New Blog Archives
2 July 2009
Egalitarianism - Again
Fareed Zacharia put it just right: we have come to the point where we have too much democracy and not
enough liberty. Think about that for a minute.
We have come to really believe that everyone really really really is equal - to all the rest. Uh uh. No one else
labors under that disallusion. In fact neither do we, but our politicians pretend they do because it leads to
power. Nothing new there.
Education is the prime example - everyone needs to aspire to the same goals - no, have expectations of the
same results. Even though some are not inspired by that one size fits all? Really? But many constituencies
push it anyway, to our detriment. Good (government) jobs, good pay. Go for it.
It is time we listened to others and got off the kick of trying to make everyone equal. It doesn't work. It won't
work. So why do we keep trying? Ah, I know, power. It resonates with our social democrats - to their
advantage. And they care about where it will take us? Uh huh.
Egalitarianism - Again
Fareed Zacharia put it just right: we have come to the point where we have too much democracy and not
enough liberty. Think about that for a minute.
We have come to really believe that everyone really really really is equal - to all the rest. Uh uh. No one else
labors under that disallusion. In fact neither do we, but our politicians pretend they do because it leads to
power. Nothing new there.
Education is the prime example - everyone needs to aspire to the same goals - no, have expectations of the
same results. Even though some are not inspired by that one size fits all? Really? But many constituencies
push it anyway, to our detriment. Good (government) jobs, good pay. Go for it.
It is time we listened to others and got off the kick of trying to make everyone equal. It doesn't work. It won't
work. So why do we keep trying? Ah, I know, power. It resonates with our social democrats - to their
advantage. And they care about where it will take us? Uh huh.
14 July 2009
Technology, Complexity, Maintenance
In a book chronicling a trip across the Western part of the country, Robert D. Kaplan asked the rhetorical
question: "Was the developed world, I wondered, defined not by its riches or a lighter skin color but by
maintenance?"
Several days later I observed an organ mechanic repairing an electronic organ and discussed the progress
of an auto mechanic working on my car's electrical system. There was a confluence of thought. Each year we
build more complicated machines (actually we mostly design machines to build them) and maintaining them
becomes more and more challenging, while it is difficult not to see less and less interest in technician work
among our young. At what point does that gap become untenable?
Anyone who has been in the developing world knows full well the problem with maintaining anything; money,
skills, equipment, motivation all contribute; probably the most important being skills and motivation. Currently
we are filling some of the skill gaps with immigrants, who seem to have the motivation many of us lack. Is that
the future.
It has been clear for some time how spoiled we are, how demanding, how entitled; so this should not come
as a surprise. Nor, I would suggest, does it portend any immediate and cataclysmic disaster. But it is
something to think about, because it could one day become one.
Technology, Complexity, Maintenance
In a book chronicling a trip across the Western part of the country, Robert D. Kaplan asked the rhetorical
question: "Was the developed world, I wondered, defined not by its riches or a lighter skin color but by
maintenance?"
Several days later I observed an organ mechanic repairing an electronic organ and discussed the progress
of an auto mechanic working on my car's electrical system. There was a confluence of thought. Each year we
build more complicated machines (actually we mostly design machines to build them) and maintaining them
becomes more and more challenging, while it is difficult not to see less and less interest in technician work
among our young. At what point does that gap become untenable?
Anyone who has been in the developing world knows full well the problem with maintaining anything; money,
skills, equipment, motivation all contribute; probably the most important being skills and motivation. Currently
we are filling some of the skill gaps with immigrants, who seem to have the motivation many of us lack. Is that
the future.
It has been clear for some time how spoiled we are, how demanding, how entitled; so this should not come
as a surprise. Nor, I would suggest, does it portend any immediate and cataclysmic disaster. But it is
something to think about, because it could one day become one.
12 August 2009
Democratic Politicians
Politicians - the men and women that govern in a democratic republic - are interesting animals. I almost said
unique, but they are not unique, for any government of any stripe will include politicians; ours are only different
because of the manner in which they gain their positions, by election; otherwise they do as any government
official with power must do: they assist in governing as prescribed by whatever rules are extant, preferably as
called out in a constitution.
In a republic politician is a career field, one that I do not particularly care for, thus I am basically uncomfortable
with its participants: the kind of people that are attracted to the career field. So I am also uncomfortable with
the question, do you "like" one or another of those that are trying to enter it. Do I like him or her? I don't know
them and their personalities are such that they are basically unknowable. Why? Because they are playing a
role; they have to play a role; we demand it of them; and they are a type that glories in that role - a role with a
fair amount of power.
