Yeah, and like Patrick Henry maybe never actually said, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

Wait...

We would be better off if we stood for elections rather than trying to pick a horse to back. there are a lot of negative reactions when the United States gets involved in the politics of foreign countries, especially Arab countries. I personally don't believe that Islamist parties are that big of a threat in part because I believe that the realities of governing will temper their beliefs and restrict the effective extent of their policies.

Here Prof. Etzioni argues that we need to back the pro-liberal forces in order to ensure that democratic processes are not closed off after extremist groups come to power. My question is why not just do our best that elections continue after such groups come to power and help to ensure that elections are free and fair?

We would avoid getting involved in internal politics, we could build some good will rather than giving people more reasons to dislike us, and we could live up to our belief in the free determination of peoples.

I think Egypt will be the big test.

DEMOCRACY IS NOT A LICENSE TO SCREW FOREIGNERS YOU DON'T LIKE

Honestly, this guy Etzioni is starting to get my goat. Check this out:

Some "un-realists" argue that the United States should accept such a risk because theocracies are like childhood diseases that nations may have to endure before they can grow up to become democratic.

Wha? Uh? What the he..? Jesus H. Chr...?
I've never heard anyone in the blessed world make that argument. "Theocracy is like chicken pox" where the hell did he get that? Talk about that straw man argument, Etzioni is parading around a straw elephant and he's soaked it with gasoline. Cripes.

Oh, and I love how Etzioni stages it as a battle between "Un-Realists" in their gasoline soaked straw elephants, and "Realists" and their calls for more and better fascism to save us from automatic collapsing democracies resulting in more and worse fascism. Cripes.

allowing only pro-democratic forces to participate

So, Democracy is only allowed for groups we like? Everyone else has piled on this, and justly so. But then there's this passage later in the same paragraph:

Such nations need a transition period; they cannot jump from the tribal politics of the Stone Age

No racism here. Nope. Comparing people descended from the oldest civilizations on Earth, the cultural heirs of the Greeks and Roman during the middle ages, to stone age tribal savages isn't racist. It's just condescending and ignorant.

But don't take my word for it. Find a muslim-American, read that passage to him, and ask him what he thinks. I think you'll learn some brand new words.

The authoritarian regimes of Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia, among others, have largely wiped out reformist, liberal pro-democracy forces. As a result, these regimes have pushed most of whatever opposition remains into the extremist camps. Hence, if the oppressive lid of these governments were suddenly lifted, the well-prepared Islamist groups would take over, never giving a chance to the liberal forces to recoup and grow. The United States and its allies hence should neither promote free-for-all elections nor support the continued repression of the opposition, but favor selective and gradual opening to allow liberal forces to find their legs.

The same liberal forces that have been largely wiped out. Although it sounds good, Etzioni's prescription would amount to an indefinite rewards for repressive regimes to repress.

In essence, he's advocating 'selective repression.' He's suggesting that authoritarian regimes should stop repressing liberal forces in order that these liberal elements can become a force to replace said authoritarian regime. Oh, and he also wants them to keep on repressing theocratic forces, which they're already doing, because under no circumstances does he want them getting near the levers of power.

What's an authoritarian regime to do? I think the answer that comes from Etzioni's naivete is that these authoritarian regimes will perpetuate themselves indefinitely by ensuring that 'liberal' forces are kept endlessly week, while the theocratic menace is constantly touted.

This is just terrible stuff.

The trouble with Etzioni's key sentence is that it is not particularly well thought out, not particularly practical, and not especially insightful. It's a a greeting card sentiment dressed up as pontification, and beneath it, there's the whiff of fascism.

How many murderous dictatorships has the United States supported and endorsed, all the while claiming to advocate and support 'selective and gradual opening.'

For the most part, this policy of 'selective and gradual opening' has continually reinforced and upheld dictatorships.

It's the soft and cuddly excuse for tyranny. It's the 'we're working on it, but we can't let the bad guys up.'

I have to say that Etzioni's bogeyman of theocratic takeover is essentially imaginary.

Why?

