What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
95 Comments
- Wosat, on 07/09/2009, -4/+27It's obvious that pro-democracy movements around the world look for recognition from the west to help sustain their cause. They aren't writing their signs in English to be quoted by their own state-run media, that's for sure.
- thatoneguy89, on 07/10/2009, -6/+23The author states that Obama is wrong in saying: "America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country."
That's right, there is no better way to spread freedom than to give the finger to a nation's sovereignty and cram your way of life down their throat. Perhaps Mr. Henninger has forgotten that our system of government which he so exalts was formed through self determination not imposition. - thatoneguy89, on 07/10/2009, -4/+19Sigh... Merriam-Webster definition of democracy: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or **INDIRECTLY** through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
A republic is a democracy. Please know the definition of words you use people. - inactive, on 07/10/2009, -6/+21What exaclty are you proposing we do in Iran?
Send them a "strongly worded statement?"
Or are you proposing we go to war again?
It sounds like the latter. Buried. - Ghostwo, on 07/10/2009, -0/+13This dick basically says that the US should dictate how every other country is run, or else we'll end up being the only democratic government left, eventually suffering the same fate ourselves. Observe:
"In this light, President Obama's performance in Moscow was disconcerting, to put it mildly. In Mr. Obama's worldview, political systems apparently don't compete. They simply . . . are. 'America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country,' he said, 'nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country.'
Mr. Obama's political equivalence, conventional wisdom now among many Western sophisticates, is wrong and dangerous. Unless the West, led by the U.S. under this president, offers active push-back against the Russian definition of democracy, their version inexorably will back out ours.
...
Does the fact that the Bushies pushed democracy mean it would be bad form to support even our own political system?"
He basically argues that we not only have the right to decide who runs every other country AND how, but WE ARE OBLIGATED TO. Ridiculous. - fedja, on 07/10/2009, -1/+13First of all, I call ***** on your misleading statement. The president of Honduras tried to have a -referendum- to change the constitution so that -a president- may serve 2 terms.
Let me dumb that down further so you get it... He wanted to have the PEOPLE vote on whether a president would be allowed to serve 2 terms. If so, he would still need to be elected for a second term.
Your translation of that is "someone who wants to set himself up for life"? How ignorant can you be.... - fej64, on 07/10/2009, -2/+14Who the hell wants "Democracy"?!?!? We live in a "consitutional republic". The main difference is insurance of a man's rights. In a democracy, 51% of the population can vote to imprison the 49%, in a consitutional republic they cannot.
- Semblance, on 07/10/2009, -1/+13Dan Henninger is a loser jackass conservative who LOVED George Bush's policies. That's all you need to know.
- NorthMass, on 07/10/2009, -9/+20We are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. A true democracy is simply majority rule, which means the minorities rights get stripped away from an angry majority who can get egged on by demagogue politicians. A republic has checks and balances, to protect the rights of the minorities.
- fedja, on 07/10/2009, -4/+14"The west" and the US are vastly different. Right now, nobody wants to hear the US say that they agree with their concept of freedom.
That's what wars of profit and state-sponsored torture do for you reputation, I suggest you come to terms with it. - realeskimopimp, on 07/10/2009, -7/+17I hate people like you.
Democracy is a general term which refers to the many many different styles of democracy, including republics. - davethebard, on 07/10/2009, -0/+9One of my majors is political science. I hate to say it, but at this point, we don't even know how to define democracy. So please, if you can, tell me what "real democracy" is. Not to mention the fact that America is technically a representative republic. And I'm no fan of Bush. I served in the Army under him. But the reality is that foreign policy is elusive, secretive, and extremely complex. We can (at best) only know the half of what is going on.
- reddikilowatt, on 07/10/2009, -1/+10It's much easier to manipulate government officials who were elected by questionable means.
- JagPop, on 07/10/2009, -3/+11Anyone that says Bush promoted democracy should have a boot shoved fully up their behind. You went a full stride further and called it "real democracy".
And now to Iran.
You damn imperialists aren't fooling anyone (except yourselves -- I wonder, do you even admit to yourselves what you are or what your true motives are?) The veil came off about all the neocon clammering for Iranian democracy last week. John Bolton said that now is the time to support an attack upon Iran. The noise about Iranian democracy was nothing more than a demeaning of Iran so the little minds of the American public would more willing support another war. Monsterous. - kipmarlowe, on 07/10/2009, -0/+8The writer of this article did not bother to mention that Iranians have not been in a French Revolution mindset. They are complaining about an immoral and fraudulent election wherein the man who unjustly lost is even more of a hardliner than Ahmadinejad = less freedom and democracy if he won!!!!!
