It reinforces a point I make in several sets of slides that try to tied in the basic design of governing institutions to British history, and the gradual development of independent legislative and judicial institutions that can limit the power of the executive. It's the gradual nature of this development that is important, and once accomplished, freedom can expand to encompass greater numbers of people. It's the result of the process, and it takes time.
That seems to be Kirkpatrick's basic complaint about Carter's foreign policy - if not of the entire ideological point of view he represented to her.
Here's the quote:
In the relatively few places where they exist, democratic governments have come into being slowly, after extended prior experience with more limited forms of participation during which leaders have reluctantly grown accustomed to tolerating dissent and opposition, opponents have accepted the notion that they may defeat but not destroy incumbents, and people have become aware of government’s effects on their lives and of their own possible effects on government. Decades, if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the necessary disciplines and habits. In Britain, the road from the Magna Carta to the Act of Settlement, to the great Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1885, took seven centuries to traverse. American history gives no better grounds for believing that democracy comes easily, quickly, or for the asking. A war of independence, an unsuccessful constitution, a civil war, a long process of gradual enfranchisement marked our progress toward constitutional democratic government. The French path was still more difficult. Terror, dictatorship, monarchy, instability, and incompetence followed on the revolution that was to usher in a millennium of brotherhood. Only in the 20th century did the democratic principle finally gain wide acceptance in France and not until after World War II were the principles of order and democracy, popular sovereignty and authority, finally reconciled in institutions strong enough to contain conflicting currents of public opinion.
Think about this when you look at the sections in this class on democracy, the expansion of suffrage, and the development of the three key institutions of government - the legislative, executive and judicial. It also lies in the background of the section on ideology. One of the key differences between what we now refer to as liberalism and conservatism is a dispute over whether changes in society can be achieved quickly and deliberately, or only slowly through the development of solid and stable institutions.
All this can end up on your final.
