Sunday, June 12, 2005
THE GREAT ONLINE SPREADING DEMOCRACY DEBATE
The Daily Demarche issued a challenge recently to conservative bloggers to find a blogger on the Left and initiate a discussion across the ideological divide that bloggers all too often comfortably settle in to by accident or design. I agreed to participate, though I have yet to find a suitable debating partner ( any takers out there ? I'll even let you pick the topic ).
Marc Schulman of The American Future and Eric Martin of Total Information Awareness are the first to take up the challenge on the question of " Spreading Democracy":
Marc Shulman's initial post:
"Against this backdrop, the question of the circumstances in which the US should attempt to spread democracy answers itself. We should give priority to establishing democratic regimes in those countries from which terrorists who view America as their enemy are most heavily recruited. The authoritarian/totalitarian governments of North Korea, China, and Zimbabwe are repugnant, but these countries haven’t produced terrorists intent on killing us. It’s the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East that should be targeted for democratization. Above all, we should not heed the advice of those who argue that if we don’t try to spread democracy everywhere, we shouldn’t attempt to spread it anywhere. These are the same people who would have us believe that, because America is less than perfect, it’s no better than any other country, including those that would do us harm"
Eric Martin's initial post:
"With these lingering misgivings in mind, allow me to state emphatically that I support the promotion of democracy, or perhaps more accurately, the empowerment of people to create a more dignified, responsive and just political life through a democratic system of government...
....The lessons to be drawn from both the successful nation building exercises (Japan, Germany) and those of less tangible success, is that accomplishing such a Herculean task as establishing a credible, functioning democracy through a post-invasion nation building effort requires decades of hard work, commitment and a ton of money. But as Nadezhda pointed out in the paragraph above, the luxury of time is not always with an occupying force, especially in a region of the world where there is an inherent hostility to our presence, nor is the luxury of time always afforded by the American electorate who might lose patience with so many revenue draining, troop exhausting, long term projects. As such, nation building in the aftermath of military expedition is not a cost effective or realistic policy to embrace from a military, economic or political point of view."
The opening shots have been followed, in good form, by a series of rebuttals:
Marc: Rebuttal # 1, Rebuttal # 2
Eric: Rebuttal # 1, Rebuttal # 2
A related post, though one not directly participating in this debate, occurs at Duck of Minerva ( hat tip to Dave).
Excellent job, gentlemen ! ¶ 9:13 AM
The Daily Demarche issued a challenge recently to conservative bloggers to find a blogger on the Left and initiate a discussion across the ideological divide that bloggers all too often comfortably settle in to by accident or design. I agreed to participate, though I have yet to find a suitable debating partner ( any takers out there ? I'll even let you pick the topic ).
Marc Schulman of The American Future and Eric Martin of Total Information Awareness are the first to take up the challenge on the question of " Spreading Democracy":
Marc Shulman's initial post:
"Against this backdrop, the question of the circumstances in which the US should attempt to spread democracy answers itself. We should give priority to establishing democratic regimes in those countries from which terrorists who view America as their enemy are most heavily recruited. The authoritarian/totalitarian governments of North Korea, China, and Zimbabwe are repugnant, but these countries haven’t produced terrorists intent on killing us. It’s the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East that should be targeted for democratization. Above all, we should not heed the advice of those who argue that if we don’t try to spread democracy everywhere, we shouldn’t attempt to spread it anywhere. These are the same people who would have us believe that, because America is less than perfect, it’s no better than any other country, including those that would do us harm"
Eric Martin's initial post:
"With these lingering misgivings in mind, allow me to state emphatically that I support the promotion of democracy, or perhaps more accurately, the empowerment of people to create a more dignified, responsive and just political life through a democratic system of government...
....The lessons to be drawn from both the successful nation building exercises (Japan, Germany) and those of less tangible success, is that accomplishing such a Herculean task as establishing a credible, functioning democracy through a post-invasion nation building effort requires decades of hard work, commitment and a ton of money. But as Nadezhda pointed out in the paragraph above, the luxury of time is not always with an occupying force, especially in a region of the world where there is an inherent hostility to our presence, nor is the luxury of time always afforded by the American electorate who might lose patience with so many revenue draining, troop exhausting, long term projects. As such, nation building in the aftermath of military expedition is not a cost effective or realistic policy to embrace from a military, economic or political point of view."
The opening shots have been followed, in good form, by a series of rebuttals:
Marc: Rebuttal # 1, Rebuttal # 2
Eric: Rebuttal # 1, Rebuttal # 2
A related post, though one not directly participating in this debate, occurs at Duck of Minerva ( hat tip to Dave).
Excellent job, gentlemen ! ¶ 9:13 AM