Many have written about the desire of elected politicians to cling to their positions - that power. But then we all
wish to hold our jobs. Theirs, however, is different from most. They don't really do much, although they may
put in long hours or travel frequently. Mostly, however, they talk and manipulate - and instruct staff personnel to
prepare letters and laws for their approval; few really DO much of anything outside of that. But then that's quite
within the purview of what many lawyers are about, which is why many politicians are lawyers, and why elected
politicians are referred to as law-makers.
Bryan Caplan, in his book, The Myth of the Rational Voter, wrote something that made an impression upon
me, as relates to politicians. They are always on tenuous ground. If they say what they believe which is not
what the voters believe they cannot be elected. But if they say what the voters want them to say and it turns out
badly they will not be reelected. So they play a middle game in order to maintain their jobs. I don't like people
like that but I empathize with the position they are in.
So we come back to "liking" our representative, or not. As I have written often, we in this age of communication
and fantasy approach it as we would approach voting for our choice for American Idol. That, I believe, is a
terrible way to select a national leader; but that is how they are elected and they exude personality and
charisma so voters will "like" them. So what would I recommend? To "like" a politician I would have to 1)
respect him or her, and 2) trust them. For me to have respect they must have demonstrated an ability to do
something I feel qualifies them to be a leader, and demonstrate the knowledge they would need to be a
political leader. But many exaggerate or even prevaricate accomplishments, knowledge and intentions, thus
losing my trust. Succinctly stated I really can't believe what they say, for the reasons Caplan enumerated, but
also because I know the demands of their profession demand it.
Thus I have to admit I have never voted for a candidate for office; I have always voted against him or her I
considered most dangerous. Wait, I did once vote FOR the mayor of my city; he was also my dentist so I felt I
knew him outside of his other profession. He served for the reasons that once motivated many political
leaders - a desire to serve. Perhaps it still exists elsewhere, I am sure it does, but it is difficult to tell when
desire to serve is real or feigned. So I go back to my preferred definition of candidate "like" - respect and trust.
I cannot "like" a politician who I do not respect or cannot trust. But I find many opportunities to dislike them.
That truly limits the options.
Democratic Politicians
Politicians - the men and women that govern in a democratic republic - are interesting animals. I almost said
unique, but they are not unique, for any government of any stripe will include politicians; ours are only different
because of the manner in which they gain their positions, by election; otherwise they do as any government
official with power must do: they assist in governing as prescribed by whatever rules are extant, preferably as
called out in a constitution.
In a republic politician is a career field, one that I do not particularly care for, thus I am basically uncomfortable
with its participants: the kind of people that are attracted to the career field. So I am also uncomfortable with
the question, do you "like" one or another of those that are trying to enter it. Do I like him or her? I don't know
them and their personalities are such that they are basically unknowable. Why? Because they are playing a
role; they have to play a role; we demand it of them; and they are a type that glories in that role - a role with a
fair amount of power.
Many have written about the desire of elected politicians to cling to their positions - that power. But then we all
wish to hold our jobs. Theirs, however, is different from most. They don't really do much, although they may
put in long hours or travel frequently. Mostly, however, they talk and manipulate - and instruct staff personnel to
prepare letters and laws for their approval; few really DO much of anything outside of that. But then that's quite
within the purview of what many lawyers are about, which is why many politicians are lawyers, and why elected
politicians are referred to as law-makers.
Bryan Caplan, in his book, The Myth of the Rational Voter, wrote something that made an impression upon
me, as relates to politicians. They are always on tenuous ground. If they say what they believe which is not
what the voters believe they cannot be elected. But if they say what the voters want them to say and it turns out
badly they will not be reelected. So they play a middle game in order to maintain their jobs. I don't like people
like that but I empathize with the position they are in.
So we come back to "liking" our representative, or not. As I have written often, we in this age of communication
and fantasy approach it as we would approach voting for our choice for American Idol. That, I believe, is a
terrible way to select a national leader; but that is how they are elected and they exude personality and
charisma so voters will "like" them. So what would I recommend? To "like" a politician I would have to 1)
respect him or her, and 2) trust them. For me to have respect they must have demonstrated an ability to do
something I feel qualifies them to be a leader, and demonstrate the knowledge they would need to be a
political leader. But many exaggerate or even prevaricate accomplishments, knowledge and intentions, thus
losing my trust. Succinctly stated I really can't believe what they say, for the reasons Caplan enumerated, but
also because I know the demands of their profession demand it.
