Notice how contradictory the post is. One minute you're talking about how the United States helped overthrow Allende and backed Pinochet. The next minute you're approvingly quoting a spokesperson of the Establishment who says that America's "identity as a nation is inseparable from its commitment to liberal and democratic values."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, if a state periodically resorts to supporting bloody coups led by thoroughly undemocratic figures (Pinochet; the Argentine junta; Rios Montt in Guatemala; Carmona in Venezuela, Latortue in Haiti, etc. etc.), then maybe --just maybe-- our leaders' "identity" is not invariably "inseparable" from a "commitment to liberal and democratic values."

The problem with your discourse of "democracy promotion" is that it cloaks the Establishment's ulterior motives. As Michael Lind (2007) of the New America Foundation suggests, great powers are likely to use the "protection of human rights" as a "pretext" for interventions whose "unacknowledged purposes" are actually strategic and commercial.

Justin,

My point was that (from my reading of Huntington), America's political identity SHOULD be "inseparable" from "a commitment to liberal democratic values." Additionally, both the question on which the post ended & the reference to Pinochet's 1973 coup, clearly demonstrates my knowledge that US policies have not always lived up to that ideal.

Once you've made an honest assessment of American power and the differences between our leaders' rhetoric and reality, what you SHOULD be calling for is institutional constraints on the exercise of American power in the world. But instead, you give us Huntington. That's par for the course.

I quoted Huntington because my class today is reading Huntington (as an introduction to the "third wave" of democracy). Hence, it was on my mind. We will be discussing exactly that (the role of US power in the world in the context of global democratization) ... and watching this YouTube video in class: Chile & 9/11

Sounds interesting. I should start thinking about tranferring YouTube videos onto DVDs.

I try to ensure that my classes are not political indoctrination seminars. It's not my place to tell my students what they should or shouldn't "call for" (or what to think). It's my place to ask questions, spark some discussion, and provide some relevant texts (to help them think critically).

Huntington, for all his "Establishment" status, is part of the comparative politics canon—especially when discussing the "third wave" of democracy. And giving my students access to the great works in the discipline, from different perspectives, is certainly par for my course.

I previously posted the reading list here, though there have been some additions (such as an excerpt from Rueschemyer, Ruescheyer, and Stevens' classic Capitalist Development & Democracy).

what you SHOULD be calling for is institutional constraints on the exercise of American power in the world

I believe that was directly implied in my post, as well as the comments.

needless to say, I find it laugh-out-loud funny that you would quote anyone that describes the Empire as the "premier democracy" in the world.

however, I would only like to present a humble suggestion for the subject matter of such an infamous historical day:

http://stimulator.gnn.tv/

the current post about Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine which of course is to be found in a multitude of other sources.

what effect did the shock of 9/11/2001 have on the usamerican and world psyche, allowing for a reduction in democracy worldwide and fake democratization conducted as savage war?

likewise, the heartbreaking and still enduring effect of Pinochet's shock therapy, which over the course of 20 years rendered large segments of Chilean society absolutely terrified and only by this fact complacent to the neoliberal system.

I found the post interesting, thought-provoking and it made me think in terms of Christianity in terms of goals, purpose, rationalization of worldwide evangelism.

S:

For better or worse, when most people think of "democracy" they think of the United States. Yes, Huntington is clearly an "establishment" (if by that you mean "neocon") figure ... but I don't think many would argue that, for a significant number of people across the world, the US is the standard-bearer for democracy & capitalism.

To say that the US is widely viewed as the "premier democracy" in the world is not to endorse the "American" type of democracy. It merely suggests that the US **is** viewed as synonymous w/ capitalist democracy. Similarly, to identify the USSR w/ "communism" is in no way a statement about the desirability of communism or the quality of Soviet communism. As for whether the US is an "empire" or not ... let me add, provocatively, that even Athens was an imperial power.

Here is what I took away from the Huntington quote:

Unlike other "nation-states", the US is not defined by its ethno-cultural component (though it's clearly part of the Anglosphere tradition), but by its ideological system. Take France, for example. Would a communist France still be "France"? How about a monarchy? What about a military dictatorship? In short, we'd accept "France" as a nation, regardless of its political or economic system. Ditto Russia, Japan, Germany, or any number of "traditional" nation-states.

The US is defined almost entirely by its more abstract value system (the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Gettysburg Address, etc). Does the US always live up to those standards? No. (And I think even Huntington would concede that.) But what Huntington seems to be saying here is that if the US—in its approach to both domestic & foreign policy—doesn't pursue policies consistent w/ democratic values, it risks losing its very raison d'être.

And, I might add, that the "sins" of acting non-democratically can be both of "things done" and "things failed to do."

It's not my place to tell my students what they should or shouldn't "call for" (or what to think).

That's all well and good, Miguel; I don't tell my students what to think either. I introduce them to various theories and invite them to think critically about my own core assumptions as well.

But, you see, we weren't talking about your class. We were talking about the lessons you draw on your blog.

The US is defined almost entirely by its more abstract value system (the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Gettysburg Address, etc).

Ah, but now you're reverting to ideological essentialism. We're back to the notion that there is such a thing as a "national ideology" (which is a rather illiberal concept, by the way). This is the same logic that reactionaries use to call dissident viewpoints "Anti-American." It's pure garbage. I don't believe in Huntington's essentialisms or in "democracy promotion" as we know it, but I'm certainly every bit as American as Huntington is.

But what Huntington seems to be saying here is that if the US—in its approach to both domestic & foreign policy—doesn't pursue policies consistent w/ democratic values, it risks losing its very raison d'être.

Well, think about that for just a second, Miguel. This is the same Huntington that counseled U.S. support for anti-communist dictatorships the world over during the Cold War. In fact, that's what he's most famous for. Never did he start counseling "democracy promotion" until the Cold War was coming to an end.

