as well, as the biggest bunch of suckers who ever existed.

[DieselAddict]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

An excellent analysis. You can take it one step further, pointing out that Saudi Arabia's religious class were deeply involved with Al Queda, and all but one of the 9-11 attackers were Saudi, Bin Laden is a Saudi, and Saudi Wahhabist schools spread Radical Islam around the globe. I would rephrase your statement "If spreading democracy was really the intent of Bush, why didn't he invade Saudi Arabia instead?" to "If spreading democracy TO REMEDY ISLAMIC TERRORISM was really the intent of Bush, why didn't he invade Saudi Arabia instead?" Bush's act in invading Iraq was obviously disconnected from 9-11 entirely. Americans who bought the baloney that it was will see their history written as well, as the biggest bunch of suckers who ever existed.

Well said. However in Bush's mind, Iraq was indeed connected to 9/11. Basically he bought his own baloney.