Because it has never, ever, ever happened. The only theocratic takeovers have been Iran, which arose out a revolution against the Shah and an invasion by Saddam; and Afghanistan, which arose out of a decade long struggle against foreign invasion, followed by decade long civil war.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, 'theocrats' have never come near power any time that country has flirted with Democracy. Every Democratic regime was overthrown, not by muslim theocrats, but by pro-western militarists.

Algeria almost had a situation where muslim fundamentalists managed to win an election. Would they have turned the country into a theocracy? Probably not, though Etzioni may disagree. But we'll never know because the Algerian military overthrew the government and initiated a wave of repression that provoked a long ferocious civil war. It's hard to imagine the fundamentalists successfully turning Algeria into a theocracy given the social resistance of the Algerian army. But the real effect of the Algerian army's coup was to extirpate the moderate and liberal forces he prizes so much.

Etzioni's model of 'turnkey' elections has no history in the Muslim world. Perhaps it has history in Africa or in Latin America, but the results aren't necessarily comparable. Certainly no one has ever produced a theocracy, although most have produced military dictatorships.

It's terrible stuff all right, it's neocon-ism. Smart people get to run the world because they're not as dumb as you are. In fact, they're so smart they get to decide which theocracies are going to rule. Why not keep it simple and turn the world over to Pope Benedict. He's got this all figured out too. That's the problem. All these "smart" people aren't on the same side or backing the same horse but one thing they all agree on, they're all smarter than you.

The benefit of America Abroad, when it was still alive, was to serve as trash can for pseudo-intellectual sludge. Those were the days.
Now that AA is dead, alas, that drivel gets served at the high table. Or in Etzioni's case, I should say "dumped," for our author appears to be a fan of recycling.

Prof. Etzioni: when you're not too busy showering wisdom upon the masses, I encourage you to take a trip to DC. Go to the US Supreme Court and check out the South Frieze. There you'll see a depiction of the Code of Hammurabi. If you so desire, then go to Paris to see the original in the Louvre. Then come back and tell us again about the "Stone Age" and the "childhood diseases." Thanks.

PS: I love the title of your post. Krauthammer is an inspiration to us all, isn't he?
But since you seem to like to steal his lines, I thought your fans might like to read the whole thing:

"Totalitarians are perfectly capable of achieving power through democracy, then destroying it. … That is why it would be not just expedient but right to support undemocratic measures undertaken to avert a far more anti-democratic outcome. Democracy is not a suicide pact." -- King Kraut, 2005.

Shorter version:

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning."

To paraphrase Jefferson, successful Democracies are based on a well educated populace. A strong middle class and a commitment to the rule of law are also essential elements to keep the Democracy functioning. What else can we throw into the mix that has been well documented, let’s see, how about a commitment to country and a true belief in the free rights of others; including freedom of religion.

All of the major Islamic countries have none of these basics that would allow for a successful democracy. There is no substantial middle class. Economic and wealth stratification have the extremely wealthy and the underclasses that have no economic power.

Education for the wealthy may include extensive studies in traditional secular subjects but the poor are educated in fundamentalist religious schools.

There is more of a commitment to family or tribe and no commitment to any larger group.

Among the masses the rule of law is whatever the elder determines it to be or it is derived from ancient religious law. None of these practices respects the rights of others.

The Islamic world is still in the ages of monarchies and exploitation by the rich and powerful or extreme fundamentalists that do not believe in the rights of anyone other than those proscribed by the religious leaders.

The best policy for promoting democratic freedoms in these countries is a long term commitment to expanding economic policy that only builds a strong middle class. This necessarily requires the development of a secular education for all citizens.

Until the roots for democracy have been built there is no chance for social development of a commitment to democratic values. The US Bush manifest destiny to create a democratic world through force must be eliminated.

There are simply no short term solutions only committed long term policies that foster the growth of internal democratic social structures.

This is hilarious! Prof. Etzioni pulls a joke on us with this amateurish bit of satire, and we all pile on like we think he really meant it. The joke is definitely on us. So, Prof. what do you really think? Come on, the joke has run its course now.

Hoppy in Sacramento

It's interesting to see the varied interpretations, because Etzioni means it that way. It's meant to get pseudo-scholarly respect by standing above the fray, while also asserting it's importance. That takes stern warning too hard to pin down to bear responsibility.

