It is amazing to me that a country called into being by cries of “no taxation without representation” can be so oblivious to the international implications of its actions.
The central contradiction facing western democracies, particularly the United States with its global presence and neo-imperial pretensions, is the fact that the people who vote a particular government into office represent a tiny minority of the people directly impacted by the resulting policy change. Taxes do not need to be paid by personal check to the Internal Revenue Service to be very real.
A commitment to democracy, to true rule by the governed, would seem to make our situation untenable, but the west continues to simultaneously argue in favor of democracy and increase its coercive power over non-citizens.
The ability to sustain such a glaring logical inconsistency is almost impressive. It represents a feat of doublethink on par with the old favorites “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.”
Launching wars against distant peoples not just with democratic approval but in the name of democracy itself is perhaps the height of such absurdity, but countless other examples present themselves if we begin to scrutinize the actions of our state.
Even policies that appear purely domestic, subsidies to farmers for instance, have measurable and dramatic effects on non-represented people across the globe. Quotas and restrictions on the flow of goods, people, and money are even more destructive. The provision of foreign aid through multilateral organizations and bilateral arrangements is overtly and obviously an effort to shape policy outcomes abroad, to govern by remote control, if you will.
These actions are usually justified with the following traditional realist argument: because certain states are able to exercise power in the world and because this exertion seems to be of material benefit the states and their citizens, it would be irresponsible not to act. It would be a serious violation of the public trust. These theorists truly believe that “might makes right.” Take the argument or leave it; their consistency at least is admirable.
The new and more insidious face of this old position is shaped by a belief that western democracies are so manifestly and completely correct in their method of government that whatever policy they choose to pursue is necessarily a just one. I will let my previous postings make the argument that this view is incorrect.
To justify a policy by the mechanism which produced it is to go against the skeptical rationalism of the Enlightenment and to cast aside the notion of a limited sphere of legitimate state action. The very core of our democracy is the idea that certain rights are fundamental and inherent in human beings regardless of their class or location.
The fact that people happen to reside outside the borders of the United States makes them no less human, no less deserving of protection, no less qualified to claim their rights. How then can we justify the exercise of coercive power over them?
Although it may be practically difficult to extend equal rights to the people of the world, we can certainly refrain from actions that have demonstrable negative consequences for them.
We cannot yet afford to forget what the liberal mission was about.
If we accept that our power confers license to act as we please, we do not just profane the name of democracy. We may also discover to our great misfortune that power used is power lost.
