Democracy vs Realpolitik: Where do you stand?

[Tahar Joblis]

I think the poll is a fairly self-explanatory. For extra credit, please also indicate which regimes you would attempt to overthrow.

Obviously, this topic has connections to the news; less obviously, this topic ALWAYS has connections to the news, in case you weren't paying attention.

[Hydesland]

Nazi oppressive theocratic oligarchy practising the Mugabe school of economics.

[Lackadaisical2]

Democracy is not an absolute good, and I'm a nationalist anyway, thus the states which do not actively go against my interests are the ones which I would support.

[Georgism]

The second one. It would be better for their own people and also better for us as we have somebody to compete against to focus the nation on, thus making us stronger too.

[North Suran]

Realpolitik is a type of foreign policy. Democracy is a political system.

I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

[Georgism]

Realpolitik is a type of foreign policy. Democracy is a political system.

I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

Because of the answers available in the poll.

[North Suran]

Realpolitik is a type of foreign policy. Democracy is a political system.

I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

Because of the answers available in the poll.

The poll is flawed. It posits that one has to make the choice between promoting democracy and defending your national interests by bringing countries into your sphere of influence. The USA has plenty of allies and friendly countries who are democracies.

[The Parkus Empire]

Realpolitik is a type of foreign policy. Democracy is a political system.

I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

They aren't everywhere, just in some countries.

[The Parkus Empire]

Because of the answers available in the poll.

The poll is flawed. It posits that one has to make the choice between promoting democracy and defending your national interests by bringing countries into your sphere of influence. The USA has plenty of allies and friendly countries who are democracies.

The U.S. also knew plenty of democracies which weren't interested in being her ally during the Cold War. Some of those countries paid the price.

[Georgism]

The poll is flawed. It posits that one has to make the choice between promoting democracy and defending your national interests by bringing countries into your sphere of influence. The USA has plenty of allies and friendly countries who are democracies.

Pretty sure it's just a hypothetical which is asking whether you'd prioritise your own nation's interests or the interests of the people in a nation opposed to you.

[Lackadaisical2]

Because of the answers available in the poll.

The poll is flawed. It posits that one has to make the choice between promoting democracy and defending your national interests by bringing countries into your sphere of influence. The USA has plenty of allies and friendly countries who are democracies.

I don't think the OP's intent was to provide one with every possible course of action, just the situations he personally found interesting/potentially troublesome.

[North Suran]

The poll is flawed. It posits that one has to make the choice between promoting democracy and defending your national interests by bringing countries into your sphere of influence. The USA has plenty of allies and friendly countries who are democracies.

Pretty sure it's just a hypothetical which is asking whether you'd prioritise your own nation's interests or the interests of the people in a nation opposed to you.

It's a self-serving hypothetical. It posits that you have to choose between the two extremes - hostile democracy or friendly dictatorship - without being able to have a middle ground. It would be akin to me asking you whether you would prefer to live in southern Somalia or North Korea.

[Whiskey Hill]

Self-determination for peoples is more important than anything. Since we are not terribly active internationally we don't care if their positions align with our interests.

[Whiskey Hill]

Self-determination for peoples is more important than anything. Since we are not terribly active internationally we don't care if their positions align with our interests.

Oh didn't notice this was an OOC board. I'd say the same, though.

[Abdju]

Nazi oppressive theocratic oligarchy practising the Mugabe school of economics.

That's the kind of state we can get behind! Heil bang-bang JEEEEZUS moolah TAKE THE FARMS!!!!

[The Parkus Empire]

Pretty sure it's just a hypothetical which is asking whether you'd prioritise your own nation's interests or the interests of the people in a nation opposed to you.

It's a self-serving hypothetical. It posits that you have to choose between the two extremes - hostile democracy or friendly dictatorship - without being able to have a middle ground. It would be akin to me asking you whether you would prefer to live in southern Somalia or North Korea.

A somewhat friendly (mostly neutral, really) state whose elections and government are marred by widespread fraud and corruption, respectively, while dissidents and reformers frequently "disappear."

[North Suran]

Self-determination for peoples is more important than anything. Since we are not terribly active internationally we don't care if their positions align with our interests.

So if your neighbour started calling for your country to be invaded, you wouldn't feel that you needed to intervene - or even concerned?

[North Suran]

It's a self-serving hypothetical. It posits that you have to choose between the two extremes - hostile democracy or friendly dictatorship - without being able to have a middle ground. It would be akin to me asking you whether you would prefer to live in southern Somalia or North Korea.

A somewhat friendly (mostly neutral, really) state whose elections and government are marred by widespread fraud and corruption, respectively, while dissidents and reformers frequently "disappear."

Still isn't really balance. Why is there no option, for example, for a fully functioning democracy which is totally apathetic and neutral towards your country? Y'know, considering this is the stance of a majority of countries in the world.

[Seleucas]

I think both systems of government suck, quite frankly.

[Georgism]

Still isn't really balance. Why is there no option, for example, for a fully functioning democracy which is totally apathetic and neutral towards your country? Y'know, considering this is the stance of a majority of countries in the world.

Because then the answer to 99% of this forum is obvious.

The question is basically asking which you prioritise: Freedom for people in other countries or security for your own nation.

It's meant to make you think.

[The Parkus Empire]

A somewhat friendly (mostly neutral, really) state whose elections and government are marred by widespread fraud and corruption, respectively, while dissidents and reformers frequently "disappear."

Still isn't really balance. Why is there no option, for example, for a fully functioning democracy which is totally apathetic and neutral towards your country? Y'know, considering this is the stance of a majority of countries in the world.

Because there are democracies that aren't, and those are obviously the kind of democracy this thread pertains to.

It's like a thread saying: "Someone is robbing your place and is going to kill you. Would you kill him first?" and then you coming along saying: "Robbers are rarely violent, so this is too black and white."

[North Suran]

Still isn't really balance. Why is there no option, for example, for a fully functioning democracy which is totally apathetic and neutral towards your country? Y'know, considering this is the stance of a majority of countries in the world.

Because then the answer to 99% of this forum is obvious.

The question is basically asking which you prioritise: Freedom for people in other countries or security for your own nation.

It's meant to make you think.

It's meant to make you choose between one or the other, which is no choice at all.

[Lackadaisical2]

Because then the answer to 99% of this forum is obvious.

The question is basically asking which you prioritise: Freedom for people in other countries or security for your own nation.

It's meant to make you think.

It's meant to make you choose between one or the other, which is no choice at all.

Sometimes life sucks like that.

[Whiskey Hill]

Self-determination for peoples is more important than anything. Since we are not terribly active internationally we don't care if their positions align with our interests.

So if your neighbour started calling for your country to be invaded, you wouldn't feel that you needed to intervene - or even concerned?

We are friendly with our neighbors. If that changes, we would change our policy toward them, but not by threatening their democratic institutions. Democracies rarely go to war with other democracies in an existential way, generally only to settle disputes.

[Georgism]

It's meant to make you choose between one or the other, which is no choice at all.

ITT: North Suran hates British democracy.