Why is his article so incomplete? Why is his analysis so simplistic as to be "dumbed down" in and of itself? Is he being disingenuous just to be provocative, perhaps for page views? Or just blinded by bias? Could this article be part of the go-to-war with Iran agenda? WSJ now being owned by Rupert Murdoch have anything to do with it?
I don't know. I'm just guessing. But please read up on this issue, elsewhere, multiple sources, from multiple and complete viewpoints before jumping to conclusions. Don't use this important topic as mere fodder for Obama-bashing. - fedja, on 07/10/2009, -2/+10Ah certainly. Bush promoted "real democracy" by bombing countries into the stone age and setting up puppet regimes headed by local warlords.
The neocons are yelling that the US should support the protests today. After the Shah and the support of Saddam dropping chemical and biological weapons on Iran... Do you really think US support is a positive impact in that region? - JoshChan, on 07/10/2009, -3/+11I was surprised by the neo-con tone in wsj nowadays. Is rupert murdoch secretly behind all these articles? Is wsj finally dead?
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -0/+7You really want Obama to tell Iran that a secular republic is the way to go? That you should place state before religion?
Yeah... I don't think that's going to fly. It's vastly more important that the Russian idea of democracy does not spread to the U.S., rather than our idea of democracy spreading to other parts of the world. We are barely hanging on here, with the massive influence of the military industry and other corporations and lobbyists in the political process, the CIA doing who-knows-what, and the federal government getting involved in every aspect of our lives.
Democracy requires work. It requires people willing to educate themselves. The U.S. experiment is a complete failure. We have a population that has been put to sleep by the television and is under constant distraction. As long as the populace is relatively happy and sleeping, they won't wake up to the truth of their political reality. Look up Edward Bernays if you must. - scoottie, on 07/10/2009, -11/+17America was never set up to be democracy but rather a republic. Now its just an oligarchy.
- Suricou, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5I think the proposal was to help the faltering attempt at a democratic revolution.
I'm not sure exactly how to go about doing that, short of an assassination. - Branchex, on 07/10/2009, -1/+6Democracy and Republic have been used falsely for years in the names of countries that are far from living up to those words for decades. They get away with it because most of the world does not know the real meanings. We need to educate the world. Before we can do that we need fix our Federal Constitutional Democratic Republic here. The two parties we have are eating away at it to empower themselves. We need people to stand up and put the ideals this country was founded on first. If we can do that it may just have a domino effect on the rest of the world.
- inkswamp, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5"Henninger is a frequent guest on the Saturday Fox News show Journal Editorial Report..."
@Presbyterian: After 8 solid years of right-wing propaganda and Bush administration apologist nonsense from media hacks like this, it's not attacking the messenger anymore. It's separating the wheat from the chaff. - Suricou, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4And this relates to the discussion how?
- robish518, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5That's kind of BS though... I mean the argument boils down to the difference between Bush's foreign policy and Obama's. They want to absolve Bush from invading Iraq, but claim Obama's policy is wrong because he hasn't taken action on Iran. The lesson that we learned from Bush's policies is that force didn't work. Did they expect Obama to invade Iran because they're election is disputed? The purpose of Democracy is that it thrives because of popular sovereignty, not foreign imperialism. Obama made a statement about Iran, what more did they expect him to do? Involve the U.S. in another war it can't afford? The WSJ needs to go back to school and learn what democracy means.
Oh... and signing a nuclear disarmament treaty is a big step in foreign policy... the idea is that too many people have too many nukes. We need to work towards making peace with each other, not war... - Bowd99, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5True democracy will only flourish if the citizens and lawmakers of Iran decide for themselves what works for them and what doesn't. You can look at the difference in policies even between countries seen as "bastions of freedom" to see that democracy is a fluid system based on cultural and social attitudes (gay marriage and socialised healthcare issues in the US compared to Western Europe for example). In this sense, I feel Obama is correct in stressing that democracy should be demanded by the Iranian populace, rather than them being forced into adopting a watered down version of a system already in existence elsewhere.
- EdgarVerona, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5Nice straw man there, Blinker.
- Suricou, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4I think you've seen a problem. Even if Iran - and this could apply to many other countries too - had a fully fair and functional democracy, this only ensures they get the government that the people want. If they want an ultra-conservative islamic fundamentalist who believes homosexuals, adulters and apostates must be executed and it is a crime against nature for a women to be educated or to leave the house while exposing any visible skin, then that is exactly what they will get.
