January 27, 2005
From the desk of Jane Galt:Dissing democracy
We take democracy for granted. We don't vote, we get indignant that there isn't a candidate who expresses our exact policy preferences on every axis, we complain that the bastards are all the same. I do it myself -- after all, isn't complaining about the government the most precious of our constitutionally protected rights? But the fact is that our democracy, as imperfect as it is, is pretty darn wonderful compared to anything else. If you don't believe that, read this Wall Street Journal article (subscription only) about a man who wants to vote in the Iraq elections . . . but is too afraid:
Ayoub and his family are among the few Christians living on the block, and he has watched in dismay as the family's relationship with neighbors has grown cold and distant. None of their neighbors visited this year during Christmas, as they had done in previous years. The customary chit-chat on the sidewalk has turned into cordial nods and greetings. Last summer, the nearby church Ayoub's family attends was blown up during the wave of attacks against Christians. In the past two weeks, one neighbor who worked as an Iraqi National Guard was killed and another kidnapped for a hefty ransom.Posted by Jane Galt at January 27, 2005 10:45 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksAyoub gets nervous just thinking about the possibility of one of his neighbors watching him as he walked through the neighborhood to his local polling station and then telling insurgents. "I don't have to touch fire to know it burns," he says. "It has happened to so many others, and I can see the damage."
Ayoub's journey from committed voter to uncertain one began in December, when he read in the newspapers that Iraqis could pick up voter-registration forms at their local grocery store. He deliberately didn't mention anything to his wife and daughter when he set out to collect one. Still, he says, "My mind was set to vote then, there was no doubt at all."
Nonetheless, he wanted as few people as possible to know. At the grocery store, he pretended to be checking rice prices until the other patrons had left. Then he leaned forward and whispered to the clerk, "Do you have our voter-registration forms?"
The grocer shook his head angrily, saying he had received death threats from insurgents over the forms, according to Ayoub. The grocer told him he returned all the forms to the registration center set up by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq at an elementary school nearby.
Ayoub drove to the school, keeping his eyes fixed on the rear-view mirror to make sure he wasn't being followed. On the way he noticed graffiti on one wall declaring, "Election is for infidels."
He parked his car several blocks away, walked to the school and received his form. Before leaving, he neatly folded the paper and hid it between several layers of newspaper as he walked back to his car. Just in case he was being followed, he drove around town running errands instead of going straight home. "I was behaving like a criminal on the run," he says. "And all I wanted to do was pick up my voter-registration form."
. . .
Ayoub's wife was never very interested in politics and grew increasingly concerned about the consequences of starting now. In the past few weeks, she's begun to cry, pleading with her husband not to leave the house on Election Day. His daughter says she overheard her mother tell him, "What do you want? You want me to be a widow and our daughters to be without a father? Is voting worth it?"
Ayoub's younger daughter says she would vote under different circumstances. But both her parents have told her not even to think about casting a ballot. "I always dreamed of having democracy and a free society during Saddam's time. I wish I could go vote, so we don't end up with an Islamic government. But my mom would collapse if I even mention this," she says.
One day, discussing his decision with a friend, Ayoub realized that the risk, and fear, wouldn't disappear after Election Day if he voted. "Are you crazy," he says his friend told him. "Who will protect you the day after? The next week?"
In recent days, he's agonized over whether the polling station would be under surveillance by insurgents and whether he would be recognized.
He worries that the insurgents may learn his address and attack his wife or daughter. He wishes the regulations allowed him to vote in another neighborhood. But even if they did, he knows he still would have to walk a long distance to get to another district -- attracting attention all the way.
"I'm willing to take the risk of a car bomb that day, but I can't jeopardize the safety of my family," he said one recent morning over hot tea in a Baghdad hotel. "If my wife and daughter get killed because I wanted to exercise democracy I could never live with myself." Then he paused and said, "Inside I really want to vote."
His daughter glared at him anxiously. "Dad, you're not going to vote," she said. "Please. The only solution is not to leave the house."
"Let's see what happens that day," Ayoub told her. "If it's quiet by noon, maybe I'll take a walk and check out the polling station. If I see a big crowd then I can blend in and vote. That would be so nice."
We take democracy for granted.
No, not all of us do. If Dems seem particularly appalled by this Administration, it's in large measure because we don't take democracy for granted anymore; it all seems too fragile now. (Note, for example, that the US conception of democracy depends on the belief that citizens are guaranteed certain rights (lawyer, trial) even when the majority doesn't think they should have them).
But the fact is that our democracy, as imperfect as it is, is pretty darn wonderful compared to anything else.
I absolutely buy that. And I'd like to keep it that way.
If he is not willing to take the risk now what does he think his life will be like after the election as a Christian in Iraq where no Christians voted?
Freedom is not free. How do you think our Founding Fathers and all those brave Americans who stood up to the mighty British army felt!
Yes people will die, but what are the chances any particular person will die. If 1 out of every 100 persons who votes dies is the end result ok? 99 free and 1 dead as opposed to 100 living in tyranny. What would you rather do? I personally will take a 1% chance of death when freedom is the reward and the result of not acting is more brutality and oppression.
So this guy would rather his wife and daughter spend their entire lives in fear all because they are Christian?
This guy needs to be taken aside and explained that our boys are risking their lives for him and he needs to reciprocate.
I'd be afraid too. It sounds like he'll find a way to vote, though.
