Vance Kirklin, MBA was chosen as a “guest blogger of honor” to be published by International Observation due to his articulated insight into the evolution of the democratic state and world affairs. While his discussion is particular to his worldview of democracy his view presents an educated assessment of current affairs, enlightening addition to previous discussions, and further emphasizes the diversity of perspectives regarding theories of democracy. For reference, I encourage readers to refer to the earlier post “Democratic Peace: Real or Imagined?” which can be found in an earlier segment.
If we are indeed moving toward a socialist democracy, then it is in direct opposition to the foundational principles upon which our nation was established. The unfortunate implementation of federal socialist programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, and other entitlement programs has resulted in unforeseen consequences that simply lead to greater entitlement demands. Individuals, families, communities and religious bodies once fulfilled the role of support for the “widows and orphans” of our world. Now we can stand, disinterested, on the sidelines, and expect our munificent government to fill that role. Gone (or at least dwindling) is the personal responsibility to be our brother’s keeper, with all the requisite empathetic contact that requires. Instead, the government gives and the government taketh away…by coercion via taxation. I won’t go into the lack of a single example of an efficient and effective government program at this time. Suffice to say that Medicare and our newly bankrupt Social Security provide adequate evidence to the contrary.
Peace is a nebulous and difficult to define concept. To some it is the complete absence of any form of conflict. Others see it as an internal state of being that can be attained regardless of external circumstances. Some would argue that, compared to many countries around the world, we live in a relatively safe and peaceful nation. Do we still have differences of opinion on a number of topics? Absolutely…once again, it is human nature. One of the prices we pay for freedom is the right to differ, even drastically, on any number of topics. But we must not automatically mislabel those differences of opinion as prejudice or hate. Once again, some will take differences to the extreme, resulting in violent disagreement, rather than exuberant discussion. On the other hand, tolerance for the sake of tolerance, no matter how destructive the issue or behavior, is a sure recipe for future disaster. Ask France and Spain how it’s going with the growing Muslim population. As for democracy, if by that you mean a system where simple majorities rule, I will fall back once again to our founders’ comments about “mob rule” and its repercussions.
When it comes to our economic interaction with undeveloped or developing nations, my personal sense is that we do way too much “giving of fishes” and not enough “teaching to fish.” I strongly agree with your comment regarding corruption and commitment. The controversy, for me, is whether to continue providing aid to nations with corrupt governments, knowing full well that little if any is actually reaching those who need it, or only to those where we can provide direct support. When we provide no aid, we are criticized for being selfish. When we provide aid to corrupt nations, we are criticized for contributing to their national issues. When we provide aid directly to groups and citizens, we are criticized for attempting to curry favor or establish economic control. Quite a quandary.
As for economic misconduct as it relates to US businesses interacting with industries in developing or undeveloped nations, I find myself vacillating. Buying products from overseas companies that pay their workers $1 a day seems unfair, but only when compared to our own wage structure. In actuality, that $1 may be twice what they were able to make before, providing an instant 100% increase in standard of living for a number of families, not to mention an increasing base of skilled and experienced workers for other companies or industries. If we apply pressure, economic or otherwise, pushing those companies to pay more to their workers, the consequence may be that they can no longer compete, as another organization, local or in a different nation, will rise to undercut them. In that case, that new higher standard of living disappears. Is that beneficial? Like our own process of moving from pioneering to agricultural to industrial to complex service, industrial and agricultural economy, the progression takes time to establish communal knowledge, demand and infrastructure. I’m not sure it can be rushed in any significant manner, although programs such as micro-loans can potentially speed the process in a localized way.
When has there been a time when the world was not multi-polar in nature? Nations rise and fall. Cultures are assimilated, morphing into new, more complex cultures, and hopefully maintaining what is good, while minimizing that which caused their eventual demise. Unless they can isolate and remove the competitive gene completely from our DNA, it will always be so. I’m not sure that is a bad thing, since it is competition that drives evolutionary improvement in all forms. I am always intrigued by my secular friends who adamantly believe in all aspects of Darwinism, yet fail to recognize that many of the socialistic programs they support (also adamantly) would result in a weakening of the human gene pool that evolutionary processes depend upon. But I digress.
