POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY THE DAILY TELEGRAPH'S RICHARD SPENCER
Democracy is a natural outgrowth of economic development. When the middle class becomes large enough and well-off, its interests simply cannot be represented by elites.
Democracy grows out of this reality. Capable people, proved capable in business, start replacing elites whose only qualification is membership in a party or class. This was the story of Britain during the 18th century. It began even earlier.
But in the early stages of growth, countries are rarely democratic. The early U.S. was not a democracy in any meaningful sense. The 1% of Virginia that could vote was actually a somewhat smaller proportion of the population than that represented by the Communist Party today in China.
So far as democratic government in some form, I don't believe it is even possible for China to avoid it eventually.
China will develop democratic institutions in its own way. Of that there can be no doubt.
Isn't democratic government quite different comparing Britain and the U.S.? And even more different comparing Italy and the U.S.?
Neo-cons like to talk about democracy for all developing countries for several very selfish reasons.
The neo-cons are America-firsters. They are the first more or less cohesive group to emerge in America openly embracing empire and the power of empire to alter affairs in the world in America's favor.
They also have a second goal of validating Israel's excesses, Israel being a miniature geo-political replica of the United States that often serves as a proxy abroad.
Spouting democracy for all immediately makes the neo-cons sound good, but it is not out of principle or compassion that they do so.
Democratic government in a poor place can be extraordinarily inefficient and messy. Democratic governments are also by their very nature divided in their goals. They can also be in many cases subject more easily to bribes and influence, a specialty of the CIA.
