Several weeks ago Smiling Neocon and I were having one of our customary arguments, which usually center on socialism, U.S. foreign policy, or depressing Israeli movies. In the course of the conversation we got to the issue of how in internationale disputes each 'democratic' nation must always giver other democratic governments preference over their more autocratic counterparts, so as to encourage democracy. I contended that no democratic government every actually did this, and that most democratic countries (including the U.S.) had no interest in whether their allies allowed basic freedoms or not. To cap it off, I somewhat sarcastically remarked that "It's not like we're part of some Democratic Internationale which tries to encourage personal freedom and government accountability around the world."
Thinking about it now, though, why aren't we?
It might seem like this idea has been done to death. We've already had at least three Communist internationales, and we've still got a Socialist Internationale (actually for social democrats), a Liberal International, a Green Internationale, and even a right-wing conservative Internationale, which started calling itself the 'Freedom International' after 9/11.
Still, why is this a useless idea? In the world today there is no government or major party that has dedicated its resources to helping other countries achieve popular self-rule. Instead, we have ideologically bound organizations which focus almost exclusively on economic issues. So, private-property rights or collective ownership rights are stressed to the neglect of freedoms of speech, conscience, religion, and equality under the law.
As the symbol of this new Democratic Internationale, there are many options, though I suppose an Athenian laurel crown would do perfectly well.
