Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Thanks for the dose of common sense, much obliged.

Thank you Professor, for one of the best 730 word lessons in American History I've ever read.

There are two sides to this coin, those that look back and condemn us for not being perfect at inception, (navel gazers) while others are in such a state of denial, (neo-cons), that they believe that democracy comes from decree.

Both sides, need to sit down, read this column, and spend the day thinking about this simple truth.

"It took America quite some time to develop this democracy we cherish."

"Remember that when you decry "sham" elections abroad or declare single-party states "dictatorships." Because if mature, multiparty democracy was so darn easy, everybody would have one."

A multi-party country with a popularly elected leader does not guarantee friendliness either. Hugo Chavez comes to mind.

Hopefully good questions:

Can the needs of 3 billion new capitalists (not to mention those of the Old Core and the Gap) be met by such a slow, incremental and seemingly inefficient process?

If so, would it not be wise to advocate for a similarly slow, incremental and inefficient (but possibly fundamental) process for transforming the Gap?

When our guerilla warriors finally claimed victory, they had immediate and obvious leaders for civil society (so much so that the general ran unopposed, and the revolutionary generation dominated politics for 50+ years).

Wouldn't any 3rd-party military intervention necessairly deprive a society of those leaders needed for the postwar unification and institution-building phase?

Otherwise, where would they come from and (more importantly) where would they get thier legitimacy?

Re: 3rd party military intervention

The 10,000+ French soldiers that fought on our side in the revolution didn't deprive us of leaders.

And General Washington et el. were far from obvious choices in 1783.

The U.S. first attempted to operate under the articels of confederation. The articles didn't give the national government enough authority to govern, so they scrapped that idea and formed a plan with a strong executive branch which would be led by Washington, Adams, Jefferson and co.

Brent, point by point:

I'm not sure if the 10,000 French soldiers is very relevant to the point I'm trying to make. 10k of foreign warfighters is one thing, but the revolution was still home-grown, not 3rd-party initiated.
We weren't, say, invited into Iraq by a rebellious Kurdistan looking for muscle. We were the brains behind the operation.

Also, I don't know (read: lack information) that Washington wasn't the obvious choice. Where would I read more on that, and who were the other choices?

Lastly, of course I'm aware of the Articles of Confederation. That misses my point. It's not so much that the first gov't enacted has to work, it's that the legitimacy for trying new things is stronger when they're homegrown.