Huntington is a very cynical character whose version of "democracy promotion" is one that is skillfully managed to serve U.S. strategic and commercial interests.

Justin,

I filed this post under the "Teaching" category specifically because it's about a classroom exercise. I think that was obvious from the post.

And I think one can quote Huntington (or Marx, Weber, Schumpeter, etc, etc) w/o necessarily endorsing him. Was there anything about the content of my argument (that the US should pursue policies that encourage, not hinder, democracy in the world) that you found offensive, other than the point that I used a Huntington quote as a launching point?

My point is that your post is sorely missing critical analysis on the subject of Huntington's work. If you want to bring up Huntington's "important insights" but fail to offer any critical analysis of them, don't expect others not to try to fill in the blanks.

The fact that you offer no criticism of Huntington's essentialisms is strange in light of the fact that, in other posts, you've implied that the notion of a national ideology is an illiberal concept.

I didn't realize every post of mine had to be dissertation-length. The post was a brief thought on "9/11 & Democracy" (both 9/11/01 and 9/11/73)—not "A Critique of Huntington's Essentialism" (which you're more than able to write for your dissertation, if you'd like).

Oh dear... Boz's troll has now latched onto you as well, Miguel.

I hear that WD-40 is good for getting rid of barnacles.

Care to debate the issues, Frank? Or are you just plain incapable of doing that?

But doesn't the Bush Administration believe that their policy will advance freedom and development? Now what?

(Nenad, I moved you're comment into this post)

Yes, Bush does believe so. And so you're right to imply that this might be dangerous. But I don't think it erases the idea that US policy tends to be (and perhaps "should" be) based on moral/ethnical impulses. The challenge, of course, will be to wrestle w/ whether our policies are *actually* promoting democracy (in the short, medium, and long-term) or not.

But I don't think it erases the idea that US policy tends to be (and perhaps "should" be) based on moral/ethnical impulses.

Uh, no, Miguel, U.S. foreign policy does not tend to be based on moral/ethical impulses.

Your claims are analogous to saying that a corporation's policies should be based on moral/ethical impulses. Shoulda/woulda/coulda, Miguel. The bottom line is that a corporation's policies AREN'T based on "moral/ethical impulses." They're based on the bottom line, which is profits.

U.S. foreign policy is similar, as its long record shows. Foreign policy is based on strategic and commercial interests, not moral/ethical impulses. The discourse of "democracy promotion" is designed to simply cloak the stategic and commercial interests that undergird policy. Again, "democracy promotion" is skillfully managed to serve U.S. strategic and commercial interests.

Since you mentioned "serving US strategic and commercial interests" isn't it time that you disclosed (for those who aren't already familiar with your background) that you are a paid shill for the Chavez government, Justin?

Ah, yes, Frank, I guess that's an admission that you're simply not capable of debating the issues. Bravo, Franky boy.

Judging by the fact that I have something like $2.11 in my checking account right now, it's quite laughable, Franky, to suggest that I'm being paid by the Venezuelan government.

In case you have't figured this one out yet, Franky, there's a difference between being a "paid shill for the Chavez government" and having analyzed U.S. press coverage for said government for one month in the summer of 2005 (for a whopping $700).

It doesn't surprise me, though, that you have difficulty drawing the distinction.

To everyone:

Clearly, we all come w/ our biases to the table before any discussion. But I'm a fan of disclosure, if necessary. If we're going to accuse someone of being a lacky for a group/organization/state, then it's fair to disclose whether we might also be a lacky for a rival group/organization/state.

To Justin:

I'm pretty sure most presidents have claimed that their policies were based on moral/ethical impulses. I think if you compare European policies and American ones, Europe tends to play "power" politics (historically), while the US claims a higher "mission". Whether we agree w/ that mission (or how it's executed) is a **separate** matter. But I think it's difficult to argue that US politics doesn't play out in an ethical dimension. Even American leftism is based not on "scientific socialist" principles but on "feelings" and ill-defined statements about "social justice" (again, moral principles). The US has a stated policy of "democracy promotion". Regardless of how we feel about how that policy is *executed* (or whether it's hypocritical, or whatever) it does suggest a moral dimension to American politics. At least in the sense of the kind of rhetoric employed in public discourse.

Also, I don't accept your state=corporation analogy. States are political (i.e. public) goods. Economic enterprises are economic (i.e. private) goods. I'm sure few economic enterprises base their decisions on "ethical" impulses (as you seem to define them). But states often do.

And if we're going to justify our "legitimacy" on the basis of our checkbook ledgers. I currently have a negative $31.26 balance. So I win!

If we're going to accuse someone of being a lacky for a group/organization/state, then it's fair to disclose whether we might also be a lacky for a rival group/organization/state.

That you would make such a snide remark goes to show just what an unethical grandstander you are. I'd long ago disclosed everything there is to know about me, not only on Boz's blog but right here on your own blog in the previous discussion about USAID in Bolivia.

I'm pretty sure most presidents have claimed that their policies were based on moral/ethical impulses.

Well, durrr, Miguel. What else are they going to do? Claim they're in this gig to serve the interests of big business and the military-industrial-complex? Of course not.

Anybody with the slightest bit of intelligence knows that you don't assess the foreign policies of states on the basis of what their leaders claim. You assess their foreign policies on the basis of what they do.

My point was merely that US presidents (e.g. Wilson's "14 points") have tended to use "moral" discourse rhetoric rather than "power politics" rhetoric (e.g. the actual treaties that ended the war). My point was merely that American politics has an openly "moral" discourse dimension (on the right & the left) that goes back to the founding. Do you disagree w/ that simple claim?

