Gov Kodos wrote:
I expect you'd have a great career in the Catholic Church. They pander that mea culpa original sin thing, too.
Which part of past generation as in "not me but the guys who existed before me" do you not understand? Ignorance is not bliss, history is there to learn from it.
Unlike you Sci argues totally rational, there is no guilt feeling complex or whatever. By the way, nobody cares about your anti-Catholic obsessions and they certainly do not belong into this debate.
As a useful term, "democracy" has to refer to any political system in which the citizens formally possess equal rights and exercise an equal voice in the selection of the government officials. The distinction between and oligarchy and a democracy is purely a quantitative one, hence open to fluctuations in standards. Thus, Athenian democracy or US democracy prior to the Sixties can be argued not to be democratic. In practice, a universalizing moralistic discourse is not as useful for clarity as historical context. So, yes, slaver America was a democracy. It's just that "democracy" is just not what it's cracked up to be. The attempt to redefine the term as an effort to annex a particular vision may have good motives, but it's still confusionism.
I think the crucial question is whether you are a "proper" democracy if you have a representative form of government and the rule of law at home ... but your conducts abroad are anything but democratic in the sense of being lawful and respecting the wish of the people you deal with.
I would say no and I don't think that this is idealistic. As you pointed out, democracy has been misused so often for propaganda purposes than one has to reappropriate the term and give it back a meaning.