McCain: A League of Democracies?
March 21st, 2008 at 12:42pm Mark Noonan
Something I’ve been thinking about for a while:
Americans and Europeans share a common goal - to build an enduring peace based on freedom. Our democracies today are strong and vibrant. Together we can tackle the diverse challenges we face, whether radical religious fanatics who use terror as their weapon of choice, the disturbing turn towards autocracy in Russia or the looming threats of climate change and the degradation of our planet.
But the key word is “together”. We need to renew and revitalise our democratic solidarity. We need to strengthen our transatlantic alliance as the core of a new global compact - a League of Democracies - that can harness the great power of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.
At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. We Americans recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we must pay “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed.
We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe that international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must also be willing to be persuaded by them. (emphasis added)
I’m guessing that it was more than 10 years ago that I first thought up my proposed successor to the UN - the Union of Democratic States. The flaw in the UN is that it includes within it nations with completely opposite points of view. To have the United States in tandem with the People’s Republic of China doesn’t mean you’ve got a body to resolve global issues, but a body where the most dishonest and intransigent will get their way. Fundamentally, there is no community of interests between the people of the United States of America and the government of the People’s Republic of China - there is such a community of interests between the people of the US and the people of China, but the people of China don’t count; their government doesn’t allow them to count.
A properly functioning global body would have in it only those nations which are solid democracies - not because they’d all agree (you’ll note how much agreement there is between the US and France, for instance), but because they have a common mechanism for determining policy - the votes of the people. The Chinese government is adding to the blood and suffering of Darfur in order to make a grab at Sudan’s oil resources…do the people of China want this to happen? Almost certainly not - but they also almost certainly don’t know its happening, and even if they did make any attempt to protest it would result in, at the minimum, police harrassment. The benefit of democracy isn’t that it creates truth - it is that it allows truth a chance to come out. The problem with tyranny is not that it creates lies, but that it enforces their acceptance. Between truth and lies, there is no prospect of a resolution - when you combine a truth with a lie you don’t really get a half-truth, you get a whole lie. Tryannical regimes are based on lies and can only thrive as long as their lies are protected.
It is true that the government of a fellow democracy might try to deceive us, but given that it is a democracy, we can rely upon it that the diligent political opposition - looking for any means to tear down the party in power - will unearth the truth and broadcast it far and wide, thus allowing us, on our side, to adjust our actions to fit reality. If China were to deceive us, how absent a spy or a defector would we find out? Only when it was too late. The democracies of the world must gather together and present a united face to tyranny - and, amongst themselves, work out in reason and peace the issues which vex our world. In this conception of John McCains, so similar to one I’ve had for a long time, I find another reason to back him in November.
(Side Note: Yeah, his views on climate change get on my nerves, but I’m pretty sure that the next couple years will provide the data demonstrating that the alarmists are, well, using alarmism quite improperly, and this data will, in turn, prevent any climate change actions detrimental to our economy and liberty. The point is becoming moot)
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Foreign Affairs, General Government, Republicans, United Nations
16 Comments
1. McCain: A League of Democ&hellip | March 21st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
[...] Continue Reading [...]
2. Canadian Observer | March 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
It’s a relief to know that you have abandoned the notion that Europe is dying, Mark.
3. SteaM | March 21st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Really? And what do you think will happen with the UN is scrapped and replaced with a “Democracies only” club. Like a club house where only boys are allowed. The kind with a sign that says: “no girlz alowed!!”.
What do you think the reaction would be for those people and governments who would be excluded? Do you think they would decide to turn into democracies? What if they do not come to play and play nicely. Then what?
I know you want everyone to be a democracy with a walmart and mcdonals on every corner but the truth is that people do have different views. We cannot have a world where everyone has the same views and we cannot have one where everyone has the same religion. It’s not human nature.
Would it be better to exclude these nations and punish them for their differing views or is it better to find a middle ground?
By the way, I think it’s funny that you pointed out the climate change aspect of this article and then said he’ll come around really soon just like everyone else will. We’ll all be throwing scientists under the bus. Heck, why not. Stupid useless scientists are just breathing too much CO2 anyways… right guys?
4. bagni | March 21st, 2008 at 2:47 pm
markie mark
the jovian jerkoffs would like a post
about this passport breach????
cmon….go for it earthling!
5. Dennis | March 21st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
“Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies.”
Great, Mark - this is a fine sentiment. It would be even a finer policy.
Does this mean you finally now repudiate George W. Bush, who never for a moment considered giving “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”?
