US continues to support democracy

[mr friendly guy]

By funding more than 70% of dictatorships

I set out to answer a simple question: Is it true? Does the US government actually oppose dictatorships and champion democracy around the world, as we are repeatedly told?
The truth is not easy to find, but federal sources do provide an answer: No. According to Freedom House’s rating system of political rights around the world, there were 49 nations in the world, as of 2015, that can be fairly categorized as “dictatorships.” As of fiscal year 2015, the last year for which we have publicly available data, the federal government of the United States had been providing military assistance to 36 of them, courtesy of your tax dollars. The United States currently supports over 73 percent of the world’s dictatorships!

He goes into more detail on his methodology in the link. Note he disagrees with what countries Freedom House considers democracies. If he ignored those, the percentage of dictatorships the US support will rise.

This has been reported in alternative media. In fact it was alternative media where I first heard of this and then track down the original source. I eagerly await mainstream news sources like Broadcasting Bullshit Corporation to report this, but I am not holding my breath.

Meanwhile we see the US backed NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy (a euphemism if I ever heard one) continuing to support separatism and undermining of geopolitical rivals in the name of democracy true democracy. Sadly, some conservatards and gullible leftists will continue to believe the US supports its geopolitical interests like every other country democracy line.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think the US stopped even pretending to be a proponent of democracy when Putin hand-picked our President.

Can you still call it hypocrisy if the "President" is entirely open in his admiration of authoritarian government?

[K. A. Pital]

Dictators need weapons. Dictators have money. The US wants money, because money liberates. Money is freedom.

Therefore, by selling weapons to dictators, the US supports freedom.

[ray245]

The US is first and foremost, pro-capitalism.

[Flagg]

We’ll free the world from tyranny if we have to support people who will kill every goddamned person on it!

[Gandalf]

Can you still call it hypocrisy if the "President" is entirely open in his admiration of authoritarian government?

Here's a snippet from a much longer article entitled Trump’s Support and Praise of Despots Is Central to the U.S. Tradition, Not a Deviation From It;

SINCE AT LEAST the end of World War II, supporting the world’s worst despots has been a central plank of U.S. foreign policy, arguably its defining attribute. The list of U.S.-supported tyrants is too long to count, but the strategic rationale has been consistent: In a world where anti-American sentiment is prevalent, democracy often produces leaders who impede rather than serve U.S. interests.

Also, why is "President" in quote marks?

[houser2112]

Can you still call it hypocrisy if the "President" is entirely open in his admiration of authoritarian government?

Also, why is "President" in quote marks?

It's likely a comment on Trump winning the Electoral College without also winning the popular vote.

[Kane Starkiller]

SINCE AT LEAST the end of World War II, supporting the world’s worst despots has been a central plank of U.S. foreign policy, arguably its defining attribute.The list of U.S.-supported tyrants is too long to count, but the strategic rationale has been consistent:In a world where anti-American sentiment is prevalent, democracy often produces leaders who impede rather than serve U.S. interests.

What does he mean since at least end of World War II? Shouldn't it be since at least the beginning of World War II? What was it, several hundred thousand trucks, million tons of food...all supplied to USSR ruled by a regime whose leader personally oversaw the killing of 600,000 people during the 1936-1938 period alone and has recently occupied Latvia,Estonia,Lithuania, half of Poland and parts of Finland?
Kind of strange Glenn would leave out the most famous and far reaching example in his list. Maybe "supporting a despot" is not always supporting a despot? Maybe sometimes supporting a despot is the difference between the catastrophe of unimaginable proportions and preserving some kind of status quo? Maybe not every US actions has to be squeezed into a simplistic narrative? Wonder.

Meanwhile we see the US backed NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy (a euphemism if I ever heard one) continuing to support separatism and undermining of geopolitical rivals in the name of democracy true democracy. Sadly, some conservatards and gullible leftists will continue to believe the US supports its geopolitical interests like every other country democracy line.

