underlankers (underlankers) wrote in talk_politics,

Once upon a time:

There was a country that had grown great and mighty on the basis more of its military power than anything else there was particularly to note about it. Officially this country was pledged to making the world a better place, to removing injustice. This country had a neighbor to the south that it had a vested interest in controlling and which as small countries strangled by big countries do resented the everloving Hell out of that. This country had also had a history of doing very bad things to its southern neighbor on a repeated basis. If there is such a thing as the geopolitical bad touch, this was what the one country did to the other.

But the beneficiaries of this New Man's Burden did not appreciate it and liked the Old Man better. So they overthrew the regime that had allowed these things, which led to the big neighbor going in on the official invitation of its new neighbor to restore justice for its economic interests. This repeated itself for a while and eventually the locals became just irritated enough to try for something completely different. So a group of armed gangsters rose up against one evil overlord and replaced him with another one. And the big country reacted with a frightened yelp that was followed by a blundering invasion that permanently soured relationships between the regions in question in ways that led to directly motivated terrorism by the small country aimed at the interests of the big one.

What is this referencing?

[This is a spoiler tag]
The United States' relationship with the former Spanish province called Cuba, the Teller Amendment, and the revolving door invasions and US backed coups and countercoups that produced Castro, the Bay of Pigs, and Cuban foreign adventurism during the Cold War.

One of the greatest problems IMHO with democracy has always been that democracy has been treated on a 'this is for me but not for thee' basis. If, however, democracies do not in fact allow democracy to exist in other parts of the world in the fear that their interests might not receive respect, does democracy have meaning as a concept? In my opinion I would say that only insofar as democracies adhere to their ideals outside their territorial boundaries, regardless of the price their interests might potentially pay, does democracy have a meaning as a force in geopolitical terms instead of as a buzzword for 'cough up the dough or else.'
Tags: democracy, history, usa
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded