Anti-democratic and taking a swipe at liberals: David Ignatius
writes today in the Washington Post about the upcoming elections in Iraq: (emp add)
Given the stakes for the United States in these elections, you might think we would quietly be trying to influence the outcome. But I am told that congressional insistence that the Iraqi elections be "democratic" has blocked any covert efforts to help America's allies. That may make sense to ethicists in San Francisco, but how about to the U.S. troops on the ground?
So, Ignatius wants the election rigged. Despite the fact that congress is Republican controlled, and that Bush himself said democracy is the goal, Ignatius is blaming an Iran-friendly electoral result on "ethicists in San Francisco". Is that a reference to Pelosi? And who are these "ethicists" he's referring to?
Mr. Ignatius is a disgrace.
posted by Quiddity at 12/17/2004 09:28:00 AM
You don't see the distinction here, and it is truly is breathtaking in it's stupidity and cowardliness. 'Democracy' is a good thing. Being 'democratic' is a bad thing. We're spreading democracy around the world right now, but the only way that people can stop that is to be democratic. Therefore, the biggest enemy of democracy is democracy itself. It's the polar opposite of the adage 'the only thing to fear is fear itself'. Fearing that democracy will kill democracy is the ultimate irrational fear.
Whooooa dude! The United States, which is wholly responsible for the election in the first place and is supplying all of the people and paperwork and where Rumsfeld declared around the time Baghdad fell that a theocracy would not be an acceptable outcome, would actually try and influence the outcome?!?!That like, totally amazes me, mannnn!
**end of parody** Yo, WaPo Dude, there was and will be nothing quiet about the US trying to influence the outsome of this race. Our leaders will pour millions into getting a vote favorable to US interests.
There is a difference between rigging an election (as D.I. apparently proposes) and preventing a democracy to commit suicide by democratic election. The first German democracy had an explicit suicide option and used it in the early thirties (by giving majorities to groups openly committed to end it: Royalists, Communists, Nazis). The second (still alive) explicitly forbids legal abandonment of itself (and this clause cannot be changed legally). I certainly prefer the second version although it technically 'curbs' democratic freedom of choice.
In Iraq we have the opposite situation: The US want to impose a fake democracy (Saddam light) and the majority of Iraqi citizens simply wants to be left alone in peace (and seems to prefer a moderate authoritarian state anyway as long as it is not remote-contolled by foreigners).
So the only legitimate option would be to stop the real radicals from taking over immediately and leaving the rest to the Iraqis themselves. But unfortunately the US has lost any credibility to fulfill this task and utterings like those of D.I. definitely won't restore it).
