“The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world,” said George Bush in his most Kennedyesque manner during his 2nd Inaugural Address just one year ago.
Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time. So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.Democracy is a stubborn form of government. In many ways it’s less logical than tyranny, because it’s controlled by the mindset of masses and not of a single individual. Not so long ago the world witnessed its most dangerous problem with democracy when the masses freely and democratically elected a person preaching against the status quo. We’ll call him Hitler just so everyone’s on the same page.
If democracy is the rule of the people, then democracy must also be the people who rule. If the spread of democracy is the calling of this nation, then so this nation must also be a witness that the people are, in part, servitude to the notion that the government is their calling. It cannot work any other way.
The recent elections in Palestine portray the seriousness of democracy. President Bush defined it as Palestinians revolting against the status quo, with his corky smirk only implying that he won in ’04 because people were not tired of the status quo. Yet what took place in Palestine is not all that different than what took place in Iraq back in December. What is the difference between Hamas having an armed faction promoting terrorism and the destruction of Israel and the newly elected majority of strict Islamic Shia’s in Iraq also having an armed faction promoting the destruction of their own countrymen?
This is democracy in crisis. And this is what happens when those looking down on other cultures use democracy as a higher calling.
The rise of Hitler was largely brought about by the haughty insistence of France and Britain that Germany should be more like them. As they flaunted their exploitive colonies and refused Germany entrance into the world system of, well, world colonization, Germany pursued other means of recognition through world domination, by democratic means of course. France and Britain sat on their pedestal preaching to Germany that if “you would be more like us and less like you then you could be almighty too.” Oh, how democracy has shaped this modern world more than we realize.
Democracy is not always a safeguard against war and conflict. If only President Bush would understand that elections are not democracy and how dangerous it is for him to define the forms of government for the world to practice.
If George Bush was serious about the elections in Palestine the last thing he would do is call them a revolt against the status quo, or he would call it the very same way in Iraq. In Palestine and Iraq, one democracy is a budding example guided by the hand of Bush, the other is a fanatic cry for independence and self-recognition onto the world stage. You decide which is which.
Tags:
Bush, Elections, Two Elections and a Lesson, The State of our Cynicism
15 comments:
I await the state of the union.
This was very well stated, the status quo, no matter how wrong, keeps these people in power.
Interesting post. I am somewhat skeptical about democracy as some sort of cure for what ails other countries, as you probably guessed from my post. I think under the right circumstances, democracy can work. I also don't think it's a quick process either...the President has a more optimistic view of the timetable involved than I do.
I'm not sure I buy the argument that the arrogance of France and Britain led to the rise of Hitler. I suppose that it could have been a contributing factor, but ultimately the rise of Hitler was more about other countries not taking his threats seriously and failing to take steps to contain him. That sounds familiar too, although I'm not going to make the case that Saddam was as evil as Hitler. Even with all the bad things we can prove about Saddam, I'm not ready to make that jump.
I think Bush had it right in the SOTU when he said that democracy in other countries wouldn't necessarily look like the kind we have here in America. What he failed to say was that sometimes this means that we have to deal with the results of those elections, whether we like what the people have decided or not.
That's a provocative question you pose about democracy in Iraq vs. democracy in Palestine. I'm tempted to lean one way on this, but I don't really see Bush as controlling either election. Yes, he had more influence on the Iraq election, but control? I don't know about that. If we were controlling either election, more than likely we wouldn't have gotten the same results that we have right now.
I think the term democracy has become some catch all term with all sorts of misconceptions surrounding it. This administration has used it well despite the fact that as you pointed out, so well I have to say, that it is not necessarily what we perceive it to be and outcomes are not necessarily what one would want.
Well said and well articulated, MJ. I'm glad to see you're still at it. Blog ON, Sir...
this is one I really have to read again... I will come back tomorrow with a not so tired mind... shayna
Democracy is viable, working product only when it has "fail-safes" to protect society freedoms and rights. The elections in Palestine proved one thing, terrorism in the county is a insitutional problem, not just desired by a small faction.
