Brent Scowcroft was addressing "The end of history" on This Week

[Wetzelbill]

He talked for a minute about "revolutionary idealism" and how the Bush administration sought to create a Democracy in the region, hoping that other ones would follow.

Why?

It's two concepts. One is "the end of history" which was first extensively written about by Francis Fukuyama. Basically it means that history has essentially ended, in that we know what works best and we know what ideologies have won out. Meaning that Democracy and Capitalism won, they are the final philosophies and ideologies and recognized as the best ways to move forward. Sure there are hold outs, but, inevitably, the world will move exclusively towards these two concepts.

The other is the theory of the "Democratic Peace." Meaning that Democracies do not wage war against each other. They never have before so there must be something to it, right? Well, ideologues believe that simply creating some type of Democracy will automatically create others and will automatically create peace. Of course, they do ignore certain conflicts that democracies have engaged in, such as intelligence warfare and so on, but, yeah, democracies have not waged out and out war on each other. That does not mean their think-tank theories work, though, right? In fact, it's pretty ridiculous to think that one country can go in and militarily enforce democracy on another country, and this will magically create peace and love and fluffy kittens in the region.

Scowcroft, as a true foreign policy realist, recognizes this. I suspect he must just think neoconservatives are downright crazy. Laughable people at best. And, they may be, certainly many are. They seem too willing to use force for anything, no matter how irrational it may be. They also seem blind towards reality, in the face of theories that sound good on paper.

Anyway, I just found it interesting Scowcroft would bring this up. It's a rich line of thinking to study. Dangerous, as Iraq has shown, but fascinating too. Give great insight to how and why neocons think like neocons.

[magellan]

1. Democracies may not wage out and out war on each other

But in some cases, out and out war isn't necessary because the "offending" country hasn't got a military to speak of. See Haiti, Lebanon, etc... A little democracy doesn't stand a chance when a big democracy decides it isn't quite to its liking.

[Wetzelbill]

3. yeah, but that's irrelevant to the theory

You and I know that stuff, but the people who promote the concept, they don't take that into consideration. I briefly address that in the OP.

[magellan]

5. Right, what we're talking about here is ignorance borne of extremism

The two go hand-in-hand. Like all good extremists, the neocons think they can wrap the world up in one pretty package and everybody will be happy. (Everybody who's left, that is.) They detest critical thinking, preferring instead to outsmart others to get their way. That's their forte, and their Achilles' heel. And the "end of history" garbage is eloquent of nothing so much as hubris. Degenerate imperialism follows democracy often enough to make one stop and wonder where we really are as a nation....

What I find interesting is that so many Americans were ripe for this pap.

edited: left out a word

[NashVegas]

6. Among Technological/Industrial Societies, Landgrabbing Is Meaningless

When you can do what the West has done for 50 years: replace governments that are unfriendly to multi-national businesses with those who will sign on the dotted line.

There is no need to invade Peru for their resources when someone can sit in a NYC boardroom and own their resources.

Who needs to invade the South for cotton when they can regulate the seed, own the land, and ship the raw material off to China for manufacture?

And, as we have seen with the Soviets: Economic war can do just as well.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. the neocons are rediculous but, dangerous as well.

Fortunately the presidents of the past 30 years saw that. It took the village idiot to believe them. In a way thier flawed theory fits with evangelical theories as well. Democratize and instill (enforce) evangelical religion on the conquered and feel they are spreading the good word

[Wetzelbill]

4. that and it's a fundamentalist belief

It takes a leap of faith to fervently believe in something that is implausible. Like enforcing democracy on another country at the point of a gun. :)

[pretzel4gore]

7. does mr scowcroft recall that bush wasn't elected in the 2k election

or is the 'fix' ok in scowcroft's world as long as the right sort do the fixin'? why discuss political theory (aristotle and plato etc argued these things) regards dynamic society groups which, in some cases, fight for what damages their own obvious interests, such as the usa and electronic voting, or subsidising unearned wealth while taxing work and initiative re also the usa? why does scowcroft waste his energy talking about what essentially is none of his fukkin business when his own country has been defeated and is being fitted for handcuffs as mr brent asshole exercises his smelly bean hole on tv?
now there's a challenge for mr scowcroft's thotful wit...

[BayCityProgressive]

8. Capitalism is the problem

It doesn't matter if a country is democratic or not. If a bigger cpaitalist country doesn't like their actions they will be attacked. Capitalism is like a parasite that lives for cheap labor and capital. Those at the top of the game horde more and more, it's insatiable to the system. It also is very inefficient with our natural resources. If this is the best system we can come up with then we won't be around much longer or most of us will be slaves.