I took it to be a calming but totally sympathetic message to the Neocons. Honest, you don't have to beat them up with U.S. power this time, but don't worry because we're still boss and can still beat up whomever we like. This is charming in distancing itself from Bush but indeed doubly scary.

Its presence here also continues to drive me up the wall. Look, we're in debt to Josh for this site, so if he wants to give over the foreign policy debate to the hawk crowd because he believes in them, fine. He's obviously done that with Clemons and America Abroad. But here it's just cross posting each and every time, without even the minor pretence that Etzioni will appear in person.

If a reader blog consisted solely of "you gotta read this" with no analysis, we'd never recommend it, and we'd all understand that the blogger was breaking a convention we value. If TPM did that routinely, it'd never have achieved its status. Yet Josh clearly worships this guy enough to do the same to him. What gives?

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Let me summarize Etzioni's post: democracy is fine, as long as it suits us.

How about this for a radical theory of government: The proper role of the United States government is to govern the United States.

That means it has a legislative branch possessing the right to pass laws whose jurisdiction encompasses United States citizens and territory; it has an executive branch whose legitimate power extends to executing the laws of the United States within the proper jurisdiction of US law; and it has a judicial branch empowered to judge cases and disputes arising under the law.

The executive and legislative branches also have the power to negotiate and then ratify treaties with other countries. Once these treaties are ratified they become US law, and the explicit contract between states permits to each state specific kinds of activity in and regarding the other's territory, and specific kinds of relationships with the other's people.

Now if someone wants to get serious about restoring, promoting and establishing more expansive and effective institutions of global governance, based on explicit treaties contracted between individual states, forming varieties of multinational political communities with their own laws governing their own members, I'm all for it. I would very much like to see a rekindling of faith in the great potential for international law and governance, and a renewal of respect for the institutions of international law and governance that have already been established through the blood, sweat and tears of our predecessors. To the extent such institutions already exist or come to exist, we can talk about what forms of intervention are permitted within the contracting states, and by that multinational community as a whole under those treaties.

But it is not the proper role of the US government to determine or seek to determine the internal political development of other countries. Of course we all recognize that we sometimes have an interest in the internal affairs of other states, since what goes on in those states can ultimately affect us. But if there is one thing that the world's many moral and legal traditions agree on it is this: not every interest in another's behavior corresponds to a right to determine that other's behavior. My neighbor might think bad thoughts about me; he might not like my religion; he might nurse economic resentment of me; he might be sexually attracted to my spouse. But I do not have the right to enter his house without his permission in an effort to change these attitudes, even if those attitudes pose some risk to me in the long run.

There is such a thing as a global interest. And right now the global interest argues in favor of diminishing the outsized, self-arrogated autonomy and tendency toward unilateral intervention of the United States government, while building, strengthening and elevating the collective capacity of the world's people to exercise global governance.

Wait, you're not suggesting, are you, that the US government should govern... the US?

Now that's radical extremism of the like we haven't seen much lately.

The US provides a government of incompetent buffoons for itself, and for the rest of the world it provides another government, it's called the Pentagon.

On truly realistic level, Etzioni postulates a level of fine control that never existed.

"This is what United States did when for a while when it promoted local and limited elections in Saudi Arabia and fair and free general elections in Egypt and Kazakhstan."

In each and every country on the list (and mentioned further) elections were as free as it suited the government, which is to say, not too much. Kazakhstan is in Russian orbit so we cannot be even blamed there, but please, what did we promote in Egypt? When Mubarrak decided to simply beat up the opposition, in a very literal sense, we did fat nothing. And truly, what could we do? Sanctions? When we need Egypt's good will?

After much sobering thought, I realized that we can try not to make things worse. For example, decline to use torture and kidnapping, so we could make it unseemly for our allies to deal with opposition using torture and kidnapping. Decline to deal brutally with the press in Iraq so we could make it unseemly for our allies. Drop aliances with Saudis and Iranians on social matters -- if I recall, only three countries thwart an international convention not to execute minors. We also join more reactionary regime in the opposition of reproductive rights etc.

Why did we not make Afghanistan a functioning democracy? Of all places, we have some control there. But in general, we can work only incrementally, and it could help of those increments go in consistent direction, as opposed to "Mr. President, could you make courts more independent, and, by the way, could you help us kidnap several hundred people?"