With this knowledge, it makes decisions about what to do with Palestine as a country better. Elections do not always give a perfect result, but it seems historically speaking and by quantitave analysis of world leaders, a democracy led by elections give far better results than the alternatives.
Businessman, thanks.
Lisa, thanks for reading. I agree that Bush has a very twisted view of democracy and world affairs.
There is a huge scholarly work about the behaviors of France and Britain after WWI that led to the creation of the fascist state in Germany and ultimately that of Hitler. Throughout the 20s Hitler often spoke against the attitudes of France and Britain and the steep war reparations Germany was forced to pay. I think it's safe to say that the Treaty of Versailles was the centerpiece of Hitler's rage from which he demanded vengeance.
But I am glad that you caught onto my last paragraph about Bush's influene on Iraq's and Palestine's elections. Though I'm actually arguing the opposite of what you are stating. That Bush is unwittingly influencing the outcomes of both is my contention. And that Palestine is the budding democracy guided by the hand of Bush, unintentionally of course. You were close :)
Alice, couldn't agree with you more.
GTL...thanks!
day by day, come back any time.
Craig, I have no clue what you just said :) But I do agree that democracy is very viable.
MJ,
About Bush and his view of world affairs...that's not quite what I said. :P
Re: Hitler/Britain/France:
I see your point. I guess I was thinking in more general terms than you were about the arrogance of Britain and France. I could certainly understand Hitler being bent about the Treaty of Versailles. But shouldn't some of the blame for that be directed to the previous German regime? I guess I'm not going to argue that everything in the Treaty of Versailles was a fair deal for the Germans. I don't really know that much about it. But even though Hitler might have used that as an excuse or justification for his behavior, it's not a legitimate one in my view. (I know that you are not saying that it is.)
Control and influence are two completely difference words as far as describing Bush and the elections in Iraq and Palestine. I can agree with Bush influencing both elections. As far as having any control over the governments elected, I don't think he does. So you think that Palestine will have a better result from their elections than Iraq will have with their new government? Is that what you are saying? I'm not sure about that. I hope that both potential democracies will be successful, but I'm not sure about Hamas and what they will do while in power.
The Bush doctrine on this is clear and straightforward: For the most part, democratic nations don’t attack each other in anger. Therefore, if we can effect the advancement of democracy in a turbulent region of the world, then the population of that region would be more inclined towards peace. Nowhere in the Bush doctrine does it say, “We will allow the people to vote, but if we don’t like the results than we reserve the right to install who we want.”
This discussion is also very relevant to what is occurring in Iraq. The vultures waiting in the wings, who want to see Bush fail in Iraq are getting ready to use, in their insidious arsenal, the fallacious idea that, if a non secular or “unfriendly” government does come to power in Iraq then Aha…Bush has failed. In reality, one has almost nothing to do with the other. In Fact, if an “undesirable” result does occur in a fledgling democracy it actually lends credence to the Bush Doctrine. It proves that America is genuine in its simple desire to bring democracy to the region, period. We don’t get to determine the results. That we helped bring a degree of democracy to whatever given country is enough.
If a population elects leaders who are corrupt, inept, or war-like then they will have to deal with the ramifications that will inevitably follow. They will have to learn the hard way, through additional years of instability and bloodshed most likely. It’s a form of political “growing pains” because after all, democracy itself is always a work in progress. For example, I don't believe that the people of France enjoyed the "Reign Of Terror" which followed the French Revolution but it was part of their transitional period between absolutism and democracy. The Riegn Of Terror was an awful and bloody period but because it occured does not mean that the people of France, ultimately, are not better served by being able to enjoy the benefits of a democratic society.
Some anti-Bush socio-political ”experts” point to this fact that, in some cases, a country becomes more violent, initially, after democracy is realized and then they conclude, "Aha…Democracy is not desirable." This analysis misses the big picture. That a democracy may be more violent initially than a previous form of government does not overrule the idea that, in the long run, democracy is more beneficial to a population than any other form of government. Hence, the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East is a worthwhile approach and is not rendered invalid or flawed if the results of a given election are not to our liking.
