Bush Pushing Global Democratic Revolution

[Frodo]

It bothers me to no end how conservatives and Republicans have captured the idealism of the American people, offering a compelling vision that captures the imagination while liberals and Democrats have become basically the grouchy scolds who can only criticize but not offer up any compelling vision of our own that could at least equal the idealism that is inspired by President Bush:   

Bush Pushes Global Vision
# Spreading democratic reform has become a top U.S. priority, at times trumping urgent issues.

By Tyler Marshall, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — President Bush's ambitious vision of global democratic reform has begun to dominate the administration's foreign affairs agenda, in some cases pushing aside urgent international issues.

So far, the president's plan has been driven mainly by high-level rhetoric, symbolic gestures and a handful of modestly funded development programs. But collectively, this mix has started to shift the focus in relations with key nations.

In the four months since Bush unveiled the approach in his second inaugural address, nearly every meeting with foreign officials and many of the changes taking place within the Bush administration, including several key appointments, has reflected the priority of expanding the boundaries of democracy.

By now, the presidential vision even has its own buzz phrase: "practical idealism," a reference to the policy's underlying premise that in a post-Sept. 11 world, America's national security is tied directly to the spread of free and open societies everywhere, including the Middle East.

Although few foreign policy specialists interviewed for this article questioned the president's personal sincerity, some dismissed his plan as little more than fantasy. Others expressed doubt that the U.S. had the credibility to advance such ambitious reforms — especially in the Islamic world.

Whatever the eventual outcome, there is evidence of initial effects.

"People in the Middle East already see it as a very powerful initiative," said Walter Russell Mead, an expert on America's role in the world at the Council on Foreign Relations. "A lot of people are beginning to wonder if American foreign policy isn't in the midst of a fundamental change."

link

[Beet]

This is exactly why Kerry did not win the first debate as badly as everyone was saying he did. The debate was his last chance to offer an alternative idealism to the nation, instead what he offered was "better management".

That night, he lost his last chance to offer a vision, in exchange for winning some tactical, rhetorical points against Bush and positive press coverage. The loss was thus bigger than the gain.

***

What will never be said in the media can only be said on the internet. Which is why I will say it here. Bush's foreign policy has yet to yield a single complete democracy. Iraq is incomplete because the nation does not yet have sovereignty-- and will not likely have such for decades. The shell administration seen in Iraq today has come at the cost of between 21,940 and 100,000 innocent lives and growing. Afghanistan is incomplete because elections for national leader have not been held in Afghanistan. Indeed, there is no Afghani national leader of Afghanistan. Neither of these nations are making progress.

Egypt, which the article talks about, is not a democracy and not likely to become one in the near future. Various countries in the Middle East, including Kuwait and Lebanon, had been heading towards greater democratic representation at the end of the 1990s and have recently made strides in the continuation of that trend. Yet, with the relative populations of nations considered, the spread of democracy has slowed, not accelerated, in the past 5 years.

Compare, for example, the spread of democracy in the years 1985-1995. Again, I could pick and choose like a true propagandist, but let us look at some maps (land can't hide):








Since 1997, what new democracies have been fully created? Some of these countries, like the Ukraine, have recently had election fraud overturned. Yet these are not instances of entirely created new democracies from the state of autocracy. In answer to the question, one major new democracy, Indonesia, came into being in this period, specifically, in 1998. After more than three decades, Indonesia's dictator Suharto fell from power and the country of 220 million people now has free, democratic elections. This all of this happened before the year 2000.

Besides that, the map does not look substantively better today than in 1997-- actually it looks worse. Russia, once a secure democracy as Ukraine is today, is now slipping back into a semi-autocratic democracy as Ukraine was before 2004. Pakistan, which was a democracy in 1997, is no longer a democracy (this happened in 1999, but was reinforced in 2002). These two nations comprise 300 million people. The bottom line: Since 2000, the pace of democratization has slowed or even reversed, not accelerated.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Cool site
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/

[12th Doctor]

This is exactly why Kerry did not win the first debate as badly as everyone was saying he did. The debate was his last chance to offer an alternative idealism to the nation, instead what he offered was "better management".

That night, he lost his last chance to offer a vision, in exchange for winning some tactical, rhetorical points against Bush and positive press coverage. The loss was thus bigger than the gain.