In America, we debate and campaign, we vote and abstain, and we party and complain. It's easy to take it for granted, but it's a lot better than rioting and fighting and kidnapping and killing. And I'm pleased and proud to have W presiding over the government and leading the country.
Democratic processes are worth fighting, and dying for, because it is the best means to prevent excessively concentrated power, which nearly inevitably becomes tyrannical. The guy in the story, and his family, are understandably terrified, and I'm not about to question his courage, or lack thereof, as I sit here in comfort and sip coffee, but I hope he and his countrymen can summon enough of that quality. Otherwise, their descendents will bear the same yoke of tyranny in the future.
"Freedom is not free" ...
As we learned in "Team America: World Police," freedom costs a buck-oh-five.
:)
Freedom is not Free
You are absolutely right Peter! We should institute a proxy voting system in Iraq and we can send you over to vote for Ayoub (maybe we could some other like minded volunteers to go too). I mean with 80B in more funding coming down the pipe, I'm sure the Bush Admin could afford to fly you to Baghdad. Then you could make your way to Ayoub's residence (you won't need an escort right, our service men and women have other things to do) and have him sign the appropriate paperwork. You can discuss the ballot of candidates(probably only released a few days before the elections) and figure out how he wants to vote.
Next stop, you are off to the correct polling place. I understand they are limiting the number of polling stations so I am sure that you can find them quite easily. Although, being a foreigner my guess would be that the insurgents can find them easier than you. So, I guess you would have to pick up a bomb-sniffing dog and body armor before leaving the States.
Sound like a good idea there Peter? I mean our service men and women are over there dying to bring democracy to the Middle East. The least you could do would be to help out with the voting.
Oh wait there is just not enough time to do that before the election, well drat!
Well hell, maybe we can send you over and you make Ayoub go to the polls at gunpoint all the while lecturing him on what an ingrate he is.
So this guy would rather his wife and daughter spend their entire lives in fear all because they are Christian?In fairness to this fellow, his primary fear (per the article) is for the safety of his wife and daughter. Had it just been him taking the risk rather than the lives of the two most important women in his life, he said it wouldn’t be a question that he would vote.
While I agree with your larger point that it is generally better to fight to be free rather than submit to tyranny, I’m a bit more willing to try to be empathetic to the person who is actually running the risk of seeing his family murdered or worse because he exercises the franchise.
I hope he does vote and I hope that nothing bad happens to him, his loved ones, or that of any other innocent person.
If I were a believer, I would thank G-d everyday that I live in a country where I don’t have to worry about it. Hopefully Iraq will someday be such a country and it will be because people like Ayoub decide to make it happen.
We don't vote, we get indignant that there isn't a candidate who expresses our exact policy preferences on every axis, we complain that the bastards are all the same. ... But the fact is that our democracy, as imperfect as it is, is pretty darn wonderful compared to anything else.
This does not, of course, mean that our democracy cannot be improved. I know I sound like a broken record, but these deficiencies can be addressed by dumping the plurality voting system, which doesn't support more than two choices gracefully (spoiler effect), and moving to Instant Runoff Voting, Approval Voting, or the Condorcet Method.
I personally will take a 1% chance of death when freedom is the reward and the result of not acting is more brutality and oppression.
That may be the funniest thing I've read on this site in a while. We're in Iraq b/c, despite zero connection to 9/11, people like you think it'll help prevent another 9/11. Using 9/11 as a basis, you've got a .001% chance of dying in another 9/11 event. Say at least an order of magnitude less in a red state. So you are unwilling to bear a risk of .0001% chance of dying in order to avoid some asinine new understanding of justified wars, or to preserve the rights of citizens (lawyer, trial) in the US. But the Iraqi's the one who needs some nuts.
Put another way. If you support the war in Iraq, you do it (I assume) b/c you think it helps us stay free. The troops in Iraq appear to have roughtly a 1% chance of dying. I keep reading about troop strain. So sign-up, Peter. I'm sure they'd be pleased to have you. Otherwise spare us your keyboard-bravery in fighting for freedom.
All that said, as with the Afghanistan, it is remarkable and inspiring to see people have access to a real ballot for the first time in easy memory. I wish them (and our troops) as easy a voting day as is possible.
this is one thing I can never understand: why don't those of you who support this war sign up to fight in it? (kudos to those who signed up, for having the courage to put their lives on the line for their ideals)
I mean, if you're willing to risk this Iraqi poor bastard's life to defend your idea of freedom, why won't you put yours on the line?
SCMTim et al.:
I'm so glad to hear you say that you wish the Iraqi people well. The impression I often get from your side of the aisle is that the more trouble our troops and the Iraqis have, the better - because it "gets us out" sooner. I support the current effort in Iraq, but not because I want to "in your FACE!" Bush opponents; the stakes now are much higher than that, as you seem well aware. We can spend the rest of our lives debating the right-ness of our involvement in Iraq, if you want - but at least for the next little time, I hope we can agree that a relatively peaceful and effective election is in the best interests of the people who, willy-nilly, are in the middle of the storm.
I'm not sure about the power of prayer, but I'm praying as hard as my nature permits for the safety of those who go vote in that troubled place, for the resolve of those tasked with allowing them to do so, and for the dawning of - what, humanity? reason? - in those who stand against them. Oh, and that the winners will be fair to the losers, so that the day after the results are tallied has a *chance* of being a birthday of sorts rather than the day Ft. Sumter flew the wrong flag.
