Ciao!

referring to:
"FDR called us the "Arsenal of Democracy"; Kennedy called us the "New Frontier"; Reagan called us the "City on the Hill". I believe all of that's true."

Question: Does America claim to be a democracy? I am not very familiar with the US constitution but doesn't it constitue a republic and not a democracy?

I listened to an interview with Gore Vidal recently and he made that point. According to him the American constitution never mentions the term democracy.

So in essence American polititians (and people) interpret a republican constitution in a democratic way. But they don't have to (under the constitution).

What do you think? Should a new democratic constitution be made?

Fine, I may be splitting hairs but I just found it so shocking to hear that the world's oldest modern democracy is none (in legal terms).

No offense, Marco, but that's the lamest long-standing argument out there. First, because it assumes that a "true" democracy must be an "ideal" democracy - something that's never happened. Instead, democratic theory has long-since moved to the understanding that a "democracy" is a form of state that allows for government's chosen by free elections, and accountable to, their citizens. Thus, the US is a democracy.

As is the United Kingdon, Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Argentina, Mexico, and a long list of countries. There are non-democracies, of course: North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and many others. The only countries that ever formally claimed to be democracies were the so-called "People's Democracies" of the Soviet era. Just because they called themselves democracies doesn't make them democracies.

As to the US Constitutions. It was written at a time when "democracy" wasn't as popular (in usage, and certainly not looked upon as a positive thing). So it never mentions it. But a rose by any other name, right?

Bottom line: The United States is a democracy. More specifically, the United States is a "polyarchy" (as defined by Robert Dahl).

And what's this about "legal" definition of democracy? Is there a "legal" definition of "love" or "honor" or "duty"? You've been in Europe too long, dude! ;-)

US is both phoney and money democracy. N.

I followed the link to Bill's essay. Really interesting stuff. I wanted to comment it here but it is quite long so I put the comment in my blog.

Everyone's looking for chinks in the armor. Apparently it's good sport in the rest of the world. Oy vey.

I also read Marcos' post. It's persuasive, but I thing there is a need to separate two things. One is Amecan idealism and her values. And the other is, the politicians in power.

I am in favor of American idealism. It is my opinion that as a nation, America has to aim for a higher ground. After all, we all, as humans, aim for perfection. By that I mean, to be good (do no evil), honest, work hard, live in harmony, etc., etc., etc. Of course, we all know that no human has ever being perfect or for that matter, no nation is perfect nor will ever be. But, if we aim for good idealistic values, then we have to be in the right track.

Now, another different thing is the politicians whom we (as voters) entrust our country to guide us towards. That "city upon a hill". Those politicians are not always on the right path.

That is why one cannot just talk about America as doing right or wrong. America mainly does what the politicians in turn want America to do. Some times they are wrong, and some other times they are terrybly wrong :-)

I also don't understand why Europeans, while sharing most of America's values, are not more idealistic.

Another very important difference between Americans & Europeans that needs pointing out is the difference in treatment of law: Europeans seem to believe that law is superior, and must dictate our behavior. It's one extreme in the "rule of law" scale.

But law is human-made; it can be flawed; it can be unjust. People forget, at their own peril, that everything the Nazis did was "legal". What Americans believe, in their heart of hearts, is that some laws are wrong, unjust, and should be violated. Picking which ones, of course, is a matter of intense debate w/in the American heart (and, hence, the vast moral debate & vascillation w/in the country, something few societies every accomplish).

As to why Europeans aren't idealistic, I don't know. But I think two world wars, fascism & communism, being reduced from center of the world to American/Soviet sideshow, and defended for 50 years by a foreign umbrella (doing none of the hard work in the Cold War, just enjoying its benefits) might do it.

Europeans, in great part, no longer believe anything great is possible. And they're not willing to shed a drop of blood to secur their interests or advance the values of their civilization. Madrid showed the world they can be cowed into passivity for fear of a little violence. Europe, therefore, is lost. Because when you're not willing to shed a drop of blood to defend your civilization, then your civilization is dead (the rest of us are just waiting for the funeral).

Dear Miguel,

I cannot be quiet. I think that you have a total misunderstanding of how Europeans (if there is such a think - European) think and feel. You remind me of polisci scholars (if that is what you think you are) who were writing all those dissertations in the 1960s about communism but never visited a single communist country. I like you Miguel, I so like talking to you, but writings like this, your last comment here literally almost made me cry. I realized you too often try to discuss issues from a world you don't know much about. I find your thoughts about lost Europe preposterous and frankly idiotic. Yes, the Americans have shed a lot of blood for others (in order to suit their own interests), but it's easier for you B7c you did not have a war on your own soil since 1865!!!!!!!!!! I went through it, and we had it easy with that 10-day war in Slovenia. Even having it easy it was tiresome. I cannot imagine what they've gone through in Croatia and Bosnia, and Kosovo, and it was just hour and a half away from my home. It was sad that Europe couldn't stop this ridiculous bloodshed. But generations in Europe went through a destruction, dictatorships. You, you had one 9/11 and turned the world upside down. I won't get into discussion on current dispicable US foreign policy again. It is hard to discuss it with someone whose mind can't be changed, who simply don't listen, but rather pretends to. I am just going to say that I am happy and proud to have grown up in European environment of morals and ethics still meaning something. Where a notion of willingness to shed blood doesn't mean keeping your civilization alive. It's trying to prevent it that makes us civilized. With respect, Nenad

Nenad:

I think you misunderstand my position. I'm not a warmonger. And, yes, perhaps Americans in general have it very easy in comparison to people like you, who lived through wars of any kind. My point, however, was that any civilization that loses the capacity to even consider using force to defend its values is doomed. And I believe that wholeheartedly.

Interestingly, in attacking my generalization about Europeans (and I'll freely admit they were generalization based on hyperbole), you do the same, assuming that only Europeans grew up in an "environemtn of morals and ethics still meaning something". Morality & ethics come in different colors, shapes, sizes. And no civilization is devoid of them.

But just as warmongering is one negative extreme, so is a radical appeal to pacifism at all costs. Civilizations should try to avoid bloodshet; they should try very, very hard. That's not the point. The point is that if a civilization will never risk violence, will never risk a single drop of blood, then not only is that civilization doomed, it's AN IMMORAL CIVILIZATION!!

If I see person A walking down the street, and person B attacks A, am I not morally obligated to do something? If I'm so concerned w/ being nonviolent that I sit back and protest the violence, but do nothing to aid A against B, haven't I participated in that violence? Haven't I legitimated it? Haven't I sent a message to A that he's alone, friendless in the world? Haven't I sent the message to B that he's free to do as he wishes?

Pacifism is a noble value for an individual; it's immoral suicide for a state.