Democracy Aid 2004

November 5, 2003 4:15 AM

Democracy Aid 2004. One year from now, on November 2nd 2004, the next American Presidential elections will be held. For the first time ever, because of the Internet, it is possible for non-American private citizens to participate in the campaign process.
posted by soundofsuburbia (20 comments total)

What is democracy aid? Should crossborder campaigning be restricted?
posted by soundofsuburbia at 4:15 AM on November 5, 2003

I admit that I have been a member of moveon for over a year and have made donations to them. The donations were made to specific candidates in the congressional elections who were in close races. All of them lost.

However, I think that this is a great idea if only to let our government know what real people around the world think of their behavior. I also do not consider myself either left-wing or liberal - progressive, perhaps - I just don't like being lied to and for that matter being barred from riding this administration's gravy train. Also, I live much of the time in Europe and I don't like having to feel embarrassed about being an American.
posted by donfactor at 4:58 AM on November 5, 2003

The greatest portion of political investments, er, contributions seem to come, directly or indirectly, from America's elite and its mega-corporations who stand to gain from a particular candidate's election to office. I think we are all seeing how when one group "wins," others tend to lose somthing. That includes people and groups abroad. Why shouldn't everybody affected by our policymakers policies have some sort of a voice then?
posted by LouReedsSon at 5:19 AM on November 5, 2003

"Why are you not supporting a particular candidate?

First of all, that would not be legal (i. e. for a candidate to accept support from non-americans). "

Quite right too. Imagine the outcry if Americans tried to influence the outcome of other nations' electoral processes.
posted by Pericles at 5:36 AM on November 5, 2003

Hmm. Maybe a world government could start, not with a bang, but with a realization: should those who are affected by an authority have a voice in the selection of that authority?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:17 AM on November 5, 2003

Heh, what's funny is that Democrats get a significantly higher portion of large donations from rich people/foundations but Republicans get a significantly higher portion of small donations by average people.
posted by wrffr at 6:53 AM on November 5, 2003

should those who are affected by an authority have a voice in the selection of that authority?

Exactly. And what are nations anyway, but imaginary lines painted down the center of a room, so to speak? We're becoming a smaller world everyday through advances in technology, etc. So why not one world, one rule?

Of course we'd need to create a system that actually works first!
posted by LouReedsSon at 7:01 AM on November 5, 2003

"should those who are affected by an authority have a voice in the selection of that authority?"

Sure! If ya wanna come over here, contribute to american communities, invest your money in american commerce, pay taxes and become a citizen, we'd love to hear your voice in the selection of our authority. Heck, two thirds of the people doing that now DON'T care, so if you cared enough to do all that and then actually vote, we'd love to have ya on board. If you want to stay where you are and make choices that benefit your community at the expense of ours, we'd (well I'd) just as soon keep your mouth shut. But hey! The concept of inalienable rights is not limited to Americans, so speaking your mind freely just reinforces the proof that all have a right to life, liberty and happy pursuits.

All human beings are supposed to have inalienable rights, but they have to regularly exercise them and they have to be ever vigilant against forces that seek to undermine those rights. It's the problem we're having in Iraq right now. You can't just say, "Saddam's gone now everybody be democratic!" The people of Iraq expected America to bring democracy with them but it's not a tangible thing you can load up in a plane and fly over Baghdad. Being free doesn't mean removing one dictator just to make room for another. It's why we can't leave yet. If the US pulled out of Iraq today, tomorrow Saddam or someone just as bad as he would step in, because many Iraqi people are still unclear on how to properly exercise their rights.

I'm afraid this may be a cultural thing. Like a closed-minded western Christian trying to convince a japanese immigrant why serpents and dragons are signs of the devil. Ever seen that? It's a laughable argument to an outsider. Both sides have intrinsic cultural differences regarding the iconography of serpents. I'm afraid people in the middle east have been told democracy is evil for so long, that they can't get past the cultural beliefs to objectively see how they can incorporate democratic ideals into their own government structure. The very concept of a separation of church and state seems counter-intuitive, even if the alternative is counter-productive.