Thus I have to admit I have never voted for a candidate for office; I have always voted against him or her I
considered most dangerous. Wait, I did once vote FOR the mayor of my city; he was also my dentist so I felt I
knew him outside of his other profession. He served for the reasons that once motivated many political
leaders - a desire to serve. Perhaps it still exists elsewhere, I am sure it does, but it is difficult to tell when
desire to serve is real or feigned. So I go back to my preferred definition of candidate "like" - respect and trust.
I cannot "like" a politician who I do not respect or cannot trust. But I find many opportunities to dislike them.
That truly limits the options.
14 August 2009
Universal Medical Coverage
This is a very interesting subject, if you are not emotionally inclined. Everyone has been saying for
years that something has to be done before Medicare/Medicaid goes bankrupt. But the Pols
cannot agree on what to do, mainly because they treat it as politics and not a national issue of
bipartisan consdideration. I would make some observations on the subject.
We already have a universal insurance of last resort; it’s called Medicaid. Unfortunately it is mostly
utilized in the ER rooms of those hospitals that deal with it, and it’s destroying them.
No matter how we hate talking about it there will be rationing of medical care because there is no
way everyone will always be afforded everything he/she desires, regardless of age; the demand is
and will always be too great. And it can only increase if it is free; there must be enough co-pay to
cause the need of individuals to have to make economic decisions regarding financial priorities.
There is too much feel-good service for people unwilling to endure any discomfort.
Some of the high cost of medical care is due to the cost of developing its supply. Ironically
government funding of research contributes to that as more and more exotic (and expensive)
procedures are developed, offered and publicized (advertised) – and requested (demanded?).
But defensive medicine – defense against tort law suits – is another, and perhaps even greater
cost. Tort law is a growth industry always seeking new “products.” Medical costs will never be
brought under control until tort lawyers are brought under control. And that poses great difficulties
in a free market culture where tort lawyers exert massive influence on the government, and are
fully versed in how to manipulate the system.
There is corruption within the Medicare/Medicaid system; there is too much money flowing for
there not to be. But administration by bureaucracy also contributes. Politics also plays a role as
politicians continually strive to give more away to constituents with inadequate concern for the
consequences. The more active the role of the government the more problems there will be – as
always with government. A system designed by politicians will always be flawed at its inception,
and then get worse.
Medicaid for illegal immigrants is a problem that must be dealt with, if for no other reason that
illegals are crossing the border expressly for the medical care they expect to receive. The solution
will inevitably include economic considerations that discourage such expectations.
Since medicine is a portion of the economy in excess of $2T universal medical coverage will be
complex, particularly in defining exceptions (without politicizing them). Since few politicians
understand economics, and fewer yet understand medicine the solution cannot be left to
politicians.
It is also of interest that a significant number of persons not covered by medical insurance are not
covered because they choose to be so, due to the desire to avoid that cost even if they can afford it,
there must be consideration for that group of people. Despite political conceit to the contrary there
cannot be a one size fits all solution.
And that’s only on the surface of it. There are myriad details, most of which the politicians have not
considered because, let’s face it, they haven’t a clue as to what they are.
Universal Medical Coverage
This is a very interesting subject, if you are not emotionally inclined. Everyone has been saying for
years that something has to be done before Medicare/Medicaid goes bankrupt. But the Pols
cannot agree on what to do, mainly because they treat it as politics and not a national issue of
bipartisan consdideration. I would make some observations on the subject.
We already have a universal insurance of last resort; it’s called Medicaid. Unfortunately it is mostly
utilized in the ER rooms of those hospitals that deal with it, and it’s destroying them.
No matter how we hate talking about it there will be rationing of medical care because there is no
way everyone will always be afforded everything he/she desires, regardless of age; the demand is
and will always be too great. And it can only increase if it is free; there must be enough co-pay to
cause the need of individuals to have to make economic decisions regarding financial priorities.
There is too much feel-good service for people unwilling to endure any discomfort.
Some of the high cost of medical care is due to the cost of developing its supply. Ironically
government funding of research contributes to that as more and more exotic (and expensive)
procedures are developed, offered and publicized (advertised) – and requested (demanded?).
But defensive medicine – defense against tort law suits – is another, and perhaps even greater
cost. Tort law is a growth industry always seeking new “products.” Medical costs will never be
brought under control until tort lawyers are brought under control. And that poses great difficulties
in a free market culture where tort lawyers exert massive influence on the government, and are
fully versed in how to manipulate the system.
