adam wrote:

As we approach the third anniversary of the onset of the Iraq war, it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention itself or the ideas animating it kindly. By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at.
...
"The End of History," in other words, presented a kind of Marxist argument for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism. In the formulation of the scholar Ken Jowitt, the neoconservative position articulated by people like Kristol and Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism
...
By definition, outsiders can't "impose" democracy on a country that doesn't want it; demand for democracy and reform must be domestic. Democracy promotion is therefore a long-term and opportunistic process that has to await the gradual ripening of political and economic conditions to be effective.

aha incrementalism
the United States and the West as a midwife to the increasing hegemony of liberal democracy rather than imperialist powers trying to impose a way of life
"we hold these truths to be self evident" and inevitable because they have Satyagraha or truth force

Very interesting argument. However, I think it is important to take (buzzword alert) "the decline of the nation-state" into account as well when looking at the rise of democracy abroad. The framework of that argument is that unless democracy is promoted internally, it will fail. This is interesting when considering how national borders continue to slowly whither and "domestic" as well as "internally" may become terms that means little in the near future- EU or FTAA anyone?
And hey, isn't that what free-trade democratic capitalism wants?

finethen wrote:

I think it is important to take (buzzword alert) "the decline of the nation-state" into account as well when looking at the rise of democracy abroad.

but is the nation-state in decline?
European integration has at best stalled and the US has completed moved away from a multilateral approach to global problems under this administration. These may be blips in the overall trend but I wonder if the "decline of the nation-state" is a 90s buzz meme.
The European experiment will I think recover but is arguably the construction of a new super-state not evidence that the nation-state is in decline.
I live in a country which is a rather old political union, the UK, and has thriving political parties in Scotland and Wales which actively campaign for political independance, indeed Scotland only very recently gained its own parliament. The pooling of sovereignty in Europe has too often been a top down exercise and has often been scuppered by grassroots campaigns. The Danes are the best example of a small state with a strong national and cultural identity that rejected proposed integration legislation when given a referendum. It was a grassroots campaign which opposed the political class/establishment and started a political shock wave which certain elements within the European political class have yet to accomodate. There is certainly no evidence that the UK is about to join the Single Currency or the Schengen agreement (the treaty which allows for freedom of movement between European countries without passport controls which in the present security climate won't be joined by the UK for the forseeable future).
Plus also yes I agree a lot of EU integration was driven by a free trade capitalist idealogy which isn't universally accepted. Some people (hello) believe that the state can and should ameliorate some of the excesses and inequalities of capitalism and defend individuals and groups against multinational corporations. Believe me the European left is alive and well. It is learning to accomodate the realities of the global economy (despite the recent counter example of the excesses the French left in resisting change violently). From a UK point of view the left needed to modernize or be permanently in opposition. Labour modernized and won power. It hasn't always steered a path of immaculate socialist virtue but despite my occasional problems with the current administration by and large I still hear the sound of old time religion, voices singing songs that have adapted to current realities.
The right may reject the state and believe in an unfettered market but the center left still believes in the nation-state and is pleased to see the EU take Microsoft to court with the threat of significant fines under European anti-Trust legislation.

adam wrote:

finethen wrote:

I think it is important to take (buzzword alert) "the decline of the nation-state" into account as well when looking at the rise of democracy abroad.

but is the nation-state in decline?
European integration has at best stalled and the US has completed moved away from a multilateral approach to global problems under this administration. These may be blips in the overall trend but I wonder if the "decline of the nation-state" is a 90s buzz meme.
The European experiment will I think recover but is arguably the construction of a new super-state not evidence that the nation-state is in decline.

Yes, in name and some other important ways the nation-state remains strong. However, (and allow me to imply American here) in other ways borders have little meaning anymore. The free flow of capitol, goods, people, and ideas is hardly stopped by an imaginary line in the sand. That is why you find massive immigration reform at the top of every politicians hot list at the moment- trying to solve an unsolvable problem keeps the public from panicking about 'loss of culture' and other nonsense.
However, there are 3 things that remain to keep the nation state holding on. Law, idenitification, and security. (As you might guess, these three things intertwine.) Identification is how we maintain (the illusion of) security. Law helps us define who recieves identification. Security helps maintain the law...ect.
...gaaah, boss arrived, will have to think this through and get back to it later.