Justin,

That bit about "disclosure" wasn't aimed at you. If I ever accuse someone, I won't do it hiding behind a "to everyone" abstract statement. I'll do it directly. I may be many things, but a coward isn't one of them.

In the future, please read more carefully. For someone who enjoys parsing the minute potential implications of different statements—and who claims to dislike "essentialism"—you aren't very careful at times.

All statesmen have a moral discourse, Miguel. That tells us nothing about the nature of their actions.

English imperialists had a moral discourse too. The "White Man's Burden," they called it. But logically we don't assess the policies on the basis of the discourse. We assess the policies on the basis of what they signify IN PRACTICE.

That bit about 'disclosure' wasn't aimed at you.

My mistake, then. I won't be so hasty next time.

Justin,

Actually, not all statesmen have a moral discourse. Re-read your Machiavelli (the founder of "amoral" politics).

Also, don't assume that "moral" means "good". Moral (as I'm using it) is a category of discourse that relies on some categorical "right-wrong" distinction. We may disagree w/ whether a certain decision by any actor(s) is "moral" based on our own internal moral compass, even while understanding that the "Other" has used a different set of values that nevertheless still fit into the purvue of "moral" sphere. Re-read your Nietzsche, who distinguished between "master" and "slave" morality. Or the postmodernists, who argue that there may not be a single universal morality (hence, their existentialism, which stands in counter-position to essentialism).

Actually, not all statesmen have a moral discourse. Re-read your Machiavelli (the founder of "amoral" politics).

Indeed, but Machiavelli doesn't support your case. He counseled statesmen to cloak their real intentions with lofty sounding rhetoric. A statesman can be perfectly Machiavellian and still employ "moral discourse."

I don't think I've ever argued that we should take anyone's intentions at face value, as you seem to think I have.

Bottom line: have many (many!) scholars (of different stripes!) argued that there are different "modes" of political discourse, one of which involves a "moral" mode? I think the answer is yes.

Beware of essentialism! (And reductionism!!)

But now you're diverting the discussion in a completely meaningless direction. Suppose that, say, Ronald Reagan's definition of "democracy" is completely distinct from my own. And suppose that he has a "moral code" that undergirds not only his discourse but also his actions. So what? I suppose Hitler had a "moral code" that undergirded both his discourse and actions as well. Nevertheless, Hitler's "moral code" plays no part in my (or your) evaluation of his actions.

In the end, serious social scientists must evaluate the policies of governments on the basis of what they signify IN PRACTICE, not on their leaders' discourses.

But I'm not talking about practice, I'm talking about **modes of discourse** (unless you think discourse analysis is not serious social science).

Or we can accept your pseudo-Randian absolute objectivism, if you prefer (but something tells me you don't think of yourself as an "objectivist").

Justin,

Another way to think of this is to contrast "moral" philosophers w/ "utilitarian" ones. If that helps.

But I'm not talking about practice, I'm talking about **modes of discourse** (unless you think discourse analysis is not serious social science).

Discourse matters, but not in isolation from concrete variables. I study discourse as well, but my intent is to study which concrete variables (if any) it reflects.

Does a discourse of "democracy promotion" actually reflect the state of democracy abroad? Or does it serve as subterfuge for strategic and commercial objectives?

Those are the kinds of questions I'm interested in answering, using concrete and measurable variables.

And I'm only pointing out that, in a historical comparative experience, other countries **have not** used a "democracy promotion" discourse.

Don't always be so eager to engage in meta-arguments that you can't appreciate a minor point in isolation. Don't miss the trees for the forest! ;-)

If I may interrupt...and with all due respect to the blog owner...I think, Miguel, that your point about the motivations behind US foreign policy is irrelevant to the practice of international politics and diplomacy. When the rubber meets the road those lofty "morals," while probably useful in the diplomatic cocktail circuit and around academia, are easily dispensed with when the time comes to formulate policy. American foreign policy might be influenced by the existence of an American ideology based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but when it comes down to it, it is a tough world out there and we will willingly sacrifice our values to advance our interests even if those interests run counter to our values. As a student of Latin America, you should be well aware of this. Heck, even Israel has become a genocide denier in order to make nice with the Turks.

GS:

Like Justin, I think you've missed the original point of my post (which got lost as Justin & I engaged in a rather unnecessary debate). What I got from the Huntington quote was this:

If US policy is actually immoral (in the practical, "rubber hits the road sense") then the US--as a society--risks losing its meaning, if we accept that what defines (in large part) "American" society is precisely its "moral" (in the philosophical sense) underpinnings.

In other words, this is a CRITIQUE of US policy (taking a certain reading of Huntington's first chapter of The Third Wave)!! In context, he's arguing (as I read him) that Americans *should* care about the world, because to not care, to not be concerned w/ the lives of people around the world, would be contrary to America's own ideals.

While I do agree that all nations are social constructs, the nature of their constructs are important. Most nation-states are based on cultural symbols that are, in reality, ethnic. For example: France is French culture, history, language, etc. But the US is built on a series of symbols that are less "ethnic" than "ideological". If the US government (and its public!) cease to act according to those very principles, then it risks ceasing to exist--as "American"--to become something else.

Does that make better sense?

Most nation-states are based on cultural symbols that are, in reality, ethnic. For example: France is French culture, history, language, etc. But the US is built on a series of symbols that are less "ethnic" than "ideological". If the US government (and its public!) cease to act according to those very principles, then it risks ceasing to exist--as "American"--to become something else.

It's a bunch of essentialist doublespeak, Miguel. A "national ideology" is a quasi-fascist concept. There is no such thing.

These are methods by which the Establishment --of which Huntington has long been a part-- seek to rationalize imperialism, all under the guise of "democracy promotion."

And I'm only pointing out that, in a historical comparative experience, other countries **have not** used a "democracy promotion" discourse.

