Regarding the comment, "unless you believe that democracy and free markets = imperialism. Which, I'm sorry to say, some contemptible fools do."

I say a lot of things that gets me pegged as a radical left wing communist or worse. The reason is that when you discuss politics people tend to talk on all different levels and take much to be axiomatic. One hand your statement above is absolutely true, the is nothing inherently imperialistic about democracy and free markets. Just as there is nothing inherently totalitarian about communism or socialism. The problem is that when you talk about democracy and free markets you make the assumption that the extension of American economic influence on the world at large is representative of the ideals of democracy and free markets. This is not always the case.

As an example take environmental regulation or food and drug regulations. There were common practices 150, 100 and even 60 years ago that were so destructive to the environment that even the most hard-core anti-regulation conservatives would not endorse today. Yet many companies move facilities abroad because those governments, desperate for the jobs, will ether relax these regulations completely or reduce them far below what even many conservatives would tolerate here in the US. They do this not out of some ideological commitment to "freedom", because often these policies are not in the best long-term interest of their people, but because they don’t really have much of a choice. While those who get the jobs are better off the impact on the region, on the environment of on the health and safety of the people who take the jobs might not. Bargain with the economic hegemon or lose their business. So on a very practical we often use our economic influence to "force" other counties to make what are in many cases one-sided deals.

This works the other way as well. Some countries like India insist that American companies selling equipment hire a certain number of Indian workers, imposing "content" laws in order to allow access to their markets. American companies don’t really care because they want to make the sale. After all what is a few thousand American jobs to an improved bottom line? Th point is that there is a level in which democracy and free markets do equal imperialism.

When American economic power whether it be US enterprise or US government aid, seeks to influence the decisions of sovereign nations to enter into agreements which are counter to the interests of that nations people and benefit the US or that particular company in a lopsided way then the fact that these arrangements are counter to the true spirit of democracy and free markets is beside the point. All commerce and all American political and economic expressions are seen as and extension of our Ideals.

When we tried to essentially bribe Turkey into giving us what we wanted in the Iraq, we were going against Turkish popular opinion. The rightness or wrongness of our action in Iraq was irrelevant. We didn’t care about the democratic idea that the Turkish people spoke and didn't want to be a part of it. Yet we bribed, threatened, arm-twisted and generally tried to subvert the Turkish democratic process. How could that not be looked on as an act of imperialism? While you would be correct in pointing out that it doesn't fit the strict definition it not hard to understand how some people feel that it’s a brand of imperialism if not in kind certainly in sprite. Now you still may not agree with this, and that's fine, but it's important to be able to understand why others feel that way or else when you discuss this issue you won't be communicating, you'll be pontificating.

I need to take issue with a number of things that Rick DeMent say here. First you make the statement, "Just as there is nothing inherently totalitarian about communism or socialism." With socialism you are correct, but Communism calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism is inherently totalitarian until human being are perfected (by how?) and the state withers away.

Your example of American companies moving to avoid environmental regulations is bunk. American companies move because the economics require them to. Now enviromental regulations may be a part of the economics, but a relatively small part.

You claim that poor countries must bargain with economic hegemon or lose their business. Then you use the example of India, requiring that American businesses provide a certain number of jobs to have access to their market. Now which is it? Do the companies bully the poorer countries, or do the poorer countries bully the multinationals?

You also seem to have a black and white view of what is in a country's economic (or other interest). Of course a company or the US government tries to influence decisions of other countries. You somehow have decerned what is or isn't in that's countries best interest. If it is a democracy, the people with ultimately decide that, you won't.

Finally your example of Turkey is a bad one, since it was France and Germany that did the most arm twisting. Turkey has been trying to get into the EU for years. France and Germany made it clear to Turkey that if it wanted to have any chance, it would not allow the US access for the war against Iraq. They lost a $21 billion dollar package, but evidently agreed with you that this was in their best interest.

Rick DeMent misses the point completely. Turkey refused the offer by the United States. They had a choice and they refused the offer. How is it then imperialism? If anything this demonstrates how a sovereign country has the right to govern it's own affairs, just as the US has a right to spend it's money where it chooses.

Rick DeMent misses the point completely. Turkey refused the offer by the United States. They had a choice and they refused the offer. How is it then imperialism? If anything this demonstrates how a sovereign country has the right to govern it's own affairs, just as the US has a right to spend it's money where it chooses.

excellent site