I suppose the biggest policy disagreement today centers on how to make the world a peaceful, free place in places where peace and political freedom are virtually unknown.
Conservatives generally support charging in, tearing down the old system, and putting Jeffersonian democracy in it's place.
Liberals support spreading democracy around the world, but via methods other than invasion. Most despotic countries have strong democratic movements which are supressed by the government, often with support and aid from the US government. Liberals would prefer to suspend aid to dictatorial regimes and let countries choose their own fate rather than impose a foreign ideology.
2 comments:
It should be noted, however, that many of these "democratic movements" have little or no viable opposition (i.e. - the NLF in Vietnam, the anti-Shah religious fanatics, the Sandanistas in the time they were leading the "movements"). There are those who believe that replacing a dictatorship with another (albeit homegrown) dictatorship is perhaps not so fabulous an idea.
There are also those who find the idea of a structured policy of isolation, complete with sanctions and suspensions of aid, just a little silly when thousands are being tortured and murdered.
And lastly, there are those who think that it is not a wise decision to let "countries choose their own fate" when such choices threaten the security of the United States and its allies.
There are also those who believe as Churchill one said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have thus been tried." As such, democracy should spread itself.
That being saud, we shouldn't worship at the throne of democracy. Democracy does not beget peace, though, at times it does lead there.
Post a Comment