We need some clarity, Mark. Everyone knows Mr. Bush has repudiated the opinions of all who disagreed with him, scientists, generals and career diplomats alike. He famously said, either you are with us or against us. That is about as opposite of the above sentiment as it gets. He calls himself “the Decider.”
Not only has Mr. Bush disrespected the collective will of our democratic allies, he continues to flip off the opinion of the majority of Americans (some of have even seen videos of him literally flipping the finger at the TV camera - a gesture that pretty well sums up the respect of Mr. Bush).
These sentiments you have posted by Sen. McCain are very admirable - however you did sponsor a site called “Blogs for Bush” for some considerable time. As some of his critics put it to Barack Obama regarding his pastor - will you now unequivocally repudiate Mr. Bush for his contempt of the considered opinions of others?
6. Michael | March 21st, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Well, the UN sure doesn’t work and hasn’t for a long, long time. An organization of democracies would be fine as a mutual support and admiration society but there are many slippery slopes there. There are many forms of government that claim to be all or part democracy. What would the standard be and who would write it? Once allowed to join does a country get kicked out when they fall short via a vote for less democracy or a coup? Who would decide that? And what would be their purpose? Mutual aid? OK. Special trade deals? I’m more of a free trader myself.
The elephant in the room is that the failure of the UN proves that trying to discuss and negotiate issues means little without adequate military power at your disposal and an understanding that you are willing to defend yourself. There is a reason that countries like the US and the Soviets were permanent members of the security council. I think the US should maintain its military superiority and develop its relationships with its allies. That is powerful and keeps the wolves at bay.
7. LiberalNitemare | March 21st, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Wow! the libs are awful shrill today, is school out or something?
To Steam: who said scrap the UN? Arent you jumping to a conclusion in that post? I actually read the article and I believe that McCains final statement sums it up nicely.
This is not idealism. It is the truest form of realism. It is the democracies of the world that will provide the pillars upon which we can and must build an enduring peace.
Do you have another opinion? Has HillObama got a better idea?
Second, whats your issue with climate change?
Its entirely possible that McCain could change his mind as more facts become availble. What with facts being the krypton of the global warming|cooling/climate change crowd, I suspect many people will change thier mind in the near future.
Frankly, I suspect that you didnt even read the article that mark posted and rather than share your opinions or ideas, you just typed whatever silly thoughts were already in your buffer.
8. SteaM | March 21st, 2008 at 4:10 pm
LiberalNitemare,
Yes, jumped to conclusion on the scrapping the UN… although you guys talk like you would be for that idea.
I’m in agreement with you statement that democracies of the world could provide a pillar for building enduring peace… except the democracy I live in seems more interested in dominating the world and forcing “peace” and “democracy” at gun point.
I’m not going to turn this thread into a climate change discussion for mark’s sake. Just that I respect McCain for being a republican who is willing to talk about it… yet I don’t think he is willing to really accept that it is man made. He just knows that a lot of people are concerned about it.
9. LiberalNitemare | March 21st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
So lets examine your your comments about “forcing” “peace” “and” “democracy” “at” “gun” “point” “.”
I assume, for the sake of argument that you are speaking about Iraq?
Who are we forcing?
The US govt has said on many occasions that we would leave if asked, indeed two major candidates for president have made it a campaign promise that we will leave whether Iraq likes it or not(I dont believe them, but thats another post).
The current (UN recognized) government has requested we stay in country to help them.
Please explain why you believe the govt of Iraq is being coerced or forced to accept our presence?
The current govt of Iraq was elected by the citizens of Iraq. Is that govt somehow less legitimate than the Saddam govt that it replaces?
Here are a few follow up questions, based on your earlier statements -
Do you believe that the citizens of Iraq will be allowed to choose thier govt and the officials that make it up if another power were to take over? or,if america had never been there?
Do you believe that whatever force was to replace the US would ask the citizens of Iraq before implementing thier chosen form of govt?
Consider your answers to the first two questions. If it really does come down to forcing democracy and freedom at the point of a gun, than the isnt the alternative “no democracy” and “no freedom” at the point of a gun?
If you were an Iraqi, which would you prefer?
10. Canadian Observer | March 21st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
9. LiberalNitemare | March 21st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Did the Iraqi people have any choice as to whether or not the U.S. should stage a shock and awe assault on their country? Were they consulted before the bombs started to fall?
The arrogrance is astounding.