Lisa, I admit, I was probably putting words in your mouth :)
As for the Treaty of Versailles, yes some of the blame should be given to Germany, but Hitler didn't see it that way. We might today, but if anything Hitler viewed the the Treaty as German capitulation. Hitler used many excuses for his anger, one of which was the Treaty.
Re: Iraq/Palestine...I'm saying I don't have a clue as the result that will transpire from either election. I can't predict the future and never pretend to. What I am saying is that Bush is unintentionally influencing both elections, and the outcome of that we will have to wait and see. So far, the results of Bush's influence is the democratically elected government of terrorist sponsors both in Iraq and Palestine. This is the current situation. One way or another our government will either admit the reality or we will be three-peating Iraq ten years from now.
Thanks for reading.
Jaz, thanks for reading. Don't believe I've seen you around before.
It is true that democratic nations don't normally attack each other. But it's not always the norm. Of course that would depend on what the definition of a democratic government is. According to the Bush doctrine it is any country that holds elections. And elections are the farthest thing from a democracy that can be achieved.
China calls itself a democracy and it's far from it also. The Soviet Union held elections all the time and considered its communist government as being democratic. North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. So if we look at it that way then democractic governance becomes very sloppy and less "safe."
But not to put words in your mouth, I'll buy into your contention and point you are making, but only very loosely.
I do have to disagree with your belief that the Bush doctrine is the spread of democracy, because I view the Bush doctrine as being pre-emptive invasion rather than waiting around for a threat to attack us first. Spreading democracy is hardly unique to Bush, and he is hardly unique to the desire to make the world safe for democracy. American invasion into a foreign land to ensure the survival of democracy is nothing new and hardly only Bush's doctrine to claim. So I suppose that I do disagree entirely with Bush being held to the "desire to bring democracy to the region, period. We don’t get to determine the results. That we helped bring a degree of democracy to whatever given country is enough." I'm just not feeling it.
I'm also a bit confused by your third paragraph. Are you starting off describing the current American administration?
I do agree that democracy is the best form of government for the people. And in no way is my little essay on the main page a decry against democracy. I'm very much an American when it comes to this. But, again, I just don't think that Bush is solely held to the spread of democracy in Iraq. Wait a minute, now I'm really confused. I thought we invaded to disarm Iraq of WMD. Bush didn't mention anything about elections and democracy. The Bush doctrine is ultimately pre-emptive invasion.
Thanks for reading and you're welcome back any time.
Re: Third paragraph. I should have said, “If a burgeoning democracy elects leaders who are…”
Interesting points about China, and Russia, and North Korea. But does anyone really consider those countries democratic, as in a Popular Sovereignty? Should I have said a “Western-style democracy”? If you really want to nit pick, the United States doesn’t meet the strict definition of direct democracy but the representative democracy we have seems to work reasonably well for us. Any country can call itself a democracy I suppose, but we all should know what is meant in terms of “bringing democracy to the Middle East”. We’re not talking about a Soviet-style Communist pseudo-democracy. It should be apparent that we would prefer a western style democracy for these fledgling governments in the Middle East. It would be great if they could achieve anything approaching the Governments of: the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Australia, Japan, Canada, and many others, you get the idea. We would like the Middle East to start down the path towards modernity and ultimately, Enlightenment, as in “The Age of Reason”. (Which, with the recent logic-defying behavior of the Middle East at large over this cartoon controversy, has apparently not reached them yet. The picture on my blog of a protester with a sign reading, “Behead those who say Islam is violent” sums that up nicely.)
There are many concepts that could be considered “The Bush Doctrine” I suppose. Part of the Bush playbook is definitely “the pre-emptive strike” which you articulated so well one would almost think you were in favor of going into Iraq when we did. You’re right that Bush has no exclusive claim to wanting to spread democracy but it is big part of his “playbook” if you will, or part of the Bush philosophy.
