The US Should Provide Democratic Ideals...

Peachstate kid - I agree, it's ify territory for sure.

(I adore the princess bride and that quote!)

0 Replies

TTF
One thing is to give an example, and try to convince other nations that democracy is the best politic system. Other thing is to invade a country and impose that politic system.
Societies evolve according to a inner logic. All nations have their inner conflicts, disparities, religious and cultural patterns. External influence can be also a factor in their development. But that development must come from the inside of society, not imposed by the exterior.
And there are others things to consider: democracy makes sense only in countries where people are not starving to death - see Sudan - or subjected to excessive insecurity - see Iraq. Like Brecht said, "erst kommt das Fressen, than kommt die Moral".
And there is more: the pride. Men in all nations must feel colective and individual pride of their culture and civilization. Forcing them to submit to foreign values is a terrible mistake. It only gives strengh to radical groups, because people find in them the sense of identity that the foreign power is undermining.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

And I never said that - Lord knows I believe that is not true. The question - as restated - was should they promote it - and I am answering that question.

I hate the fact that my brothers (I was in the Marines) are being used as an instrument of stupidity in Iraq. I hate that they are dying because of an insurgency that was not planned for - and that they have to fight without body armor and even bullets for training - because that was not planned for either.

I think the hacks in the current administration would never fight this war - have never fought in wars and talk about firm resolve as if it is the cure for thier own stupidity.

But that, like your inference was a digression from the question - should the U.S. promote it. Ofcourse they should. Should the Japenese promote thie work ethic? Should the German's promote the way they created efficiency in WW II? Should the Islamics promote the way they submit to thier God? Should the Indian's promote thier tenacity? Ofcourse, it is thier strengths (among others) and that is what they do well and right.

The genius of America is the PHILOSOPHERS that founded it - that should be promoted for its strengths.

TTF

Can someone tell me where I said we should invade others and impose our will? I can't be any more against this type of forced regime change. I protested the war 18 months ago - I disagree now - I voted AGAINST 'W'. I don't know how I can be more clear that I can't stand this stuff - and feel that America has blindly validated it by voted for this reign of T - Error to continue.

However, that was not the question. The question was promote. And I think we should promote our ideals - if we think they are right.

Here is perhaps the only cool thing that happened last night and even the most ardent Bush hater would have to admit this. We had a free election (Very little coersion and poll sillyness went on as a whole) and the majority of Americans (I have no clue why) voted a president into office. This is what the system was designed to do - and it worked. Sure their was a hiccough in 2000 but as far as killing peoples at the polls, buying off votes, and registering dead people that we have seen in the past (in our country and others) this was a democratic dream for most countries.

However, peachtree mentions something worth while. Is this is best we can do? In my opinion the pork barrel politics in our government is fat fat fat and needs to change - the electoral college is old and outdated and the voting for full time politicians needs to go.

There could be another system out there - and it is our duty to find it.

Lastly, can we stop saying that I want or think America should invade others - it makes me ill and it pisses me off.

TF

0 Replies

Factory
I never said that. I decided to reply to you, because I accepted the must part of your text. But I think there are other things in consideration, so I made my previous reply.
Anyaway, sorry for the confusion.

0 Replies

If promoting is not forcing our ideals on someone else, then when has the US promoted democratic ideals and not forced them on someone? (I'm not being facetious or anything, but I really want to know what people think about this.)

0 Replies

Sorry Val - I seemed that way. My bad.

Peach - give me some time on that - I want to get back to you.

TTF

0 Replies

this topic is the best, i found this forum while googling democratic ideals for a good definition. this resolution is so fun. I went 4-2 at my last tournament, winning all my negative rounds. the round is won when the moral obligation debate is won by a side. the negative has only a burden to disprove the affirmative... so both sides can agree that democracies provide rights, a better economy, free elections(usually), etc... but, in history when the United States has gone to promote democracy it has failed(i.e. el salvador and guatemala) with the exceptions of japan and germany. now to fulfill a moral obligation action must be taken, so promoting has to mean something along the line of sanctions or military intervention, not just saying that someone ought to be a democracy. if you say promote means something like that then the moral obligation isn't being met, therefore failing to uphold the affirmative burden. secondly, on moral obligations still, something ceases to be a moral obligation when the united states is doing it for its own benefit(political or economical), even if it is a good thing to do, i think that there are enough examples of this to find(IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN!) this makes the negative side really easy, because when the affirmative says that democracy is all good, the neg. can agree and still be negating. As long as the neg. makes it clear that the United States doesn't have a moral obligation because it isn't a capable agent of action

0 Replies

just because the US can't do anything doesn't mean it doesn't still have this moral obligation, if a doctor can't cure a patient, does he then lose the obligation?