Ultimately, the american government is weighing heavily on the building and upkeep of other countries' governments, so it only makes sense that the reverse is inevitable. A world government not with a bang or even a realization, but a slow evolution bourne out of necessity.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:02 AM on November 5, 2003

Republicans get a significantly higher portion of small donations by average people.

I've heard that too, but I wonder how many of those "average people" are maybe influenced somehow by their corperate bosses? Just a thought.
posted by LouReedsSon at 7:04 AM on November 5, 2003

3. Are you anti-american?
No! Quite the contrary.

Well, I guess that eliminiates most Europeans as potential donors....
posted by Durwood at 7:05 AM on November 5, 2003

Well, I guess that eliminiates most Europeans as potential donors....

I am sure most Europeans are not anti-american but just don't like your government very much at the moment.
posted by sebas at 7:09 AM on November 5, 2003

Don't see why offshore dictators shouldn't have the option of repatriating some of their dollar reserves this way. Their only problem would then become the traditional one of finding crooked politicians who'll stay bought.


> should those who are affected by an authority have a voice
> in the selection of that authority?

Oh definitely. I'm affected by the decisions of the Tehran Militant Clergy Association and it's just outrageous that I have no voice in selecting their leaders.
posted by jfuller at 7:12 AM on November 5, 2003

The people of Iraq expected America to bring democracy with them

Did they? Or is taht just what we were told they expected?

But to get back on topic here, I agree with you completely that a world government should be a slow evolution. Ideas need to tested, mistakes made, etc, but I see this as some sort of a seed towards that. I'm all for it's concept even though I know I'll never see a complete evolution in my life. And that's ok, as long as we at least try something, 'cause this thang's broke, IMHO!
posted by LouReedsSon at 7:12 AM on November 5, 2003

"Did they?"

Ugh. Some of the Iraqi people.. That better?
posted by ZachsMind at 7:15 AM on November 5, 2003

Ugh. Some of the Iraqi people.. That better?

Aww shucks, sorry. Just me being me! I meant you no harm. :)
posted by LouReedsSon at 7:22 AM on November 5, 2003

Imagine the outcry if Americans tried to influence the outcome of other nations' electoral processes.

Yeah. Just imagine that. Sigh.

But hey! The concept of inalienable rights is not limited to Americans, so speaking your mind freely just reinforces the proof that all have a right to life, liberty and happy pursuits.

You do realize that it is currently the position of the U.S. government that campaign donations = free speech?
posted by rushmc at 7:22 AM on November 5, 2003

I think it's great. Nobody can say that the US doesn't impact the rest of the world in outstandingly obvious ways...especially now that we've adopted the policy of preeminent domain over the rest of the world...and have prodded the Russians into stepping up their vocalizations about their rights to preemptively strike any country that they "think" might be a threat.

Where the US goes, the world gets dragged along with it. Why shouldn't people outside of our borders be allowed to throw money to stop the Bush juggernaut? Good god, it's not like the Bush campaign is raising all of their money from mom and pop in Idaho. They're getting the vast majority of it from people like Kenneth Lay, who laundered the money in the Caribbean so as to avoid paying taxes on it.
posted by dejah420 at 7:36 AM on November 5, 2003

The great thing about campaign finance reform is that it keeps everyone distracted from the fact that we continue to hand over more power evey year to our elites on the right AND left.

Campaign finance reform is a red herring. As long as there is power to be sold, there will be money to buy it.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:50 AM on November 5, 2003

every. Damn.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:50 AM on November 5, 2003

I wonder if anyone can come up with a valid source (link?) for this perception that Republicans get more of their money form ordinary people and the Democrats get more of theirs from rich people and foundations.

I have seen figures showing huge amounts given the Republicans by corporations - legal soft money from Enron, et al - but I haven't found anything showing who is giving such big amounts to the Dems. The only numbers I can recall have been about the size of the Republican 'war chest' - that's what they call it! And the amazing amount that moveon raised from ordinary people for Democrats.

Hard information, please.
posted by donfactor at 10:12 AM on November 5, 2003