First off, that's not true. Even the Eastern Bloc had a discourse of "democracy promotion." Why do you think East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic (GDR)?

Secondly, your original point was not that "other countries **have not** used a 'democracy promotion' discourse." Your original point was that US policy "tends to be... based on moral/ethical impulses."

After that, you switched tracks, falling back on the point that the United States has a "moral discourse" of "democracy promotion."

I object to the original point, not the point about discourse. To say that American statemen have a "moral discourse" is completely different than saying that their policies are based upon "moral/ethical impulses." You ought to be able to recognize the distinction.

Justin,

Maybe I should write a dissertation! You seem to want to beat my effigy (straw man) half to death!!

Since you like parsing words:

IMPULSE means an "strong and unreflective urge or desire to act" (which is how I meant to use it)

A "national ideology" is a quasi-fascist concept. There is no such thing.

There you've just negated a thing ("national ideology") you claim exists (since you chategorized it as a "semi-fascist" concept). That said, I agree that national ideologies are hegemonizing (and even semi-fascist). But that doesn't mean that "national imaginaries" are content-free. For a good overview of different "types" of nationalisms, see Liah Greenfeld's Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity.

I object to the original point, not the point about discourse. To say that American statemen have a "moral discourse" is completely different than saying that their policies are based upon "moral/ethical impulses." You ought to be able to recognize the distinction.

The word "MORAL" doesn't appear at all my first post (not even in the Huntington quote). Re-read it. But thanks for pointing out the very distinction I've been trying to make for the past several days. I may have made the point less clearly than I wished to, which is what happens in normal discourse.

Justin,

To go back to your first comment:

Notice how contradictory the post is. One minute you're talking about how the United States helped overthrow Allende and backed Pinochet. The next minute you're approvingly quoting a spokesperson of the Establishment who says that America's "identity as a nation is inseparable from its commitment to liberal and democratic values."

Exactly. When the US doesn't show "its commitment to liberal & democratic values" it fails by its own standards. One can use Huntington's quote not as a statement of support for the US, but as a criticism of US policies that don't in reality promote freedom & democracy.

There you've just negated a thing ("national ideology") you claim exists (since you chategorized it as a "semi-fascist" concept).

Uh, no, Miguel, a national ideology has never existed, despite fascists' claims to the contrary. To be German was not synonomous with support for Hitler, even at the height of his power. To be Italian was not synonomous with support for Mussolini either. And to be American is not synonomous with any particular ideology, despite Huntington's quasi-fascist claims to the contrary. A national ideology implies that, to be of a particular nationality, one must hold a particular ideology. It is neo-Orwellian garbage.

But thanks for pointing out the very distinction I've been trying to make for the past several days.

Actually, no, Miguel, you've yet to make the distinction that to have a "moral discourse" is distinct from basing one's policies upon upon "moral/ethical impulses."

Justin,

Actually, no, Miguel, you've yet to make the distinction that to have a "moral discourse" is distinct from basing one's policies upon upon "moral/ethical impulses."

Does "I agree with you!" qualify as making that distinction? Or is there just no pleasing you?

I've tried to be clearer (on the "moral/ethical impulse" issue) as the conversation progressed. But I'm not going to go back and re-edit my misstatements (talk about Orwellian!), but leave them as testament of how this "conversation" has evolved.

BTW, it's usually considered bad form to gloat over & perpetually hound people for rephrasing an argument more clearly based on further reflection. The "normal" response is to say: "Oh, I see what you meant to say." From there, you can still disagree, if you choose to, by moving on to some other point of contention. But to continue to harp on someone for not being clear at an earlier point is just too perfectionist for my taste. (Is that how you engage in conversation at cockail parties?)

I also think you're using a straw man on the issue of national ideology. A long list of scholars (including Marxist ones like Eric Hobsbawm!!) have long argued that nationalism does, in fact, exist (read Nations and Nationalism since 1780). Your tying German nationalism strictly to Hitler (as if it's the only possible form of nationalism!)--or implying that this is what I thought (for the record, it is NOT!!)--just seems unecessarily crude as a tool for intellectual argument.

BTW, it's usually considered bad form to gloat over & perpetually hound people for rephrasing an argument more clearly based on further reflection.

Yes, provided that you clarify that you're reformulating your argument. You hadn't done that, though.

Huh. I was pretty sure I had.

Scrolling up ...

The word "MORAL" doesn't appear at all my first post (not even in the Huntington quote). Re-read it. But thanks for pointing out the very distinction I've been trying to make for the past several days. I may have made the point less clearly than I wished to, which is what happens in normal discourse.

Yep.

But thanks for pointing out the very distinction I've been trying to make for the past several days.

But the point was, Miguel, that you hadn't been making the distinction. You had just switched tracks; no distinction was drawn until today.

But whatever. We'll leave that one to rest for now.

I also think you're using a straw man on the issue of national ideology. A long list of scholars (including Marxist ones like Eric Hobsbawm!!) have long argued that nationalism does, in fact, exist (read Nations and Nationalism since 1780). Your tying German nationalism strictly to Hitler (as if it's the only possible form of nationalism!)--or implying that this is what I thought (for the record, it is NOT!!)--just seems unecessarily crude as a tool for intellectual argument.

The problem is that Huntington's arguments are figuratively made of straw. In fact, they're downright absurd. But that doesn't stop you from moving the goalposts of the discussion to obfuscate the absurdity of his arguments.

Of course there is such a thing as nationalism. Nevertheless, no serious scholar would contend that someone who doesn't subscribe to a nationalist ideology has no national identity.

I am American, Miguel. Born and bred. This is my culture just as much as it is Huntington's. Whether I agree or disagree with Huntington's "democracy promotion" has no bearing whatsoever on my national identity. And, yes, there are many other Americans like me who simply don't buy into Huntington's conception of "democracy promotion."