Sure US flowery language about why it helps certain country is bullshit. But just because it's geopolitical interest doesn't mean we can't morally judge the final outcome of a country fulfilling that interest. For example US doesn't give military aid to Vietnam in order to prop up democracy but neither is it doing that to specifically prop up a dictatorship against democracy. It is doing it to prop up Vietnam against China while China wants the entire South China sea and all the attendant natural resources. I judge that US geopolitical goal of strengthening Vietnam against China is morally superior to Chinese goal of expelling US influence from South China Sea so it can deal with the much smaller Vietnam 1 on 1.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Maybe sometimes supporting a despot is the difference between the catastrophe of unimaginable proportions and preserving some kind of status quo?

Yes, yes, civilization would have collapsed, and the whole world plunged into darkness, had the US not supported Pinochet or Karimov or [insert tin-pot dictator here]. Because every dictator we've supported has been like Stalin, where the only possible alternative was Hitler.

Maybe not every US actions has to be squeezed into a simplistic narrative?

The problem seems to be that you are just using a DIFFERENT simplistic narrative, not that you are actually engaging in more sophisticated analysis of the situation. The rest of your post seems to boil down to RAR CHINA BAD, US GOOD, after all.

[mr friendly guy]

Sure US flowery language about why it helps certain country is bullshit.

Nice to see the anti third wave feminism bullshit isn't the only thing we agree on then.

But just because it's geopolitical interest doesn't mean we can't morally judge the final outcome of a country fulfilling that interest.

True, and I would respect people more who argue along these lines rather than rar rar democracy. So I freely give you more respect than those people.

For example US doesn't give military aid to Vietnam in order to prop up democracy but neither is it doing that to specifically prop up a dictatorship against democracy. It is doing it to prop up Vietnam against China while China wants the entire South China sea and all the attendant natural resources. I judge that US geopolitical goal of strengthening Vietnam against China is morally superior to Chinese goal of expelling US influence from South China Sea so it can deal with the much smaller Vietnam 1 on 1.

Just want to ask, you do realise the US has supported the same tactics of using artifical islands to claim large EEZ when its used against China right? Even though the US wasn't the one using it, they did however supported the side doing it first waaaay before China even thought about doing the same trick. The goal of the US is simply to constrain a geopolitical rival. Any arguments on superior moral outcome is based on why its better for Vietnam to control its claimed EEZ rather than China, and we both know you don't give a shit about that.

[Gandalf]

SINCE AT LEAST the end of World War II, supporting the world’s worst despots has been a central plank of U.S. foreign policy, arguably its defining attribute.The list of U.S.-supported tyrants is too long to count, but the strategic rationale has been consistent:In a world where anti-American sentiment is prevalent, democracy often produces leaders who impede rather than serve U.S. interests.

What does he mean since at least end of World War II? Shouldn't it be since at least the beginning of World War II? What was it, several hundred thousand trucks, million tons of food...all supplied to USSR ruled by a regime whose leader personally oversaw the killing of 600,000 people during the 1936-1938 period alone and has recently occupied Latvia,Estonia,Lithuania, half of Poland and parts of Finland?
Kind of strange Glenn would leave out the most famous and far reaching example in his list. Maybe "supporting a despot" is not always supporting a despot? Maybe sometimes supporting a despot is the difference between the catastrophe of unimaginable proportions and preserving some kind of status quo? Maybe not every US actions has to be squeezed into a simplistic narrative? Wonder.

Or it's a rhetorical device using a common historical yardstick to make a point, while acknowledging that the phenomenon can indeed go back further.

[The Romulan Republic]

Can you still call it hypocrisy if the "President" is entirely open in his admiration of authoritarian government?

Also, why is "President" in quote marks?

It's likely a comment on Trump winning the Electoral College without also winning the popular vote.

