To Die For
Are liberal democracies less warlike?
There is a belief amongst governmental scientists that democracies are less inclined to be warlike, as those who are most likely to be adversely affected by war are the citizens, and if they have political power, they will use that power to avoid war. This concept first came from Immanual Kant, in his writings on democracy.
This belief has been pretty much squashed by scientific inquiry. In his book, "The Future of Freedom," Newsweek writer and political philosopher Fareed Zacharia points out that democracies are actually more warlike than their predecessors. At first glance, this revelation might seem to say that democracies are more unstable, thus more likely to engage in warlike behavior. Is this the case?
In my previous post, I made the point that freedom in Western-culture, liberal democracies is a conditional state of freedom, where the condition is that the individual is expected to moderate themselves based on the recognition of the freedoms of others. This creates a self-enforced morality in a citizen that can withstand the breakdown of governmental control. Those who grow up in a society which indoctrinates its citizens with this elevated feeling of self-worth, self-empowerment and personal responsibility tend to have greater expectations from themselves, and in the world as a whole. It also tends to blind them to how others who have not grown up in such a society view the world.
President Lyndon B. Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam, in part, because he wanted to win re-election in 1964. He needed to show to the US electorate that he was, indeed, tough on Communism, and that a Barry Goldwater administration was not necessary to preserve the world for democracy and to stop the "domino effect." In his taped phone conversation archives, he talked to one of his advisors about his misgivings about this escalation, and his reasons for doing it, knowing young people would die because of his decision. LBJ also felt that he could solve the conflict by offering the North Vietnamese the carrot of economic prosperity, via public works projects funded by American taxpayers, such as electrification projects. He could not fathom why Ho Chi Minh wouldn't see that America didn't want to dominate Vietnam, but instead wanted to free it, and make it prosperous. President George W. Bush faces a similar dilemma today in Iraq, and the same disillusionment.
The problem is that cultures who have not embraced liberalism, which means Western-style freedom, cannot understand nor believe a Westerner when they come in as a conqueror, then say they wish to liberate. The cultural beliefs in which they operate has grown under conditions that state that conquerors always seek to dominate, and those conquerors must be thrown off at all costs, no matter what they do or what they say.
In Vietnam, America did not achieve its goals, and the country fell under communism. The Vietnam War is widely regarded as America's first loss at war. I do not entirely share this assessment. In his book, "What's So Great About America," Dinesh D'Souza points out that, while those who prevailed in Vietnam got what they wished, what came about from the end of the conflict was not the outcome they were seeking. Instead of a prosperous, modern society ruled by good governors leading their people into a great future, Vietnam has fallen even further behind the rest of the world, and even its neighbors, and most people live in squalor. If America did not win that conflict, neither did the Communist Vietnamese. If the North Vietnamese had accepted LBJ's plan, it is likely that the people in Vietnam would be much more prosperous and free today.
There are examples that back this statement up. One is Japan. During World War II, the Empire of Japan sought to rule Southeast Asia with its "Co-Prosperity Sphere," which was basically a rouse to turn all the other states in the area, including China, into vassal states of the Japanese Empire by force and invasion. The US stood up to this, and imposed economic sanctions on Japan in the form of an oil embargo. Japanese leaders were enraged by this, and eventually formed the plan to force America into conceding to its will via military defeat of the US in the Pacific. The plan was not to invade America, but was to hit America hard enough and long enough to make America think it wasn't worth the cost to continue opposing Japan. It bet on the perceived weakness of a liberal democratic society in the face of a hardened, top-down, authoritarian opponent. This plan, of course, backfired, leading to Japan's humiliating defeat, and to Japan being the only country to suffer nuclear attack, not once, but twice.
Japan's leaders told their people about how cruelly the Americans would treat them if they lost the war. Combined with then cultural beliefs in Bushido and in an extreme form of nationalism, the people of Japan prepared themselves to fight to the last child against the eventual invasion, which, thankfully, never came. After the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Emporer himself called a halt to the war, and addressed his people, telling them to prepare to "endure the unendurable."
America came in, and, in contrast to Japanese public belief, did not set up a permanent government and turn the Japanese into a vassal state of the US. What America did do was to help Japan recover from the war, and start down her current path of world-leading prosperity and peace. America does still have military bases on Japanese soil, and there are reoccurring problems of US military personnel performing horrible acts such as raping a local girl or driving drunk and killing innocent civillians, but it certainly isn't the US extracting huge yearly payments from a vassal state, and shipping Japanese girls to America to serve as "comfort women." Losing the war, and accepting the loss, was the best thing that ever happened to Japan. The same could be said for Germany.
So why did Japan accept the loss, and not form an insurgency against the American victors, like the people in Iraq are doing? Because Japan's culture is more advanced than Iraq's. Japan's culture is advanced enough to recognize its own failures, and to adapt to new ways. Instead of fighting endlessly and constantly holding a grudge, they chose to accept their fate and see what their conquerors would do. When it became obvious that their conquerors were benevolent, they took advantage of all that was offered them, and used it to build an even better society. They learned and copied from America, then applied their own innovations, and worked hard. Eventually, they built their society and economy to such a high level that only America could touch it (and many Americans wondered if they could even do that, for a while). This was possible because Japanese culture, when confronted with a major failure, has enough wisdom and humility to address the problem and adapt. It was also because American citizens, in a liberal democracy, are willing to die for it, and willing to quickly forgive their enemies.
Right now, the latest global conflict is the Global War on Terrorism. The current battlefields are Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon. It can be argued that there are other places as well. Many view the test as being American resolve in defeating Al Queda and others that stand against Western values, and wish to fight any invader, no matter how benevolent. I disagree. I think the real test is if Middle-Eastern culture is as advanced as it thinks it is. So far, they are failing that test.