***

What will never be said in the media can only be said on the internet. Which is why I will say it here. Bush's foreign policy has yet to yield a single complete democracy. Iraq is incomplete because the nation does not yet have sovereignty-- and will not likely have such for decades. The shell administration seen in Iraq today has come at the cost of between 21,940 and 100,000 innocent lives and growing. Afghanistan is incomplete because elections for national leader have not been held in Afghanistan. Indeed, there is no Afghani national leader of Afghanistan. Neither of these nations are making progress.

Egypt, which the article talks about, is not a democracy and not likely to become one in the near future. Various countries in the Middle East, including Kuwait and Lebanon, had been heading towards greater democratic representation at the end of the 1990s and have recently made strides in the continuation of that trend. Yet, with the relative populations of nations considered, the spread of democracy has slowed, not accelerated, in the past 5 years.

Compare, for example, the spread of democracy in the years 1985-1995. Again, I could pick and choose like a true propagandist, but let us look at some maps (land can't hide):








Since 1997, what new democracies have been fully created? Some of these countries, like the Ukraine, have recently had election fraud overturned. Yet these are not instances of entirely created new democracies from the state of autocracy. In answer to the question, one major new democracy, Indonesia, came into being in this period, specifically, in 1998. After more than three decades, Indonesia's dictator Suharto fell from power and the country of 220 million people now has free, democratic elections. This all of this happened before the year 2000.

Besides that, the map does not look substantively better today than in 1997-- actually it looks worse. Russia, once a secure democracy as Ukraine is today, is now slipping back into a semi-autocratic democracy as Ukraine was before 2004. Pakistan, which was a democracy in 1997, is no longer a democracy (this happened in 1999, but was reinforced in 2002). These two nations comprise 300 million people. The bottom line: Since 2000, the pace of democratization has slowed or even reversed, not accelerated.

So, what is your point.  It took decades to break the Soviet Bloc.  Compared to that, we are making pretty damn good progress in the Middle East.  Freedom saw its biggest retreat around the globe from the end of WWII until 1960.  Was the sky falling then two.  Should we have decided to end our policy against the Soviet Union and China?

You say that the Bush policy has yet to engender one solid democratic nation as though we have been at this for four decades, not four years.  Have some perspective for Christ's sake.

[they don't love you like i love you]

It bothers me to no end how conservatives and Republicans have captured the idealism of the American people, offering a compelling vision that captures the imagination while liberals and Democrats have become basically the grouchy scolds who can only criticize but not offer up any compelling vision of our own that could at least equal the idealism that is inspired by President Bush:

you mean an unrealistic head in the clouds visions tthat's just not going to workr.  Bush cana talk all he wants about some wonderfful spreading of democracy all raound the world that'll happene magically, but thingsg jujst don't owrk that way.

The dumbest claim i"ve ever heard is thatt hte war in Iraq will somehow spread democrazcy around teh world. Invadding a non-demoratitc nation and posibblyu putting a democracy in placew is not goingg to cause dictatorships to fall. Does anyone really thinka ll these "color revolutions" are connected? That teh people in Ukraine had Iraq in maind dring their protestss? Of course not, theye lected the guy who promised to bring the troops HOME. And when you loo k at even inspring homegrown democratic revolutions, like the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos, as great as they were, they ddind't have much of an effect on the rest of the world. For that matter as long as Bush continues to supporte people like Karimov, why should we listen to him>?

There is no such thing as deomino deffect of democracy. It'd be nice, but it doesn's exist. And efven if it did, someone as hated around ithe world as Bush is tnot the man who will bring it.

(I just got back from the bars sos yes, I am somewhat drunk)

[12th Doctor]

Cool site
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/

I really would love for him to finish the Medieval America one, but seeing as it has been sometime since he has touched it, I doubt he will.

[Lunar]

There is no such thing as deomino deffect of democracy. It'd be nice, but it doesn's exist. And efven if it did, someone as hated around ithe world as Bush is tnot the man who will bring it.

If Iraq becomes a successful democracy, then that creates political pressure within the masses for the surrounding countries.  Right now the best model for success in the Middle East is authoritarianism.  The goal is to change that model to democracy and liberalism.

Many countries around the world pointed to Russia's transition from a backward country to a world superpower to justify their transition to communism.  Today, Russia's failure as a state is one of the main justifications for the masses of various countries to reject communism.

The world is currently unipolar, there's no more superpowers to 'beat.'  The current enemy manifests itself in the populace of various Islamic countries.  Pushing at the right points (Iraq and Egypt) could very well castrate Islamic terrorism as we know it today.

[they don't love you like i love you]

except there are already democracies in the Middle East and there have been in the past.