Anybody who seeks to construct a nebulous concept of "Americanism" in such a way that dissenting views are defined as "Un-American" is working from a quasi-fascist template. If that's the road you choose, so be it.

But notice that, if someone questions your Bolivian friends' national identity on account of the fact that they've worked for USAID, you scream bloody murder.

Again, the contradictions of your arguments are rather glaring. One minute you're screaming to high heaven about your friends being called "anti-national." The next minute, you're approvingly quoting Huntington's assertion that there is such a thing as an "American" ideology and that certain ideas are essentially "Un-American."

The contradictions are rather mind-boggling, Miguel.

Can one quote an author one disagrees with? Some of my undergrad students can't seem to grasp that concept, but I hope a doctoral candidate can.

I don't think I've ever called anyone "anti-American" ... plus I'm not the representative of a state.

Can one quote an author one disagrees with?

But you haven't expressed any disagreement with Huntington on this matter. All you've told us is what "important insights" he has.

Miguel, thanks for your reply. I re-read your post and yes, I did miss the original point. My comment was in reaction to the "discussion" you were having with Justin. I got tangled up in the weeds you guys were in and I lost sight of what it was that I wanted to comment on originally, which is your last paragraph.

(Can't figure out how you guys do that itallics thing to highlight previous text so please bear with me)

Could you explain what you mean by "pay more attention" to the struggles of freedom and democracy "around the world?" How are we supposed to do that? What tool or mechanism should we use and how should we do it? It's just that this assertion is so broad it seems unrealistic without further detail.

And then you linked that to being surprised. What do you mean by "we wouldn't be so surprised in international relations"? Are you talking about Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the fall of the Soviet Union, failure to find WMD in Iraq, genocide? I'm not following. I can't think of an instance where our lack of knowledge of struggles for freedom have surprised us. On its face, this sentence is a non sequitor.

You also write that we need to remind ourselves that our first objective is to promote democratic values around the world. Says who? Shouldn't the first objective of our foreign policy be to secure our country and our way of life? (okay, first and second :)) If the first objective is to promote democratic values, then that's a very slippery slope that can easily end up in more Iraqs, more 9/11/73s. How's this right? How's this good for our country? Do we really want to be more of an interventionist state than what we already are?

Finally, regarding your last sentence, almost all of our policies would do both hinder and advance the cause of democracy around the world, don't you think? I mean, the world is not black or white, it's varying shades of gray, no? Our effort in Iraq is advancing the cause of democracy to some extent. In a backward way, 9/11/73 was to advance the cause of democracy as well, wans't it? Israel is our friend because they are a democracy, isn't our bull-headed support to them advancing the cause of democracy? And of course, I assume you are talking about a liberal American style of democracy, not an Evo Morales or Chavez or Democratic People's Republic of Korea style of democracy (which may be valid types of democracy, I guess, since it appears that there is no global standard for "democracy." Hmm, another problem....)

GS,

Yes, I can totally understand how reading my exchanges w/ Justin would be confusing (they confuse me!).

The original post was just meant to a "makes you think, eh?" kind of thing. But to answer some of your questions:

I think often we in the US swing from isolationism to over-reaction. Many Americans can't find other countries on a map. I don't think our leaders are often much better. That ignorance is what I referred to. It leads us to problems. Most Americans were clueless about al Qaeda before 9/11 ... most still don't know much about Islam ... stuff like that.

I agree that our moral impulses can lead us to make mistakes. Vietnam, anyone? Which is why I we should know more about the world, pay attention, etc. We may not need to be more "interventionist," but we could be more "engaged" (if you catch my meaning).

As to the murkiness of it all ... wow ... I totally agree. That's why I think we should pay more attention & be more discerning. Both the right & the left often ten to focus on enemy/friend dichotomies, Or focus on self-interest (we seem to care about Iraq/Afghanistan when it involves dead Americans, not dead/tortured/oppressed "natives").

It's difficult to be a world power. Until W. came along, I used to think Clinton had the worst foreign policy since, I don't know, George Washington (I really don't know about Washington's foreign policy, my point is simply Clinton's sucked). The reason was that his administration didn't have a foreign policy as much as it had moral impulses. The moral impulse led to shifting missions in Somalia (our intervention in Somalia itself was a moral impulse, but that may have happend under Bush, I can't recall), to intervention in the Balkans, war agains Serbia over Kosovo.... All of these engagements were because indigenous folks were getting oppressed, killed, etc. So maybe we fixed some of these problems temporarily (Balkans), we made other worse (Serbian Natioanlism and Kosovo), we had no impact in some (Rwanda, Somalia--at the cost of 18 service men killed in one day, seems quaint, don't it?). But to engage these countries we had to expend political capital, significant funds, and the lives of some of our youth. What did we get in return? Good training opportunities for our military?

It may sound like I'm advocating isolationism, but I'm not. I'm advocating staying clear away from moral impulses in foreign policy, to the extent possible.

GS,

I can empathize. I do think that Clinton (like Carter) relied on moral impulse but did little actual good. Similarly, Dubya, relies on his moral impulse, but seems to fare little better (perhaps worse, or perhaps the world has simply gotten more complex, either way we see the same result: US policy is bogging down internationally).

For the record, it was Bush who took us into Somalia, but it was Clinton who took us out. I think Somalia is actually a great example. Unwilling to sacrifice a few American lives to help secure a failing state from sliding into the abyss, several things happened: a) Somalia was seen as a victory for anti-American forces (like al Qaeda, who have cited Somalia as such), which emboldened them, b) Somalia continued to sink into a horrible civil war which continues to this day, c) we became unwilling to engage in actions that might cost even a few American lives (and our enemies abroad learned that, too).

