A difficult truth to accept: Liberal democracy is not favored around the world

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberal democracies are favored around the world but malevolent people with enough money and power have pushed false or misleading narratives in a way that support the rest of your narrative.

No. What is favored around the world is power and that means dictatorships or similar. The exception to that has been the US. We have been the beacon of freedom. After WWII we imposed the world order on most of the globe and confronted those that did not agree.

The norm is to injustice, war, and the like. We are not the norm or at least we have not been.

The United States has been a beacon of freedom. There’s a lot hypocrisy in that statement. Usually the Americans claim this while bombing innocents then reimpose dictators. Oh and then when the natives fight back, the Americans abandon those who worked with them and they retreat.

As opposed to what?

The English, Belgians, French and others did the same
The Soviets and before them, the Russian Empire, and now the Russian Federation did the same
The CCP did the same (Korea, Vietnam, etc)
The Ottomans did the same
The Muslim caliphates that spread Islam did the same
And so many others did the same

But only America is to be condemned... And many of the people condemning the US the harshest at the same time glorify Russia or China or others, while nattering on about "anti-colonialism" - talk about hypocrisy.

I think the point is the US’s hypocrisy. I don’t think the English, French or Belgians claimed they were bringing democracy or freedom to countries they exploited and oppressed. The US wasn’t a beacon of freedom for many decades. Its sponsorship of corrupt regimes and support for military coups was all about countering Soviet influence and protecting US interests. In terms of comparisons, the US has invaded two countries in the last 25 years while China has invaded none and Russia has invaded one. Don’t get me wrong - I’m no fan of either country but let’s not pretend they have a worse track record.

You clearly are not familiar with Belgium’s outrageous and despicable colonial rule of Democratic Republic of Congo in kate nineteenth and early twentieth century. King Leopoldo was the worst hypocrite of them all / waxed lyrical about lofty humanitarian goals while brutally terrorizing indigenous Congolese and exploiting their resources at astonishing levels even by colonial standards - Heart of Dark was based on this horrible moment in history but there are good biographies on King Leopoldo l’s depraved hypocrisy.

Everyone knows that. How does that justify recent American neo-imperialist crusades and violence in the name of democracy? How does that justify American support of apartheid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberal democracies are favored around the world but malevolent people with enough money and power have pushed false or misleading narratives in a way that support the rest of your narrative.

No. What is favored around the world is power and that means dictatorships or similar. The exception to that has been the US. We have been the beacon of freedom. After WWII we imposed the world order on most of the globe and confronted those that did not agree.

The norm is to injustice, war, and the like. We are not the norm or at least we have not been.

The United States has been a beacon of freedom. There’s a lot hypocrisy in that statement. Usually the Americans claim this while bombing innocents then reimpose dictators. Oh and then when the natives fight back, the Americans abandon those who worked with them and they retreat.

As opposed to what?

The English, Belgians, French and others did the same
The Soviets and before them, the Russian Empire, and now the Russian Federation did the same
The CCP did the same (Korea, Vietnam, etc)
The Ottomans did the same
The Muslim caliphates that spread Islam did the same
And so many others did the same

But only America is to be condemned... And many of the people condemning the US the harshest at the same time glorify Russia or China or others, while nattering on about "anti-colonialism" - talk about hypocrisy.

I think the point is the US’s hypocrisy. I don’t think the English, French or Belgians claimed they were bringing democracy or freedom to countries they exploited and oppressed. The US wasn’t a beacon of freedom for many decades. Its sponsorship of corrupt regimes and support for military coups was all about countering Soviet influence and protecting US interests. In terms of comparisons, the US has invaded two countries in the last 25 years while China has invaded none and Russia has invaded one. Don’t get me wrong - I’m no fan of either country but let’s not pretend they have a worse track record.

You clearly are not familiar with Belgium’s outrageous and despicable colonial rule of Democratic Republic of Congo in kate nineteenth and early twentieth century. King Leopoldo was the worst hypocrite of them all / waxed lyrical about lofty humanitarian goals while brutally terrorizing indigenous Congolese and exploiting their resources at astonishing levels even by colonial standards - Heart of Dark was based on this horrible moment in history but there are good biographies on King Leopoldo l’s depraved hypocrisy.

