Why are Democrats so opposed to free societies? Do they only value dictators and socialists?

Question

Why are they so opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries being free democracies?

Answer 1

Like the one we have where the government can spy on you and listen in to your phone calls and arrest and detain you with no phone call and sieze your emails and torture prisoners of war and destroy the evidence. Is that the free democracy you are talking about?

Answer 2

Most Democrats are entirely in favor of individual freedom. That, by the way, is what being a "liberal" means.

Many Republicans, and many American conservatives, are also "liberal" in this sense. They are classical liberals, a political and economic philosophy hailing back to Edmund Burke and Adam Smith, and also exemplified by Thomas Jefferson's "That government is best which governs least."

Democrats and others called "liberal" in traditional American politics are technically "neoliberals"; they consider economic freedom essential for any really effective form of individual liberty, and regard government as capable of taking an active role in promoting that kind of freedom. Among the widely-accepted benefits of that approach we might consider the examples of the FDA, the FTC, the SEC, the federal don't-call list, Canada's development of canola, and child-labor laws. More controversial government intrusions include Social Security, OSHA, the Defense Interstate Highway System, and the public school system.

With respect to invading foreign countries to set up "free societies," the controversy has little to do with being a Republican or a Democrat (except that one party has tied itself to someone inclined to do such things, and the other party is therefore opposed), and a great deal to do with the obvious question of whether any country can be forced into democracy by military occupation.

The U.S. also has a rather ugly record in that region with regard to undermining and destroying democracy when it doesn't like the winner of the election. During the Eisenhower administration, the CIA arranged the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran and the installation of a puppet with pretensions to royalty. Had the elected government been left in charge, the present radical Shiite regime would probably not have obtained sufficient support to seize power.

This sort of incident undermines the credibility of "democracies" installed by U.S. fiat, and raises questions about whether the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to remain stable if not shored up by the U.S. military.

Answer 3

I don't think it's the Democrats who unconstitutionally, illegally, unjustifiably and immorally invaded another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States. I believe it was a Republican administration that claimed it was "bringing democracy" to Iraq, whether it wanted democracy or not.
Why are Republicans so adamant that every other country on Earth be a free society? What business is it of ours whether any other country wants to be led by a democracy, republic, dictatorship or totalitarian government? Democracy hasn't worked all that well in the United States during these past fifty or sixty years, as a monopolistic, corrupt two-party political system has maintained a stranglehold on the voters' freedom to choose the kind of candidates they'd prefer. Instead, we're forced to 'vote' for the "Republicrat" candidates who will 'tow the line' and maintain the 'status quo' of corrupt, arrogant, contemptible, incompetent, cowardly 'leadership' that spends taxpayers' dollars like it was their own money, and has little regard for the people to whom they were elected to be subservient.
-RKO- 12/20/07

Answer 4

We would love the entire world to be democracies. We also realize that many don't want to be democracies. Who are we to force our system on them if they don't want it? You can bet if there was no oil in that part of the world we wouldn't be anywhere near there and would tolerate the dictatorships just like those in other parts of the world. It has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans but foreign policy. Our foreign policy under both Democratic and Republican Presidents has been, since WWII ended, one of butting into the affairs of other countries. We need to stop that. While I don't advocate isolationism I also don't advocate butting into the affairs of others. A good balance of intervention and steering clear will keep us where we need to be as the world's policeman.

Answer 5

No they are NOT against this , they are against forcing other countries to obide by what we as Americans feel is best for them. Who are we to impose this on other nations? We have far too many problems here at home to be out on a crusade to force Democracy as we see it upon other nations. One of the main factors of Democracy is FREEDOM of Choice and we are NOT allowing these people to have that as we FORCE our beliefs down their throats.

Answer 6

Not really.

I oppose preventative wars, CIA regime changes, etc.

I am appalled by the US tolerance of Saudi Arabia and nations like Uzbekistan.

I just don't believe that war or assaination or military coup is the way to assimilate others - and I don't want others to be assimilated.

Why to conservatives think otherwise?

Answer 7

Why did the E.P.A. administrator reject state fuel economy standards? I thought the Republican argument was always that state governments should have more power than the federal government. Doesn't the E.P.A. administrator believe in a free society?

Answer 8

The administration supports Saudi Arabia which is one of the most totalatarian regiems in the world

Answer 9

They're not. They're against sending our men and women into a needless war.

Answer 10

I don't know; I never heard a Democratic President say, "I AM THE DECIDER."