First, the NeoCon movement started as a movement to reform conservatism; to give it a heart. That lasted about as long as a cheap tissue. Today, the “neo” stands for conservatism (actually radicalism) without the fiscal restraint of the PaleoCons, which, to me, was their only redeeming feature.

We were the becon of freedom and liberty but when we invade a country without casus belli, no matter how horrid the country, no matter how salutory the outcome, we become nothing more that the designated world bully.

There are only two reasons for war, declared or undeclared:
1. You or your vital interests been attacked by the country in question.
2. You are in imminent danger of being attacked by the country in question; e.g., Israel in 1967.

Yes, many of the Dems voted for war with Iraq. However, they and the American People (and many Republicans for that matter) were sold on the fact that reason 2 existed. It did not. The war was based on lies. There were facts in evidence that the administration “knew or should have known” dictated against war. They acted in “reckless disregard of the truth.”

‘The United States has historically been a beacon of democracy’? I don’t mean to state the obvious, but since when, and to whom?

I should clarify that I didn’t mean to state that we’re perfect, or that we’re an ideal example. But I think it’s hard to deny the fact that our country has one of the longest-standing democratic governments in the world. I think it’s important to criticize the things we love, and we must be able to point out the flaws and the deep problems in our history. But we also have to recognize where we went right. One thing that really stood out to me while traveling through Europe was that, as much as most of the people I spoke to there opposed the current U.S. government and the Iraq war, they were almost always quick to bring up WWII as a shining example of where we went right. And I believe that. Did the allied forces kill a whole lot of people? Yep. But it absolutely did more good than bad; it absolutely had an amazing effect on sustaining democracy in western europe.

We aren’t perfect. There have been lots of problems, and too often our democracy has only benefited a privileged class. But that doesn’t mean that we’re all bad, and, as critical as I can be of the United States, I choose to live here because I really do believe that, for all our faults, we have a proud history of doing good and a bright future. I believe that our core values are democratic ones, and while change may come slowly, I think we’ll end up falling on the side of goodness. I think our history has shown us to be a beacon of democracy, even if we aren’t a perfect example. We’ve been better than most places. That doesn’t mean that we can be critical, or that we shouldn’t bring up the times when we’ve failed — that’s crucial. But it’s also dishonest to constantly position America as the worst of the worst.

We’ve made them free

Who? The Iraqis? They’re not free; they can’t get rid of us, and they’re not safe. That’s freedom?

Jill: [W]e do need to re-think this whole democracy thing … restructuring they way we promote it. What, you think holding it out at the end of a bayonet isn’t working?

Robert: We were a fairly poor country in 1776. Pshaw if we were. We were Britain’s cash cow, that they desperately wanted to go on taxing and otherwise exploiting (and that France desperately wanted to buy from without paying the London middlemen).

OTOH, my wife points out the Indian state of Kerala, where they have profound poverty, democracy, socialism and excellent schools.

Tangoman, re perceptions of the USSR: I’m greatly amused by the revisionism of recent years. Reagan was swept into office promising to counter the mighty Societ juggernaut with any force necessary, from a massive military buildup to harebrained Rube Goldberg schemes like MX and SDI to support for regimes that made the USSR look good. The rest of us were appalled at everything Reagan was doing in order to “be stronger than the bear — if there is a bear”, and kept trying to point out that the “bear” was emaciated and toothless.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, suddenly Reagan’s measures, which had been billed originally as vitally important defenses against a mighty enemy, were rewritten as a brilliant feint intended to knock down a rotten, feeble regime.

Oh, and by the way: thanks a heap for the great job you guys did at rehabilitating the former Soviet Union. We can all look to the vibrant economy and sturdy democracy of modern Russia to see where pseudo-con policies are leading us.

I don’t listen to it much when liberals say it, or for you either. Numbers are a nice guide to past performance.

The word “past” has an interesting valence. Time goes one way.

To put it another way, there is free will.

Rather than rely on my short synopsis, here is NYU’s Adam Przeworski:

This is a startling fact given that throughout history about 70 democracies have collapsed in poorer countries. In contrast, 35 democracies spent a total of 1,000 years under more affluent conditions, and not one collapsed. Affluent democracies survived wars, riots, scandals, and economic and governmental crises.

The probability that democracy survives increases monotonically with per capita income. Between 1951 and 1999, the probability that a democracy would fall during any particular year in countries with per capita income under US$1,000 was 0.089, implying that their expected life was about 11 years. With incomes in the range of US$1001 to US$3000, this probability was 0.037, for an expected duration of about 27 years. Between US$3001 and US$6055, the probability was 0.013, which translates into about 78 years of expected life. And above US$6055, democracies last forever.

Really? Odd that America managed. We were a fairly poor country in 1776.

Bugger the tea leaves, and bugger the historical determinism, too. I didn’t buy it from Marxist nitwits and I don’t buy it from pessimists today, either. We’ve made them free; if they cock it up (with or without our help) then that’ll be too bad, but at least they had the chance.

The alternative is not a return to oil-funded despotism. The alternative is a world war. Live free or die has acquired a chilling new meaning. (Yes, I know that you disagree that this is what will happen. You’re wrong there, too.)

See what happens when you permit contrarians on your blog, Lauren? They start contrarianing each other!

What kind of racist bullshit is this? What people are, at heart, an imperial people? And who is he to essentiallize Americans or anyone else? How does he know what the “hearts” of any people are? What about the “hearts” of the Germans?

Neither the race nor ethnicity of Americans is mentioned in the article. I’m not sure what set off your racism alarm. There’s nothing wrong with associating certain values with certain nations – anthropologists do it all the time. For example, Americans are largely materialistic. That’s a generalization to be sure but not unlike the way we normally discuss nations and cultures.