God speed Iraq.
SCMTim:
You pretty much use a 5 year old's logic to come to your conclusion about 9/11 and Iraq. Because the two were not connected thus Iraq has no connection to terror, what you deceivingly call "another 9/11." You say that since A is not equal to B then B has no relation to C.
You use 9/11 to represent an actual event in the first place (A) and then use it to represent future hypotheticals (C). I call (C) in this situation "terrorism" and being a terrorst is now harder with Saddam gone.
As for your moronic argument that I should join up. Are you claiming that unless someone joins to fight they can not take a pro military stance. I'm an out of shape 36 year old guy, I would be more detriment than good on the battlefield and would never be accepted to the military now.
I see the threats to our country which you do not. Technology has caught up to us, if you can't forsee terrorists getting their hands on nuclear or biological weapons in the next 20 years then you lack any imagination. Then again lots of people lacked imagination with respect to Hitler. Thank god for Churchill!
and? what does your shape have to do with your convictions? if you think someone else should die for your ideals, shouldn't you at least have the courage to put your own life up for the cause?
Birth pangs.
Democracy is not birthed more easily than children.
It is our nation's fate to fight through all obstacles to worldwide democracy.
The sooner we get there, the quicker we can get back to indulging our self-absorbed hedonism 24/7.
As for the 'chickenhawk' argument, it titillates me with the guilty pleasure of schadenfreude because:
1 - It demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-war crowd and their fatuous ad-hominem vitriol.
2 - It doesn't apply to me, personally, so I can gloat about that.
3 - It begs the questions: are you against civilian control of the military? Or just opposed to the military on principle? When you boil it down, you get: "everyone who disagrees with me has to join the military, and the military has to obey my orders," don't you?
Nice try.
:-)
wait! I do not in the least mean to be facetious.
I honestly would like someone to provide me with a coherent and sensible argument for how they can support a war (in which others will die) without volunteering their own lives to the cause of the war. (I personally think physical imperfections are weak arguments, so if you can offer something a bit more substantial, I would be much happier). Thanks.
Facetious?
No, we're all terribly earnest around here.
How can you bear to support Saddam Hussein so fervently without having taken the first opportunity that came your way to lay down your life for him, 'mackinaw?'
;-)
How's this argument, 'mackinaw'? I retired from the Army in 1987 after 20+ years of service. Do I have to return to active duty before I'm entitled to support the war in Iraq? I don't think the Army has much use for 58 year-old diabetic retreads...
Thanks for posting this. Certainly puts our own squabbles in perspective.
I hope the election demonstrates that there are lots of people like Ayoub in the Arab world, and that he takes his friend's advice to heart. I think there are, but the thugs who have run the place kept the Ayoubs under a rock with their doctrine that "election is for infidels". Time for us to stop arguing about whether or not going to war was the right thing to do. Remember, they asked the windsurfer about that at the Grand Canyon, and he said that he would not have changed his vote knowing what we know now. It is time to move on. If Ayoub and his neighbors do turn out, we should support them. The worst thing would be to run away and leave these brave people to their fate as Bush's father did to his eternal shame.
Not that it should make any difference to anyone's right to talk about our nation's foreign policy (it's a democracy ain't it?), FWIW I have an honorable discharge from 3 years in the US Army, one of them in the infantry, and 3 years in the reserves.
So let me get this straight, Mackinaw: no matter how good, or just, a war, you are only allowed to support it if you successfully enlist? So pregnant women are not allowed to support the war? Senior citizens are not allowed to support the war, no matter how many other wars they may have fought in? The disabled are not allowed to have an opinion on matters martial? Sounds rather . . . discriminatory. Also rather obviates the need for this whole nation-state thing, if we're all only allowed to support policies that we personally participate in.
And of course by your logic, none of us is allowed to support World War II, since we can't fight in it.
I take it that you do are against having police and fire departments, never take taxis, fly, or consume anything that has been flown in a plane, do not in any way make use of wood products and support banning their use in America, never eat fish, and have eliminated anything from your life that contains metal or other mined minerals, since the people in those occupations have an extraordinarily high rate of death and injury, and in several cases of course, also kill others.
If the purpose of a government is to ensure that society operates in an intelligent and rational manner, I'm not at all sure that our representative democracy is that much better than any other form of government.
Democracies are very, very good at making sure the actions of the government aren't those that would be perceived as oppressing the majority of voters. Are they good at selecting intellectually honest and rational people to serve in the government? Not really; they select for the politicians best able to run advertising campaigns. Democracies are also very, very good at getting the people to perceive them as "legitimate" and to attempt manipulating the current system instead of trying to tear it down and start another. That doesn't mean that they're beneficial governments, just that they're evolutionarily successful.
How's this argument, 'mackinaw'? I retired from the Army in 1987 after 20+ years of service. Do I have to return to active duty before I'm entitled to support the war in Iraq? I don't think the Army has much use for 58 year-old diabetic retreads...
Not yet anyway. But at the rate we are going, you may just find your self called into service. Quite a number of people over the age of 400 have been sent to Iraq and have died. Just another sign of the poor planning done in preparation for this war.
Boy, Willie, I sure hope you meant "40," not "400." If people over the age of 400 are being called up to serve, that speaks either very WELL for prior planning (since there ain't any such folk) or very POORLY (since it would imply that everybody up to the age of 400 is already serving).