This is more or less what happened in Afganistan. America and it's allies went in, destroyed the fundamentalist islamic regime, set up a system for elections... and the winning party is so conservative, one of the laws they have passed explicitly stated that not only is it no longer a crime for a man to rape his wife, but it is a crime for her to refuse to have sex with him on demand.
Democracy and freedom are not the same thing. - fedja, on 07/10/2009, -1/+5You're clueless to a frightening degree.
First of all, "Democracy" means the rule of the people, whether by indirect means (such as parliamentary representation) or directly (referendum voting on individual subjects). That's it, no more, no less.
Every democratic state on some level acknowledges the system of checks and balances between the 3 branches: legislative, executive, judicial.
The ONLY difference between the US and many European democracies, on the surface, is the fact that the executive is focused in one person. This becomes a problem when you elect a simian such as Bush. As a factoid, the political systems in Europe that are very close to the American one are the French and Italian.
The "republic", stemming from "res publica", means that the state is a public matter. Democracy means that the people rule the state. The only goddamn difference between the two that you can argue reliably is the fact that one term comes from Latin, and the other from Greek.
In closing, please don't lecture people on politics on Digg if you're not going to read up on it. Keep your comments on Youtube, where the audience is barely literate. - NorthMass, on 07/10/2009, -1/+5We shouldn't interfere with either, but if the Honduras guy was really just a power-hungry tyrant then why would Obama be backing him up but not the folks in Iran who are marching in Tehran?
- fedja, on 07/10/2009, -2/+5Yeah, your rights sure have been protected as of late. Suspended freedom of speech, human rights violations left and right, kidnapping of domestic and foreign nationals, suspension of Habeas Corpus, torture of innocents, wars of opportunity and preference, no universal healthcare...
Excuse me if I don't envy your constitutional record. - inactive, on 07/10/2009, -4/+7Two things which sum up what Bush really though of democracy
1. The Palestinians voting in the "wrong" government.
2. "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
Although the WSJ coming up out with this is surprising.
EDIT: At all the people saying that the USA is not a democracy; get your head out of your arse. Democracy translates as "People power", and any government which needs a mandate to govern it's own people is governing a democracy. "Consitutional Republics" have nothing to do with it; why do you think the UK which does not have a written constitution (Really) and a monarch is a democracy? Likewise, a working democracy will have provisions in it's constitution to protect the rights of the minorities, to prevent mob rule, regardless of what the Lolbertarians say. - orchidee2, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3The Russian understanding of democracy surely isn´t the one Americans and Europeans have. It is a misunderstanding, d´accord so far. On the other hand, the western ideal of real democracy can´t be transfered and installed easily all over the world.
Mr Obama is right, when he appeals to respect the circumstanzas in and the history of every country. A political system is different from Coke. It needs a certain time of development and adaption to those who have to live with it. - seanstuart, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3Wow this guy is a breathtaking moron. Another half-witted sap who thinks Bush "pushed democracy" because Bush's handlers were diligent in including "democracy" and other soothing words like "freedom" and "we do not torture" in speeches when he was carpet bombing civilians for the primary reason of knee-capping OPEC. What kind of "democracy pusher" claims unlimited power in a time of war, free from all checks and balances from Congress and the Courts? What kind of "democracy pusher" forces language into the Iraqi constitution that the Iraqis themselves may not amend their U.S.-drafted laws after we leave, so our corporations can continue to plunder their economy?
Wow, what an idiot. - morepowerr, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4Sorry but the US is a fashist corpocracy. You can vote on what ever you like. It will not mean *****. Big banks and big business own every thing and do what they like. As far as right go well we lost them back in 2001.
- roodammy44, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3Maybe you should do something about it then.
Become involved in an anti-corruption group, or try to become a manager for education within the govt.
If you really think private schools would do a better job, read up on the history of education before the state got involved. - WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4The US should demonstrate, by example, how a democracy should work. We shouldn't, however, FORCE other countries into democracy.
Forcing another country into democracy is pretty much the opposite of how democracy should work. - Ghostwo, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2I see what you did there...
- rocknog, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Well, he hates the very concept of government. His post here was clearly in protest of the notion that society should have any rules or structure whatsoever, and that's why he chose to post in in the comment section of a completely unrelated story.
- BlindWebster, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2I suppose it's better for the western corporate world to try overthrow their government by questioning the elections (read as: helping to support democracy) that were more fair than those in the U.S. than for Israel to attack them. Either way we're going after their oil. Because you know we invaded Iraq to free them. Hah!
"Uncertain of whether U.S. interests lay with the nuke-building ayatollahs or the democracy-seeking population". Oh my lord.
