How Conservatives Hate Democracy--Part 1

[mistertrickster]

We’re all Americans. Liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican, Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken, we all believe in democracy, right? It’s our core belief—the majority rules. It’s what this country stands for—free and fair elections.

A quick look at history since World War II however shows us just the opposite about our conservative compatriots. They are perfectly willing to abide by the will of the majority . . . when it suits them. They are perfectly willing to pay lip-service to the idea of democracy, when it serves their purposes. But as far as really believing in democracy above all else—they don’t.

Consider these inconvenient facts.

In the early 1950’s, Iran’s duly-elected Parliament under the leadership of Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh had the unmitigated gall to vote to keep Iran oil profits in Iran to benefit the people that actually own the oil. This blocked profits to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a multinational corporation with the political pull to influence world powers. Despite Britain’s embargo of Iran, US President Harry Truman refused to allow the CIA to overthrow Mossadegh. Under the conservative Eisenhower, these plans went forward. CIA and British intelligence funded and led a coup d’etat code named Operation Ajax that re-installed the Shah and set the stage for the worst “blowback” to CIA intervention one could ever imagine—after the corruption and despotism of the Shah resulted in Iran’s rejection of all things Western, Muslim fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeni returned to overthrow the Shah and seize power. Iran has remained an implacable US foe since then and a major sponsor of terrorism against the US.

The conservatives sold out our highest value for corporate interests and still failed in maintaining an open door for Western business. Not only did they do evil, they did badly.

But simply supplanting a duly-elected Prime Minister with a feudal monarch in Iran did not content the conservatives, with so many more countries to be converted from part of the free world to part of the free market. The democratically elected President of Guatemala found that out in 1954. Jacobo Arbenz had the temerity to carry forward popular land-reform measures and to build a highway that threatened the economic hegemony of the United Fruit Company, in other words, another communist who cared more about people than profits. The US picked an army colonel as their puppet, and when a panicked Arbenz fled to the Mexican embassy, the US had the colonel flown to the capital in the Ambassador’s private plane.

Now that’s democracy, conservative-style.

But why bother with a military coup when you can just fix the elections? That’s what conservatives did in the 1957 Parliamentary elections in Lebanon to ensure that the Christians bested the Muslims. The losers, unlike here in America, didn’t “get over it.” They rose up in armed rebellion. In for a dime, in for a dollar, Eisenhower sent in the marines to restore “order.” Funny how “order” imposed at the barrel of a gun never seems to last . . . In the mid-seventies civil war broke out again and escalated until Reagan sent in the marines again. Over two hundred were killed in a single day—the victims of a suicide truck bomber—forcing the US out of Lebanon for good.

The Reagan administration also showed how sometimes you have to destroy democracy to save it when they began funding the Contras in response to the first ever elections held in Nicaragua, elections won overwhelmingly by the left-leaning Sandinistas. When the Democratic Congress cut off the funding to the Contras in response to the will of the majority of Americans, Reagan simply found secret and illegal ways to funnel money to the Contras. The CIA also mined Nicaraguan harbors to kneecap their international trade in an act of blatant terrorism.

But Reagan had a good teacher in realpolitick—his mentor, Henry Kissinger is currently a wanted criminal in Europe for helping to install the brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet and oust the popularly elected Salvatore Allende in Chile. The CIA under Nixon and Kissinger plotted to kidnap and kill a key general loyal to the constitution and law. They were successful. Once the impediment of this honest public servant was removed, the power-seeking military junta did the rest. Allende was dead, Pinochet was in. Viva la Doctrina de Monroe!

Next time, we’ll look at how the Bush Administration has proven themselves enemies to real democracy here and abroad, despite their constant trotting out of the democratic pony. But until then, when you see a conservative, do your country a favor and ask him when he is going to stop hating democracy and start supporting American values?

[Demeter]

1. Amen, Brother! Kick and Recommend!

And you haven't scratched the surface! America is such a weaving of good and bad ideas--how to filter out and end forever the bad? How to teach and enforce the good?

[mistertrickster]

6. Thank you, friend. I just noticed, I lost my star.

If they'd just e-mail a week in advance I'd gladly send in a donation.