The Kosovo example is another good one. Rather than put boots on the ground, we used air strikes (since they kept our service men/women "safe"), which did little to change realities on the ground but did often look callous & injured innocents (including hitting the Chinese embassy).

But you & I both seem to agree that "moral impulse" has been a guiding force of foreign policy. The trick is to find a way to marry impulse w/ reason. Because I just don't think the impulse is going to go away; I really do believe that kind of (some might say "naive") impulse & "can-do" belief/attitude is a defining mark of the American political character.

Miguel,

Yes, I agree. That moral impulse is not going to go away. Cooler heads around the policy making table need to prevail, but it's hard. It takes cold reasoning and, when in the face of massive suffering, it's hard to do. Some times they prevail, some times they don't. Thanks for the chat and the blog.

Of course, Miguel and Anonymous assume that "moral impulse" is the prime impetus to U.S. wars in places like Vietnam and Iraq. Never mind the fact that nobody here has presented any evidence to support such a hypothesis. Again, moral discourse does not in the least constitute evidence that policy is based upon "moral impulse."

By the way, Noam Chomsky thoroughly kicked William F. Buckley's ass in a debate on this very question in 1969. He noted that there has scarcely been an imperialist intervention since the Industrial Revolution that wasn't dressed up as humanitarian by the leaders of imperial powers.

The point is that nobody who is serious takes "moral discourse" as evidence of squat with regard to the actual motives of imperial powers.

Well, you've long made it clear that you think I'm neither serious, nor intelligent. So I must be par for the course, eh?

Maybe it is because I was not schooled in the U.S. that I am always flabbergasted at the messianic view of themselves that Americans have. They seem to firmly believe that they are the only holders of the democratic truth and that they have a God-mandated mission to spread democracy in the world. This belief is prevalent across the entire political spectrum.

If you please, Miguel, in what sense is exactly the U.S. "the premier democratic country in the modern world"? Yes, the U.S. Constitution is a milestone in the history of world democracy, everybody understands that, and is by any measure one of the most remarkable documents ever produced, but is the U.S. the most democratic country in the world? I would have serious doubts. Too many and too serious flaws plague and have plagued the American democracy to claim that title.

No matter how sincerely the "spreading democracy" discourse is preached, it sounds hollow and hypocrite to the rest of the world, which remembers very well how the U.S. has denied its citizens the most basic democratic rights with the practices of slavery and later segregation (and this is not the so distant past). Even as we speak, many states are passing, under the totally bogus argument of pervasive voter fraud, the so-called "voter ID" laws, which are basically designed to make it more difficult for poor, minority and disadvantaged citizens to exercise their right to vote, as they won't be able to produce the proper documentation or afford the cost of the ID.

And don't get me started with the systematic trampling of civil liberties and human rights under the present administration.

A democracy to a good extent, yes, but hardly an exemplary one.

Jorge:

It was Huntingon who used that expression ("premier democracy"), not I. But I suppose he meant it as you did: It was one of the earliest modern, representative democracies (particularly if you look at ones larger than a city-state). And for all its many faults, I do think that many in the world have historically looked to the US as the easiest example of "democracy" in the world. For example, I suspect that Bulgarians looked to the US, rather to Sweden, during the Cold War. For better or worse, I do think that "America" is equated w/ "democracy," "liberalism," "capitalism," "the West," "secularism," and a host of other concepts around the world.

Similarly, the USSR may have hardly been the "most" or "best" socialist country in the world. But to this day more people would instantly think of the USSR when they think "communism."

Again, I'm not suggesting that the US is the "best" democracy in the world. But it does seem that for many people around the world, if you asked them what country came to mind when they heard "democracy," the answer would be the US. Remember, in Tienamen Square, the students raised a replica of the Statue of Liberty, not some other emblem.

Miguel writes:

And for all its many faults, I do think that many in the world have historically looked to the US as the easiest example of "democracy" in the world. For example, I suspect that Bulgarians looked to the US, rather to Sweden, during the Cold War. For better or worse, I do think that "America" is equated w/ "democracy," "liberalism," "capitalism," "the West," "secularism," and a host of other concepts around the world.

The U.S. is certainly equated with "capitalism" and "liberalism" (in the economic sense) throughout the world. I am not sure whether it is still equated with "democracy" after the 2000 Florida election scandal. And, as far as the U.S. being "secular", ask about any West-European what she thinks.

The fact is that the U.S. is the home of militant Christian fundamentalism, and is the less "secular" of any of the modern democracies. The wall separating church and state has been crumbling; just see all the "faith-based" government programs (i.e. taxpayer-subsidized handouts to murky religious organizations), the prayer sessions at the White House, the irrational opposition to stem-cell research, the breath-taking inanity (to use the words of a Pennsylvania judge) of "intelligent design", etc. These things would be unthinkable in any other modern democracy.

How can anybody view the U.S. as an example of secularism?

Well, you've long made it clear that you think I'm neither serious, nor intelligent.

Well, I'm sure you have some worthwhile insights with regard to some areas of the discipline. You must have written a dissertation, after all. But I'm afraid international relations is not a sub-field in which you offer much that is insightful. Observations about "moral discourse" just don't cut the mustard, Miguel.

Jorge:

Certainly the question of whether people around the world view the US as a "democracy" (whether the "premier" one or not) is certainly one that could be empirically tested. A survey, perhaps?

Here's some data from the recent Pew Global Attitudes survey. It doesn't quite address the question of whether people identity the US w/ democracy, but there's some interesting data to sift through there.