11. Mark Noonan | March 21st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Canadian,
No, they weren’t consulted - but, then again, until we came in, the Iraqi people had never once been consulted in all their history…and I mean going back to Sumeria.
12. Mark Noonan | March 21st, 2008 at 9:17 pm
SteaM,
Its one thing for you and I to, say, disagree on the worthiness of national health care - you and I will argue about it, marshall our back up data and, in a large and long debate, we - with the rest of our fellow Americans - will decide whether or not we should do such a thing.
Now, imagine trying to talk about national health care not with someone who disagrees with the concept of national health care, but with someone who thinks that health care should be banned. What on earth would you have to talk about? So it is between democracies and tyrannies - we hold it a self-evident truth that a government may only govern with the consent of the governed, tyrants don’t believe this. What, then, do we really have to say to a tyrant?
If we want to have a world body to settle disputes, then there must not be built into this body a section which can veto the normal basis of government. Suppose the people of Taiwan came to the UN and said, “we have been separated from our cousins in China for 60 years now, we have built a unique society - Chinese in nature, but not integral to China, much as American society is European in nature, but not integral to Europe. We wish now to just go our own way as an indepdendent, nation of free people, taking our place amongst the nations of the world.” No matter how valid such an argument is - and in the American viewpoint, it is a self-evidently true argument - China would veto any consideration of the idea. Would it be the Chinese people saying “no”? No, it would not - it would be a tiny, corrupt elite in Beijing which feels that they should Taiwan’s people and wealth not for the benefit of the Taiwanese, but for the benefit of the corrupt elite’s power.
Free people can work with free people - we cannot work with slave masters.
13. Mark Noonan | March 21st, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Canadian,
And, no, I haven’t abandoned the concept of dying Europe - can’t abandon an indisputable fact, now can we?
But, still, weak and dying as Europe is, they are still free people; less free than they were ten years go, and likely to be increasingly less free in the future, but still free and thus legitimate partners in world governance.
14. Christian Wright | March 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
That would be an interesting.
The US has not had a democracy since the Republican-dominated Supreme Court awarded the presidency to Bush in 2000.
So we would not qualify to join.
15. TiredofLibBullSh** | March 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
“The US has not had a democracy since the Republican-dominated Supreme Court awarded the presidency to Bush in 2000.”
C. Wrong, uh, we’ve NEVER HAD A DEMOCRACY SINCE THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED!!!!! This country was founded as a REPUBLIC. You will not find one reference to Democracy in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or any of the states’ Constitutions, but you will find “Republic”.
Around the time of Woodrow Wilson the idea of government welfare programs that were outside of the grant of authority in our Constitution began to take hold. Politicians knew that if they continued to tout the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, they would have a rather difficult time getting their government welfare programs enacted. So, the idea started to spread that we were a democracy .. a country ruled by men and not the law. Whatever the majority of the people (voters) wanted .. they got. After all, isn’t that what democracy (majority rule or mob rule) means?
Democracy is a hideous form of government.
The word “Democrat” originally meant “one who panders to the ignorant masses.”
You would know that if you were not a victim of a government school.
16. Almiranta | March 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Ya just gotta love these mindless trolls, strutting around stark naked (intellectually that is) and bragging about their raiment.
Poor silly twit CW bleats “The US has not had a democracy since the Republican-dominated Supreme Court awarded the presidency to Bush in 2000.”
And I thought even the most devoted footsoldiers of the rabid Left had gotten tired of having their ears pinned back every time they made that ridiculous assertion. Guess CW was out of the room every time that happened.
TOLB made the very important point that this is a republic, not a democracy.
Even more to the point than your ignorance of the nature of the structure of the United States government, CW, is your ignorance of the Supreme Court of these United States, and the decisions of that court, particularly in the 2000 election.
Show us, oh great intellect of the far Left, Christian Wright, the wording which you claim “……awarded the presidency to Bush in 2000.”
Right, you’ve never read it, never had it read to you, and if it had been you wouldn’t be capable of understanding it. We got it. But please refrain from posting your silly and pathetic lies here, as we are tired of them.
As for the actual thread, I would not even be averse to dropping out of the UN. Let them move to another country, where the ambassadors to the UN from various nations would not be able to live the high life in NYC on the backs of the people back home, where they would not be above the law as they are in this country. Let the sociialist and communist and dictator-run countries have their own little fiefdom, somewhere else, and let them play their silly little games.
An alliance of democracy-based nations would be so much more productive, without the drag upon them imposed by the oppositional and negative agendas of the freedom-hating nations which now control the UN.