There is a belief amongst governmental scientists that democracies are less inclined to be warlike, as those who are most likely to be adversely affected by war are the citizens, and if they have political power, they will use that power to avoid war. This concept first came from Immanual Kant, in his writings on democracy.
This belief has been pretty much squashed by scientific inquiry. In his book, "The Future of Freedom," Newsweek writer and political philosopher Fareed Zacharia points out that democracies are actually more warlike than their predecessors. At first glance, this revelation might seem to say that democracies are more unstable, thus more likely to engage in warlike behavior. Is this the case?
In my previous post, I made the point that freedom in Western-culture, liberal democracies is a conditional state of freedom, where the condition is that the individual is expected to moderate themselves based on the recognition of the freedoms of others. This creates a self-enforced morality in a citizen that can withstand the breakdown of governmental control. Those who grow up in a society which indoctrinates its citizens with this elevated feeling of self-worth, self-empowerment and personal responsibility tend to have greater expectations from themselves, and in the world as a whole. It also tends to blind them to how others who have not grown up in such a society view the world.
President Lyndon B. Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam, in part, because he wanted to win re-election in 1964. He needed to show to the US electorate that he was, indeed, tough on Communism, and that a Barry Goldwater administration was not necessary to preserve the world for democracy and to stop the "domino effect." In his taped phone conversation archives, he talked to one of his advisors about his misgivings about this escalation, and his reasons for doing it, knowing young people would die because of his decision. LBJ also felt that he could solve the conflict by offering the North Vietnamese the carrot of economic prosperity, via public works projects funded by American taxpayers, such as electrification projects. He could not fathom why Ho Chi Minh wouldn't see that America didn't want to dominate Vietnam, but instead wanted to free it, and make it prosperous. President George W. Bush faces a similar dilemma today in Iraq, and the same disillusionment.
The problem is that cultures who have not embraced liberalism, which means Western-style freedom, cannot understand nor believe a Westerner when they come in as a conqueror, then say they wish to liberate. The cultural beliefs in which they operate has grown under conditions that state that conquerors always seek to dominate, and those conquerors must be thrown off at all costs, no matter what they do or what they say.
In Vietnam, America did not achieve its goals, and the country fell under communism. The Vietnam War is widely regarded as America's first loss at war. I do not entirely share this assessment. In his book, "What's So Great About America," Dinesh D'Souza points out that, while those who prevailed in Vietnam got what they wished, what came about from the end of the conflict was not the outcome they were seeking. Instead of a prosperous, modern society ruled by good governors leading their people into a great future, Vietnam has fallen even further behind the rest of the world, and even its neighbors, and most people live in squalor. If America did not win that conflict, neither did the Communist Vietnamese. If the North Vietnamese had accepted LBJ's plan, it is likely that the people in Vietnam would be much more prosperous and free today.
There are examples that back this statement up. One is Japan. During World War II, the Empire of Japan sought to rule Southeast Asia with its "Co-Prosperity Sphere," which was basically a rouse to turn all the other states in the area, including China, into vassal states of the Japanese Empire by force and invasion. The US stood up to this, and imposed economic sanctions on Japan in the form of an oil embargo. Japanese leaders were enraged by this, and eventually formed the plan to force America into conceding to its will via military defeat of the US in the Pacific. The plan was not to invade America, but was to hit America hard enough and long enough to make America think it wasn't worth the cost to continue opposing Japan. It bet on the perceived weakness of a liberal democratic society in the face of a hardened, top-down, authoritarian opponent. This plan, of course, backfired, leading to Japan's humiliating defeat, and to Japan being the only country to suffer nuclear attack, not once, but twice.
Japan's leaders told their people about how cruelly the Americans would treat them if they lost the war. Combined with then cultural beliefs in Bushido and in an extreme form of nationalism, the people of Japan prepared themselves to fight to the last child against the eventual invasion, which, thankfully, never came. After the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Emporer himself called a halt to the war, and addressed his people, telling them to prepare to "endure the unendurable."
America came in, and, in contrast to Japanese public belief, did not set up a permanent government and turn the Japanese into a vassal state of the US. What America did do was to help Japan recover from the war, and start down her current path of world-leading prosperity and peace. America does still have military bases on Japanese soil, and there are reoccurring problems of US military personnel performing horrible acts such as raping a local girl or driving drunk and killing innocent civillians, but it certainly isn't the US extracting huge yearly payments from a vassal state, and shipping Japanese girls to America to serve as "comfort women." Losing the war, and accepting the loss, was the best thing that ever happened to Japan. The same could be said for Germany.
So why did Japan accept the loss, and not form an insurgency against the American victors, like the people in Iraq are doing? Because Japan's culture is more advanced than Iraq's. Japan's culture is advanced enough to recognize its own failures, and to adapt to new ways. Instead of fighting endlessly and constantly holding a grudge, they chose to accept their fate and see what their conquerors would do. When it became obvious that their conquerors were benevolent, they took advantage of all that was offered them, and used it to build an even better society. They learned and copied from America, then applied their own innovations, and worked hard. Eventually, they built their society and economy to such a high level that only America could touch it (and many Americans wondered if they could even do that, for a while). This was possible because Japanese culture, when confronted with a major failure, has enough wisdom and humility to address the problem and adapt. It was also because American citizens, in a liberal democracy, are willing to die for it, and willing to quickly forgive their enemies.
Right now, the latest global conflict is the Global War on Terrorism. The current battlefields are Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon. It can be argued that there are other places as well. Many view the test as being American resolve in defeating Al Queda and others that stand against Western values, and wish to fight any invader, no matter how benevolent. I disagree. I think the real test is if Middle-Eastern culture is as advanced as it thinks it is. So far, they are failing that test.
posted by gemillam at
4:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home