But for all the use of religion in US politics (and there's certainly too much of it for my taste), I wonder how different is the separation of church & state in comparative perspective. Many parties in Europe are openly called "Christian" (look at Germany's CDU & CSU), several European states subsidize churches (the Church of England). Here's an interesting article from the International Herald Tribune on the rise of religious politics in Europe:

"Church-state relations across Europe heading toward 'new landscape'"

My point, again, isn't that the US is perfect (or even better) when compared to other countries. Only that a broader comparative perspective helps us to see that the resurgence of religion in American political life is not an entirely unique phenomenon. Again, many Europeans may view the US as less than perfectly secular (though I suppose it will depend on which Europeans one asks). But I doubt that Iran's leaders think of the US as less "secular" than their own regime.

Justin:

Funny, both times I taught International Relations I clearly remember that the two main "schools" of IR were idealism and realism.

From Wikipedia: Idealism (international relations)

Jorge -

Not sure why you feel that obtaining, and presenting on request, a government-issued ID as an unreasonable burden upon "the poor, minority and disadvantaged citizens". You exaggerate the cost and effort required to obtain such an ID card - in fact, many jurisdictions offer non-driver IDs for no charge.

Why, in your opinion, is it more difficult for the poor to produce proper documentation to obtain such an ID? All that is needed is a birth certificate or certificate of naturalization. And wouldn't they need it anyway, for lots of other reasons than just for voting?

And voter fraud exists - particularly in some of the bigger and older cities of the USA. Why do you deny this?

And regarding separation of church and state, can you provide an example of a country that more sharply separates church and state than the USA (other than of course officially atheist countries such as in the former Communist bloc)?

Funny, both times I taught International Relations I clearly remember that the two main "schools" of IR were idealism and realism.

Actually, that's false. The dominant IR theories are liberal institutionalism and realism. The idealist (or constructivist) variant of liberalism comes a distant third in influence, partly because its claims have little empirical basis (as your rather questionable conflation of "moral discourse" and morality-based policy illustrates).

Yes, I forgot that the likes of Woodrow Wilson, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, and neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz were of little influence in the history of US foreign policy. I guess I should pitch all my IR textbooks.

Yes, I forgot that the likes of Woodrow Wilson, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, and neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz were of little influence in the history of US foreign policy.

First of all, the points we were making were about International Relations as a sub-field of political science. The question was which theories are most influential within the discipline. The evidence can be found in the scholarly journals. The hard truth is that constructivism --or "idealism"-- is not very influential within the sub-field. Most liberals in IR are of the institutionalist variety, not the idealist one.

Now, you're more than welcome to regurgitate establishment pablum about how Woodrow Wilson (a white supremacist, by the way) was an idealist visionary, but until you can come up with a cogent argument as to how "moral discourse" equates with morality-based policy, don't expect others to take you very seriously.

Frank IBC writes:

And voter fraud exists - particularly in some of the bigger and older cities of the USA.

Does it? Let's look at some hard numbers published in the NY Times regarding "voter fraud".

Between 2002 and 2005, there were 28 cases nationwide of voting by ineligible people. Yes, you read well, 28 cases. Of these 28, only 18 actually ended in convictions. Not exactly a massive problem, right? Looking at these numbers, it is clear to me that the real motive behind these laws is disenfranchising the poor and the elderly.

Why, in your opinion, is it more difficult for the poor to produce proper documentation to obtain such an ID? All that is needed is a birth certificate or certificate of naturalization. And wouldn't they need it anyway, for lots of other reasons than just for voting?

Many voters cannot meet the financial burden of obtaining an ID. Even if in some states the ID itself is free, the documents required to get it are not. In addition, many cannot take time off during a workday to stand in line at the DMV to obtain an ID to exercise their right to vote. The elderly have often no transportation. Here are some numbers from Wisconsin. The picture is probably not very different in other states.

* An estimated 23 percent of persons aged 65 and over do not have a Wisconsin drivers license or a photo ID.
* An estimated 98,247 Wisconsin residents ages 35 through 64 also do not have either a drivers license or a photo ID.
* Less than half (47 percent) of Milwaukee County African American adults and 43 percent of Hispanic adults have a valid drivers license compared to 85 percent of white adults outside Milwaukee.
* For young adults ages 18-24 only 26 percent of African Americans and 34 percent of Hispanics in Milwaukee County have a valid license compared to 71 percent of young white adults in the balance of the state

The math is easily done. Prevent these people from voting (they have the annoying tendency to vote left when they do) through these bogus voter ID laws and your victory is assured.

And regarding separation of church and state, can you provide an example of a country that more sharply separates church and state than the USA.

The most obvious example is France.

Jorge:

While I agree w/ most of what you wrote, I'd caution against being too hasty on separation of church & state issues. Few countries have absolute separations. Even in France, most religious organizations are tax-exempt (a form of "subsidy" not extended to other interest organizations), most Catholic buildings are owned & maintained by the state, and the government still (unless I'm wrong) retains the rights to name bishops.

Justin:

So suddenly we've switched to which theories are influential w/in the discipline, not at large? And which journals are you reading? Liberal institutionalism is a subset of idealism, as most basic IR textbooks (I have a stack of them in my office) make clear. Since they were (recently!) written by political scientists, I assume that counts as "influential" in the discipline.

I think you're taking a much too static (and perhaps distorted) view of our discipline. And how have you not yet learned that citing a name is not an endorsement? My saying that Wilson was an idealist is neither an endorsement of Wilson nor of idealism. Did the behavioral revolution pass UNM by?

Jorge -

You make it sound like it's some sort of completely involuntary situation. It's not - I'm sorry, but at some point, one has to take responsibility for one's own life. As I said previously, government-issued ID cards are necessary for a lot more things in life than just voting.

I seem to remember that when I was traveling by bus across Bolivia, all passengers were required to provide their Bolivian ID, or passport, at several points along the journey, and sign a sheet listing the number of their ID card or passport. If the poor of Bolivia - many of whom make the "poor" in the USA seem incredibly wealthy by comparison - have the level of personal organization to obtain an ID card and to carry it with them when necessary, why can't the "poor" of the USA do the same?