Why, BTW, is it a sign of "poor planning" that people over, ahem, 400 have been sent to and died in Iraq? My dad retired from the Air Force at 55; if his unit had been called up to the first Gulf War, for instance, back when he was in his 40s, he certainly would have gone, and he might have been killed (less likely in that war than in this one, but not all that likely in either, statistically). It wouldn't have been a mark of poor planning. It would have been a mark of (a) strategy (that his unit was one of the ones called up) and (b) the fortunes of war (that he was a casualty). (Something deeply wrong with the grammar of that last sentence. Oh well; I'll let it stand.) Should ONLY the n-n-n-n-nineteen...nineteen-year-olds die in war? Or would that just lead to more irritating pop songs?
If we're going to discuss intellectual bankruptcy, I think it's been amply demonstrated that there are people on both sides on the Iraqi War issue who write checks their brains can't cash.
Let's not be so taken with the idiots on either side of the debate that we lose sight of the actual issue: the validity of our justifications for the war.
Why, BTW, is it a sign of "poor planning" that people over, ahem, 400 have been sent to and died in Iraq? My dad retired from the Air Force at 55; if his unit had been called up to the first Gulf
It's a sign of poor planning because these people, over 40(sorry about the typo) and over 50 have largely been reservists, who weren't intended to be sent to die in a foreign war at this stage of their military service. Many of the elder casualties haven't been killed by combat or accidents, either. In a number of cases, it has been heart attacks. This tends to happen with greater frequency to those over forty then to those who are 19. Clearly, we went to war without adequate troop strenght for both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It begs the questions: are you against civilian control of the military?
This begs no question. For starters, one can hold the view that we can have civilian control over the military but that those excerising that control should have prior military experience, especially if they are sending troops into combat. This seemed to matter a great deal to conservatives when Clinton was elected, but seems not to matter much now. Also, the civilian control thing is somewhat fictious because, while the president is the CINC, most of them don't get involved in the everyday matters that constitute control. Sure, he apparently makes the big decisions about whether we go to war or not, but they don't necessarily get involved in the lower levels of strategy and ordering the troops around.
That was the funniest typo I've seen in a while!
Excellent.
I'm still baffled by the "people die in war, therefore we shouldn't be in Iraq" argument.
News flash: we're all gonna die anyway.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
If no one was getting killed, we wouldn't call it "war." We'd call it "peace."
Good luck unilaterally declaring peace.
As for "validity of justifications," Matt G., why don't you first persuade yourself that democracy is preferable to other forms of government. If that's not clear in your mind, I don't see how anyone could reason with you about the war.
Sir Hosis,
I see you trying to refute my point.
I don't see you actually refuting my point.
Feel free to try again....
Matt G et al,
I deployed right after 9/11 and was very happy to help in liberating Afghanistan. Then came back and trained the crews that helped liberate Iraq.(I was switched to the training squadron to pass on my experience). I fully support the Iraq invasion and it was obvious to all my fellow officers that Iraq was next by late Dec 01. Yes I meant Dec 01. I could care less about the WMD hunt - Iraq was still the obvious next move. The culture is changing toward Freedom, Democracy, and capitalism that will make the ME and the world a much safer and nicer place to live. And people will die to get us there.
To equate Democracy as just another form of government equal to any other is ludicrous on it face. The US democracy gives the maximum to individual rights and freedom (something neither the Iraq or Afghanistan had before we intervened). To say that Iraqi's were better off under Saddam tells me you place no value in living without chains. To take your argument to its logical conclusion you should move to Cuba or some other dictatorship if you don't like Democracy. Freedom is not free and it will always be paid in blood and treasure - luckily we are expending a minimal amount of blood (including those of the Iraqi terrorists) and a tolerable amount of treasure.
As for the age thing. I turned 40 shortly after I redeployed from Afghanistan and would have been over 40 if I had flown in OIF. Lot’s of people I know where over 40, just not many privates – the military won’t take older folks (I believe 28 or 30 is the cutoff for enlistment in the active duty except for Doctors and lawyers). Instead of deploying to Iraq I was training brand new 23 year old pilots how to land the old BUFF for the first time. Wasn’t I lucky because I was so much safer? Bwahahahaha…
I'm still baffled by the "people die in war, therefore we shouldn't be in Iraq" argument.
I am baffled why you are raising this, since no one is making that argument. What we are arguing is that these people are dying for no good reason, and not the reason that this war was sold to the American public. Further, does the fact that we are all going to die anyway justify these deaths? A lot of the opposition to wars comes from the fact that many people die a lot more painfully and a lot earlier than they otherwise would have.
Sir Hosis,
The President shouldn't be "moving units around". That's what I have generals, then colonels, then Majors, captains, down to that 22 year-old LT squad leader. Each moving smaller sized bits. Last time a President was moving people around was when LBJ picked targets during Vietnam - something that worked horribly. Presidents set National level strategy. He probably gets a Presidential level decision on Iraq at most once a week. Probably less. My LT above makes decisions on a minute by minute basis (sometimes seconds). That's how it works or you get overwhelmed with the details and can't focus on the big picture - where I want the President focused.
Mr. Goode:
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
Nonetheless, reservists are aware that being a reservist includes the possibility of being called up until retirement. Even beyond, for some skillsets, I understand. That's the function of the reserves. It's a way to keep up an adequate volunteer military IN times of peace, FOR times of war. And base closures and defense cuts in the '80s and '90s, while certainly prompted by the fall of the Soviet regime as has been exTENsively discussed in another thread herein, don't exactly help us today...
