I notice pundits salivating over the prospects for regime change in Russia and Iran. <\/p>\n
When is it cool to publicly call for regime change and when it is uncool?<\/p>\n
It is considered legitimate when a super-majority (60%+) of the population no longer consents to the rule of the elite.<\/p>\n
Deneen\u2019s View: Regime change is legitimate (and inevitable) when the “ruling class” has ceased to rule in the interests of the community and instead rules for its own benefit. Deneen argues that in the U.S., the “managerial elite” has seceded from the common citizen, making the current regime illegitimate.<\/p>\n
The Intersection: Both views agree that regime change is “cool” when it is a “Rebellion from Below”\u2014ordinary people reclaiming agency from a disconnected elite (whether Theocratic Mullahs in Iran or “Placeless” Meritocrats in the USA).<\/p>\n
When is it “Uncool” (Illegitimate\/Dangerous)?<\/p>\n
The Standard View: When it is imposed by foreign military intervention (e.g., the Iraq War).<\/p>\n
Deneen\u2019s View: Deneen explicitly critiques the Iraq War model. He argues that simply toppling a government (the easy part) does not change the “regime” (the hard part). A true regime is the deep culture, habits, and “constitution” of a people.<\/p>\n
The Contrast: You cannot impose a liberal democracy on a place with a different “constitution” (culture) by force. “Uncool” regime change is trying to force a way of life onto a people that contradicts their history and traditions.<\/p>\n