08/11: Why I Am Not a Democrat, part 2
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
In an earlier post, I explained one reason I am not a Democrat. "When it comes to Domestic Policy, the core value of the Democratic Party is simple to state, simple to understand, and has predictible policy implications. In a nutshell, the Democratic Party core value is: The Federal Government Is Responsible for the Well-Being of American Citizens." This Core Value, and the policies that result from it, create dependent instead of independent individuals, take responsibilities from families and communities, and starve voluntary organizations of money because of high taxes, and render both families and voluntary societies without significant purpose.
Another reason I am not a Democrat has to do with the core assumptions on Foreign Policy by the party. In a nutshell, the Democratic Party believes that world problems usually are the fault of America, a basically evil country, and the solution to conflict in the world is more international organization.
Regarding the first assumption. I readily admit that we have, and do, cause problems in the world. Our culture does it, spreading immorality and materialism through film and television. Our economic policies do it, market capitalism tending to destroy small farmers and village life. And our political policies have done it, for example supporting tyrants when we feared communism. But, automatically assuming that any world problem is somehow our fault is simplistic and egoistic. We are incapable of influencing everything in the world, for bad or good. And, other nations and peoples can be forces for change in their own right, both good and bad. In addition, the assumption that America is basically an evil country and a force simply for evil is simplistic thinking, reducing everything to black and white. Nations are grey, usually. And nations are not the same shade of grey. In comparative terms, we have done more good than most nations: feeding the hungry, preserving freedom, maintaining some semblence of law and order. (The carnage in the Balkans stopped, for example, only when we acted. When we have refused to act, as in Rwanda or Darfur, the carnage continued/es.)
Regarding the second assumption. International organizations usually cannot accomplish squat (re: the UN) unless we take a leading role, including military force or its threat. And, as I argued in a previous post, most world governments are not legitimate expressions of the will of their people. Why should we regard them as having the same moral status as a freely elected government? International organizations, for example the EU or the UN, tend toward rule by unelected burearcrats, the will of the people be damned. We did not fight a revolution to give up our liberty to international bureaucracies.
Another reason I am not a Democrat has to do with the core assumptions on Foreign Policy by the party. In a nutshell, the Democratic Party believes that world problems usually are the fault of America, a basically evil country, and the solution to conflict in the world is more international organization.
Regarding the first assumption. I readily admit that we have, and do, cause problems in the world. Our culture does it, spreading immorality and materialism through film and television. Our economic policies do it, market capitalism tending to destroy small farmers and village life. And our political policies have done it, for example supporting tyrants when we feared communism. But, automatically assuming that any world problem is somehow our fault is simplistic and egoistic. We are incapable of influencing everything in the world, for bad or good. And, other nations and peoples can be forces for change in their own right, both good and bad. In addition, the assumption that America is basically an evil country and a force simply for evil is simplistic thinking, reducing everything to black and white. Nations are grey, usually. And nations are not the same shade of grey. In comparative terms, we have done more good than most nations: feeding the hungry, preserving freedom, maintaining some semblence of law and order. (The carnage in the Balkans stopped, for example, only when we acted. When we have refused to act, as in Rwanda or Darfur, the carnage continued/es.)
Regarding the second assumption. International organizations usually cannot accomplish squat (re: the UN) unless we take a leading role, including military force or its threat. And, as I argued in a previous post, most world governments are not legitimate expressions of the will of their people. Why should we regard them as having the same moral status as a freely elected government? International organizations, for example the EU or the UN, tend toward rule by unelected burearcrats, the will of the people be damned. We did not fight a revolution to give up our liberty to international bureaucracies.