Because it is our fundamental focus on freedom and individual “pursuit of happiness” that has allowed us to grow and prosper, I would maintain that we should not alter that in the cause of multipolarity with nations who do not share that foundational belief. For instance, Iran (who announced their entry into the world of nuclear nations today) does not hate us because we hate them. They (defined as their leaders and some portion of the citizenry) hate us because we support our ally, Israel, with whom they have been at war since the beginning of recorded history. Specifics such as our licentiousness and worldliness are simply straw men used to establish targets for that hatred and validate any acts of violence that result. I would fear the result if the US and its allies did not stand strong in defiance of Iran (and other countries) who would destroy nations based on centuries-old conflicts. That in itself most likely inhibits the future of multipolarity.
For our nation to recover from the present economic downturn, we must return to the principles which, since our nation’s inception, have provided the impetus for individual and corporate growth. There will always be those who take advantage of freedom. The answer, however, is not to restrain the vast majority in order to protect against the less-than-moral minority. The current trend toward increased federal intervention in the business of individuals and states is a sure recipe for economic disaster, with all the parallel consequences that entails.
**Thank You Mr. Kirklin for your contribution. May I also recommend another perspective for readers regarding “Obstacles to Democracy” by the Peace Council at: http://www.peacecouncil.net/pnl/04/738/738demo.htm
Helena Baillio's Blog 
Helen, thanks for giving me the opportunity to enter into this discussion. I wonder if it might be helpful for your readers if they could see your post that I was responding to…mine seems a bit disjointed without seeing the paragraphs in between.Thanks again,Vance
I encourage readers to refer to the previous post "Democratic Peace: Real or Imagined" for a reference point on this discussion. For more information, please refer to the new material at the top of this post. Thanks for reading and I look forward to your feedback!
Compliments on your article Democratic Theory… and digging into that meaty topic. Allow me to mention two areas I noticed which may need further thinking.1. Democracy = rule of majority? Superficial coverage here. Maybe it's "protection of the minority" as Abe said. But, if so it's not the minority you mention. The minority is you and I, taken out of our 'normal' context and placed into one in which we need to stand alone or apart. As you age you may see that this single element is perhaps the most difficult. Yet, on the other side is one's treasure- self identity.2. Darwinism = survival of fittest and adaptation. Conventionally and yet superficially also is the assumption that this deals with only the physical, or maybe also the mental attributes of a living organism. Darwin wisely never pinned his theories to the human. But, if you decide to use it there, as many have, a more enlarged view reveals the following: more spiritual aspects of man must consider the advancement of moral and compassionate behavior that are beyond self-interest. What we have learned from eugenics (locally, and even via Hitler) has really brought us to where we are now.
I firmly believe the democratic peace is Real. I say this because the study international relations, for all intents and purposes, began in Europe and thus performs most analysis against the backdrop of waring states and the Peace of Westphalia. When we consider this, it is easy to see that the threat of cross-boarder/international conflicts (at least in Europe) was greatly reduced as countries increasingly became constitutional democracies. This is more evident after WW II and the creation of the UN, EU, and other international institutions. All that being said, there are exceptions. It is true that states will always have something to disagree about, boarders, trade, arms, etc. But, a major dividend of the democratic peace is the creation of international regimes and institutions that allow for dispute and conflict management (seldom resolution).I stand bye the notion of democracy having global applicability but what I question is the applicability of the US model globally. Some cultures are better suited for a more socialist democracy because of their inherent nature. In any case, participation of the people in the affairs of their state is a principle that is applicable in any and all cultures.