Yeah, its a monarchy now. But so what. England was an equally absolute monarchy. It evolved.

...and France, and Austria, and Germany, and Spain, and Sweden (had to get that one in there), and, and, and. . . .

Nice job, Valdron

aMike

p.s.  One might add that in none of these was the road to democracy without a bump or two. 

Well, the French Revolution is an example of an attempt at a radical transition. What happens almost invariably is that the most radical elements end up taking control.

In the French Revolution it became the Terror and eventually Buonapart. In the Russian Revolution it became the Bolsheviks and Lenin. In the Iranian Revolution it was the Mullahs and Ayatollah.

It seems that the 'winner take all/loser permanently kicked to the curb' mode of revolutions has a tendency to undermine democracies. Not always, but its there.

Another radicalizing element of Revolutionary societies that lead to tyranny might be external conflict. Each of the French, Iranian and Russian Revolutionary societies found themselves embroiled in wars with their neighbors or breakaways.

Yet, real democracy still emerges from indigenous traditions and institutions. And one of the keys to these indigenous traditions and institutions is that they reflect power and constituencies within the country.

Sadly, all too typical of what passes for the American 'thinking elite.'

I'm not talking actual academics. Stuff that originates in many Ivy Halls usually has to be heavily researched, there's premium on insight, publications are extensively peer reviewed.

And they're pretty much ignored.

Instead, you have a kind of false academics, guys with credentials but who inhabit a shadowy world of policy groups, think tanks, and cocktail parties, and who write books, publish articles, all for some goofball, poorly thought out consensus of Empire Uber Alles.

Etzioni's presence here irks me too. Not because of what he says (I'm happy to debate him) but because of how he treats the forum. The few times he has engaged with commenters here, it's been to say he won't engage with people whop use screen names.

I disagree with just about everything he writes, but that's not the point. Even board members of Goldman Sachs who have posted here have taken the time to try to address objections and to engage with TPM's members.

Etzioni seems to be only here to lecture us. He just doesn't seem to care whether or not we a) understand his lectures or b) agree with them or c) challenge them of d) ask questions.

About the only good thing you can say is that his posts sometimes generate good discussions among us. I'm much more likely to get schooled by you or cscs or Valdron in a thread like this than by the good professor.

Even Joe Klein over at Swampland is more willing to engage than Etzioni.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Valdron: "false academics." Yes, and it's another factor besides the media that distort the political process. The conservative machine depends on both. Can't get a scholar to take your claim seriously? Found the AEI, Cato, and the Hoover, all available to appear on a TV panel near you and with the additional benefit of a revolving door when the GOP is in power. You can even luck out and parley government experience into a better resume that actually snags a real professorship somewhere. 

I wish I knew what to do about this. There's no point in setting up pretend academic institutions in response. We don't have the right's unlimited funding; the scholarship already exists in the university; and the right anyhow responds that academics are all biased. Short of media skepticism in greeting their conclusions, which won't happen, I'm totally at a loss.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Bloodshed in Iraq is a completely different thing.

True, the road to Democracy can be a bumpy thing. I recall that the United States had something called a 'Civil War.'

British Democracy evolved gradually, and only after a lot of social strife and aggravation.

But mostly, there are consistent themes. A broad consensus on rules and practice exists. A 'marketplace' or 'meeting place' exists where government is hammered out. When social conflicts arise, the current rulining elites, rather than exterminating the challengers, eventually expand the meeting place to give them a seat. Eventually the meeting place expands to give everyone a seat.

The Saudi's are generally considered to be corrupt and devious. But really, what they are is a society whose 'ruling marketplace' has expanded and is continually expanding, and who would rather allow their enemies a seat at the table to keep them quiet, rather than exterminate them.

It pisses us off because one of the parties finding a seat at the table are radical islamists. That's one of those 'bumps in the road.'

The thing that bothers me the most about America is almost that your country is developing reverse democracy.

The meeting place is getting smaller, interested parties are evicted from the table, accommodation is abandoned in favour of winner take all and fuck the losers.

Take a look at Congress. How many Representatives and Senators are millionaires? Multi-Millionaires?