Everyone knows that. How does that justify recent American neo-imperialist crusades and violence in the name of democracy? How does that justify American support of apartheid?

Ok now we are just in the name calling stage. The U.S. does things, you don't like them, you give the things inflammatory names.

The U.S. doesn't need your mother may I on the world stage. This thread is one of the most pointless I have ever seen on this site. Your whole point is U.S., do not be a global actor because I do not want you too. So again, and?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberal democracies are favored around the world but malevolent people with enough money and power have pushed false or misleading narratives in a way that support the rest of your narrative.

No. What is favored around the world is power and that means dictatorships or similar. The exception to that has been the US. We have been the beacon of freedom. After WWII we imposed the world order on most of the globe and confronted those that did not agree.

The norm is to injustice, war, and the like. We are not the norm or at least we have not been.

The United States has been a beacon of freedom. There’s a lot hypocrisy in that statement. Usually the Americans claim this while bombing innocents then reimpose dictators. Oh and then when the natives fight back, the Americans abandon those who worked with them and they retreat.

As opposed to what?

The English, Belgians, French and others did the same
The Soviets and before them, the Russian Empire, and now the Russian Federation did the same
The CCP did the same (Korea, Vietnam, etc)
The Ottomans did the same
The Muslim caliphates that spread Islam did the same
And so many others did the same

But only America is to be condemned... And many of the people condemning the US the harshest at the same time glorify Russia or China or others, while nattering on about "anti-colonialism" - talk about hypocrisy.

I think the point is the US’s hypocrisy. I don’t think the English, French or Belgians claimed they were bringing democracy or freedom to countries they exploited and oppressed. The US wasn’t a beacon of freedom for many decades. Its sponsorship of corrupt regimes and support for military coups was all about countering Soviet influence and protecting US interests. In terms of comparisons, the US has invaded two countries in the last 25 years while China has invaded none and Russia has invaded one. Don’t get me wrong - I’m no fan of either country but let’s not pretend they have a worse track record.

You clearly are not familiar with Belgium’s outrageous and despicable colonial rule of Democratic Republic of Congo in kate nineteenth and early twentieth century. King Leopoldo was the worst hypocrite of them all / waxed lyrical about lofty humanitarian goals while brutally terrorizing indigenous Congolese and exploiting their resources at astonishing levels even by colonial standards - Heart of Dark was based on this horrible moment in history but there are good biographies on King Leopoldo l’s depraved hypocrisy.

Everyone knows that. How does that justify recent American neo-imperialist crusades and violence in the name of democracy? How does that justify American support of apartheid?

Ok now we are just in the name calling stage. The U.S. does things, you don't like them, you give the things inflammatory names.

The U.S. doesn't need your mother may I on the world stage. This thread is one of the most pointless I have ever seen on this site. Your whole point is U.S., do not be a global actor because I do not want you too. So again, and?

My point is that the Americans profess to have this unyielding belief in liberal democracy but their actions are hypocritical due to the violence they bring to foreign countries and the illiberal regimes they actively support. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out these obscene contradictions.
I think the Americans do have a role to play, but they need to align their policies and actions with their rhetoric. The global community is not stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberal democracies are favored around the world but malevolent people with enough money and power have pushed false or misleading narratives in a way that support the rest of your narrative.

This! And the Israeli-Palestine conflict is complex and nuanced. Palestinians are not bad, Hamas is. Israel is not bad; it’s trying to survive in a region that wants it destroyed. There are numerous groups that hate each other and call that land home based on a long history of conflict/power changes.

Russia is bad however that is true. But they demographics don’t support being anything but a regional player in the coming future. Invading Ukraine is their last gasp.

