Democracy Promotion is Dead: Good Riddance

[rangerrebew]

Democracy Promotion is Dead: Good Riddance
By Francis P. Sempa
August 11, 2025


What passes for intellectual heft at The Atlantic magazine is any criticism of President Donald Trump. In The Atlantic’s pages and its digital fare, you can read the by now discredited musings of David Frum, who helped bring us the endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the inane foreign policy arguments of Max Boot; the interventionist prescriptions of Anne Applebaum; and now the democracy promotion of political science professor Brian Klaas, who in a recent article blames President Trump for killing “American democracy promotion.” If Klaas is correct, that is one more reason that Americans need to thank President Trump.

One would have thought that the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq would have humbled our nation’s democracy promoters, but they haven’t. One would have thought that the failed foreign policy of Jimmy Carter would have humbled those who wish to make “human rights” the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy, but it didn’t. One would have thought that the chaos facilitated by the so-called “Arab Spring” would engender prudence and introspection among the democracy promoters, but it is not so. Professor Klaas wants the world to become democratic and wants U.S. foreign policy to lead the effort in bringing the globe to the promised land.


The Trump administration, Klaas writes, has “turn[ed] against a long-standing tradition of Western democracy promotion.” Perhaps Klaas has never read George Washington’s Farewell Address in which he counseled his countrymen to conduct foreign policy based solely on the nation’s interests, or John Quincy Adams’ July 4, 1821, address in which he cautioned against going abroad in search of monsters to destroy and reminded his listeners that America is the well-wisher of freedom to all but the champion only of her own. Perhaps Klaas believes that Wilsonianism is a “long-standing” American tradition, but in reality, it is mostly limited to starry-eyed liberal internationalists and neoconservatives.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/08/11/democracy_promotion_is_dead_good_riddance_1127974.html

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

In my mind a democracy is the only legitimate form of government with some caveats: strong protection for political minorities (US Senate etc.).

[MeganC]

In my mind a democracy is the only legitimate form of government with some caveats: strong protection for political minorities (US Senate etc.).

Democracies suck. What we have is a Constitutional republic.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Democracies suck. What we have is a Constitutional republic.

Again with the knee jerk conservatism thought shortcuts! A constitutional republic can be a democracy.

[MeganC]

Again with the knee jerk conservatism thought shortcuts! A constitutional republic can be a democracy.

https://legaldictionary.net/constitutional-republic/

Constitutional Republic vs. Democracy

Some believe that the United States is a democracy, but it is actually the perfect example of a constitutional republic. A pure democracy would be a form of government in which the leaders, while elected by the people, are not constrained by a constitution as to its actions. In a republic, however, elected officials cannot take away or violate certain rights of the people. The Pledge of Allegiance, which was written in 1892 and adopted by Congress in 1942 as the official pledge, even makes reference to the fact that the U.S. is a republic:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” [emphasis added]

The Anti-Federalists and Federalists, as the new nation was being formed, could not agree on how involved the federal government should be in citizens’ lives; a decision on a pure democracy could never be reached. Alexander Hamilton, himself a Federalist, stated that the government being created was a “republican government,” and that true freedom would not be found in a dictatorship nor a true democracy, but in a moderate government.

James Madison, another Federalist, stated that, while citizens would otherwise get together to discuss governmental operations in a democracy, a republic instead leaves the bigger decisions up to its elected representatives. Madison stated that a democracy needs to be “confined to a small spot,” while republics could be “extended over a large[r] region.” What he meant by this, was that by not forming a democracy, citizens could allow representatives to make decisions for them on bigger issues, such as international relations, as opposed to having to find a way to all meet up and discuss these issues together.

Despite the fact that most countries claim that “democracy” is their main goal, most countries govern as republics. However, not all republics are the same; with some, for instance, operating under a president (like the U.S.), and others operating under a parliament (the U.K.), in which the people elect a legislative branch that then decides the executive branch. Even some monarchies operate as republics, despite having royalty as their heads of state.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

https://legaldictionary.net/constitutional-republic/

Constitutional Republic vs. Democracy

Some believe that the United States is a democracy, but it is actually the perfect example of a constitutional republic. A pure democracy would be a form of government in which the leaders, while elected by the people, are not constrained by a constitution as to its actions. In a republic, however, elected officials cannot take away or violate certain rights of the people. The Pledge of Allegiance, which was written in 1892 and adopted by Congress in 1942 as the official pledge, even makes reference to the fact that the U.S. is a republic:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” [emphasis added]

The Anti-Federalists and Federalists, as the new nation was being formed, could not agree on how involved the federal government should be in citizens’ lives; a decision on a pure democracy could never be reached. Alexander Hamilton, himself a Federalist, stated that the government being created was a “republican government,” and that true freedom would not be found in a dictatorship nor a true democracy, but in a moderate government.

James Madison, another Federalist, stated that, while citizens would otherwise get together to discuss governmental operations in a democracy, a republic instead leaves the bigger decisions up to its elected representatives. Madison stated that a democracy needs to be “confined to a small spot,” while republics could be “extended over a large[r] region.” What he meant by this, was that by not forming a democracy, citizens could allow representatives to make decisions for them on bigger issues, such as international relations, as opposed to having to find a way to all meet up and discuss these issues together.

Despite the fact that most countries claim that “democracy” is their main goal, most countries govern as republics. However, not all republics are the same; with some, for instance, operating under a president (like the U.S.), and others operating under a parliament (the U.K.), in which the people elect a legislative branch that then decides the executive branch. Even some monarchies operate as republics, despite having royalty as their heads of state.

Well... i'm not about to get into a useless semantics debate: the only legitimate government is one where the leaders are electred through a written out process.

But this is just semantics. The "we're a democracy not a republic" thing is played out at this point.

[DB]

In my mind a democracy is the only legitimate form of government with some caveats: strong protection for political minorities (US Senate etc.).

Mob rule was what the founders worked hard to avoid. The word "democracy" does not exist in the US constitution.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Mob rule was what the founders worked hard to avoid. The word "democracy" does not exist in the US constitution.

Right, hence the Senate and separation of powers, etc. etc.. But we elect people today. It's a democracy and a republic.

[MeganC]

Well... i'm not about to get into a useless semantics debate: the only legitimate government is one where the leaders are electred through a written out process.

Nonsense. A government need not be elected to hold legitimacy. No end of monarchies have been legitimate despite no one having been elected. Kings used to appoint their own ministers as they saw fit.

But this is just semantics. The "we're a democracy not a republic" thing is played out at this point.

When the Democrats install a democracy and they hold an election and then afterwards seize your property and toss you into a concentration camp you can come back to me and tell me how none of that makes any difference. It's just semantics.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Nonsense. A government need not be elected to hold legitimacy. No end of monarchies have been legitimate despite no one having been elected. Kings used to appoint their own ministers as they saw fit.

Well, legitimate in my mind of course. Every government thinks it's legitimate in their own mind.

When the Democrats install a democracy and they hold an election and then afterwards seize your property and toss you into a concentration camp you can come back to me and tell me how none of that makes any difference. It's just semantics.   

Well we already elect leaders, so how would that be different than what we have now? Is this about the Electroal college? It's a good minority protection, I agree. That doesn't change the fact that ultimately we are a democracy.

[Bigun]