Joe Lieberman considers himself an average guy. His family's annual income ranges from 250,000 to 500,000 a year. They reported $366,000 in income in 2005, which puts them in the top 1% of American income earners. His personal assets are valued at between half a million and two million, not counting homes in Connecticut and Washington which might be worth another couple of million. And then there's talk of 'family trusts.'

So how much is Joe Lieberman really worth? A million? Two million? Five million?

What does this mean? What sort of people does Lieberman socialize with? What issues does he understand? Does he really have any clue as to what its like to work a backbreaking minimum wage job? To have to sit hours on the buses to get to and from that job? To be standing in a checkout line with a loaf of bread and be wondering if you really need it? To struggle to make the rent each month?

Does Joe Lieberman appreciate the realities of being unemployed and desperate? Does he have any insight into a forty-five year old blue collar worker whose job has been shipped overseas and who has a mortgage to pay and a family to take care of and who is now being told that 'retraining' for the new economy is the way to go... as if he can become a software engineer just like that?

Does Joe Lieberman appreciate the reality of blacks, of latinos, of women (apparently not given the rape gurney comment), of poor, of working class, of farmers, of small towns, of the middle class.

Joe's world, Joe's society, Joe's reality is that 1% of America who are benefitting like gangbusters from George W. Bush. These are the people he knows, these are the people he talks to and listens to. These are the good people, the articulate people, the charming people. These are the people who understand Joe's personal life and situation because they share it.

Joe Lieberman doesn't represent his constituents. God forbid. No, Joe Lieberman represents to his constituents.

Joe Lieberman is an ambassador from his 1% to the rest of us.

Think about that.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not singling out Joe. Well, yes I am, but only to illustrate my point.

Every single Democratic Presidential candidate in the 2004 election had a personal worth of ten million or more. Kerry was arguably a billionaire.

Bush and Cheney? Multi-millionaires. Bush's cabinet? Multi-millionaires.

Congress? A millionaires club.

Where are the union leaders in congress? Where are the community activists? Where's the working stuff? Where's the middle class? Where's Mister Smith.

Is it really democracy when almost a nation's entire leadership is drawn from a tiny 1% economic and social class?

I look at America and it seems to me that the table just keeps gettins smaller. For all the lip service in elections, voting declines. Why? Because for a lot of people, politicians no longer speak to them, they no longer speak for them, they don't address anything meaningful. People feel that politicians simply do as they wish and their opinions, their concerns aren't valued. They don't feel they're dropping out, they feel that they're being dropped.

Look at how the Democratic party gives the back of the hand to so many of its constituencies - blacks, latinos, immigrants, women.

What major Democratic candidate is willing to speak aggressively to black issues? Where was Obama when the Supreme Court eviscerated Brown vs. Board of Education?

What major Democratic candidate is willing to argue for women's issues? Where is Hillary Clinton on day care, pay equity, reproductive rights?

Instead of representing blacks or women, American politics gives us establishment candidates with black or women's faces. But behind it all, is a tiny ruling class of wealth and corporate interests.

I dunno.

It gets depressing.

It's a screwed up world when I can look at Saudi Arabia and see seeds of hope, and then look at America, the shining beacon, and watch with horror as it renounces everything that made it great.

Why Most Moderate Pakistanis Now Dislike America

"But here is my question:

We in Pakistan also want to have liberty, freedom of speech and a rule of law. Why is it that the US Administration persists in supporting a despot who is denying us our basic rights as human beings?"

"In today’s Pakistan, a country where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is illegally held in confinement, then physically manhandled and then put on trial on mendacious charges, can any ordinary citizen hope for a modicum of justice? The clear answer is no.

For example, we have hundreds of people ‘missing’, that is they have been picked up by mysterious ‘agency’ personnel who refuse to be answerable in any court of law. Why? Because they act for Musharraf. And no, these missing people are not typically religious extremists - a large number of them happen to be Musharraf’s political opponents from the provinces of Sindh and Balochistan who have been labelled as ‘enemies of the state’.

Reality states that Bush’s so-called ‘War on Terror’ has allowed his supporting cast to create their own Guantanamos all over the place.".....

"...by continually propping up Musharraf, Washington is behaving towards 165 million Pakistanis as if we are of no consequence – in other words relegating us to a level of collateral human fodder."

