DISQUS

bob mcmanus · 4 years ago

Aw heck, to use some Lib arguments, people generally will try to get something for nothing or very cheaply; and tend to overestimate the efficiency of collective action.

Do not underestimate the appeal of propaganda.

The early sections of Thucydides are useful, as he tried to explain the origins of war.

Javier Hidalgo · 4 years ago

I always that the answer was that people, when not inflamed by propaganda, as they tend not to be in democratic nations with a free press, don't like war

This can't be quite right, because democracies go to war with non-democracies relatively frequently.

Will Wilkinson · 4 years ago

Javier, But that's because non-democracies are more likely to be truculent and threatening, and democratic citizens DO like to be defended.

Javier Hidalgo · 4 years ago

Will, I'm not familiar enough with the evidence to say for sure, but you're probably right. But there is a gap in the democratic peace literature that I've found somewhat puzzling: most studies of the democratic peace exclude United States interventions to overthrow democratic governments in South and Latin America. While these haven't been "wars" with battlefield casulties, overthrowing governments certainly is a violent act of aggression. I'm thinking here of Chile and maybe Nicaragua. Here we have cases where a democratic state intentionally overthrew the government of another democracy.

Rob · 4 years ago

The usual explanation given by democratic peace theorists for democracies not going to war with each other is three-fold: a) people who vote for the war die in it; b) leaders are accustomed to consensual decision-making methods, which make violence less likely; c) open societies, which have strong institutional and popular links with each other. None of these are present in non-democracies, and it is argued that their absence will tend to work counter to these features of democracies, which supposedly explains democracies being more lilkely to go to war with non-democracies than other non-democracies. I'm a bit skeptical about this, but they do have the beginnings of an explanation. I think that sophisticated democratic peace theorists would probably argue that even if we were to code the US military actions in Chile and Nicaragua as wars - which they aren't, usually - Chile and Nicaragua didn't count as full-blown democracies, because of various institutional features and the relative newness of the democratic institutional features. I'm not saying that's true or fair, but that's what they're likely to say.

Gareth · 4 years ago

But Rob, isn't that persuasive definition. People argue that the US or Italy or France isn't truly democratic today, what with hanging chads and Presidents narrowly avoiding criminal prosecution. If we don't have a definition of democracy (came to power in a competitive election, and could be removed in one), then it is a bit like a "Christian Peace Theory" that rules out intra-Christian wars by saying that, clearly, at least one of the parties wasn't really Christian.

Javier Hidalgo · 4 years ago

Rob, you're right that that's what democratic peace theorists would probably say. However, I don't think it works for Chile. Chile had a long history of representative institutions and 40 years of stable democratic rule. Chilean democracy was hardly perfect. But it would be absurd to claim that, from 1930-1973, Chile wasn't actually a democracy. If we tighten the standard for what counts as a democracy to exclude Chile, many countries which are commonly considered to be democratic today would no longer qualify (India, for instance).

monkyboy · 4 years ago

I think in the case of modern America, we will go to war whenever the people who stand to profit from war are in power.

It's hard to imagine Bush would have won in 2004 without the "war" in Iraq and many Bush supporters are getting quite rich off this venture.

Rob · 4 years ago

I have to say my knowledge of Chile's political history is fairly minimal, so I'm in no kind of position to dispute that. However, in my proxy defence of democratic peace theorists, I'm going to cleave to the claim that it's not a war: wars occur between states, and the US's action in Chile and Nicaragua was in support of one faction within a state. That's not very convincing, I admit, but unless you draw the line somewhere, it becomes very difficult to draw it anywhere.