[Lunar]

except there are already democracies in the Middle East and there have been in the past.

And they weren't very successful or influential.  This was the point of my entire post.

[they don't love you like i love you]

So why would Iraq be any different? Especially since the democracy there isn't being pushed from the inside.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, I am following the developments in Lebanon.

Second, it will be interesting to see if the Iranian people turn out the Ayatollahs.

Third, the Kuwaitis have moved toward Democracy.

Fourth, it will be interesting to see how long NixonNow and associates can control Syria.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Especially since the democracy there isn't being pushed from the inside.

Isn't it? How high was the turnout again? Despite the bombs?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Especially since the democracy there isn't being pushed from the inside.

Isn't it? How high was the turnout again? Despite the bombs?

a democracy isn't very healthy or succesful with 1 out of the 3 major groups of the country almost completely boycotting the election.

So far I've never heard a real argument of as to how invading Iraq would make Kuwait and Egypt move toward democracy considering that Kuwait has basically been under US occupation for the past 15 years already and the US is obviously not going to invade Egypt (which would be virtually impossible for that matter anyway)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

a democracy isn't very healthy or succesful with 1 out of the 3 major groups of the country almost completely boycotting the election.

So? It's the Sunnis fault if they don't want to vote. Pretty much everyone else did.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Participation is neccesary for a healthy democracy, and if a large portion doesn't want, it likely won't succeed.

Remember, one of the commonly cited reasons as to why the Weimer Republic failed is that a large portion of the country did not want democracy (in addition to the communists and Nazis there were old monarchist elements, etc.)

Succesful democracies in the Middle East include Israel, Lebanon, Iran until 1954 and Cyprus, but they had little effect on any other country. For that matter one can also look at Africa, where it's not uncommon to have one nation be a fairly healthy democracy while a neighboring one is a screwed up as hell dictatorship. The best example is Togo, one of the most screwed up and non-democratic nations there, right between Ghana and Benin, two of the most succesful states. There's no visible effect of one nation on another. That's why even if Iraq becomes a success, I can't see it affecting anywhere else. Also how much effect have Taiwan and South Korea had on their counterparts?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Participation is neccesary for a healthy democracy, and if a large portion doesn't want, it likely won't succeed.

Most people *did* participate though

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but the % who don't want democracy isn't likely to get much larger at all; by and large it's along ethnic/sectarian lines and they don't change much.

Not to say that democracy in Iraq is bound to suceed, there are serious problems and I've no idea whether they'll be a domino effect, but right *now* it seems that the overwhelming majority of the population want a democratic system of some kind and because of that some form of democracy is likely to survive, at least in the short term.

[Serenity Now]

It bothers me to no end how conservatives and Republicans have captured the idealism of the American people, offering a compelling vision that captures the imagination while liberals and Democrats have become basically the grouchy scolds who can only criticize but not offer up any compelling vision of our own that could at least equal the idealism that is inspired by President Bush:   

Bush Pushes Global Vision
# Spreading democratic reform has become a top U.S. priority, at times trumping urgent issues.

By Tyler Marshall, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — President Bush's ambitious vision of global democratic reform has begun to dominate the administration's foreign affairs agenda, in some cases pushing aside urgent international issues.

So far, the president's plan has been driven mainly by high-level rhetoric, symbolic gestures and a handful of modestly funded development programs. But collectively, this mix has started to shift the focus in relations with key nations.

In the four months since Bush unveiled the approach in his second inaugural address, nearly every meeting with foreign officials and many of the changes taking place within the Bush administration, including several key appointments, has reflected the priority of expanding the boundaries of democracy.

By now, the presidential vision even has its own buzz phrase: "practical idealism," a reference to the policy's underlying premise that in a post-Sept. 11 world, America's national security is tied directly to the spread of free and open societies everywhere, including the Middle East.

Although few foreign policy specialists interviewed for this article questioned the president's personal sincerity, some dismissed his plan as little more than fantasy. Others expressed doubt that the U.S. had the credibility to advance such ambitious reforms — especially in the Islamic world.

Whatever the eventual outcome, there is evidence of initial effects.

"People in the Middle East already see it as a very powerful initiative," said Walter Russell Mead, an expert on America's role in the world at the Council on Foreign Relations. "A lot of people are beginning to wonder if American foreign policy isn't in the midst of a fundamental change."

link

Interesting, but bear in mind that most of what George Bush says in his speeches is meaningless rhetoric, like many speeches by many people.

