Recently I was asked to comment on the following question:

"For decades, America’s role in the world has been summarized as promoting freedom, democracy and human rights. Following the failures of forced regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, many now question this mission. Still others hold that if the U.S. were to promote democracy in nations such as Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other autocratic nations the result would be even more oppressive, Taliban-like regimes that would promote terrorism and be hostile to American interests. Should the U.S. continue to promote democracy overseas? Should it center its endeavors around some other goals? Or should it simply stick to its own knitting?”

My response was:

For many years the propaganda machinery operating in the United States has been promoting the illusion that we encourage freedom, democracy and human rights. The reality is that many of us have allowed ourselves to become deluded into accepting that belief without question. In actuality, hasn’t the political leadership of this nation frequently been quite reluctant to expand our freedoms, our democracy, and our human rights?

More often than not, haven’t many elected officials attempted to repress and deny us many of our rights in the name of national security? Haven’t they promoted fear mongering, emotional insecurity, and induced paranoia as tactics that encourage the unquestioned obedience to presumed authority needed by an authoritarian government? Haven’t they regularly attempted to discourage the dispassionate reason and logic based critical thinking that would reveal this emerging oligarchy’s self-serving amorality?

The reality is that our system of government on the national as well as on the local level has been slowly devolving into a quasi-fascist state that increasingly hides behind a facade of totalitarian democracy. To a substantial extent the democratic system continues to be undermined by the self-serving influence of corporate money and power. Isn’t it obvious that a substantial number of politicians from both political parties have sold out their constituents by providing many special interests with the legislation, tax subsidies, and contracts they desire in exchange for the campaign funds that all politicians need to obtain and retain political power?

Our elected representatives frequently represent the special interests that provide the bulk of their campaign finances far more than they represent the best interests of their legitimate constituents. Shouldn’t this be obvious to anyone who chooses to objectively engage in critical thinking and carefully examines our current system of governance? Yet, most of us remain passive in spite of this erosion of our freedoms.

On the national level isn’t this is primarily due to the arrogance of power of what President Eisenhower referred to as "the military-industrial complex?" Hasn’t the growing integration of the military-industrial complex with the neo-conservative ideologues that they fund thus far resulted in at least two wars of aggression? Obviously, the most recent example of this well manipulated policy resulted in an unwarranted war of aggression against Iraq. Was this war really about promoting democracy in Iraq or is it about corporate profits?

Can the ideologues and the financial interests that promoted this war be unaware of the fact that democratic systems cannot be imposed from without? Are they unaware of the fact that war as an extension of national policy is never cost effective? Why have they failed to learn that there has never been a policy promoting wars of aggression that has not eventually resulted in the destruction of the national state– or do they care?

In terms of hegemonic influences, war, as an extension of national policy pales in consideration of the ongoing drive for international economic dominance. Indeed, doesn’t the ever increasingly trade based interdependent globalized society that is now fully emerging as the hallmark of a newer and more rational hegemony create far more global prosperity than any policy that promotes war?

Shouldn't it be obvious to any thoughtful person that under present and historical social conditioning the tribal and cultural rivalry among and within the Iraqi tribes, communities, and religious sects will continue to prevent their assimilation into a cohesive national democratic state? Doesn't this apply as well to the cultural configurations that exist in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia as well as many other autocratic states and quasi-theocratic cultures? Aren’t the Taliban and Al Quaida promoting their unique beliefs in an attempt to re-establish their unique apparition of the onetime status quo in their tribal communities and regressive social cultures?

Democracy must evolve and grow through continuous intellectual development and cultural progress. A democratic society must be constantly nurtured and allowed to develop and grow from within. If democratic governance is to progress shouldn’t we be removing its unrealistic ideology based constraints? Why aren't we eliminating the corrupting influences of the special interests that are a cause of our distrust of government? Shouldn’t we be actively expanding our participation in self-governance to help reverse our alienation from what should always be legitimate representative government?

If we are to promote democracy abroad shouldn't it be by providing an ethical and moral example that others can emulate?

Abraham Moses Genen