Shocker: I Think Democracy is a Fallacy

This morning I was thinking about what many people who are even marginally involved with politics think about: Iraq. Why are we there? What are the virtues of being in that God-forsaken sandhole?

I came up with a few legitimate reasons that are commonly extolled by pro-war folk and one fallacy that they behold.

1. WMDs. We thought there were WMDs. Obviously, up until now, none have been found. But to assume that none existed would be silly. Common sense tells us that Saddam got rid of them before we could find them. But here we are. No WMDs and pie on our face.
2. Military strategy and foreign policy. We are in Iraq because, if you look on a map, you can see that Iraq is smack dab in the center of the most volatile region on the planet. Strategically, it's an excellent place to start a democracy and build an ally. (When I say, "ally", I don't mean "puppet government" – although, personally, I don't think that wouldn’t be such a bad thing anyway.)
3. Oil. Yes, of course this war is partially because of oil but it's mostly because of the 3,000 murdered in the middle of Manhattan. But the clear matter is that without oil, the world would grind to a halt. Just think: no more driving and no more petroleum products. You might be able to skate by with very little driving, but how many of you can go through a day without handling or using a hundred plastic items? To leave the world's oil supply in the hands of nutties like Saddam and Ahmedinaidnijaddidimejad would be completely suicidal. (Incidentally, Saddam seems like a sane fellow next to Ahmedinaidnijaddidimejad. But that might be because Saddam has been behind bars for so many months now.)

Now, the fallacy that I was thinking about is that establishing of a democracy in Iraq, while it certainly appeals to the Western mind, may not be the most practical policy. Practical on the short term, yes. Practical in the long-term, not necessarily.

The idea that all people want democracy and freedom as we know it, is a concept familiar only to the modern democracies. What I'm saying is that dictatorships, patriarchies, and theocracies are much more prevalent throughout history and democracy is a relatively new invention. To assume that human nature demands freedom may be a false presumption.

I look at my kids and I see that they have no sense of democracy whatsoever. It is only when I introduce democracy to them do they even have a clue what voting is. I say, "where should we go to lunch?" and between me, Zach, Hannah, and Annie, I get two or three different suggestions. Then I often say, "OK, let's vote." Up until that point, they fully expect Annie and me to decide where we're going to go eat. They know that we know the circumstances better than they do and they trust us to make the right decision. How much cash do I have on hand? What food is good for the kids? How much time do we have before we have to go wherever? How much gas do I have in the tank? Are there other errands we need to run that makes good use of our location? Giving the kids a vote doesn't always give us the best result.
But even in these rare instances where I allow the kids to have a say in their midday meal, their mom and I dictate the two or three choices I give them to vote on. And I often offer the caveat that "Dad's vote is worth three votes" anyway, creating only the illusion of democracy. (Please feel free to leave your theories on how America's current voting system is also an illusion of democracy. I always love a good conspiracy theory.)

So from birth, people are not predisposed to democracy or the desire to have freedom. I think people are designed to obey strong leadership that delegates properly and gives moral oversight more than they are designed to handle "freedom" as we traditionally know it.

Just think: suppose a free people group is so immoral and unethical and are still allowed to vote for their representatives in government. Wouldn't the government be naturally corrupt? It makes more sense that the leadership is a moral and ethical entity or person that can guide, lead, and yes, dictate what is right to the masses. This is what the family unit is supposed to be like and I believe that's the way we have been designed to function and govern. In an ideal world, this is how governments would be run. As it is, our world is far from ideal and any person that rises to the status of this theoretical Patriarch would instantly become corrupted anyway.

So for now, democracy is our best bet here and abroad. But make no mistake; democracy is a crutch for the aimless and strong, moral leadership (by an infallible person) is the way to go.