[forapurpose]

> I'm not sure what another state department might have done

The US State Department, and the entire US government, has for generations made human rights central to US foreign policy. It's believed that people with freedom and opportunity become vibrant trade partners and allies, not enemies in war. Democracies don't start wars against other democracies, as an historical rule.

That historic policy is widely believed to have given the US enormous influence, as people generally feel favorably towards others whose central goal is freedom and opportunity for all.

The current State Dept (including the Secretary of State) and other leading government officials have openly forewarn support for human rights. The Secretary of State said making money is more important (which fits the approach of many in the oil industry, and he was CEO of Exxon). Others deemphasize it for no given reason, and advocate even eliminating the State Dept in favor of military power.

> a continuation of politics that hardly offered Obama straightforward leverage

A lack of straightforward leverage is pretty normal for international relations; it's the sea in which diplomats swim. Almost every great thing that has been accomplished in that field was done in that environment.

[dragonwriter]

> The US State Department, and the entire US government, has for generations made human rights central to US foreign policy.

Rhetorically; the substance is less consistent.

> Democracies don't start wars against other democracies, as an historical rule.

There is basically no empirical evidence for this popular claim (the relative rarity of democracy-on-democracy war does not require any more than the small proportion of potential historical pairs of nations that consist of two democratic nations to explain it.)

[forapurpose]

>> > The US State Department, and the entire US government, has for generations made human rights central to US foreign policy.

> Rhetorically; the substance is less consistent.

Agreed, but the results are incredible on the scale of human history. Under Pax Americana, look at the amazing spread of liberty and democracy, and of prosperity, to people worldwide.

But yes, more should have been done. Too often the U.S. sacrificed others, on large scales, to narrow interests.

>> Democracies don't start wars against other democracies, as an historical rule.

> There is basically no empirical evidence for this popular claim

It's hard to prove a negative through evidence, but can you cite and exception? And looking at the obverse, progress in international peace and cooperation, have non-democracies ever achieved anything like the EU or NATO? Remember Europe before democracy.

[dragonwriter]

> It's hard to prove a negative through evidence

No, it's not, in the usual scientific sense of proof rather than some absolutist one; you show the expected incidence of the inhibitory effect did not exist, and then show that the actual value (either by surveying the whole universe of concern or a random subset) is below that expected value to a degree that makes it improbable that it occurs by chance, while controling for other known sources of variability.

> but can you cite and exception?

Sure, if you use a definition of Democracy that isn't so narrow that the expected number of wars if democracies on both sides isn't far less than one, you will also find lots of actual wars between Democracies. Even if you ignore wars where the only pair of democracies are a separatist group and the unit they are separating from (e.g., the American Revolution), there are plenty (War of 1812, for instance, or more recently some parts of the Yugoslav Wars.)

Wikipedia has more discussion and examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_between_democra...

> have non-democracies ever achieved anything like the EU or NATO?

Yes, non-democracies have created both continent-spanning multi-national supergovernments like the EU and wide regional military alliances like NATO.

In fact, they did both long before democracies did.

[forapurpose]

It would be great if you could cite some examples. The American Revolution and War of 1812 clearly are not ones; the UK was not a democracy. The wars in the former Yugoslavia are a stretch; those were at best very nascent democracies.

> if you use a definition of Democracy that isn't so narrow ...

The word has a meaning; these aren't narrow definitions any more than saying 'Manchester United isn't a basketball team' depends on how narrow your definition is of 'basketball'.

[dragonwriter]

> The American Revolution and War of 1812 clearly are not ones; the UK was not a democracy.

At what point precisely did the Westminster system, one of the more common models of modern democracy, become a democracy?

Note that the later you peg and the more narrowly you define “democracy” to justify it, the more you make the case that there have been so few democracies that, given the actual historicsl frequency of interstate wars and the number of nations available at any time, the number of wars expected to have a democracy on either side is expected to be near zero even if democracy in both sides of a dyad does nothing to decrease the probability of war between the countries.

(Also note if you claim it's not a democracy because it had territories unrepresented in the national government despite the form of government being democratic, that has the same effect—and even rules out the modern US as a democracy, as well.)

[slededit]

The transitioned happened during the reign of Queen Victoria where the monarchy transitioned from a seat of power to a ceremonial role.

[drb91]

This seems deeply, deeply idealistic to me--but ultimately this seems political, so I'll just say my point was that it's not clear what Obama could have done differently aside from save face and keep the state department staffed.

[sjg007]

Let's just see if Trump and the State department make any statements condemning these moves and encouraging democratic institutions. Sometimes all you need is a few strongly worded statements that say we are watching. The US has a lot of influence here.

[forapurpose]

> This seems deeply, deeply idealistic to me--but ultimately this seems political, so I'll just say my point was that it's not clear what Obama could have done differently aside from save face and keep the state department staffed.

The facts differ from your claims. All you need to do is look at history, from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Kennedy to Reagan to Bush Jr to Obama and everyone in between. All embraced these things and acted on them.

The current nationalists want to paint it as idealistic, but in fact it has been the mainstream - and very effective - for generations.

[drb91]

What facts? You've just made assertions.

[liberte82]

I miss idealism.