Saturday, February 26, 2005
President Bush and the Campaign for Democracy
Almost inadvertently Bush has become the "democracy president", or perhaps better "the world campaign for democracy president". He has done more to harm than help the fundamental concepts and assumptions of democracy in this country. Yet he strides the international stage as the great hero of democratization. It is an inadvertent role because without 9/11 the small group of neocons in the White House that loom so large today would not have played a major role in his administration, except perhaps for a part in strengthening the pro-Israeli inclinations of the government.
After 9/11, Bush managed with the help of local warlords to drive the Taliban into a minor role in Afghanistan. The new government in Kabul is not firmly in power, but it has done well in the circumstances and Karzai has been legitimately elected President. In Iraq, at great cost to all concerned Bush has managed to bring the country out from under the control of a monstrous dictatorship, hold elections, and proceed on a road toward democracy. There may be many ruts still to navigate in this road. But so far we and the great majority of the Iraqi people are moving forward.
He has used this motion, and the reverberations of his own simplistic rhetoric, to expand his goals to the democratization of the Middle East, and beyond that to the democratization of the world. He goes, for example, to Europe to mend fences with his insulted and recalcitrant allies and the even more difficult Russians. He succeeds in some measure. But beyond this he makes the theme of his trip support for democratization, with an appeal to the Europeans to join with him. He then lectures Putin on the ways in which he has not lived up to the democratic ideals that he expects to characterize European states. He ties this discussion together in a way that suggests that Putin and Russia should be accepted as full-fledged participants in Europe if they do live up to these ideals. He has developed an approach to foreign aid to the underdeveloped world that is meant to reward countries that control corruption and move in a democratic direction. (Of course, he includes in his definition of democracy a "free market" and other shibboleths of his ideology.)
In the Middle East, reports from many countries indicate that the hatred engendered by the attack on Iraq has been partly replaced by growing interest in democratic reforms in many countries. Saudi Arabia has held local elections, a small step but an important one for them. The Palestinians have held the most democratic election in their history. And relations between Palestine and Israel are again on an upswing. In Lebanon, the assassination of a leader has led to a massive movement bent on restoring democracy to the country. This morning we read that Rice has refused to attend a planned meeting in Egypt because of the recent jailing of an Egyptian opposition leader. Gestures such as this will play well in much of the region, inspiring hope that American rhetoric is more than simply propaganda.
The emerging reality is that President Bush could go down in history as the American who democratized the world. If so, his performance will echo that of Reagan, for like Reagan he has been disparaged by the knowledgeable for his foolishness and his ideological blinders. With all these failings, and perhaps partly because of them, he accomplished great things on the world stage (taking the principal steps that led to the dissolution of the USSR). If we do begin a sustainable movement toward universal democracy under Bush, it will confuse and infuriate many Democrats, including myself. How can the actions of such a simpleton, such a liar, a person who misled the American people and tried to mislead the world end up benefiting humankind? Perhaps we better let the future sort this out.
A major reason for Bush's success is the fact that we are more than most Americans realize actually the only superpower, the only state that the rest of the world needs to take seriously. The leading states of the past seem pretty feckless today. On the shore of the Atlantic, some of them have put together Europe, which is good for them, but the effort has sapped their international energies. Japan is still a great economic power, but beyond that it carries little weight. The comers, China, and later India, have not yet reached the point where they can have competitive influence on the international stage. Thus, Bush and his successors may continue for some years to be able to make peoples everywhere respond to their every word. Carried forward responsibly, an era under our hegemony could be good for all peoples. But this era will have continuity only if we can maintain the basis at home that makes it possible. If the Administration fails to live up to its financial, economic, and social responsibilities, a crisis of confidence will spread at home and abroad. If the home base of this great superpower falters because of a combination of debt and inadequate spending, its overseas adventures and marvels may wither as the base that makes them possible shrinks.
After 9/11, Bush managed with the help of local warlords to drive the Taliban into a minor role in Afghanistan. The new government in Kabul is not firmly in power, but it has done well in the circumstances and Karzai has been legitimately elected President. In Iraq, at great cost to all concerned Bush has managed to bring the country out from under the control of a monstrous dictatorship, hold elections, and proceed on a road toward democracy. There may be many ruts still to navigate in this road. But so far we and the great majority of the Iraqi people are moving forward.
He has used this motion, and the reverberations of his own simplistic rhetoric, to expand his goals to the democratization of the Middle East, and beyond that to the democratization of the world. He goes, for example, to Europe to mend fences with his insulted and recalcitrant allies and the even more difficult Russians. He succeeds in some measure. But beyond this he makes the theme of his trip support for democratization, with an appeal to the Europeans to join with him. He then lectures Putin on the ways in which he has not lived up to the democratic ideals that he expects to characterize European states. He ties this discussion together in a way that suggests that Putin and Russia should be accepted as full-fledged participants in Europe if they do live up to these ideals. He has developed an approach to foreign aid to the underdeveloped world that is meant to reward countries that control corruption and move in a democratic direction. (Of course, he includes in his definition of democracy a "free market" and other shibboleths of his ideology.)
In the Middle East, reports from many countries indicate that the hatred engendered by the attack on Iraq has been partly replaced by growing interest in democratic reforms in many countries. Saudi Arabia has held local elections, a small step but an important one for them. The Palestinians have held the most democratic election in their history. And relations between Palestine and Israel are again on an upswing. In Lebanon, the assassination of a leader has led to a massive movement bent on restoring democracy to the country. This morning we read that Rice has refused to attend a planned meeting in Egypt because of the recent jailing of an Egyptian opposition leader. Gestures such as this will play well in much of the region, inspiring hope that American rhetoric is more than simply propaganda.
The emerging reality is that President Bush could go down in history as the American who democratized the world. If so, his performance will echo that of Reagan, for like Reagan he has been disparaged by the knowledgeable for his foolishness and his ideological blinders. With all these failings, and perhaps partly because of them, he accomplished great things on the world stage (taking the principal steps that led to the dissolution of the USSR). If we do begin a sustainable movement toward universal democracy under Bush, it will confuse and infuriate many Democrats, including myself. How can the actions of such a simpleton, such a liar, a person who misled the American people and tried to mislead the world end up benefiting humankind? Perhaps we better let the future sort this out.
A major reason for Bush's success is the fact that we are more than most Americans realize actually the only superpower, the only state that the rest of the world needs to take seriously. The leading states of the past seem pretty feckless today. On the shore of the Atlantic, some of them have put together Europe, which is good for them, but the effort has sapped their international energies. Japan is still a great economic power, but beyond that it carries little weight. The comers, China, and later India, have not yet reached the point where they can have competitive influence on the international stage. Thus, Bush and his successors may continue for some years to be able to make peoples everywhere respond to their every word. Carried forward responsibly, an era under our hegemony could be good for all peoples. But this era will have continuity only if we can maintain the basis at home that makes it possible. If the Administration fails to live up to its financial, economic, and social responsibilities, a crisis of confidence will spread at home and abroad. If the home base of this great superpower falters because of a combination of debt and inadequate spending, its overseas adventures and marvels may wither as the base that makes them possible shrinks.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
