Hart again: “In reality, these not-ready-for-democracy players in imperialistic parts of the world are better served in the short run under the control of a strong-armed leader. ‘Thug-ocracies’ can be fine for keeping countries under control until democracy can take its natural course; China and Russia come to mind as examples.”

And pray tell me, Mr. Hart, which parts of the world are those? Which is this thug-ocracy where everyone is better off than if they had free elections? How exactly does this benefit the people of China? Or Tibet, which is an occupied state?

And what makes you think democracy will “take its natural course”? China hasn’t had democracy in 50 years and it shows little sign of softening. Saddam or one of his sons would probably be still be in charge in Iraq if we hadn’t invaded (no, I don’t consider that a good reason to go in, but it’s certainly true). Saudi Arabia has less democracy than Iran, but they royal family isn’t letting go.

And what does this have to do with Iran? They were ready for democracy back in 1953, then we decided they were electing the wrong people and installed the Shah and financed his secret police? If they’re not ready for democracy—and it looks like a lot of them are pretty keen on it—wouldn’t that be our fault?

Admittedly, this is a fairly common attitude in Washington: People are ready for democracy when they vote the way we like, and if they’re not then they clearly need “stability” or “a firm hand” or some other euphemism. Many of our leaders have no qualms going several steps beyond Hart’s Thugocracy Is Good thesis; they don’t merely tolerate the thugs, they overthrow democracies (Guatemala, Iran) or prop up tyrants (Panama, Iraq, El Salvador) so we can get the oil or the mining or whatever else it is we think we’re entitled to.

It’s one of our country’s most shameful legacies.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.