0 Replies

also, you can't assume that burden without a warrant

0 Replies

I have thoroughly read through everone's comments on this question. The posed question can be vauge in the fact that the US itself does not have a true democracy. Im not saying a democracy isnt benficial, however, in todays day it is not feesible to have everyone in a society take part in the government. We are free but we have representatives to do this for us. We are helping to instate our representative democracy in other countries, however I dont believe that if it was against the wishes of the country as a whole we would force it upon them (unless it was a threat)

I have to go ill take some more later

0 Replies

Jazz is right - do we have an obligation to promote a republic would be better stated -

However, Peach there are thousands of examples where America promotes is democracy in a non forceful way. Take the negotiations of Carter for instance. THis is not an invasion - Carter simply shows up - helps arbitrate a democratic solution - and leaves.

I think about how I promote what I love - and it comes in small slices. President Regan asking Gorby to tear down the wall is a small promotion of freedom. I am certainly not saying that we are perfect (and aiming thousands of ICBM's at Russia seems extreme to say the least) but when an American goes on the media by saying that elections should be held and that despotism should be removed - we are promoting democracy.

When was the last time you took a vote to what bar or reseraunt you were going to - this is a promotion - and no one got invaded. It is so ingrained in our culture that we only focus on the counter examples instead of the tousands of examples around us.

TTF

0 Replies

the fact that the US does not have a true democracy is irrelevant, you can't make any case of hypocrasy.

0 Replies

we don't take into account the small examples around us because the larger and more threatening examples are so influential. the risk that it could be one of the threatening examples is a point in and of itself

0 Replies

topic
FYI for all you debaters out there, if you are competing in an NFL league your Nov/Dec topic is: Resolved: The U.S. has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations.

0 Replies

We can not base reasoning on a possible threat of harm if we share or do not share because moral obligation is a matter of true ethics and not likley occurances. We can not blind ourselves and act upon personal feelings when discussing morality. Only when we discuss practicality can we follow logic and act for ourselves. Do not stray from the topic.

0 Replies

I also feel that in such cases as Iraq and Afganistan, that if the majority of the population was against a change in government to a system similar to ours, we would not have forced it upon them or helped them accomplish it. We would have just suggested. But what we have done and will do can not still represent morality. It is logics, the actions we take in real life.

0 Replies

the us not being a true democracy is irrelevant, it only says "to promote democratic ideals" so as long as that is done it would seem that the moral obligation would be fulfilled, but... when the acting party benefits any way other than morally it fails to be moral. if you save a drowning baby solely for publicity then your exploiting the baby and it ceases to be a moral obligation. since the United States typically wants to gain something from the nations in the past it doesn't have a moral obligation. Chomsky has a quote about why states aren't moral agents in Understanding Power, i think its around page 160, id have to go home and look first though. but regardless, there are enough historical examples of the United States doing this in the past and in Iraq currently.

0 Replies

Re: topic

Melley wrote:

FYI for all you debaters out there, if you are competing in an NFL league your Nov/Dec topic is: Resolved: The U.S. has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations.

Thanks for the insight, Melley, and welcome to A2K.

0 Replies

A democratic republic

BoGoWo wrote:

if the United States as an 'entity' had any glimmer of a clue to what 'democracy' was, then, perhaps, a statement to that effect might be relevant.
However, 'democracy' does not involve imposing your 'belief in the freedom of all", on others, by force, whether they wish to be a democratic society or not!

I think it is important for us to remember we aren't a pure democracy. We are a democratic republic, meaning that in this nation the majority rules and if the majority wants freedom for all so be it.

0 Replies

But you must also remember, democracy must be limited to prevent majority tyranny. The FF gave us a limited gov. because they knew the citizens were not prepared to handle direct control. This control would also fail in other nations. Give a torn third-world country a directly democratic election now, and a dictator (Castro) might ensue. No, democracy is not the best option for all countries.

I am very patriotic in my support of America and its government, but i believe some people are inherently stupid, and should not in a position of power over others. Plus, as said earlier, the US is a governmental body encompassing every citizens overwhich it governs, not a specific entity. The seperation of church and states shows that the US cannot have a "moral" obligation, because it represents a diverse culture with morals that often conflict. Anyways, I would be glad to hear any comments. I am a novice LDer that is debating a TFA tournament as experienced on Fri., and I am going to be clobbered.

0 Replies

The US Should Provide Democratic Ideals...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know