While reading through another thread on the topic of the declining freedom index (Freedom index 2021. | Religious Forums), I got to thinking about the relative freedom in the world as indicated in Freedom House's annual survey and ranking. Here is a link to Freedom House's map for 2021: Explore the Map | Freedom House
The countries in green are designated "Free," the countries in yellow are designated "Partly Free," and the countries in purple are designated "Not Free."
Given that our government and media often tout the U.S. as the "leader of the free world" and that our national existence is dedicated to "making the world safe for democracy," we ostensibly have established a global alliance system based on that principle. Or at least, that's what one might assume listening to the politicians, pundits, and other propagandists who spout off about America's obligation to defend freedom no matter what.
Likewise, we have made it a general practice to impose sanctions upon regimes which, in our government's view, have "poor human rights records": United States sanctions - Wikipedia
Some propagandists speak of the U.S. as some kind of global crusader for freedom and democracy, a position which seems rife with sanctimony, sentiment, and American exceptionalism. From this standpoint, we impose sanctions on other countries because it's seen as "the right thing to do," purely out of a noble dedication to world freedom and human rights. It's problematic for those who try to oppose such policies, as it makes it appear that they're against freedom, which somehow seems "un-American" in many people's eyes.
Others who are more skeptical and cynical regarding U.S. policy might point to numerous exceptions to the rule. They might point out the numerous countries which we still do business with, even though multiple objective sources would put their governments in the category of "Not Free" or "authoritarian." For example, we impose sanctions on Iran because they're not free, yet we seem to give a great deal of accommodation to Saudi Arabia, which is comparatively worse than Iran in terms of freedom.
Can anyone identify any consistent standard that the U.S. policymakers might derive in explaining such discrepancies, or is it simply a matter of frivolous whimsy on the part of our leadership? Do they even know what they're doing? Is our foreign policy wrecked due to decades of incompetence and ignorance on the part of our media and political leaders? I mean, these are people who apparently believed that the Shah of Iran, Pinochet of Chile, Somoza of Nicaragua, Marcos of the Philippines, and various tyrants in charge of South Vietnam were part of the so-called "free world." And these are just a few examples.
In my opinion, we would be far better off if we would pick a consistent set of principles to go by and stick with them.
If we're going to say that America's foreign policy will be based solely on America's practical national, economic, and strategic interests, then we should just say that and live by it. If we choose to impose sanctions or oppose another government, it should be based on reasons which only have a direct tangible impact on America.
On the other hand, if we claim to be the "defenders of freedom," as a way to justify sanctions and other punitive measures against other countries because of human rights abuses and authoritarian practices, then we should say that and be consistent about it across the board.
I wasn't quite sure how to word the poll choices, so if the wording looks a bit stilted, that's why.
I also realize that not everyone here is from America, and they might look at U.S. foreign policy from a different angle. For those outside the U.S., do you believe that U.S. foreign policy should serve some kind of higher moral purpose (i.e. "leader of the free world") as opposed to pursuing our own practical, tangible national interests (as any ordinary nation might do)?
Is America "exceptional"?
The countries in green are designated "Free," the countries in yellow are designated "Partly Free," and the countries in purple are designated "Not Free."
Given that our government and media often tout the U.S. as the "leader of the free world" and that our national existence is dedicated to "making the world safe for democracy," we ostensibly have established a global alliance system based on that principle. Or at least, that's what one might assume listening to the politicians, pundits, and other propagandists who spout off about America's obligation to defend freedom no matter what.
Likewise, we have made it a general practice to impose sanctions upon regimes which, in our government's view, have "poor human rights records": United States sanctions - Wikipedia
Some propagandists speak of the U.S. as some kind of global crusader for freedom and democracy, a position which seems rife with sanctimony, sentiment, and American exceptionalism. From this standpoint, we impose sanctions on other countries because it's seen as "the right thing to do," purely out of a noble dedication to world freedom and human rights. It's problematic for those who try to oppose such policies, as it makes it appear that they're against freedom, which somehow seems "un-American" in many people's eyes.
Others who are more skeptical and cynical regarding U.S. policy might point to numerous exceptions to the rule. They might point out the numerous countries which we still do business with, even though multiple objective sources would put their governments in the category of "Not Free" or "authoritarian." For example, we impose sanctions on Iran because they're not free, yet we seem to give a great deal of accommodation to Saudi Arabia, which is comparatively worse than Iran in terms of freedom.
Can anyone identify any consistent standard that the U.S. policymakers might derive in explaining such discrepancies, or is it simply a matter of frivolous whimsy on the part of our leadership? Do they even know what they're doing? Is our foreign policy wrecked due to decades of incompetence and ignorance on the part of our media and political leaders? I mean, these are people who apparently believed that the Shah of Iran, Pinochet of Chile, Somoza of Nicaragua, Marcos of the Philippines, and various tyrants in charge of South Vietnam were part of the so-called "free world." And these are just a few examples.
In my opinion, we would be far better off if we would pick a consistent set of principles to go by and stick with them.
If we're going to say that America's foreign policy will be based solely on America's practical national, economic, and strategic interests, then we should just say that and live by it. If we choose to impose sanctions or oppose another government, it should be based on reasons which only have a direct tangible impact on America.
On the other hand, if we claim to be the "defenders of freedom," as a way to justify sanctions and other punitive measures against other countries because of human rights abuses and authoritarian practices, then we should say that and be consistent about it across the board.
I wasn't quite sure how to word the poll choices, so if the wording looks a bit stilted, that's why.
I also realize that not everyone here is from America, and they might look at U.S. foreign policy from a different angle. For those outside the U.S., do you believe that U.S. foreign policy should serve some kind of higher moral purpose (i.e. "leader of the free world") as opposed to pursuing our own practical, tangible national interests (as any ordinary nation might do)?
Is America "exceptional"?