Chris Doss:
> I always found the notion of _forcing_ someone to be a democrat rather
> odd... and there are large numbers of people in the world for whom,
> frankly, democracy is rather low on their list of priorities (and I don't
> mean just elites). Most Russians would gladly exchange political democracy
> for economic well-being, and in fact they tend to equate 'democracy' with
> "chaos." (The play on words is "dyormokratiya" instead "demokratiya."
> "Dyorm" means "shit.") Hell, over half the population wants the Dzerzhinsky
> statue back in front of Lyubyanka.
>
> There are all kinds of societies on which democracy is just not viable. Can
> a tribal society just switch over to representative democracy? Hard to see
> how that's possible.
At one time, I believe, democracy -- _demokratia_ -- was supposed to mean power in the hands of the _demos_, the common people. Thus, the word does not describe the present state of affairs in the United States or any other major state of which I am aware, so the question of whether the United States government ought to impose it on anyone must be preceded by the question of how it could possibly do so, since it does not possess it or intend it for itself or anyone else in the first place. Indeed, one must doubt that the Brightest and Best have even given a passing thought as to how such a thing could be created.
-- Gordon