There is corruption within the Medicare/Medicaid system; there is too much money flowing for
there not to be. But administration by bureaucracy also contributes. Politics also plays a role as
politicians continually strive to give more away to constituents with inadequate concern for the
consequences. The more active the role of the government the more problems there will be – as
always with government. A system designed by politicians will always be flawed at its inception,
and then get worse.
Medicaid for illegal immigrants is a problem that must be dealt with, if for no other reason that
illegals are crossing the border expressly for the medical care they expect to receive. The solution
will inevitably include economic considerations that discourage such expectations.
Since medicine is a portion of the economy in excess of $2T universal medical coverage will be
complex, particularly in defining exceptions (without politicizing them). Since few politicians
understand economics, and fewer yet understand medicine the solution cannot be left to
politicians.
It is also of interest that a significant number of persons not covered by medical insurance are not
covered because they choose to be so, due to the desire to avoid that cost even if they can afford it,
there must be consideration for that group of people. Despite political conceit to the contrary there
cannot be a one size fits all solution.
And that’s only on the surface of it. There are myriad details, most of which the politicians have not
considered because, let’s face it, they haven’t a clue as to what they are.
20 August 2009
Democracy - and Complexity
American democracy, entwined as it is with free markets, rule of law and rights, really is complex. And
despite the time that is was written, the Constitution did a masterful job of balancing all of that with reality - the
reality of the times, but surprisingly consistent with changes that have occurred since, even national and
international trade - not perfectly, and not without controversy, but impressively.
Enter progressive political administrations that are both naive and ignorant - ignorant of history, ignorant of
economics, and ignorant of human nature. Not unsurprisingly,they are making the same mistakes that so
many progressives have made through recent history, particularly the mistake of believing they can change
human nature to be as they wish it would be, and control it through bureaucracy.
California, being smaller and less complex than the entire country is doing its part to prove the ineptitude.
Finances - economics - go without the need for much explanation. Politicians appear to think they can do
whatever they wish to do and it will pay for itself; when it doesn't they are amazed - or perhaps just confused.
Additionally they recently, through urging of the Supreme Court, decided to integrate the prison populations of
a grossly crowded prison system. Of course it didn't work, surprise, surprise, and there were riots. But how
could that be? Diversity is gospel, right? And they decided to "get tough on crime" though they weren't willing
or able to build more prisons.
But California is not alone, nor does the national legislature pay much attention to such inconvenient
details. They (the nationals) are in the process of screwing up the detention of immigrants and immigrant
families; families should stay together, right? But how? And then there is the case of Guantanamo. And
health care, and global warming, and energy, etc.
The problems are similar: each is being dealt with as unrelated to anything else. And, again surprise,
surprise, there are unintended circumstances to deal with when the problem is placed within the whole. Who
would have thunk it? Certainly not ideological progressive politicians with little knowledge of, or interest in
much beyond politics, and their own individual power.
It has long been known that democracy is not practical beyond the local; there are too many diverse
opinions and conflicting objectives. The ultimate result is gridlock at best, but anarchy at its worst, and
special interests and wildly expensive and pervasive communications feed the contrary emotions. Is the
United States headed for anarchy? Perhaps more to the point is it headed for bankruptcy? Or both at the
same time? Probably not. Instead we will be "saved" by inflation on the economic end and damned into
perennial gridlock on the other. The two will feed each other of course and probably keep much of anything
useful from happening. But unless they succeed in destroying free enterprise, we will stagger on, regionally,
according to Robert D. Kaplan, who sees us becoming more and more regional, with pockets of success
laced with wastelands of abject poverty - a different kind of anarchy.
But we are not alone; we are being aided and abetted, because the rest of the world is far worse off and its
more ambitious try to come the West, and particularly the United States in ever greater numbers. When they
have valuable skills, and integrate into the American culture, that's not all bad, but when they don't it just adds
to the chaos; both are happening.
We live in interesting times. Despite technology and increased educational opportunities it is a time of
towering ignorance, but because of the technology and education many, many are aware of how it could be,
and agitate for that - blindly I might add. But alas, entrenched power and even more, ambitious new power
pockets, have different ideas and are willing to employ suppression and terrorism to achieve them. As I have
said often, terrorism only destroys, but it does so quite cost effectively; suppression just keeps much useful
from happening. So who builds? We shall see; perhaps we are headed back to gated communities
(castles?) protected by hired police forces - with devastating weapons of destruction. That is more realistic,
after all, than total destruction, for we are likely not going to give in to total destruction passively, at least not in
the United States.