I wish you were right. Etzioni ain't into jokes, though. And... of course, you knew that when you posted this witty rejoinder.

Thanks for the laugh!

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

To paraphrase Jefferson, successful Democracies are based on a well educated populace. A strong middle class and a commitment to the rule of law are also essential elements to keep the Democracy functioning. What else can we throw into the mix that has been well documented, let’s see, how about a commitment to country and a true belief in the free rights of others; including freedom of religion.

India is a work in progress, but also, in my opinion, a successful democracy. We can go into its weaknesses and its successes elsewhere. The point is that in 1947, when India became independent, it had few of the ingredients mentioned above. So why does it work?

I think one of the ingredients that is missing in the list is the idea that political differences will not be attempted to be solved by violence. That is what the Gandhian method brought to India, and holds India together even while India tries to develop all the Jeffersonian ingredients. Indeed, India's failures lie mostly in the area where this consensus has broken down.

Once we agree that no matter how vehemently we disagree we will not arrest or jail or beat up or bomb each other, we are led to democratic governance and a rule of law.

Please note there is very real violence for political purposes in India, even today - very far from perfect, India is. But the path to improvement is open. The gridlock that has gripped the Middle East is not there.

-- Therein also lies a clue as to how the US should use its influence. The repression by say, the Egyptian government, of violent elements in Egypt is acceptable. The repression of political opponents of the government is not. The US should not be arming either side, and should be using its considerable clout to make sure that no one else is either.

In other words, if we must meddle, then we are there to help maintain the absence of violence within which other peoples can work out for themselves their destinies.

And the Pentagon has outsourced "government" to unacountable corporate mercenaries.

Again I will posit the new-generation neocons-in-training who post here are trying out for policy positions in the Hillary Clinton Administration.

sPh

All of the major Islamic countries have none of these basics that would allow for a successful democracy. There is no substantial middle class. Economic and wealth stratification have the extremely wealthy and the underclasses that have no economic power.

Education for the wealthy may include extensive studies in traditional secular subjects but the poor are educated in fundamentalist religious schools.

There is more of a commitment to family or tribe and no commitment to any larger group.

Among the masses the rule of law is whatever the elder determines it to be or it is derived from ancient religious law. None of these practices respects the rights of others.

This is why Democracy failed in Iraq and will fail in most Islamic states if attempted. All these issues are show stoppers as well. If these issues are not addressed by the people themselves(not the U.S. or its meddlesome liberal elites) there is no way bring democracy into these Islamic states.

At best you'll get one man one vote and then imposition of Shariah based laws followed by Imans and tribal with personal militias calling the shots. Just like Iraq.

It's not hard to learn about Iran if you try. here's something interesting.
And this
And there are plenty of recent movies available in the US.
Read anything by Christopher de Bellaigue or Shirin Ebadi

I don't mean to be glib, or maybe I do. or maybe I just can't make up my mind.

This is one of the better threads we've had in awhile. Everyone has made smart, interesting comments and arguments and I appreciate the contributions made by the TPM community to the TPM community.

To paraphrase Jefferson, successful Democracies are based on a well educated populace. A strong middle class and a commitment to the rule of law are also essential elements to keep the Democracy functioning. What else can we throw into the mix that has been well documented, let’s see, how about a commitment to country and a true belief in the free rights of others; including freedom of religion.

I know - I am sceptical beyond repair!!! But I have had a bad experience with hope!

Yes, us lesser creatures need the helping hand of the big brother!

yeah, I just already have a stack of books to read and I don't even have the time to read them right now. Basically, reading and posting here is a stress reliever for me.

Valdron - You are really on a great roll - keep it up.

England has a long history of the rule of law. Shakespeare is often quoted: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." (Henry VI, part 2, Act. IV, Scene 2)

The quote is almost always misused as well. Shakespeare puts it in the mouth of a utopian revolutionary, because they know that if the lawyers were not killed, they could not take over the kingdom. Thus, Shakespeare is telling us that it is lawyers who protect your rights and your liberties. It is lawyers who ensure that the government can never become despotic.

I often think about this, because it is not clear to me that lawyers are doing that job in this country anymore. We have just as many lawyers on the side of those who would undermine our democracy as we have protecting the Constitution.

