By Jason Sibert<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The United States has frequently held itself up as a beacon of democracy to the world. We\u2019ve sometimes seen the development of democracy as the way to a peaceful world. It\u2019s nice to see the U.S. becoming more electorally democratic in time. In the earliest days of the republic, only white men with a certain amount of property could vote.\u00a0 Women gained the right to vote with women\u2019s suffrage in the 1920\u2019s and People of Color (POC) gained the right to vote with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (POC voting was confined to certain regions prior to that key law). America became more democratic in economics from the 1930\u2019s to the 1970\u2019s with the adoption of some moderate social democratic reforms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The democratic republican form of government does a lot for the idea of international law and peace, as international relations scholars have long realized that democracies do a lot for foreign relations because of their stability, according to Rachel Myrick (\u201cAmerican is Back \u2013 But for How Long?\u201d, Foreign Affairs, June 14)\u00a0 In autocracies, when leaders are removed from power via revolution or military coup, the transitions often mean dramatic swings in foreign policy. This makes for a less stable international system. Our political system is currently polarized, and foreign policy is no exception. Former President Donald Trump challenged or withdrew from more than a dozen international agreements or institutions, including the Paris climate accord, the Iran nuclear deal, and the World Health Organization. Polarization presents a problem for foreign policy because it chips away at a key component of power \u2013 our reputation for stability and reliability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Political polarization means a tendency to dislike a\nparticular party, and this gives leaders an incentive to undo the\naccomplishments of the prior president. Trump was determined to undo all of\nObama\u2019s foreign policy accomplishments. Democracy holds another advantage over\nother forms of government when it comes to constraining leaders. Since leaders\nare held in check by the people, they are less likely to make threats or make\npromises they cannot keep. In international negotiations, the signals a democracy\nsends to foreign actors tend to be more credible because democracies also tend\nto be better at keeping international agreements. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Treaties are a problem in U.S. politics because they require two-thirds of the Senate to ratify. Myrick points out a solution to the ratification process and the problem with that solution: \u201canticipating partisan opposition, presidents now usually avoid the congressional approval process altogether by entering into political commitments or executive agreements instead. Although this strategy allows leaders to enact their preferred policies, there is a cost: agreements that are not ratified by Congress are more easily undone by subsequent administrations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Myrick points out that some feel the geopolitical competition between our country and the People\u2019s Republic of China might be cause for partisan cooperation. However, that doesn\u2019t seem to be the case because foreign policy is becoming more polarized by the moment. The polarization is weaking our democratic republic which could lead to a weaker international system and a less stable and more armed world. Despite our long Cold War with Soviet Russia, our country managed to engage in quality arms control with the SU and rachet down tensions at times, particularly in the nuclear realm. There was a policy of detente with Soviet Russia that emerged in the 1970\u2019s under President Richard Nixon, broke up under President Jimmy Carter, and reappeared under President Ronald Reagan. Would this be possible today? I don\u2019t think so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The concept of international law is only a valid concept if there\nis a group of nation-states that back up the law or laws in question. The U.S.\ncannot be a part of that body if it\u2019s always going back on agreements it made\nin the previous presidential administration, and it cannot be a beacon of hope\nto those who aspire to the democratic way of life if we fall out of the\ndemocratic republic orbit and into the orbit of authoritarian democracy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This brings us to the issue of voter suppression, a tool of those \u2013 like former President Donald Trump \u2013 that support the abolition of portions of our democracy that might weaken their power. All those who believe in the causes of democracy, international law and peace should fight voter suppression and the trend toward authoritarian democracy. A less stable international system and more deadly arsenals don\u2019t point to a better future. Social democrats have historically believed in political and economic democracy – let\u2019s continue to fight the good fight in the future. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Jason Sibert is the executive director of the Peace Economy Project.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Jason Sibert The United States has frequently held itself up as a beacon of democracy to the world. We\u2019ve sometimes seen the development of democracy as the way to a peaceful world. It\u2019s nice to see the U.S. becoming … Continue reading