Matt Yglesias says that there’s “no content to the Bush democracy agenda,” and that it’s “just a rhetorical flourish.” I don’t think that this is quite accurate - the real problem is that the Bush democracy agenda wasn’t intended to promote the worldwide spread of democracy as an end-goal; democracy was supposed to be an intermediate means towards a fix for America’s security problems in the Middle East. As Josh Marshall pointed out last year, the rationale was that democracy in Iraq would lead to the eventual creation of “a string of democratic, pro-Western governments (Turkey, Iraq, and Iran) stretching across the historical heartland of Islam.” In short, this was democracy promotion as Realpolitik by other means. Thus, there’s no real inconsistency in principle with the toleration and indeed occasional encouragement of human rights abuses and autocracy in those parts of the world where US security interests wouldn’t be furthered by democratic reform. The problem, it seems to me, wasn’t so much the incoherence of the objectives (which were coherent, if wrong-headed) as the lack of any fundamental commitment to democracy as such, the unwillingness to use means of democracy promotion that might have had increased international legitimacy because they limited US power, and, of course, the profound and near-total incompetence with which the US pursued its goals.
““a string of democratic, pro-Western governments (Turkey, Iraq, and Iran) stretching across the historical heartland of Islam.”
I’m also looking for a fish that eats waffles.
This is like analyzing what a used car salesman means when he says: “customer satisfaction is our top priority”. Is it “just a rhetorical flourish”? Or is it “supposed to be an intermediate means towards a fix for” the used car salesman’s financial problems? Yeah, tough one, I think I’ll pass.
The problem is that there is a very real contradiction between maintaining U.S. control of these countries and allowing genuine democracy. When the chips were down in Iraq the Bush administration has tended to choose maintaining control — as when we rejected Sistani’s proposals for elections last year, and rigged the transitional laws to give us continuing control of the Iraqi economy military. I think the priority in Iraq has fairly clearly been U.S. control, with “democracy” viewed very much as useful tactic to gain legitimacy for U.S. occupation.
It was what, forty years ago, that “democracy” was redefined as “supporting the U.S. government”? Back then, of course, it was in opposition to “communism”, or “supporting the Soviet government”. Now, with nothing for it to be in opposition to, the concept of “democracy” obviously has no reason to contain any content related to the structure of a political or social system.
“…Realpolitik by other means…no real inconsistency in principle with the toleration and indeed occasional encouragement of human rights abuses and autocracy…the lack of any fundamental commitment to democracy as such…
In the context of another American ‘war of choice’, H.D. Thoreau said “Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now.”
The Cold War inured us to this repugnant species of Realpolitik, but it did nothing to stanch the wound.
Bush policy isn’t a new version of Realpolitik, isn’t democracy promotion, it is bolder than that: it is reelect Bush. Everything is clearly seen the a domestic policy prism. No appeasement? Then pull troops out of Saudi Arabia as bin Laden demanded, and Falluja to minimize the domestic (US) fallout, etc. There is no consistent thread here except rolling out products that Rove thinks are going to play well with the American electorate.
Diehard pro-lifer: Approve just enough stem cell lines to be able to say you weren’t choking off the science, but not enough to keep the researchers from screaming. Very cynical. Suckers, you fell for it analyzing it as if there were some honest policy being promoted.
Democracy is just a slogan for the administration, but it is also just a slogan for lots of intellectuals these days. Serious defenders of popular sovereignty are mighty thin on the ground just now.
The trope that there’s an unchanging constant in the human endeavor, that what we are is always what we are, has led to this cynical disregard for the demos by the very people who vocally champion “democracy”.
People change, “the” people change, in trait and essence. The struggle for control of that process of change is what we’re immersed in now.
But for the Republican Party as constituted “democracy” is no more than a vocable, a war cry, right up there with “boolah boolah” and “Banzai!” and “Oh my God!”.
Pixels are good analogous bits for that human construct. Get rid of all the blue-collar pixels and the face of democracy in the US alters greatly. Get rid of the gadflies and the radicals and the basic picture won’t change at all.
The fundamentalists recognized this struggle for what it is early on - life and death, natural selection in action.
Ironic that one of their polar issues is Darwinian evolutionary theory, even as they act it out.
There was still even recently a scornful disdain for that large and threatening body of dim zealots on the part of intellectuals generally. But as it gets more and more obvious that this is not a war of ideas, that it never was, that scorn subsides.
OK, so the neo-cons and the Christian right and the shadows behind Bush are wrong and crazy, so what?
So they have to lose by the end of the show? Who says?
I don’t think the universe is constructed on a template of Hollywood sit-com plot resolution.
Add to that the fact that “democracy” is a very flexible word, and in the mouth of the Bush admin it’s meant as western-aligned, liberal freeish economy. No muslim laws even if a majority of people vote for them.
Nice comment abb1!
Ah, a domino theory regarding democracy—whatever that means. The domino theory was kind of silly as regards communism, and it’s just as silly as regards democracy—whatever “democracy” means.
Money.
Perhaps it is true, as Henry argues, that a coherent foreign policy can be imagined which would pursue democracy in some countries but be indifferent or even hostile to the liberalization of other countries.
But it is not true that a coherent foreign policy can be imagined which would pursue democracy in Iraq, but be indifferent to a revanche in Russia, since the reasons for desiring democracy in Iraq are not merely equally true for Russia, but considerably more so. And this I take to have been MY’s point (and Kagan’s).
I think that we are there for the oil. The Israelis are a tangential issue; we never gave a damn about a single jew on the face of the earth, and as a corporate body, the US still does not in fact do anything that benefits the people of Israel if there is a ghost of a chance that it would redound to our detriment. They are our aircraft carrier on land, and our strong right arm as we follow the path laid out in the “Carter Doctrine” - those heathen bastards may be standing on that sand, but the oil belongs to us. Our policies have always and avowedly aimed at preventing any potential rivals from diminishing in any way our discretion in disposing of this gunk that is the lifeblood of what we lightly refer to as “our civilization”. Thirty years ago, OPEC was able to organize and to manipulate the conditions of our access so as to finally make a buck or two, and boy, were we pissed! But if you destroy Iraqi society along with its physical infrastructure, abolish all existing mechanisms for social maintenance (army; police; utilities; legal system; education; public health), and then put the rest up for sale to the highest (foreign) bidders, you can remove the 3rd-largest producer from the cartel, and so destroy it utterly.
That’s what this is about: OPEC, R.I.P. 1973-2003. What is the most telling fact on the ground in light of this interpretation? The neocon gang that can’t shoot straight is so blitheringly inept that THEY CAN’T EVEN MANAGE TO STEAL THE OIL. Two invasions separated by a 12-yr. period of occupation, no army, no clean water or AC, and these hapless jackmeats can’t steal the oil. What ARE we paying them for, anyway?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review