Safer for democracy?

It was Woodrow Wilson who, in a declaration of war, first coined the phrase "make the world safer for democracy". The phrase became an American institution, unfortunately, and is now touted as one of the many American mottos.

Yet three things must first be established before the literal phrase can be true. First, we assume that the US is a democracy, second, that the world can be made democratic, and finally, that in making the world democractic, we will have made the world safe for democracy.



First, we are not a democracy. I disagree with the rhetoric Wilson uses and every other president thereafter. We are not a democracy. Our founders have doubtless been spinning like tops in their graves with all this talk about democracy. Democracy is rule of the people. Each man represents himself. Our government is one of a representative republic. The people elect one to represent them, and the representatives rule with the people in mind.
So to make the world "safer for democracy" is a rather tough job irregardless of the state of man. Eliminating one man's supremacy over another is always difficult. Someone will always have the desire to be "top dog".

Second, it was not Wilson's intention to take democracy to every corner of the globe, reorganize governments, and inject the world with the serum equality. (unlike Bush). (Yes, WW was very idealistic and he probably had considered the idea, but for this particular war, that was not the intention.)

I do understand what Wilson meant, and I agree wholeheartedly with his intentions. America
was one of the few who could boast of a completely happy people contented with their political situation. If they weren't content, just wait four years. :-P (Someone needs to tell the Dems that. ) America was definitely different from the rest of the world, and we wanted to see that our interests were protected so that our people could continue in the happiness they had achieved.

It's all about America's best interests.

Not that of the world's or even that of our Allies. The American people should come first for our government. Wilson realized that American trade was being hurt, American lives were lost, and Wilson knew that the sooner the war ended the better off the American people would be. We went to war because Wilson and Congress firmly believed that it was in America's best interest to go to war.

Finally:

There was a humanistic trend which said "let's make the world safe for democracy by changing the society and the environment." The other side said "let's make the world safe for democracy by evangelizing, because regenerate man will make the world safe for democracy." In other words, one side seeks a regenerated society, and the other seeks a regenerated man.

The point is a good one, but the question remains.

Does/should the government of country A openly advocate the evangelism of the people of another country just to make the world safer for the government of country A?

Under our government set-up, the people are ultimately the movers and shakers of society. Government merely keeps it under control. The people, if they want the world to be safer period, will be the ones to take charge and evangelize and change the hearts and society of man.

Government is merely the watchdog of freedom and justice.

It is the people who must do the acting. The watchdog should only move if the people are threatened or if the watchdog is abused.