Meanwhile our progressive politicians stumble on, ignorant and oblivious, thinking they are making the
world a better place in which to live.
Democracy - and Complexity
American democracy, entwined as it is with free markets, rule of law and rights, really is complex. And
despite the time that is was written, the Constitution did a masterful job of balancing all of that with reality - the
reality of the times, but surprisingly consistent with changes that have occurred since, even national and
international trade - not perfectly, and not without controversy, but impressively.
Enter progressive political administrations that are both naive and ignorant - ignorant of history, ignorant of
economics, and ignorant of human nature. Not unsurprisingly,they are making the same mistakes that so
many progressives have made through recent history, particularly the mistake of believing they can change
human nature to be as they wish it would be, and control it through bureaucracy.
California, being smaller and less complex than the entire country is doing its part to prove the ineptitude.
Finances - economics - go without the need for much explanation. Politicians appear to think they can do
whatever they wish to do and it will pay for itself; when it doesn't they are amazed - or perhaps just confused.
Additionally they recently, through urging of the Supreme Court, decided to integrate the prison populations of
a grossly crowded prison system. Of course it didn't work, surprise, surprise, and there were riots. But how
could that be? Diversity is gospel, right? And they decided to "get tough on crime" though they weren't willing
or able to build more prisons.
But California is not alone, nor does the national legislature pay much attention to such inconvenient
details. They (the nationals) are in the process of screwing up the detention of immigrants and immigrant
families; families should stay together, right? But how? And then there is the case of Guantanamo. And
health care, and global warming, and energy, etc.
The problems are similar: each is being dealt with as unrelated to anything else. And, again surprise,
surprise, there are unintended circumstances to deal with when the problem is placed within the whole. Who
would have thunk it? Certainly not ideological progressive politicians with little knowledge of, or interest in
much beyond politics, and their own individual power.
It has long been known that democracy is not practical beyond the local; there are too many diverse
opinions and conflicting objectives. The ultimate result is gridlock at best, but anarchy at its worst, and
special interests and wildly expensive and pervasive communications feed the contrary emotions. Is the
United States headed for anarchy? Perhaps more to the point is it headed for bankruptcy? Or both at the
same time? Probably not. Instead we will be "saved" by inflation on the economic end and damned into
perennial gridlock on the other. The two will feed each other of course and probably keep much of anything
useful from happening. But unless they succeed in destroying free enterprise, we will stagger on, regionally,
according to Robert D. Kaplan, who sees us becoming more and more regional, with pockets of success
laced with wastelands of abject poverty - a different kind of anarchy.
But we are not alone; we are being aided and abetted, because the rest of the world is far worse off and its
more ambitious try to come the West, and particularly the United States in ever greater numbers. When they
have valuable skills, and integrate into the American culture, that's not all bad, but when they don't it just adds
to the chaos; both are happening.
We live in interesting times. Despite technology and increased educational opportunities it is a time of
towering ignorance, but because of the technology and education many, many are aware of how it could be,
and agitate for that - blindly I might add. But alas, entrenched power and even more, ambitious new power
pockets, have different ideas and are willing to employ suppression and terrorism to achieve them. As I have
said often, terrorism only destroys, but it does so quite cost effectively; suppression just keeps much useful
from happening. So who builds? We shall see; perhaps we are headed back to gated communities
(castles?) protected by hired police forces - with devastating weapons of destruction. That is more realistic,
after all, than total destruction, for we are likely not going to give in to total destruction passively, at least not in
the United States.
Meanwhile our progressive politicians stumble on, ignorant and oblivious, thinking they are making the
world a better place in which to live.
21 August 2009
Limitations of History
Always being a proponent of trying to learn more history I am now pointing to limitations. Inconsistent?
Not really, for the greatest limitation of the utility of history is there is so much of it. Think about it in terms
of the numbers of people, the numbers of countries and cultures and the time over which it spans. Even if
one has time to read it in depth, how to keep it all straight? It is a real challenge.
I was first impressed by this fact while in Sudan, having tea with an Arab with whom I was pursuing a
business proposition. Before leaving for Sudan I availed myself of several books describing the country, its
culture and its history, before the advent of the current Islamist regime, of course. He immediately launched
into its politics and history, assuming that i was as familiar with it as he was with mine.