All candidates must meet the ayatollahs standards. The 'democracy candidate' was connected with the execution of 5000 dissidents after the last time we tried to overthrow their government in the 80's. I haven't been following it that closely so I don't know all the current details. The U.S. doesn't aid democracy around the world; the U.S. supports candidates that best help the U.S. to exploit resources from said countries.
Please don't waste my time with this crude propaganda from the WSJ. If you believe this stuff and you're liberal please check out Noam Chomsky, conservative Ron Paul. - Suricou, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2I wouldn't call it a complete failure. Even if it does fail soon, it at least had a 200+-year run of success. That's quite an impressive achievement.
- steelclash84, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Indeed. In almost all cases where we have injected democracy and "freedom" into a foreign state, they almost always fail or become ultra reliant on our military to sustain it. As thatoneguy89 mentioned, if you want the style of government that we have, you have to produce it yourself.
- censormagnet, on 07/10/2009, -3/+5the fact that this guy get buried when hes RIGHT points out the major flaw with democracy
its mob rule, majority rules, so even if the majority is WRONG they 'win'
democracy is totally contrary to the concept of liberty
democracy is a transitional state between a republic, and a tyrannical dictatorship (or group oligarchy, like our banking oligarchy) - scamper22, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2There was an interesting interview with post-presidential Clinton (somewhere on Fora.tv) where he discusses democracy. One of the points he makes is that democracy cannot be about voting. He uses the following paraphrase.
"The strength of our democracy lies in how we treat the losers of elections. They still have their rights and the will of the majority cannot impose an undue burden on them"
This unfortunately is totally lost when you push democracy as just voting and the will of the people. ( I won't bother differentiating democracy with constitutional republic here...)
Take Iraq for example. More important than elections would have been a guarantee of rights and equal treatment under the government. What they got was a push for voting majority and thus the predictable formation of a government based largely on ethnic lines. Government is basically being used as a tool to strength your 'group' at the expense of other 'groups'. This is not an unusual facet of democracy even in Western countries (getting more this way if you ask me), but in a fresh democracy without the proper mindset of the people and the proper free insitutions, there is no push back against it; no nutty lawyers fighting for the rule of law above the rule of men.
This should come as no surprise of course. The basis for our democracies did not just appear. There is a rich history of a legal system (british common law...) that long preceeded voting democracy.
Unfortunately, the attitude even in many western countries has changed to this voting democracy. Those who talk about rights above the will of the majority are deemed nuts. This is not a left/right issue. The right will typically use the will of the majority to override rights in areas of security. The left will typically use the will of the majority to override rights in areas of healthcare, education... So we don't really have pure ground to stand on. We can't go rant to Iran about rights when we have crossed so many security related rights. Nor can we rant in places like Afghanistan were they are putting in law various social laws that violate rights when we do the same thing in our education system.
Ultimately, it is a matter of convincing the general population that establishing rules where justice is blind (does not take into accont if you are sunni, shia, rich, poor, liberal, conservative, famous, nobody, gay, straight...) is the fairest way to run your country and everyone is better off in the long run as opposed to every group trying to abuse their power above everyone else and holding back the human potential of those they oppress. - sodade, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Yes, but who took those "humble" men and propped them up?
- rocknog, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Anarchy FTW!
- censormagnet, on 07/10/2009, -2/+4i hate people like you, allowing your vocabulary to be twisted by the very people who are ruining our republic
our founding fathers HATED PEOPLE LIKE YOU and your term 'democracy', they hated the concept
franklin often said 'democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding on whats for dinner' - morepowerr, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2We could try sending them all are banker and economist. That should ***** them up in 5 years.
- littleendian, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Glad to see someone on digg has an understanding of how this country was supposed to stay and how it has changed.
- morepowerr, on 07/10/2009, -2/+4Sorry but the US is a fashist corpocracy. How else can you explain taxing the poor and middle class and then giving the money to offshore banks. Other big companies.
- inkswamp, on 07/10/2009, -0/+1@dreamweaver1984
I don't know how old you are but when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, news was not anything like what it is now. It was almost exclusively real journalists doing the work you see on TV and in print. Nowadays, we have switched to an environment where the journalists are sprinkled here-and-there into a sea of agenda-driven, opinion-mongering pundits. People don't have time to refute all these messages (as a previous poster says.) It has become perfectly legitimate to ignore elements in the media when there are signs they aren't interested in reporting facts but rather pushing a worldview. It's not just Digg. It's how things really work. You may not see it if you're too young and didn't see what things were like prior. -
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is