That's the trouble with a volunteer military, I guess - although it's by FAR the preferable option, in spite of its problems. Soldiers aren't widgets; you can't just injection-mold a new batch when you need them. War happens when it happens; you fight, as Rummy said (it was Rumsfeld, wasn't it?), with the army you have. Part of our military is the corps of trained and experienced men and women who make up the reserves - and they knew what they were signing up for, and they serve because they stand by their commitments, heart attacks and all.
I guess it comes down to whether you believe, first, that a pre-emptive war can *ever* be justified, and second, that this particular war is one that falls into the justifiable category. The only combination of answers that permits the "poor planning" discussion point is yes/yes. Any other combination denounces the war itself, and "poor planning" becomes a pseudo-hawk proxy for "We shouldn't be there."
"poor planning" becomes a pseudo-hawk proxy for "We shouldn't be there."
Well said, Jamie.
Listening to ankle-biting criticism of tactics and progress from people who opposed the war in the first place is like listening to a vegan tell you you're cooking your steak all wrong.
Jaime,
The problem with your argument is that this war didn't just happen. Bush and Co. "happened" it. Thus, the "army you have" argument advanced by Rummy doesn't fly here, because there was a choice to either not go at all, or to go later when we have more armor for the Humvees. And while I agree that troops aren't widgets, they can be trained in a short period of time.
I also don't accept your limiting of the debate on preparedness to those who wanted to go to war. This is illogical. One can be opposed to going, as I was at the time, but realizing that my side did not prevail, want the war planned competently. While I am of the opinon that we shouldn't be there, we are and nothing I can do will change that. Since we are there, I want the war run in the best way possible to minimize danger to our troops. In my opinion, Bush and Rummy have not done this.
W.B.Goode,
Sorry, troops cannot be trained in a short time. This was true during Vietnam - it no longer is now. For the Air force it takes over 2 years to qualify a fighter pilot. Basic copilots in the bombers take about 18 month to become mission qualified. To become aircraft commanders add 2-3 more years. 4-ship fighter flight leads add 2-3 years also. You basic infantryman takes at least 6 months to become basically qual. Specialist even more. Crypto repair specialists, for example, take 2-3 years with an 80% washout rate. The US military can only expand rapidly by mobilizing the Guard and Reserves. The high-tech very professional military takes lots of training and money. And you get what you paid for. 20 bombers/two dozen tankers, 100 SOF and the Northern Alliance toppled the Taliban. We crushed the Iraq Army in almost no time (most ran remembering the first Gulf War). To add two divisions to the Army will take 3-5 years - to bring them up to current Army standards (and the personnel will come from everywhere in the Army and all will go to Iraq at some point).
I agree I want the war run in the best possible way also. Mistakes were made - they always will be (and people will die - read up on some of the buffoonery that happened during WWII). Kerry and Co might have not made some of the mistakes that Bush has and will, but I am 100% sure they would have made some of there own and just as bad. That's life and 20/20 hindsight.
Arguments about going or not going to war are truly moot. That decision was made by our elected officials (Pres. and congress) in the fall of '02. We have had two elections since then where the voters could expressed there displeasure. The voters spoke and the Republicans stayed in office and expanded their presence in Congress. The system works. If you don't like the result lobby, raise money, etc for candidates that support you views and get them elected.
Remember, we are all on the same side against the guys we are fighting in the war on terror, just disagreeing on tactics.
ARE we on the same side? So far, the only fighting directly tied to organized terrorism has been in Afganistan, and quite frankly we've done a terrible job making the country safe and stable. Isn't it primarily controlled by warlords, now? I don't see that this War on Terror is any more logical, ethical, or effective than any previous or existing "War on [insert rallying point here]".
Again: I have yet to encounter a rationally justifiable demonstration that democracies - and by that I mean full-population, representative republics - are necessarily the best form of government. They're not necessarily associated with human freedoms and rights, after all, even though historically they're often associated. They don't necessarily have checks and balances, which I think are responsible for the greater part of our country's successes. They can be harsh, repressive, and unjust.
It may be the case that the worst excesses of democratic governments are better than the worst excesses of other political structures, but that's not quite the same thing as being able to show that it's the best.
buffpilot: The system works. If you don't like the result lobby, raise money, etc for candidates that support you views and get them elected.
Ironic that the second sentence highlights an obvious example (campaign finance) where the system breaks down and does not work as intended. All votes are not equal. Some votes are more equal than others (e.g. a vote accompanied by a $2,000 campaign donation -- especially one in a swing state with a small population).
In addition, as I alluded to earlier, voters who are not well-represented by the two parties (for example, libertarians such as myself and Jane) are effectively disenfranchised. And this also includes anti-war types who were angered by Kerry's support of the war. The fact that any particular "team" won is not exactly evidence of whether or not the system works.
Indeed, it's ironic that Iraqis are getting a broader choice of candidates than we did, as they are using Proportional Representation. Unfortunately, most of the candidates didn't campaign, for fear of assassination. And unfortunately, the election will probably have about as much of an effect on the security situation as that hand-over of power last June.