On the other hand, of course US policy in the Middle East could have accidential democratizing effects, and I hope it does. If so it would be a justification for that area of US foreign policy despite it having some obvious dodgy motivations.

However, I don't believe for one second that the Bush administration is pushing for a global democratic revolution, and I'd be distrustful of anyone who talks in such grandiose terms. This is a very big and infinitely complex world, not a bloody computer game!

[Democratic Hawk]

It bothers me to no end how conservatives and Republicans have captured the idealism of the American people, offering a compelling vision that captures the imagination while liberals and Democrats have become basically the grouchy scolds who can only criticize but not offer up any compelling vision of our own that could at least equal the idealism that is inspired by President Bush:   

And so it should bother good Democrats! Ever since, the Democratic Party abandoned a Trumanite foreign policy in favour of what McGovern had to offer, Republican presidents have set the international agenda in that they have had a longer occupancy in the Oval Office

In fact, Reagan realised Truman's vision with the collapse of Communism (I'd love to have seen a Democrat realise this) and GWB has effectively encapsulated it into his neconservative agenda. Bush - success or failure - it's too early to tell! Either way, Bush's idealism is nothing original - so I guess Democrats can take some comfort in that

Democrats are now beginning to realise they can achieve little in opposition. By all means, criticise Bush and the GOP-led Congress where it is due - but the Democrats need better, or just as viable, alternatives

Dave

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The point is, the article's title is way overblown, not that Bush's policy is doomed to failure. Yes ai admire his idealism, and a 'global democratic revolution' could still occur years down the road, but the indications right now do not show an increase in the pace of democratization from the previous quarter century, but rather a decrease in the pace of democratization.

[opebo]

Much of what the US backs as 'democracy' in the third world is really just a cover for capitalist penetration.  Which is fine, it is just a bit disingenuous to claim a great interest in the wishes or well-being of the people there. 

Certainly looking at those maps I can say my favorite country was even better back when it was a dictatorship, before the bourgeois morality of the average voter came into play.

[WMS]

Interesting discussion. I'll just say a few things:

If you follow those maps thefactor posted for the entire century, there's usually a cyclical pattern - the 1930-1945 period was bad, as was the 1970s, but each was in turn succeeded by more democratic swings. In each case there were some countries that survived the counter-swing, and slowly expanded the secure democratic sphere.

Any of you who genuinely want world peace should be supporting this idea, since - and political scientists have shown this - democratic countries are much more peaceful.
Summary of that:
Demos vs. Demos: extremely rare wars between then
Undemos vs Undemos: very common wars between them
Undemos vs Demos: very common wars between them

And Bush might be backing such a policy to some extent because letting states fester only breeds extremists who inevitably cause problems for us. People who aren't being oppressed don't tend to become terrorists, after all. There is a pragmatic side to this as well.

And as for what Frodo and Demo Hawk said: yes, the Democrats really need some new foreign policy ideas other that being against anything the Reps propose. I'm not sure the Dems even have a coherent foreign policy these days.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And as for what Frodo and Demo Hawk said: yes, the Democrats really need some new foreign policy ideas other that being against anything the Reps propose. I'm not sure the Dems even have a coherent foreign policy these days.

The Republicans have no clear plan, why should the Democrats have one?

[Jake]

Maybe because it's in their best interest?

[WMS]

And as for what Frodo and Demo Hawk said: yes, the Democrats really need some new foreign policy ideas other that being against anything the Reps propose. I'm not sure the Dems even have a coherent foreign policy these days.

The Republicans have no clear plan, why should the Democrats have one?

I think Jake gave a good answer above. The Republicans have something of a plan (an interesting hybrid of traditional conservative realism and Wilsonian neoconservatism (Not a Typo)) which did provide a target for the Dems to attack last year - you knew what Bush was about, pretty much, like it or hate it (or both). It's a bit fuzzy in places. The Democrats seemed to me to be split between, well, Democratic Hawk said it first: the Trumanites and the McGovernites. They need to figure out what their party's foreign policy platform is going to be, one or the other...

[they don't love you like i love you]

The only problem with Bush's plan is it's a ridiculous head in the clouds fantasy, basically just like communism, it sounds good but it won't work.

All the proof we need there is no "spread of democracy" effect: Togo. It's still a horrendously authoritarian dictatorship and has been forever, yet it's right between Ghana and Benin, two of of the freest and most democratic countries in Africa.

and yet somehow Iraq is going to spread democracy to the Middle East. Give me a break.