Americans, by and large, have little knowledge of the rest of the world; the rest of the world, to the contrary
(at least the educated) have quite a bit of knowledge of America. There is a reason for that: they have reason
to want to know more about America; we have little to want to know about them. Does that sound arrogant?
Think about it - think about all those countries and cultures and how seldom we in America have an
opportunity to deal with them and what they are doing at any particular moment - or what they might have
done in the past. And how many of them can we possibly get to know - and keep straight?
Yet even the small ones (Serbia and Bulgaria and the precipitation of World War I?) can and have
influenced our own history. But even then, our interest is usually restricted to events. What of the people and
what they think and experience? There is little written, perhaps because there is little interest - even within
those countries for a number of reasons, including education or restrictions in many that discourage or
punish too much investigation lest unpleasant facts be divulged.
So what? The United States for better or worse has constant relationships with most other countries,
and we are intent on encouraging them to do things as we do them, since we KNOW that's the best way.
Specifically all the world should be democratic, and if it was we would all be better off.
Only many diplomats or business people, many more tourists and almost all politicians who hold these
views have little enough understanding of the people of these countries, their cultures or the difficulties they
might experience in trying to implement modern democratic republican governments, and don't make too
much effort to find out.
Our own government is famous for unintended circumstances, that is, passing laws sufficiently vague
that the result is often quite different than that allegedly intended. Some of that, I would contend, is intended
to leave opportunities for lawyers either to flesh them out or manipulate them; but some of it is arrogant
naiveté. Everyone, after all, is pretty much the same, have the same dreams and desires, so should have
our advantages. Without pursuing that in too much detail let it suffice to say that although most people in the
world envy our material advantages and opportunities, many have some serious reservations about how we
conduct our lives and our business.
Put bluntly we and our leaders really don't understand the world and its peoples very well and make little
effort to. That is a real problem when we are trying to dictate to them how they should live, especially when
there are serious impediments to accomplishing it, even should they want to.
Limitations of History
Always being a proponent of trying to learn more history I am now pointing to limitations. Inconsistent?
Not really, for the greatest limitation of the utility of history is there is so much of it. Think about it in terms
of the numbers of people, the numbers of countries and cultures and the time over which it spans. Even if
one has time to read it in depth, how to keep it all straight? It is a real challenge.
I was first impressed by this fact while in Sudan, having tea with an Arab with whom I was pursuing a
business proposition. Before leaving for Sudan I availed myself of several books describing the country, its
culture and its history, before the advent of the current Islamist regime, of course. He immediately launched
into its politics and history, assuming that i was as familiar with it as he was with mine.
Americans, by and large, have little knowledge of the rest of the world; the rest of the world, to the contrary
(at least the educated) have quite a bit of knowledge of America. There is a reason for that: they have reason
to want to know more about America; we have little to want to know about them. Does that sound arrogant?
Think about it - think about all those countries and cultures and how seldom we in America have an
opportunity to deal with them and what they are doing at any particular moment - or what they might have
done in the past. And how many of them can we possibly get to know - and keep straight?
Yet even the small ones (Serbia and Bulgaria and the precipitation of World War I?) can and have
influenced our own history. But even then, our interest is usually restricted to events. What of the people and
what they think and experience? There is little written, perhaps because there is little interest - even within
those countries for a number of reasons, including education or restrictions in many that discourage or
punish too much investigation lest unpleasant facts be divulged.
So what? The United States for better or worse has constant relationships with most other countries,
and we are intent on encouraging them to do things as we do them, since we KNOW that's the best way.
Specifically all the world should be democratic, and if it was we would all be better off.
Only many diplomats or business people, many more tourists and almost all politicians who hold these
views have little enough understanding of the people of these countries, their cultures or the difficulties they
might experience in trying to implement modern democratic republican governments, and don't make too
much effort to find out.
Our own government is famous for unintended circumstances, that is, passing laws sufficiently vague
that the result is often quite different than that allegedly intended. Some of that, I would contend, is intended
to leave opportunities for lawyers either to flesh them out or manipulate them; but some of it is arrogant
naiveté. Everyone, after all, is pretty much the same, have the same dreams and desires, so should have
our advantages. Without pursuing that in too much detail let it suffice to say that although most people in the
world envy our material advantages and opportunities, many have some serious reservations about how we
conduct our lives and our business.
Put bluntly we and our leaders really don't understand the world and its peoples very well and make little
effort to. That is a real problem when we are trying to dictate to them how they should live, especially when
there are serious impediments to accomplishing it, even should they want to.