Nonetheless, even though England has a long history of legal rights, they still produced Sir Robert Filmer who argued that religion justified the monarchy and the king could demand obedience from his subjects. After all, God had made Adam the first king on earth, and even though there were now many kings, certainly one was a descendant of Adam. And even if we cannot tell which King it is, we are bound to follow our King on the chance that he might be Adam's descendant and the true king of the world.

Of course, it was Filmer's discourse on these matters that lead John Locke to respond in his Two Treatises of Government. In the first treatise he set about defeating Filmer's religious justification for monarchy, and in the second, he brought together the first general statement of and argument for liberal democracy.

Thus, I think it is quite possible that Valdron is correct here. Specifically, having a religious monarchy may not be a bad thing. Not that it is a necessary step in some linear progression, but it is something that conscientious members of the society can overcome.

For what it's worth, I did not intend to disagree with you, John, this was more of a stream of consciousness post.

What about the presence of TNR on the Talking Points blogroll? It is like the presence of David Brooks on the NYT editorial page -- a continuous insult to to readers that's hard to explain.

(Amitai Etzioni is a "screen name" for Werner Falk)

Josh Marshall has stated, I dunno what the right word is - admiration? - for the overall DLC philosophy on several occasion. Particuarly the foreign policy aspects of the DLC. Marshall Wittman was a front-page poster during the first six months of this site if you recall. JM became a bit radicialized on certain issues (notably Social Security) and has moved a bit in the progressive direction but I suspect his overall sympathies are still with the DLC worldview.

Which is part of why I maintain that these postings aren't just random or for "balance" but are being used as a vehicle to demonstrate DLC foreign policy goodthink to the Clinton campaign.

sPh

If I might be permitted an addendum to my comment, after listing to this morning's Meet The Press, I realized that while I am far to the left of both men, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia and representative John Murtha of Pennsylvannia are the only two Democrats who speak with the conviction, passion and certainty that represents my view. Both men are Conservative Democrats.

"My neighbor might think bad thoughts about me; ...But I do not have the right to enter his house ..."

Dan K I am disappointed in this. There are major differences between individuals and gavernments, and statements like this, implying they are more or less the same, are very deceptive. You do "not have the right" ONLY because of an effective government that protects you from your neighbor and your neighbor from you. There is no effective world government that serves a similar purpose.

I must confess to being confused about Mazzini v. Manzoni.  I've sung the Verdi Requiem 7 times since 1963, and can probably do 75% of the bass/baritone choral parts from memory if pressed.  Verdi indeed dedicated the Requiem to Alessandro Manzoni. So I apologize for the bit of misinformation which will now circulate on the Internets indefinitely.  What can I say sing in apology for my egregious error? Caution---moosic will download and play but it is good moosic.,

Verdi's politics were congenial with those of Mazzini, however, and he had his own bumps with authority.  The Masked Ball morphed from Sweden to Colonial Boston because writing into it the assassination of a king was a political no no. 

Verdi's, Mazzini's and Manzoni's political sympathies were attuned to each other.  All were Italian Nationalists, all were Anti-Austrian.  With full disclosure I've read no Manzoni, it would seem that his views were liberal for his era, and his book I Promessi Sposi or The Betrothed, was about more than medieval judicial practices.  Most reviews of it seem to place it in the 19th Century Gothic Romance category--which, if true, would seem to indicate one doesn't have to enthusiastically endorse what one wrote about.  Sir Walter Scott didn't endorse jousting or judgment by combat when he wrote Ivanhoe.    As to why the book wasn't popular in the United States...Edgar Allan Poe seems to suggest one reason:  a lousy translation.

We regret to say that the translation has many faults. We lament it the more, because they are obviously faults of haste. The translator, we fear, was hungry; a misfortune with which we know how to sympathize.

With regard to the English Monarchy, my original comment was that the road to democracy in England wasn't without bumps as well.   Even the famous Magna Carta had little or no immediate effect.  The King repudiated it as soon as the Barons (the peers who were to be tried by their peers) took the knife from his throat. 