Or is it the fact that the right to vote in all but a few jurisdictions is limited to US citizens what's really bothering you?

One comment on France - France bans the wearing of the veil or burqa by female students in its schools. No public school in the USA has restrictions on religious garb worn by students.

I agree that voting is made too difficult in the US. But I also know that requiring IDs is not asking for too much. There are, of course, some simple solutions: 1) Make election day a holiday (no work), which is what most countries do. 2) Extend election periods to more than 24 hours. 3) Make voting mandatory (as in much of Latin America).

As for the separation of church & state, Frank raises an interesting point: I don't think France employes a policy of separation of church & state as much as a subjugation of the church to the state. Not sure if that's better/worse than the US model, but it certainly is different and not the same as "separation."

The USA should hold elections on Sundays, as just about all of the rest of the world does.

Frank says:

I seem to remember that when I was traveling by bus across Bolivia, all passengers were required to provide their Bolivian ID, or passport, at several points along the journey, and sign a sheet listing the number of their ID card or passport.

I remember that too. This is a system that goes back to the dictatorship era and somewhat managed to stay with the excuse of fighting drug trafficking. I personally find it obnoxious if not directly fascist. You don't want that in the U.S., do you Frank?

If the poor of Bolivia - many of whom make the "poor" in the USA seem incredibly wealthy by comparison - have the level of personal organization to obtain an ID card and to carry it with them when necessary, why can't the "poor" of the USA do the same?

When you register to vote, you already have to produce some proof that you are eligible. Why would you have to prove your eligibility again at the polls? When people vote by absentee ballot, only a signature is required. Why this disparity?

Or is it the fact that the right to vote in all but a few jurisdictions is limited to US citizens what's really bothering you?

Yeah, I am part of that insidious "reconquista" conspiracy that according to Pat Buchanan wants illegal aliens to take over the U.S. ;-)

One comment on France - France bans the wearing of the veil or burqa by female students in its schools. No public school in the USA has restrictions on religious garb worn by students.

France bans the wearing of all religious symbols at schools, not only Muslim veils, but also Christian crosses, Jewish kippas and so forth, thus making it clear that religion is a private matter that stays at home and has no business in public school. Not that I necessarily agree with that intransigence, though.

Maybe U.S schools do not have restrictions on religious garb, but they do have dressing codes and ban things such as gang symbols.

The wall separating church and state has been crumbling; just see all the "faith-based" government programs

As long as no single religion or denomination is favored, how is this a problem? Or do you believe that all traces of religion should be removed from society?

Why should the fact that some organizations have a religious mission remove them from any further consideration for public funding?

Presenting ID at a polling place isn't just about proving your eligibility to vote, it's proving that you are who you say you are, just like when you write a check or use a credit card. Agreed, the absentee ballot system is vulnerable to abuse, but much less so than in-person voting.

A clarification on my previous post - I have no problem if jurisdictions (or even the whole USA) choose to allow persons other than US citizens to vote in elections. But demanding that elections officers ignore violations of current law, rather than working to change the law, is not the way to go about this.

Don't forget that voting in the US is done according to state & local laws. In some areas, you don't need to show ID to vote. I didn't in Carlisle, PA—I just told them who I was (I could've lied, I suppose) and they crossed my name off their list.

But it's also clear that **some** kind of ID regulation is necessary, if voting is to be restricted to national citizens. One possibility would be remove the registration restriction entirely, and allow anyone w/ an ID to vote (but there is no "citizen" ID in the US, which poses a problem) & then marking fingers w/ permanent ink.

Liberal institutionalism is a subset of idealism, as most basic IR textbooks (I have a stack of them in my office) make clear.

Once again, you're just wrong. Liberal institutionalism represents a parting of ways with idealism. You obviously need to brush up a bit on IR theory. Go back and look at what Robert Keohane --the foremost liberal institutionalist in the study of international relations-- writes. The liberal institutionalists start from the same basic premise as the neo-realists: that states are self-interested actors operating in a an anarchic international system.

Where the liberal institutionalists differ theoretically from the neo-realists is in their argument that even states operating out of self-interest can develop an interest in cooperation vis-a-vis international institutions.

Make no mistake, however, that the liberal institutionalists' focus --like that of the realists-- is on interests, not morals.

I'll well aware of the distinction between liberal institutionalists & neorealists. But you seem to too hastily dismiss idealistm. We can debate our pet IR theories. But to suggest that I don't know IR on the basis of whether *YOU* don't think idealism is still "relevant" is ridiculous. Talk about hubris! Perhaps you should write an intro to IR textbook.

Example: I think structural-functionalism is bullshit (I'm overstating this to make a point), but I'm not going to deny its relevance or importance in the broader discipline. Isn't the whole point of comps to force grad students to realize that the discipline is broad, heterogenous, and full of contradictory theories? They do still give comps at UNM, don't they?

The reason that proof of registration (that you are who you say that you are, and you live where you say that you live) is important is that voting is not just for nationwide offices (the Presidency), it's also done by the state in which you live (Senators, Governors), and the local area in which you live(US congressional district, county/municipal government, school district, etc.). And most states limit voting in party primaries to voters who are registered with said parties.

The UMW study does raise an interesting question - what to do about drivers whose licences have been suspended or revoked - perhaps it might be possible to punch a hole in the card, indicating that the holder is not permitted to drive, but that the card could still be used for identification purposes up to the "normal" expiration date listed on the card.

But to suggest that I don't know IR on the basis of whether *YOU* don't think idealism is still "relevant" is ridiculous.

There you go, moving the goalposts again, Miguel. The discussion started lik