Democracies ARE inherently more resistent to expansionist aggression than Autocracies

[Tom Rinaldo]

The world, especially in an era of nuclear weapons, becomes increasingly dangerous as Democracy, internationally, more and more comes under attack. President Biden sounded the clarion call of the young 21st century when he framed the the great challenge facing humanity now as the defense and strengthening of democracies in the face of growing authoritarian movements around the globe.

Democracies do not come with fail safe guarantees. Any government, under any system, can fall under the sway of imperialistic thinking. Of course it is pointed out that America exercised an inordinate degree of power, during the second half of the 20th century in particular, and that America's military is spread across the globe , and that America directly and indirectly militarily intervened in the internal affairs of numerous other nations. All very true. America was, and arguably still is, the most powerful nation on earth. Joe Biden, in the realm of politics, is known to say "Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." Something similar is true with Geopolitics. What would our world be like today if Germany under Hitler, or The Soviet Union under Stalin, had somehow emerged from World War II as far and away the most powerful nation on Earth? What if Putin's Russia commanded the same domestic and international resources now as does the United States today?

Imperfect as they obviously can be, leaders of democracies contend with far greater checks and balances over their personal authority and ambition than do leaders in totalitarian regimes. Democracies, like the United Kingdom and the United States, did not represent full expressions of democracy during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The United States did not begin to experience full democracy until the mid 1960's, after the voting rights act was passed. The more empowered the broad base of citizenry of a nation is, the less likely that nation is to plunge headfirst into wars of conquest. There can be exceptions that seem to fly in the face of it, but that remains the rule. The continuing retreat of the Republican Party from fully embracing democratic ("small" d) values, fuels the ambitions, and subsequent reckless behavior, of tyrants like Vladimir Putin.

[gab13by13]

1. For example;

a small group of protesters in Moscow protesting against the war in Ukraine were immediately arrested and probably on their way to Siberia.

[Blues Heron]

2. We expanded from nothing to an entire continent and beyond as a democracy

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. White male landowners could vote. What percentage of folks do you figure were eligible to vote then?

Meanwhile, Europeans under monarchies colonized much of the world. The Arabs who earlier took over the Middle East, northern Africa and parts of Europe weren't led by democratically elected leaders. Chinese emperors led campaigns that brought a third of the world's population under their rule. No one elected them either.

[Blues Heron]

5. I think it was more about economics than any inherent characteristic of democracy or voting rights

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. I can agree with you

My essential point is that a robust democracy, with the active participation of citizens from all strata of a society, offers some checks on the ability of a "leader" drunk on delusions of his/her own grander and historic "mission", to plung nations into war. Democracy is not "bullet proof" (pun intended) but if provides an arena in which resistance to ill intentioned schemes can meaningfully manifest. And sometimes, not always but often enough, that can make a huge difference.

[Blues Heron]

7. Good points. Thanks

[XacerbatedDem]

4. That last line says it all...

Repugs need to get back to the small "d", or the next time That Flushing Guy, or someone like him, gets into power, we're all small "d" done.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. It's why Tucker Carlson has become such a threat

He's become the top American propagandist for dictators.