Words like Democracy, Freedom, Liberty, do not mean the same things to all people.
To Americans, a country is a democracy if it agrees with US policies.
Elections can be mostly media events, it does not matter if only a few of the people vote, and it does not matter whether the votes are accurately counted.
This view, however is not universally shared by the world’s people, even those who live in countries targeted for “democracy” by Washington’s warlords.
“There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies — except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends,” the 102-page report said. link
While the American definition of freedom and liberty includes indefinite imprisonment without charges, torture, sexual predation, shutting down newspapers, murdering journalists and putting tape on the mouths of those who criticize the US, many people around the world have something else in mind when they hope for freedom and liberty.
When Bush says he will bring freedom and democracy to the world, what comes into the world’s mind is Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Mazar al Sharif, Palestine.
When he speaks of tyranny, the world thinks of many regimes installed and maintained by the US for the express purpose of preventing the people from choosing their own government and enacting their own policies that may not be advantageous to US business interests.
Lately some in Washington have begun to speak of how the Iraqi people must rise up and defend their country. Many Iraqis are doing just that, and the US calls them insurgents and terrorists.
What the Americans mean is that Iraqis must kill their neighbors when ordered to do so by American soldiers.
While this redefinition of words and phrases has without question been invaluable in maintaining domestic support for US policies, they have been just as effective at obliterating the possibility of dialogue and negotiation.
This is no accident, and ironically is one of the more transparent and honest aspects of US policy, built as it is on the primordial principle that the world is US property, that self-defense is a privilege that can be granted or revoked only by the US.
In the US itself, democracy involves the 25% richest people choosing which protege of which corporation will represent that corporation before the warlords as they decide which population it will be most profitable to exterminate next. Almost invariably, the winner of any election is the candidate with the most money. American democracy involves aborted elections, where registrations are discarded, votes that are not counted at all, votes that no one really knows what they were because they are recorded (or not) on sophisticated computer programs that have no system of checks and balances.
While some may cling to the archaic notion of democracy as having to do with everyone in a polity having a voice, few would suggest that if, for example, the people of Arabia were tomorrow magically relieved of their princes and went about the business of choosing a representative government accountable to the populace, that the result would be at all pleasing to US defense and energy industries.
Such a government would in fact, not be considered a democracy by the US, who would immediately launch “operations” to effect “regime change” and bring American-style freedom and democracy to Arabia, most likely by re-installing the princes, or maybe they would go for an elected president, like, say, Egypt.
Dictionaries and reference works notwithstanding, the US has effectively redefined and remade democracy in the image it has chosen, and it is not a system of government anyone would want, it is incompatible with the continuance of human life on earth.
In so doing, they have made democracy into global public enemy number one, and given billions of people all over the world almost as many reasons to hate freedom.
Generally the difference between the liberals and the left is this question of the American Mythology. Do you insist that “democracy” is an “American value” or do you point out that US foreign policy is inimical of democracy and domestically the US own record on elections is very poor?
And then again there are those who admit that democracy is generally opposed by America but think that mentioning this sort of fact is a bad idea because it means not being taken “seriously” (ie being blacklisted by the corporate media).
You could go right down a list of events and values listing the semi-official “American mythology” position and the reality of US foreign policy according to the far left.
As an example Booman just asked (perhaps rhetorically), if anyone thought that (outside of warcrimes and interrogations) the US intentionally killed and raped and tortured people. I said yes, I think they do – as a means of terrorism to ensure compliance to US rule. A standard and unremarkable interpretation of US actions by the far left, but apparently not something Booman had considered.
What I am wondering is whether recent events with Bush are persuading more people on the left to see through the American Mythology — or is the stuff Bush is doing dismissed as unique to him — an aberation in the otherwise wonderful history of America?
in the Amrika of modern today is surgically attached to the principle that while of course the US owns the earth and all it contains, more of the wetwork should be outsourced, and a larger number of corporations should profit from it.
Is Bush an opportunity to educate the liberals about the not so pretty side of American history? Of course for many, as I said, it is not exactly a matter of education. Many are aware of the history but say that going on about these matters just puts people off and therefore — in the interests of lefty policies — the left should go along with the American Mythology, “fit in”.
For example I would characterise Tom Kertes position as being very aware of the mythology but saying that it is counter-productive to talk about it. (He’s on a break right now so I hope he wouldn’t be mad at me characterising his position that way!)
My position is that it is the mythology itself that ought to be a primary target of the left. Especially in the context of what blogs are doing because of course by its nature the blogs are communication / education orientated.
Now I wish he was here (Tom) but I think he’d say that you have to get party poitical control to push the policies that lefties want and to do that you have to play the game by their rules, specifically the rules of the Democrat party.
I would say that historically progressives have never had political control and their policies are enacted anyway by going directly to the people until there is enough support that one or both parties pander to those policies. As such education is necessary and going along with the mythology is a big problem.
what they believe, or what they do.
I am sorry to say that, but I would rather tell a sad truth than a pretty lie, no matter how much more popular and welcome the lie might be.
The situation has moved into that stage where the importance of psychological comfort cannot be overstated, and whatever they find comfort in, that is what they should believe, and that is what they should seek, and enjoy every day.