And the fact that its likely he wouldn't even have done that without Russian assistance. At least winning without the popular vote is legally legitimate, though undemocratic. Plus, he acts utterly unpresidential, and shows no respect for the office or interest in performing its duties.

[Gandalf]

At least winning without the popular vote is legally legitimate, though undemocratic.

True, but if you start going down the path of undemocratic practices, you may as well call pretty much all of the other forty odd guys "President."

Plus, he acts utterly unpresidential, and shows no respect for the office or interest in performing its duties.

I've seen this idea of presidentiality thrown at the last few guys. Is there some sort of handbook of presidential conduct?

[Elheru Aran]

Plus, he acts utterly unpresidential, and shows no respect for the office or interest in performing its duties.

I've seen this idea of presidentiality thrown at the last few guys. Is there some sort of handbook of presidential conduct?

Handbook? As in official rules and regs? No.

However, it can be assumed that there is a general unwritten idea that the President should act 'Presidential'. Usually this means that the current office-holder isn't behaving according to the speaker's notion of propriety, but broadly, most people would agree that it boils down to not making the country and/or government look bad (either to its own citizens or to other countries), and behaving with a degree of courtesy to most people. Trump is arguably the worst offender on both counts out of the past few.

[Flagg]

Plus, he acts utterly unpresidential, and shows no respect for the office or interest in performing its duties.

I've seen this idea of presidentiality thrown at the last few guys. Is there some sort of handbook of presidential conduct?

Handbook? As in official rules and regs? No.

However, it can be assumed that there is a general unwritten idea that the President should act 'Presidential'. Usually this means that the current office-holder isn't behaving according to the speaker's notion of propriety, but broadly, most people would agree that it boils down to not making the country and/or government look bad (either to its own citizens or to other countries), and behaving with a degree of courtesy to most people. Trump is arguably the worst offender on both counts out of the past few.

Yeah, it’s about being “the adult in the room” and not getting into petty political fights in public. Also just generally trying to stay “above the fray” because unlike members of Congress who represent their districts or states, the President is supposed to represent and do what they believe to be in the best interest of everyone in America, whether they voted for them or not.

Essentially, it’s behaving in the exact opposite way that President Cockroach behaves.

[Simon_Jester]

Also, there are some pretty good general guidelines for normative behavior among elected heads of state in general.

Dignity and sober conduct are expected pretty much universally. Heads of state are normally supposed to be restrained in verbally attacking private citizens because of the massive power differential, and similarly restrained in petty criticisms of other figures within the government. Because when you're president, attacking anyone is "punching down," not "punching up." It's always unsporting at best, and is typically a symptom of a nasty-minded individual. One who lacks self-control, and who won't be capable of prioritizing the needs of his citizens over his own petty whims and wants.

Compare and contrast to, say, Trump calling the president of the capital of Puerto Rico a whiner for saying things are terrible in her island, a US protectorate that just got levelled by a goddamn hurricane)

[The Romulan Republic]

At least winning without the popular vote is legally legitimate, though undemocratic.

True, but if you start going down the path of undemocratic practices, you may as well call pretty much all of the other forty odd guys "President."

True enough. Although what's particularly troubling about Trump is that:

a) He's the first who may well be the puppet of a foreign adversary.

b) We were, mostly, heading in the right direction before Trump (or, perhaps, before the Republicans started gerrymandering and voter-suppressing the shit out of Congress). Towards more democratic practices in America, not less. Their were some ups and downs, but you could say, without being obviously mistaken, that we were overall headed in the right direction.

Now, we're headed in the wrong direction rather rapidly.

I've seen this idea of presidentiality thrown at the last few guys. Is there some sort of handbook of presidential conduct?

I suppose there's no real definition of "Presidential", although their are a few things most people would probably agree on, like not constantly ranting over Twitter, and actually taking the duties of the job seriously.

It seems like people largely use it as a synonym for "having decorum and dignity."