If we look at the situation from Henry VII to "Hertz Rent a Monarch" I think most would grant a hearty degree of absolutism:

• Henry VII (1485-1509) revived the Star Chamber (A model for Richard Cheney, perhaps?)
• Henry VIII (1509-1547) definitely absolute (Charles Laughton is my favorite:  he could gnaw on a legbone better than any--Henry VIII disagrees with me, so I better be careful). 
• Edward VI (1547-1553)  all that work to produce a male heir, only to have the lad die at 15.  'tis a pity.
• Jane doesn't count.  She wasn't crowned, and shortly she would have nothing upon which to put a crown.
• Mary(1553-1558) Bloody Mary.  Need one say more?
• Elizabeth I (1558 - 1603)  Gloriana.  Absolutist--yes, as well.  I suspect Elizabeth I would have been elected Queen any number of times...she was well liked, if not always loved, by a country exhausted by H, H, E, J, & M.
• James I (1603 - 1625)  Absolutist enough to send the pilgrims  into exile.
• Charles II (1625 - 1649) Absolutist wanna-be.  Came to an happy end (for him) but remains to this day as a rallying point for the most ardent Anglicans as King Charles the Martyr.
• Oliver Cromwell-- well strictly speaking a Lord Protector isn't a monarch at all... but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . .
• Charles II (1660-1685) Probably the only non-absolutist on the list so far.  Preferred living well and dying in bed, and succeeded at both.  Snappy Dresser.  I bet his haircuts cost $400.00 (or the wigs did, anyhow).
• James II (1685-1688).  Should have learned something from his older bro.  Didn't. I tell my brother not to follow James II's example.  Exiled in "The Glorious Revolution". 
• William III (1689-1702) and Mary (1689-94) The first constitutional monarchs, made so by signing the English Bill of Rights, acknowledging the supremacy of Parliament.

Two revolutions, countless executions, civil war.. all within a period of about 200 years.  I think this constitutes a "bumpy road".

aMike

"Joe Lieberman considers himself an average guy. His family's annual income ranges from 250,000 to 500,000 a year. ... So how much is Joe Lieberman really worth? A million? Two million? Five million?... What sort of people does Lieberman socialize with? What issues does he understand? Does he really have any clue as to what its like to work a backbreaking minimum wage job? ...Does Joe Lieberman appreciate the realities of being unemployed and desperate? ...Does Joe Lieberman appreciate the reality of blacks, of latinos, of women."

Why Joe Lieberman? Does he really loom so large in your world? You could just as easily used FDR, JFK, LBJ, or for that matter George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and many of the rest of them.

Take your reasoning to an extreme -- the successful should not be allowed to contribute to the country simply by reason of their success -- and you soon get Pol Pot.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not singling out Joe. Well, yes I am, but only to illustrate my point.

Missed this part, did you, Bucko?

Reading the whole thing: It's not just a suggestion, it's a damned good idea.

Interesting, the idea that the "principle of sovereign equality" is a major cause of the relative World peace that has prevailed since 1945. If so it is the greatest endorsement of the UN I've ever heard.

I do not know about etiquette, but it strikes me as pointless.

This site is a bit "elitist", and most of us try to formulate inteligent objections, siting actual facts etc. People like Etzioni or Anne-Marie Slaughter could benefit from some dialogue, if only to make their arguments more convincing in the future. For example, by giving a more concrete example of ideas presented in abstraction, like it happened in this case.

I especially like your last paragraph here. It is deceptively simple statement of a profound truth.

You've obviously mistaken me for a liberal. I respect liberals but I'm not one of them. The difference between me and a liberal, is that a liberal practices tolerance. A liberal would put up with your bullshit. A liberal would not tear you a new asshole.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not singling out Joe. Well, yes I am, but only to illustrate my point.

Learn to read the whole thing or get out of my face. I'm not inclined to cater to the antics of pseudo-intellectual goofery.

If I wanted to, I could clip some sentence of yours out of context, inflate it into a balloon and then tilt at it. But you know what, that's just assinine and I can't be bothered.

And if I can't be bothered to employ this tactic, I sure as hell can't be bothered to indulge some knob who uses it.

Now go away and manufacture straw men somewhere else. Grown ups are talking here.

You want to have a run at me, come back when your testicles have descended, if they ever do.

But right now, you're wasting my time.