Ideally the whole world would embrace the principles that are the foundation of the US system. I mean things that are even more fundamental than "democracy", such as the Rule of Law, Limited Government, Seperation of Church and State, Freedom of Dissent, and Working out Differences without Resort to Arms. I think one of the major reasons that "nation-building" fails is that we try to impose a system of Democratic elections or Constitutional governance without these more underlying fundamentals (the second key reason being the artificial nature of many so-called states around the world, the prime example being Iraq, which should probably be 3 nation-states).
The fact of the matter is that many cultures do not have these political principles in their body politic. This doesn't mean that we should not try to encourage the development of these principles. The Jeffersonian/Wilsonian strain of American foreign policy, that has always tried to evangelize Democracy and Liberty around the world, is a noble impulse. It just needs to be balanced with hard-nosed realism about human nature--something that the Founding Fathers certainly had an abundance of.
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
Please show me where in the Constitution it uses those words. It is a concept invented after the Constitution.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I am talking about principles that are precursory and foundational, even deeper in our culture than the Constitutional framework. I understand that the concept of "seperation of church and state" is not in the Constitution in those words, but the Constitution does say "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (Article VI) And the First Amendment does forbid the establishment of a federal-sponsored religion. This is what I am referring to. I don't hold with the current popular view that the seperation of church and state means all religious expression and input is unconstitutional. Don't think that is what I am referring to. Perhaps instead of "seperation of Church and State" the phrase "Freedom of Conscience" or "No compulsion in Religion" would fit better?
Do you think our form of government could have arisen in a society that was majority Catholic or Muslim? It is a necessary precursor for a US-modeled system that there be some seperation between the secular governmental powers and the spiritual ones. This is yet another reason why exporting our system to Iraq is proving so difficult.
-- Edited by fear of shiz at 14:37, 2006-12-28
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
BTW, I agree with Shiz for the most part - as long as the founding principles of this country are embraced, I don't much care for the specifics of the government. I happen to think that our government is set up in a wonderful way. But, as far as I know, for instance, Tonga is a great place, but it's set up as a kingdom.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Should the whole world embrace the democratic ideals of America?
An enthusiastic and unapologetic YES!
Does this idea bother you?
Not in the least.
Is America the best thing that can be had in form of government?
If by America you mean our Constitution, then my reply is that I believe our Constitution is inspired by God and intended to be an example for the rest of the world.
Paulo Freire, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, described the following concept better than I can, but I'll attempt to be brief:
In order for democratic ideals to truly survive, they have to be embraced by the population, and the population must work to liberate themselves. An outside liberator can't just swoop in, wipe out the oppressive government, and expect the populace to immediately embrace the "gift of democracy" so to speak. Democracy must be earned by sacrifice, just as we did in the Revolutionary War. When liberation is too easy, when it's just handed to the oppressed, then they rise up to become the oppressors of the next generation. That's exactly my perception of the main problem in Iraq right now. Some groups want the political power now available in order to set up their own oppressive regimes. They haven't sacrificed for democracy and they don't seem interested in embracing it.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
The exception is probably the Kurds. Goodness knows they have suffered enough. And they seem able and interested in a peaceful, prosperous, free existence.
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
I think the biggest problem with trying to enforce the American Constitution on other nations is that they are all coming from a different place than we came from. If you look at what the British were doing to the Colonists, you will see that the Declaration of Independence is merely a list of complaints that the Colonists had about how King George was ruling them. Thus the Revolutionary War and the Constitution and all that jazz. (I'm not a huge history buff...but I do have a point). The reason that the Americans have always so readily accepted the Constitution is because it was a dream dreamed up by our forefathers, who were tired of being treated wrongly. Of course the early Americans would stick by it because they were tired of British rule and would accept anything. The reason our Constitution worked is because it was founded on good principles, and if people would continue to follow the spirit of that law, instead of worrying about what the letter of the law is, the controversies of today would diminish completely.