[Simon_Jester]

By funding more than 70% of dictatorships

I set out to answer a simple question: Is it true? Does the US government actually oppose dictatorships and champion democracy around the world, as we are repeatedly told?
The truth is not easy to find, but federal sources do provide an answer: No. According to Freedom House’s rating system of political rights around the world, there were 49 nations in the world, as of 2015, that can be fairly categorized as “dictatorships.” As of fiscal year 2015, the last year for which we have publicly available data, the federal government of the United States had been providing military assistance to 36 of them, courtesy of your tax dollars. The United States currently supports over 73 percent of the world’s dictatorships!

He goes into more detail on his methodology in the link. Note he disagrees with what countries Freedom House considers democracies. If he ignored those, the percentage of dictatorships the US support will rise.

This has been reported in alternative media. In fact it was alternative media where I first heard of this and then track down the original source. I eagerly await mainstream news sources like Broadcasting Bullshit Corporation to report this, but I am not holding my breath.

Meanwhile we see the US backed NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy (a euphemism if I ever heard one) continuing to support separatism and undermining of geopolitical rivals in the name of democracy true democracy. Sadly, some conservatards and gullible leftists will continue to believe the US supports its geopolitical interests like every other country democracy line.

Looking over the original post, what is the working definition of "military assistance?" To what extent is it supporting a dictatorship to, say, sell them a squadron of F-16s?

EDIT:

To clarify, the reason I ask this is because for most dictatorships, internal security is a bigger deal than external security. This era has low risks of being invaded by outside countries, but a high risk of having to fight civil wars and guerilla wars.

The US government spending a million dollars to send men to train a dictator's army in counterinsurgency tactics could constitute a lot more meaningful support than selling them a dozen fighter jets at reduced price equivalent to a $50 million subsidy.

[Gandalf]

True enough. Although what's particularly troubling about Trump is that:

a) He's the first who may well be the puppet of a foreign adversary.

b) We were, mostly, heading in the right direction before Trump (or, perhaps, before the Republicans started gerrymandering and voter-suppressing the shit out of Congress). Towards more democratic practices in America, not less. Their were some ups and downs, but you could say, without being obviously mistaken, that we were overall headed in the right direction.

Now, we're headed in the wrong direction rather rapidly.

So where would you draw the start/end points of presidents without quote marks?

I suppose there's no real definition of "Presidential", although their are a few things most people would probably agree on, like not constantly ranting over Twitter, and actually taking the duties of the job seriously.

It seems like people largely use it as a synonym for "having decorum and dignity."

I get that, but I don't see why a president should be required to be dignified in their conduct in order to be "presidential," as it makes the role sound like an hereditary monarch. I would think that in a pseudo-democratic system like the US, the president defines the term perhaps with individual flavouring for each guy?

[Elheru Aran]

I suppose there's no real definition of "Presidential", although their are a few things most people would probably agree on, like not constantly ranting over Twitter, and actually taking the duties of the job seriously.

It seems like people largely use it as a synonym for "having decorum and dignity."

I get that, but I don't see why a president should be required to be dignified in their conduct in order to be "presidential," as it makes the role sound like an hereditary monarch. I would think that in a pseudo-democratic system like the US, the president defines the term perhaps with individual flavouring for each guy?

Yes and no. On phone, so brief.

Precedent is important. While allowance is made for differences of personality, in general a President is expected to act broadly similar to those before them. Reagan would have greeted official guests in a similar manner to Ford, Carter would have hosted state dinners similarly to Kennedy, etc. They would have conducted themselves, at least in public, in a generally socially appropriate manner.

Trump on the other hand has frequently been deliberately rude, obnoxious, and unfiltered in his public appearances. This is on a different level from keeping a jar of jelly beans or complaining about broccoli.

[Gandalf]

Yes and no. On phone, so brief.