It’s too bad you don’t accept my belief that Bush is genuine in his desire to bring democracy to a given country first, as a primary objective and second, as a bonus it would be great to have friendly governments in the area. Everyone is so cynical about our noble intentions in the Middle East. The Bush Administration is very aware of and sensitive to this. We have to proceed very carefully. We can’t be perceived by the Middle East and the world to be directly influencing the outcome of democratic elections and/or hand picking the governments that come to power. Our enemies, rhetorical and otherwise, are already dusting off the phrase “Puppet State” and are getting ready to start throwing it around as soon as any kind of government that may be on the same page as us emerges in the Middle East. That’s why, for better or worse, if “unfriendly” governments do come to power it actually lends credence to the Bush philosophy of just wanting to bring democracy to a country. That “undesirable” results occur in a new democracy is actually a vindication of what I referred to as the “Bush Doctrine” in its true and noble desire to bring something approaching western style democracy to the Middle East in the hopes that, perhaps many generations later, they will ultimately become overwhelmingly reasonable and therefore (relatively) peaceful.
www.philosofix.Blogspot.com
Jaz, Re: third paragraph, now I get where you're going. Thanks for the clarification.
Interesting points about China, N. Korea and the Soviet Union indeed. And yes, some people do cosider those to be democratic states especially with popular sovereignty. They consider themselves to be democratic, and like you mention, do not consider the American government democratic at all. So I suppose you make my point for me very well. That America should not be the lone judge of determining what is democratic or not. It's an endeavor that we will fail at, and are failing at. For Iraq is the farthest thing from a democracy there ever could be. And burgeoning isn't even close to describing Iraq. Elections are not democracy, period.
Forcing the Middle East down the path towards modernity is not the same thing as creating burgeoning democracies. Not even close to being the same thing. The very foundation of any government is legitimacy. And democracy imposed from the outside is not a legitimate means of governance for any peoples. The imposition of democracy defeats the very nature of such a government.
As long as we are occupying Iraq, it will be viewed as a puppet state in the public opinion of the Middle East. Hearts and minds require a much different strategy than holding elections.
You are correct to assume that I did support the invasion of Iraq right from the beginning. A post-9/11 world would not tolerate a tyrant/terrorist such as Saddam. But it also must be made clear that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. And Iraq is nothing that Bush promised.
I do disagree completely with the notion that spreading democracy is part of Bush's playbook. Bush said numerous times that he does not believe in nation-building. Any conservative, by nature, cannot support nation-building. Judging from the situation in Iraq, I do believe Bush disdains the thought of being responsible for the welfare of a foreign country. How else to explain the carnage? If Iraq is the model for 21st century American interventionism and that of the "Bush doctrine," then we are in real trouble.
You are correct that I do not accept your belief that Bush is genuine in the primary objective of bringing democracy to Iraq or the Middle East. Our primary objective for the invasion of Iraq was to disarm a tyrant of WMD. We cannot re-write history to cover up the fact that establishing democracy was fourth or fifth on the list somewhere. Bush invaded to disarm, a noble feat that I agree with. Budding democracy at $100,000 a minute of taxpayer money, three years into a war that was supposed to last a matter of weeks is rather different altogether.
Thanks for checking back. And thanks for the discussion. I will check out your site.
“I do disagree completely with the notion that spreading democracy is part of Bush's playbook. Bush said numerous times that he does not believe in nation-building. Any conservative, by nature, cannot support nation-building”
Bush said numerous times that he does not believe in nation-building before 9-11.
Bush is not your run of the mill conservative. Fred Barnes’ new book “Rebel in Chief,” explains how Bush is very different from most standard traditional conservatives and therefore your statement “Any conservative, by nature, cannot support nation-building” does not apply to Bush in a post 9-11 world.
Actually Jaz, that any conservative, by nature, cannot support nation-building comes from the right wing conservative Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard, and also from an op-ed article from the conservative George Will. Even as recent as 5 months ago. So yes it does apply to a post 9/11 world, at least according to the "minds" of the conservative movement.
Post a Comment