Is
America's Democracy so exceptional that it will defy gravity and remain afloat
to eternity? Or will it follow the pattern established by previous empires and
come down to earth eventually? Two recently published articles give us a chance
to probe into these questions.
One
article came under the title: “The Case for Leaving Syria,” and the subtitle:
“With the military and various domestic programs facing budget cuts, the United
States shouldn't be throwing more money at the Middle East.” It was written by
Douglas MacGregor and published on November 23, 2018 in The National Interest.
The other article came under the title: “The democracy myth,” written by
Richard Rahn and published on November 26, 2018 in The Washington Times.
Before
we delve into what these two gentlemen are saying, we'll do well to dispense of
a canard that has always interfered with the proper conduct of debates on this
topic. It is false to say that the wealthy countries of Western Europe became
wealthy because they adopted a liberal democratic system of government. There
simply was no such cause and effect relationship between the two.
The
truth is that wealth and the adoption of democracy have one and the same
origin. They are the outcomes of three elements that converged at the same
time. These were the Industrial Revolution, the invention of artillery (the
gun) and the revival of the Roman concept of conquering and colonizing the
resource-rich lands that had not the means to defend themselves.
The
Industrial Revolution so disrupted the lives of ordinary people in Western
Europe, the people revolted and demanded a better distribution of the wealth.
This forced the feudal rulers at the time to devolve some of their “political”
powers, but were reluctant to part with their wealth. Thinking hard, they got
the idea of enlarging the pie and distributing some of it among the masses
rather than share what they had, and live a poorer life.
From
this point on, it did not require much imagination for the rulers to realize
that enlarging the pie could be realized with the use of the gun to go conquer
and loot the wealth of those overseas that lacked the means to defend
themselves. And this is when the triplets of liberal democracy, colonialism and
Europe's rise to wealth were born at the same time to the same parents.
In
time, a kind of schism developed between the North and the South of Europe. The
Northern colonial powers accumulated wealth at a faster rate than the South, and
transferred it to their North American colonies which became wealthy as well.
As to the colonial powers of Southern Europe, they transferred their diminished
level of wealth to their South American colonies, which remained poorer than
the North. What both had in common, however, was that they gave themselves a
higher standard of living than the rest of the world by continuing the
tradition of their European founders of using the gun, the conquest of the
indigenous populations, and the colonization of their lands to enrich
themselves and their people.
The
question before us is this: Considering that (1) industry is no longer the
monopoly of one group of people, but is spread throughout the globe, (2) the
gun has lost its effectiveness when it comes to subjugating even the people
that have little with which to defend themselves, and (3) colonization by
conquest to acquire the land or resources of others, is no longer a viable
option — can the democracies, including
America, continue to carry on as usual? Or will they have to adapt lest they
perish?
Douglas
Macgregor uses the Syria situation to show why the gun is no longer effective
at subjugating people who are willing to die defending the freedom of those
they leave behind. And so, he recommends that America should pull its troops
out of Syria, and let the locals sort out their differences. Failing this,
Macgregor warns that: “Now, on the precipice of more cuts in defense spending
with the survival of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid at stake, the
misguided use of US military power and the disaster it creates are not
affordable”.
As
to Richard Rahn, he begins his discussion with a question that throws doubt at
the idea that democracy is as real as described by its adherents, let alone the
panacea it is cracked up to be. Here is that question: “Would you prefer to
live in a country that has a high degree of individual liberty but is not a
democracy, or live in a democracy where individual liberties are curtailed?”
What
this says is that liberty and democracy do not necessarily march together. When
you add to this the Macgregor's idea that democracy does not guarantee the good
management of the nation's finances, you begin to wonder if the existing
liberal democracies, including the United States, will remain the dominant
powers in the future.