美国民主逆全球化(英文)The De-globalization of US Democracy
说明：文章内容仅供预览，部分内容可能不全。下载后的文档，内容与下面显示的完全一致。下载之前请确认下面内容是否您想要的，是否完整无缺。
The De-globalization of US Democracy The end of the Cold War witnessed the victory of the West which set a positive tone for predictions of the future of Western democracy. Deudney and Ikenberry (2009) suggest “liberal democracy will prevail.” And one of the strongest voices would be Fukuyama (1989) who argus, even before the end of the Cold War, that there will be a globalization of Western liberal democracy of which the US can be seen as an embodiment for its democratic system is the most successful one. But the reality may not be that simple, as Huntington (1993) believes the ultimate global structure would be a coexistence of different civilizations. As for the US, there are political, financial and ideological flaws through which we can see in the near future the US democracy will not prevail in the world. Indeed, the US is very successful in its political system, but there is a problem: as a result of the highly-recognized international reputation, even the slightest violation of its democratic doctrine, which may be tolerated in other countries, may trigger global fury in the American case. Therefore, when such violation is inevitable, the US government would face a dilemma, and it can be perfectly illustrated in the PRISM scandal. In countries like China, it would not be a big issue if it is released that the government is eavesdropping on the public and other countries, because surveillance is necessary for national security, like anti-terrorism. In the American case, however, not only American people are furious at such an activity, international society is also giving condemnation and criticism. The very reason, except for the extensive scale of surveillance, is that the US, as a model of democracy, violated the principle of its system. The irony is that the disclosure which placed American government in such an embarrassing position is in itself a representative of democracy. In additional to its international reputation, the US, as a power at its peak, also has a huge influence on other countries which can in turn do harm to its attempt to spread democracy. Huntington (1993) argus that the growing dominance of the West will make non-Western nations more conservative and therefore anti-West. This is precisely the case when it comes to the US. Nowadays, the aggressive anti-America wave in China is largely contributed by American interference in China’s domestic issues like Taiwan and the sovereignty of South China Sea. The same also applies to Middle East countries such as Syria, Libya and Egypt. The reason of interference may be the US intention to introduce its democratic system, together with its oil ambition, but the consequence may just be the opposite, because foreign interference can only waken and strengthen those nations’ own traditional consciousness and the desire to protect such sentiment, leading to a rising hospitality to foreign elements. Eventually, the governments would be more anti-America as a result of the US intention to make them pro-America. Financially, the American proud free market can also be damaging. The recent financial crisis can be the best illustration because the very root of which is the belief in small government in the market. The crisis was triggered by the banks which lend so much money that they have no alternative but to issue bond. But with the increase of real estate price, it became less and less popular among the public. Eventually, the housing price was so low that banks cannot pay back their debt even if they sell houses at auction. At this stage, a country would hardly slide into financial crisis if its government is efficient enough to limit the banks’ lending and issuing of bond. But American government failed because of its stubborn insistence on free market which resulted in a global crisis. Finally, in terms of ideology, democracy cannot prevail in the near future, either. Fukuyama (1989) predicts democracy will dominate the world. According to him, it is the ideology determines the material world, and, since democracy has already prevailed “in the realm of idea or consciousness”, the world will finally be democratic both ideologically and materially for the material development will follow the trace of ideology. But the reality proves just the opposite because material is the foundation of ideology. A peasant who often starves may just long for a piece of bread; a person with adequate food and cloth may want more fortune; those with enough money may realize the need of education; and those well-educated may pay attention to more respectable career like charity -- ideology is always controlled by the amount of material people enjoy. One can never ask a peasant to be devoted to charity because his material condition does not allow such an advanced ideology. In this sense, as an ideology, democracy can never prevail until the material condition of non-democratic countries reaches the stage that allows such system to exist. Considering the huge wealth gap between the first and third world, it will take a long time before democracy can be widespread. With these problems remain unsolved, democracy will never prevail in the world. However, the US is still the strongest power in the international community and its system will maintain a huge influence in the world which is followed by many less-developed countries hoping to achieve the same success. But if these problem were to remain in the future, those countries may turn to other models like China, instead of following the US. What it has to do now is to remove these obstacle and improve its democracy, such as to defuse the financial crisis with more governmental intervention, in order to prove the superiority and qualification of such system for being the global pursuit. Otherwise, it is very unlikely that US democracy will dominate the rest of the world in any foreseeable future. 本文来源：https://www.wddqw.com/doc/17b88c9fbed5b9f3f80f1c44.html