Now it'll take a month to get "starred" again.

Oh well, let the record show--I AM a donor to this site!

[Poppyseedman]

2. Conservatives don't believe in majority rule

They believe in democratic representative government.

Definition of majority rule is: Two wolves and a lamb vote on what's for dinner according to Limbaugh

[Mythsaje]

3. I want to wash my mouth out for saying this...

but he's right about that. Mob rule isn't what this country's about... Going by majority rule disenfranchises the minorities and does not serve justice. Not that Limbaugh truly understands that part of it...

But, yeah, we wouldn't want majority rule either, most particularly in a country where a loud, incensed minority can APPEAR to be a majority. This way of thinking is what gave Bush a "mandate." You know..."we won by a fraction, therefore everything we believe in and nothing you believe in is what's going to fly."

[mistertrickster]

7. Granted we need "leadership," but a majority isn't a "mob."

If we had true majority rule in this country, Al Gore would be president right now . . .

[Mythsaje]

8. A majority CAN be a mob...

if its power isn't blunted by recognition of the rights of the minority.

[mistertrickster]

10. Agreed, but that doesn't justify overthrowing elections, right? nt

[Mythsaje]

12. Of course not...

These yahoos would rather allow a minority to pretend to be a majority and run roughshod over the rights of everyone else. Doesn't change the fact that the U.S. was set up to recognize and protect everyone's rights, whether they were part of the majority or not.

[mistertrickster]

13. Ah, okay, I see where you're going with this. I totally agree. nt

[Disturbed]

4. The CIA has never been in the "Democracy Business"!

Their mission has always been to keep Capitalism in place world wide.

[Mythsaje]

5. I vote that we send Kissinger to Europe

once we actually manage to depose these tyrants.

In the interest of our future relations with countries Bush and Co have offended.

[Initech]

9. Personally I think electing Reagan was the worst thing the USA ever did.

The reason is that we wouldnt have this insane era of fundamentalist Christian conservatism in this country if he werent elected. We wouldnt have oil billionaires price gouging people and no one would be labeled a "consumer".

[mistertrickster]

11. Yup, there's a direct line between the "penis in a suit" (Gore Vidal's

description of Reagan) and the Worst. President. Ever.

[Initech]

25. "Penis in a suit"?

[mistertrickster]

26. Heh, that's what Gore Vidal said. Strangely appropriate, I always thought

[mistertrickster]

14. Let's kick this once or twice just for grins nt

[Gold Metal Flake]

15. K&R

[Time for change]

16. Those are excellent points you bring up

Those are exactly the kinds of actions that today's Republican Party support.

[mistertrickster]

17. Let's try another kick . . . just for kicks nt

[Richard D]

18. K'd & R'd

[Ezra the Prankster]

19. I don't think it's democracy they hate so much as...

...Other people using it. What the conservatives are trying to conserve was never democracy to begin with, but democracy for people like them. As in, "You're allowed to think anything you want, as long as you agree with us."

[Starfury]

20. What is conservatism and what is wrong with it?

This essay was written by Phil Agre (a professor at UCLA) a few years ago, and this seems like a good thread to drop it in:

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

(...)

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

(...)

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

[checks-n-balances]

21. WOW - this articles covers it in depth. EVERYBODY should read it!

Discusses all the main points and the origin of neo-con thinking is all right there. For decades they have undermined our democracy, the facts, the truth, our common altruism, etc. chipping away little bits at a time until there's not much left. The article is long but EXCELLENT and very worthwhile. Reminds me of the best that I have read on the subject. Thanks for posting it!

Here are two statements worth repeating:

...the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are...

People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth...

[mistertrickster]

24. I teach a Shakespeare class at the college level and it's astonishing to

me to see how many people seem to think that Shakespeare COULD NOT have written his plays because he was a commoner. It must have been some duke or earl.

The fact is that dukes and earls never write anything worth reading because they're too busy starting wars, spending the family fortunes, and fathering illegitimate children.

All the great writers are "clever grammar school boys " as A. L. Rowse once put it.

[many a good man]

22. Kick!

[mistertrickster]

23. Brilliant, I love it! Thanks for that. I'll have to look this guy up. nt