Willie B. Goode wrote:
The problem with your argument is that this war didn't just happen. Bush and Co. "happened" it. Thus, the "army you have" argument advanced by Rummy doesn't fly here, because there was a choice to either not go at all, or to go later when we have more armor for the Humvees.
As buffpilot points out, this is hindsight. In 2003, international intelligence was saying Hussein was stockpiling WMDs, was trying for fissionable material, had a "nonaggression pact" and was exploring training exercises with al Qaeda. Hussein's behavior toward the UN inspectors bore out all these data. Ultimately and apparently, some of the data were flawed... but if they hadn't been, would there be discussion now about whether we went to war at the "right" time, or whether we should have waited another couple of years to build up our infantry? The decision to prosecute the war when and as it was prosecuted began from this intelligence, and once committed, we could hardly have apologized for busting in "too soon" (or at all) and backed out the door.
In truth, wars do happen when they happen. This isn't to say decisions are not made about exactly when and how to go to war; Bush made a decision that there had been enough jerking around of the world community and (more to the point for a man whose oath requires him first to safeguard his country) the US had taken enough risks by delaying for diplomatic purposes. But - unless you're bent on empire - war is a response to circumstances outside your borders and/or outside your control.
Buffpilot has more than adequately responded to your contention that troops can be brought from raw to ready quickly. (Thank you, buffpilot - I knew the timeframes weren't short but didn't have the numbers at hand.)
None of the intelligence said that Saddam was an immediate threat. It claimed that he was an "imminent" threat, which meant down the road someday. Someday being much later than Iran, which, unlike Iraq, had their own nuclear program. Indeed, a program far enough along that they expect to be making their own weapons-grade fissile material by the end of this year, while our military is still bogged down in a country that we always knew to be a secondary threat.
"ARE we on the same side?
...
I have yet to encounter a rationally justifiable demonstration that democracies ... are necessarily the best form of government."
No, Matt G., I guess we're not on the same side after all.
"voters who are not well-represented by the two parties...are effectively disenfranchised"
Yeah, 'fling93,' hate to break it to ya, buddy, but that's actually proof that the system works.
If your views are too eccentric, they won't be held by a majority. Thus, they won't be well-represented by any major party in a majority rule system.
Maybe you and Matt G. can get together to commiserate about the evils of democracy and how much better off the world would be if you two took over the government.
'Eccentric' *means* not held by the majority. It literally means "off center".
When exactly does stating that I've never seen or heard a demonsration that representative republics are the best possible form of government make me an enemy of democracy?
Remember Pakistan? The country with an active nuclear program that many people feared might begin a nuclear exchange with India? The country lead by a military dictator who seized power in a coup and has repeatedly broken promises to step down. The country we're helping to prop up because it provides a friendly base of operations in the region.
OK let's try this again, without the Robbie Burns night celebrations in the belly.
First off, the courage or lack thereof of people on either side of the debate is not (I think) a relevant question, and I didn't mean to bring it up the way I did.
It's a question of justification, and this boils down, in large measure, to how you look at the world.
The point is this: war has huge impacts for day-to-day life in Iraq, and close to none yet in the US (though I think that deficit is likely to cause some major pain in the future, but that's another issue altogether). Because generally Americans do not have to live with the consequences of the decision or not to go to war in iraq (in any real sense - how has it impacted most of your lives?), and the resulting chaos (which, despite what bush et al say, many many people predicted, including the state dept), it makes it easier to say, "let’s go to war, it's worth it for freedom."
Above, Peter makes a judgement of "worth", when he says:
"I personally will take a 1% chance of death when freedom is the reward and the result of not acting is more brutality and oppression."
But if you want to extend that logic to Iraq, you have to be aware in a real sense of what the consequences of decisions on either side are. Is Ayoub's situation as simple as Peter's math? A 1% chance of death for freedom vs. 100% chance of brutality? There's not much evidence that Iraq is moving (elections or no) away from brutality at all, or much towards freedom; so 1% death chance for ??? And what if the risk is 1% death of wife and daughters? Does that change the calculation?
Further when Peter says,
"This guy needs to be taken aside and explained that our boys are risking their lives for him and he needs to reciprocate,"
I just shake my head at the total lack of appreciation of the realities of life in Iraq.
Which is my point about joining up. If you have no experience of the impacts on daily life of war, have no sense of the devastation that it brings, then how can you really argue the "worth" of the decision?
Europeans, I would argue, are less likely to support military action, except as very last resort, not because they are weak-willed communists, but because the memories of the devastations of ww2 are still close enough. They learned lessons in WW2 that the US did not have to learn (yes, many Americans died, but civilians were not impacted in any real sense). When you have seen the entire male populations of whole towns killed in battle, when you've seen the kids with their heads blown open, and old women still alive with their guts spread out before them on the ground (as my uncle did in Italy in ww2), you have a tendency to evaluate the "worth" of war in a different way. And it's a bit galling to have someone sitting in the comfort of their cubicle in the US wishing to take some Iraqi man aside, and "explain to him" ANYTHING about his situation.
If anything, it would be nice to have Ayoub take all of us aside and explain what this war brought, and whether he thinks it's worth it. If betterment of the lives of Iraqi people is the objective (which I think is a pretty unlikely justification for the war), then why not let Iraqi's tell you what they think, rather than explaining to them how you think it's "worth" it?