Precedent is important. While allowance is made for differences of personality, in general a President is expected to act broadly similar to those before them. Reagan would have greeted official guests in a similar manner to Ford, Carter would have hosted state dinners similarly to Kennedy, etc.

So... continuity of ritualism?

They would have conducted themselves, at least in public, in a generally socially appropriate manner.

Isn't that just "being socially appropriate" as opposed to presidential?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Is it really necessary to nitpick the precise meaning of the word 'presidential'? In the context of the phrase, 'Trump is not acting presidential', everyone single one of us understands the intended meaning, which is that Trump is acting like a jackass. Unless you are actually of the opinion that Trump is acting in a dignified manner, what's the point of arguing over the word 'presidential' except to be pointlessly smug?

(Especially ironic for you, Gandalf, given in an earlier post of yours in this same fucking thread you chastised someone ELSE for not understanding "a rhetorical device using a common historical yardstick to make a point")

[Gandalf]

Is it really necessary to nitpick the precise meaning of the word 'presidential'? In the context of the phrase, 'Trump is not acting presidential', everyone single one of us understands the intended meaning, which is that Trump is acting like a jackass. Unless you are actually of the opinion that Trump is acting in a dignified manner, what's the point of arguing over the word 'presidential' except to be pointlessly smug?

Because it's a shitty adjective when it comes to describing a president's actions except in perhaps a technical sense.* To me it basically reads as "kingly" but applied to an elected guy as opposed to someone who got their spot through hereditary monarchy, but ones attached to monarchy are tied to ideas of social classes that go back centuries. Hence my trying to tease out the difference.

Also, as someone looking in from the outside, I would contend that I could apply the title "jackass" pretty easily to most presidents. Was Reagan being presidential during Iran Contra, or Obama is his drone strikes, and so on? Any of the ones from genocidal westward expansion?

*Like a presidential motorcade or press release as opposed to one from someone else.

(Especially ironic for you, Gandalf, given in an earlier post of yours in this same fucking thread you chastised someone ELSE for not understanding "a rhetorical device using a common historical yardstick to make a point")

I'd hardly call that a chastisement.

[The Romulan Republic]

So where would you draw the start/end points of presidents without quote marks?

Don't know.

If its a question of winning legally, then most of them. Big question mark still on the Donald.

But if I define it more narrowly as lawfully and democratically elected, then one would have to count only popular vote winners since America has had something approximating universal suffrage. So, thanks to Jim Crow, basically just Obama plus the second half or latter third of the 20th. Century. And even some of those could maybe be discounted based on level of voter suppression?

Of course, modern concepts of democracy basically didn't exist when America was founded, so perhaps that's not a fair measure for the early Presidents.

I get that, but I don't see why a president should be required to be dignified in their conduct in order to be "presidential," as it makes the role sound like an hereditary monarch. I would think that in a pseudo-democratic system like the US, the president defines the term perhaps with individual flavouring for each guy?

Personally, I'd like to define it as something like "Demonstrates coherency and literacy of a degree one might expect from a college graduate, as well as a genuine understanding of and respect for the duties of the office, and for democratic norms."

[Flagg]

Is it really necessary to nitpick the precise meaning of the word 'presidential'? In the context of the phrase, 'Trump is not acting presidential', everyone single one of us understands the intended meaning, which is that Trump is acting like a jackass. Unless you are actually of the opinion that Trump is acting in a dignified manner, what's the point of arguing over the word 'presidential' except to be pointlessly smug?

(Especially ironic for you, Gandalf, given in an earlier post of yours in this same fucking thread you chastised someone ELSE for not understanding "a rhetorical device using a common historical yardstick to make a point")

Well, Gandalf isn’t the one using parentheses to delegitimize the entity who currently holds the office of President of the United States, so his asking for an explanation (so far it’s been “Waa no likey, didn’t really win, plus he’s a dick”) as to what the threshold is for considering The President, The President is by no means nit-picky or out of bounds. If anything it’s quite the opposite.