I think the best solution in Iraq would be to find a person that the Iraqis feel that they can look up to, or a group of people, and have them be taught correct principles. They've only been taught war and violence. Why not find a way to teach them how to love one another? We just need to find a way that good principles can be written into a Constitution that fits the Iraqi people, so that they can be united and not feel like they are still being ruled. It's what we needed as Americans, I just wish I knew a way to get it to happen in Iraq!
That's just what I think though. I'm kind of an "All you need is love" girl...
__________________
Ordinary riches can be stolen, real riches cannot. In your soul are infinitely precious things that cannot be taken from you.
— Oscar Wilde
Nope. They wanted imperialism. And so we had to keep occupying forces there for over a generation to protect the fledgling "democracy." And we still have several military bases and a sizeable force there. And we've been culturally colonizing them for three generations.
That's so politically incorrect now that nobody in Washington will consider that kind of approach.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
"Should the world become America? Should the whole world embrace the democratic ideals of America? Does this idea bother you? Is America the best thing that can be had in form of government? Whaddya think? "
I believe the Lord would like for the whole world to embrace the ideals of the American constitutional republic as originally intended. "And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting the principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me." I don’t think He approves what our government has degenerated into now.
However, I would not expect the whole world, or even all Latter Day Saints in the world at this time to embrace, or even willingly accept that form of government that I believe the Lord inspired the "Founders" to give us, with due respect to the disagreements they had among themselves while writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (Watch the BYU production of "A More Perfect Union" now on DVD and read what apostles and prophets have told us about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.)
Ref. what I wrote in the "Romney’s in trouble" thread, I think many if not most Church members in other countries, raised, educated and having worked and lived under more socialistic and totalitarian governments, would prefer certainly at least some aspects of those governments. And just the Utah election results and voting records of its LDS legislators tells me Utah is not ready for a return any time soon to all of the original constitutional principles. Only if the Prophet were to instruct us to...forget it. It was tried 20-30-40 years ago and few obeyed.
Nope. They wanted imperialism. And so we had to keep occupying forces there for over a generation to protect the fledgling "democracy." And we still have several military bases and a sizeable force there. And we've been culturally colonizing them for three generations.
That's so politically incorrect now that nobody in Washington will consider that kind of approach.
It worked. They're better off, we're better off. All sides became winners because of us using occupying forces to protect the fledgling "democracy". What is it about that plan the makes it politically incorrect now and where did those ideas come from. I think if you look at the root of those politically correct argments they are coming from the same people who espouse moral relativism, abortion on demand, legalization of all drugs, open borders, and give aways for minority groups. What happened to doing the right thing because it was the right thing to do?
Nope. They wanted imperialism. And so we had to keep occupying forces there for over a generation to protect the fledgling "democracy." And we still have several military bases and a sizeable force there. And we've been culturally colonizing them for three generations.
That's so politically incorrect now that nobody in Washington will consider that kind of approach.
It worked. They're better off, we're better off. All sides became winners because of us using occupying forces to protect the fledgling "democracy". What is it about that plan the makes it politically incorrect now and where did those ideas come from. I think if you look at the root of those politically correct argments they are coming from the same people who espouse moral relativism, abortion on demand, legalization of all drugs, open borders, and give aways for minority groups. What happened to doing the right thing because it was the right thing to do?
Because just as you said, these are the people who believe in moral relativism. There is no right and wrong according to them, so it doesn't make sense to do anything 'right', just something that is politically correct (offend the least amount of people, unless they are whites, males, christians, conservatives, or anybody else that disagrees with them.)
Maybe the best way to handle the Iraq situation would be to make it into an American colony, or at least a protectorate. If we could hold on for one generation, the rest of the Persian Gulf states would see the prosperity and freedom and maybe start reforming their own coercive practices. A pipe dream, I know. But if it was an American colony, and the security situation much improved, I would even consider living there. And I bet many American businesses would invest heavily.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