After the Tsunami, the press in Canada carried unbelievable photos. On the front page of the Globe and Mail, they showed a picture of maybe 100 open coffins, lined up in rows, with the rotting dead bodies in full view. A young girl walked up one of the coffin aisles, with a caption that read something like: "a young girl searches for her mother's body among the dead." It was one of the most horrifying pictures I've ever seen, and it brought home both the immense devastation of the Tsunami, and the impacts on small, individual lives.
Yet we seen no such pictures in the press of Iraq – photos of dead bodies in Iraq are pretty much off limits for the press except in exceptional circumstances. Photos of US soldiers' coffins are banned (why?). But what do you think Falluja looked like after the siege? Similar, no doubt, to the photo above, yet in this case the caused not by faultless Mother Nature, but by the political and military decisions of the government of the US, AND, yes, the people who oppose their presence in Iraq. So we are not allowed to look at the pictures, because having a fuller sense of the impacts of our decisions might change our willingness to make those decisions.
Robert E Lee said: "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." But I think, when you wage war elsewhere, when it doesn't touch your own life, when you are allowed to see so few real images of the dead bodies and spilled guts and devastated families, it's easy to forget how terrible it is, and easy to grow fond of it as a solution.
When you say, "freedom is worth it," well you’ve got to ask, worth it to whom? Maybe, in the end, it isn’t worth it to Ayoub and his family. Maybe surviving is more important. Again, who are we to explain to Ayoub or anyone in Iraq whether or not the war was worth the price they, not us, must pay? Who are we to tell them what the worth of this war, from the comfort of our north American chat rooms?
If all American families were forced, for instance, to send one family member to Iraq, do you think it would change the debate? Increase or decrease support? I suspect support for the war would decrease because the "worth" of the war would be measured in real currency—your willingness to send a family member into harm's way—rather than the abstract "worth" of ideals such as "freedom," which on a day-to-day basis may have little or no meaning for the people of Iraq.
But the US is there now, in the middle of a pretty significant mess, one that was predicted by many, one whose public justification proved false (as is Jamie's claim that "international intelligence was saying that SH was stockpiling WMDs." US Administration was saying that, but you will recall that neither the UN weapons inspectors, nor any government except the UK was saying any such thing), and one whose objective, I think, has very little to do with the "freedom" of the Iraqi people, and everything to do with longer term US strategic goals.
So please don't argue that it's "worth it to Iraqis"—let them speak for themselves--at least have the honesty to say "it was worth it to me." Which is a different thing altogether.
fling93: voters who are not well-represented by the two parties...are effectively disenfranchised
McClain: Yeah, 'fling93,' hate to break it to ya, buddy, but that's actually proof that the system works.
No, it isn't. The goal of a representative democracy is to give everybody a voice in the government, including minorities. Why do you think we have a Senate, where small states receive the same number of representatives as large states? Because our Founders were afraid large states would overrule small states. Why do we have so many checks and balances? Why do some procedures require a two-thirds majority? Because our Founders worried about the tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately, political science theory hadn't yet advanced to the point where the flaws of plurality voting became apparent. They had no idea the voting system they picked would trend to a two-party system.
There is nothing magical about the number two. This is an artificial restriction created by the voting system we happened to pick, plurality. Why isn't two ideal? Take the case of Iraq, where you have more than two rival groups. Instead, there are three major ones: the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. Indeed, the Bush administration is worried that the minority Sunnis might boycott the elections. Clearly, they believe it's important that all three receive representation, but this is not possible in a two-party system. Which is why they implemented Proportional Representation.
Why isn't this also true for political orientation? Libertarians aren't extremists (does Jane sound extremist?). The Libertarian Party is extremist, but this is because the plurality system forces them to the margins to attract any attention. A moderate third party wouldn't get any votes because all the moderate voters are close enough to the two major parties, and know that, under plurality, voting for a third party would split the vote for one of the major parties, handing the election to the other one. The only hope for a third party is to go after voters unhappy with both parties. And generally, those are not moderates.
Most moderate libertarians end up compromising their beliefs and voting Republican. But this is less ideal because the Republican Party is much less representative of them than conservatives. And this is only because of the luck of the draw, not because conservatives are less extremist.
"Most moderate libertarians end up compromising their beliefs and voting Republican."
Yeah, like I did this time, though I'm registered Libertarian and have often voted Democrat in the past.
As for tinkering with election methods, you run into Arrow's Theorem.
The 2 party system at least forces everything towards the center, which is good, and sharpens all the choices to A or B, which is often useful. And we are, remember, the oldest functioning modern democracy. If it ain't broke, etc.
The problem isn't only that Americans have only two real options in elections. The problem is that they always have the same two options, and that those options are extremely similar.
fling93: Most moderate libertarians end up compromising their beliefs and voting Republican.
McClain: Yeah, like I did this time, though I'm registered Libertarian and have often voted Democrat in the past.
Which highlights another handicap against libertarians, which is that they are scattered across three parties, which is not true with blocs like environmentalists or social conservatives. This two-party system benefits some groups more than others.
McClain: As for tinkering with election methods, you run into Arrow's Theorem.
That it is impossible to devise a perfect voting system does not mean that all voting systems are equal. And by most criteria of what is desirable in a voting system (monotonicity, strategy-free, etc.), plurality comes up short compared to many others.
McClain: The 2 party system at least forces everything towards the center, which is good
Actually, it falls well short of that, forcing everything to two poles that are somewhat moderate, but offset from the center on opposite sides (polarization, if you will). Under the two-party system, you will never get the centrist candidate because primaries will narrow your choices to candidates who are necessarily off-center.