To "Anonymous"Thanks for your response! I also agree that democratic peace is feasible and can be real, but as you pointed out as well, the question lies in the applicability of the U.S. model internationally. Most other countries, including a large majority of the UN and EU frown upon the U.S. because of our values. The "Thug culture" has replaced the "American culture" which I feel is disturbing as we aim to assert our idea of "democratic peace" globally. Yesterday, I posted a discussion "Re-inventing Einstein: Empathy= Multi-Culturalism "Pluralism" I addressed the notion of cultural relativity in an attempt to rectify the differences in worldview in an attempt to bridge the gap between different cultures (i.e. the "West vs. the Rest"). I would love to hear your feedback on it, especially how you feel that it can aid in a global democratic peace coming to fruition
I have a few comments. Perhaps I am not fully addressing the main thrust of the article, but I feel they are important points none the less.- Darwinism also applies to societies and communities. Looking after the week may not be good for our physical evolution, but it makes us strong as a society, and strong societies flourish, so it is darwinian evolution that drives the move towards socialism. Similarly democracy is becoming popular because it has tended to create strong wealthy societies.- If you want to give effective aid pay salaries to community workers. That is what makes the difference. Much of the best development is done by community workers with little resources – just pulling the community together to solve their own problems. But it does not happen without a facilitator, and if the facilitators are not paid then they can't put themselves full time into the work, so less can be done.- people and nations (and the whole world) go through stages of development. They start off learning lessons like young children, later have to go through older childhood etc. Freedom is the lesson of the teenage years. After that there is the need to move into how to relate to people well. We have done some really good work exploring freedom, but now it is time to move onto the next stage. You can't go back.Alexander
I have a few comments. Perhaps I am not fully addressing the main thrust of the article, but I feel they are important points none the less.- Darwinism also applies to societies and communities. Looking after the week may not be good for our physical evolution, but it makes us strong as a society, and strong societies flourish, so it is darwinian evolution that drives the move towards socialism. Similarly democracy is becoming popular because it has tended to create strong wealthy societies.- If you want to give effective aid pay salaries to community workers. That is what makes the difference. Much of the best development is done by community workers with little resources – just pulling the community together to solve their own problems. But it does not happen without a facilitator, and if the facilitators are not paid then they can't put themselves full time into the work, so less can be done.- people and nations (and the whole world) go through stages of development. They start off learning lessons like young children, later have to go through older childhood etc. Freedom is the lesson of the teenage years. After that there is the need to move into how to relate to people well. We have done some really good work exploring freedom, but now it is time to move onto the next stage. You can't go back.
Eyebright,I appreciate your insight into freedom as a precursor to development. I think that how we move from freedom to maturation, however, depends on the manner in which it is managed. Similar to what I said about happiness, it comes from within and similarly evolves as you stated in a previous post as well. Using the analogy of adolescence adds value to this discussion as I feel that just as adolescents can 'take the wrong path' and become delinquents so too can a state that exploits its own freedom. Exploring your discussion of strong societies being built upon a sense of socialism, and how it relates to democracy as 'creating strong wealthy societies' then one could argue that socialist-democracy is the correct approach to policy. Realism, where states are self-serving, denies the needs of the weak and will only grant them benefit when the benefit is reciprocal. In that light, a capitalist democracy would not meet the needs of society and oppossingly weaken the strength of the social-state.I agree that for a society to feel secure it depends upon a strong infrastructure. When the people feel that they are vulnerable by any means then insecurity often leads to conflict. One of the strongest strengths of a culture is in its people.Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake professes the relationship of community to infrastructure to resilience. Outside support may reduce the threat to the well-being of the people, but their ability to access their own resources is vital in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster. Given Haiti’s vulnerability and exhaustive history of natural disasters, coupled with insufficient government infrastructure creates an environment of instability where people are insecure and uncertain about their future. Provided that their basic and immediate needs are met then it is important that they reestablish their support systems both within the family and community. It is their cultural, traditional, and social values that expedite their recovery process and enables them the cope in the face of a tragedy. Haitian natives Bell and Danticat reaffirm this notion in their statement:The bamboo symbolizes the Haitian people… The bamboo is really weak, but when the wind comes, it bends, but it doesn’t break. Bamboo takes whatever adversity comes along… that’s what resistance is for us Haitians; we might get bent… but we’re able to straighten up and stand.