Well like anything, execution is key. Trump being President in our Democracy sucked yet he's able to do so because we are Democratic society. So I get why people in the world may want another form of gov depending on how their current govt rules. In other words, a dictator who is a good ruler in my mind is preferred over Trump ruling. Singapore had in the past an amazing awesome leader who really knew how to make his country awesome but objectively he was not exactly welcomed by all. History is full of such examples. Just because the people hate or love someone at the helm is not proof of their abilities. From this perspective I'm cynical that Democracy is indeed the best form of govt. Look at the circus of our current elections. The first emperor of China for example was hated by all for wanting to fight all the provinces in order to unify China. He believed unification would lead to stability and strength but nobody wanted to change their system. He had to basically wrestle everyone and beat them down to get to his goal since he didn't have their buy in. I think on some level governments and people are never going to align consistently and you never really know when the right idea is until the hindsight of history reveals. I think human nature is very slow to change if at all changeable. What people have always known they want to continue so even if we regard their govt as a disaster, perspectives change when you don't have objectivity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberal democracies are favored around the world but malevolent people with enough money and power have pushed false or misleading narratives in a way that support the rest of your narrative.

This! And the Israeli-Palestine conflict is complex and nuanced. Palestinians are not bad, Hamas is. Israel is not bad; it’s trying to survive in a region that wants it destroyed. There are numerous groups that hate each other and call that land home based on a long history of conflict/power changes.

Russia is bad however that is true. But they demographics don’t support being anything but a regional player in the coming future. Invading Ukraine is their last gasp.

Well like anything, execution is key. Trump being President in our Democracy sucked yet he's able to do so because we are Democratic society. So I get why people in the world may want another form of gov depending on how their current govt rules. In other words, a dictator who is a good ruler in my mind is preferred over Trump ruling. Singapore had in the past an amazing awesome leader who really knew how to make his country awesome but objectively he was not exactly welcomed by all. History is full of such examples. Just because the people hate or love someone at the helm is not proof of their abilities. From this perspective I'm cynical that Democracy is indeed the best form of govt. Look at the circus of our current elections. The first emperor of China for example was hated by all for wanting to fight all the provinces in order to unify China. He believed unification would lead to stability and strength but nobody wanted to change their system. He had to basically wrestle everyone and beat them down to get to his goal since he didn't have their buy in. I think on some level governments and people are never going to align consistently and you never really know when the right idea is until the hindsight of history reveals. I think human nature is very slow to change if at all changeable. What people have always known they want to continue so even if we regard their govt as a disaster, perspectives change when you don't have objectivity.

Ok. Shrug. I like democracy. Let’s have America keep its democracy and folks who do not want it are free to relocate to China or Russia or what ever autocratic nightmare they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberal democracies are favored around the world but malevolent people with enough money and power have pushed false or misleading narratives in a way that support the rest of your narrative.

This! And the Israeli-Palestine conflict is complex and nuanced. Palestinians are not bad, Hamas is. Israel is not bad; it’s trying to survive in a region that wants it destroyed. There are numerous groups that hate each other and call that land home based on a long history of conflict/power changes.

Russia is bad however that is true. But they demographics don’t support being anything but a regional player in the coming future. Invading Ukraine is their last gasp.

Well like anything, execution is key. Trump being President in our Democracy sucked yet he's able to do so because we are Democratic society. So I get why people in the world may want another form of gov depending on how their current govt rules. In other words, a dictator who is a good ruler in my mind is preferred over Trump ruling. Singapore had in the past an amazing awesome leader who really knew how to make his country awesome but objectively he was not exactly welcomed by all. History is full of such examples. Just because the people hate or love someone at the helm is not proof of their abilities. From this perspective I'm cynical that Democracy is indeed the best form of govt. Look at the circus of our current elections. The first emperor of China for example was hated by all for wanting to fight all the provinces in order to unify China. He believed unification would lead to stability and strength but nobody wanted to change their system. He had to basically wrestle everyone and beat them down to get to his goal since he didn't have their buy in. I think on some level governments and people are never going to align consistently and you never really know when the right idea is until the hindsight of history reveals. I think human nature is very slow to change if at all changeable. What people have always known they want to continue so even if we regard their govt as a disaster, perspectives change when you don't have objectivity.

The main advantage of democracy is that if a mistake happens, there are mechanisms for getting a bad ruler out. Trump was bad. He was voted out. Putin is bad. Russia is stuck with him. In all dictatorships, oligarchies, and other such governments, eventually a bad guy gets in, nobody can figure out how to get him out, and the nation sinks.