And you don't need a two-party system to force things towards the center. Indeed, the Condorcet Method is the best way to select a centrist, although Approval and IRV also do in lesser degrees. You can use these in conjunction with Proportional Representation to achieve a legislative body that is both broadly represented and still center-weighted, as Accurate Democracy advocates.
McClain: And we are, remember, the oldest functioning modern democracy. If it ain't broke, etc.
That something has been around a long time doesn't mean that it's ideal. It could merely mean it's hard to get rid of, like taxes and drug laws. Or that it's self-perpetuating, like caste societies and rigid power structures, where those with power have a vested interest to stay in power. As is true with the two parties we have today, which is why neither party decreases the size and scope of government while they're in power.
If you truly want smaller government, you won't get it in the two-party system.
Sure, any change always has an element of risk, but that risk can be assessed and typically the risk can be minized. And realize, if you are strictly averse to risk and change, you can never be an advocate of war.
"If all American families were forced...
to send one family member to Iraq...
support for the war would decrease...."
"Forced," yeah.
That's why the Democrats want to re-introduce the draft.
An all-volunteer military is a different story.
If only people who are serving or have served could vote, the Democrats would've lost by an enormous margin. Rather than just losing.
This is why it sounds fake when lefty anti-war types express concern for the troops.
"fling:" I'm not 'strictly' averse to much.
Good luck with your project to re-jigger the voting system.
(Jigger what? Jigger who?)
Good luck with your project to re-jigger the voting system.
I know I'll sure need it. And as I said, it's a necessary prerequisite for shrinking government. Both parties will continue to betray you and all libertarians. Republicans have all three branches of government for several years now, and has the size and scope of government increased or decreased? In a two-party system, the libertarian cause will always be abandoned to the minority party.
The Deed Is Done... One hour until polls close in Iraq, with 72%+ turnout among eligible voters. I hope Ayoub took the chance and voted (and that he wasn't one of the couple dozen people who did lose their lives on this day). But I'm willing to bet that even if he didn't vote in this election, he'll vote in October for the constitutional referendum. He sounded like a man who desperately wanted to, and far, far be it from me to judge him if he feared for his loved ones in this election.
War is all hell, and all the rest of that quote. But when you look at the sacrifices people are willing to make in order to experience a day like this one in Iraq, it does appear that the freedom to exercise franchise is worth a high price to many... even ordinary people, who are after all the people who become heroes when circumstances make it necessary.
I hope idealism can rule the day, at least a little bit - we can get back to "but what NEXT?" tomorrow, can't we?
Little about this election is ideal. Let's not allow ourselves to be distracted by this tiny glimmer of hope in the sea of ways we've screwed up.
I guess I'm somewhere between Jamie and Matt G. I think its great that election day has gone off so successfully. I think there was always a pretty good chance that's what would happen, but the relatively high turnout remains impressive (large numbers of death struck me as unlikely). But I'm not at all convinced that this changes the trajectory of Iraq at all.
Darn it. Oh well... I suppose it was too much to ask that we might celebrate what HAS happened before returning to what NEEDS to happen to make it stick. Kerry's remarks were telling, I thought: "The election is not the test." The test, according to him, is whether the international community comes together behind the results of the election. Needless to say, I disagree: the election is one question on the test; and the next big-point question is whether the IRAQI community comes together behind its results to begin to work together to write their own constitution. Who cares if France doesn't like it?
Further: Kofi Annan is incorrect that the election was the FIRST step in building a democracy in Iraq.
Corrections to my earlier exuberance: 60% turnout and 40-ish killed, not counting whoever was aboard the C-130 (I still haven't heard whether its crash was an accident or what, or how many were aboard). I am still, however, overjoyed at the outcome so far. (Do you people even blow out candles on your birthday, or just tick off another year closer to death, as Jane was - I hope - joking about herself? What WOULD make you happy? Is whatever-it-is even possible or reasonable?)
You have to understand our positions on the wider situation in Iraq. Celebrating the election seems as appropriate to me as breaking out noisemakers at a wake. I'm happy that things went better than expected, of course - one of the benefits of being a pessimist is that you're always either right or pleasantly surprised.
Matt G.:
(ROFLMAO) Okay, okay, you've got me there! But I think the better analogy is "breaking out noisemakers at a wake for TWO people, because it's discovered that ONE is still alive" or something. Breaking out noisemakers at a wake would be absolutely inappropriate because (Christian belief notwithstanding) there's no good news at a wake. Surely well-attended, voluntary, multi-party elections in a country the results of whose last "election" were a comPLETEly believable 99+% for a man universally (close enough, anyway) acknowledged as a cruel dictator, as well as elections marred by the violent deaths of less than 50 people out of 8 million voters when the elections' opponents promised a "bloodbath," constitute good news?
But far be it from me to demand optimism from someone to whom it doesn't come naturally (I'm married to another such, which grates harder on him than it does on me, I think). So I'll just tip a glass - of milk - to the Iraqi people in solitary celebration, secure in the knowledge that tomorrow I'll have no choice but to join the fray again.
Yeah, I'm tippin back a wee dram o'scotch, myself.
Go Iraqis!
Democracy, whisky, sexy!
We gon'party like it's ya birthday....
Now that's what I'm talkin about, knowh'I'msain?
:-)
Comments are Closed.