Promotional Rules

I liked Heather Hurlburt's five rules of democracy promotion. Especially the first one:

It's their democracy. So shut up, already. This Administration did considerable harm to democracy activists across the Middle East, as well as the folks who came out of the Orange and Rose Revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia with governing responsibilities, by seeming to take too much credit. This makes the locals look like puppets (see under: Iraq) instead of folks who are expressing indigenous forms of an indigenous desire for universal freedoms. Yes, I want to see this Administration speak loudly and clearly about repression in Burma -- but please, no more chest-thumping about what support we're giving whom. People who are showing that much determination and courage deserve not to be miscast as our puppets.

Obviously, though, this is one of those instances where Bush has been screwing up without "making mistakes" as such. He treats those foreign democracy activists who he chooses not to ignore as puppets, because whether or not it's actually the case that the activists in question or puppets, his only interest in them is as puppets. Bush doesn't believe in foreigners holding elections that produce the wrong results (see Palestine) and doesn't oppose coups when he thinks they might advance his policy agenda (see the pre-war hints that Turkey's military might want to step in) nor does he oppose hanging out with petty, cruel dictators of theocratic states when they support his geopolitical aims (Saudi Arabia is the famous case here, but see also Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, etc.).

It's true, of course, that when Bush sees a foreign state under the control of a regime he deems hostile, he approves of overthrowing it. And when the overthrowers are genuine democrats, he's fine with that, but he's also fine with sheltering the MEK or whatever else. Whether or not other people wind up looking like puppets or hundreds of thousands of deaths result (see, e.g., Iraq) isn't really a serious consideration.

Comments

Exactly.

Posted by calling all toasters | October 2, 2007 8:55 AM

As much as I dislike Bush I fail to see how his foreign policy practices vary much from any President since, oh, Washington. Rewrite your post and substitute any previous President for Bush. It still works pretty well. It's always all about us. If cruelty and genocide protect and advance U.S. interests we're fine with it. Same goes for a benevolent government seeing things our way. Kill or be kind, we don't care just so it doesn't take money out of our pocket or expose us to peril.

Posted by steve duncan | October 2, 2007 8:56 AM

It is exactly this mentality among the neocons that is so damaging to the US. Democracy is democracy--regardless of how the elections under them pan out.

But perhaps that is the point with the neocons--it's fine as long as elections result in those who support their goals of imperialism and control over everything.

Democracy--it's the new totalitarianism!

Posted by terraformer | October 2, 2007 8:59 AM

Democracy is not a new totalitarianism. In the current version of Newspeak 'democracy' is a replacement for 'capitalism'. Neoliberal socio-economic system in combination with any sort of political system.

Posted by abb1 | October 2, 2007 9:08 AM

his only interest in them is as puppets.

Not to put too much of a point on it, but this applies to almost all of Bush's interactions with others, from foreign leaders to Congress to his cabinet to his staff.

Posted by Tyro | October 2, 2007 9:31 AM

Matt - good post, but one quibble - the United Arab Emirates are certainly not controlled by petty cruel dictators. They're much more like a monarchy with strong popular support. In fact, Dubai probably should be considered a model for economic modernization and liberalization for the Arab world. Does it look like Sweden? Of course not, but why would we expect that?

Posted by szr | October 2, 2007 9:35 AM

Agree that this is nothing new, but the audacity of Bush's PR is striking.

Posted by Steve V | October 2, 2007 9:52 AM

1) If our ruling elites really want to promote Democracy, why doesn't they promote it here IN THE UNITED STATES?

2) Start by changing tax policy to reduce the extreme concentration of wealth and income in the USA -- the Gini coefficient of the USA looks like that of South American dictatorships. The rest of the world knows damm well that we are NOT a democracy --we are a thoughly corrupt oligarchy bent on global conquest. If you allow concentration of wealth then you inevitably allow concentration of political power/decision-making.

3) Next, only allow public financing of campaigns --so that honest men can run for Congress on their merits. It is impossible for a person to be a Member of Congress today without whoring themselves out to 5 or 6 special interests. We have deeply corrupt politicians because it is Impossible for them to win elections without betraying the bulk of their constituents.

4) Three, DESTROY our deeply deceitful corporate news media (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post,etc) and replace it with publicly funded PBS/NPR. Restore the Fairness Doctrine abolished by the Great Con Artist Ronald Reagan. See http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/02/01/fairness/index.html

If you want to keep the privately-owned press, then at least keep it fragmented and do not allow today's concentration of ownership/monopoly control.

Posted by Don Williams | October 2, 2007 9:57 AM

(Why oh why does the remember personal info box not work?)

If you want coup examples, I'd start with Venezuela and Haiti.

Posted by dbt | October 2, 2007 10:08 AM

Bush doesn't believe in foreigners holding elections that produce the wrong results (see Palestine)

This is bullsh*t.

Bush believes in elections. And he believes that elections have consequences. Why is this so difficult for the left to understand?

Posted by Al | October 2, 2007 10:09 AM

4) Three, DESTROY our deeply deceitful corporate news media.......... and replace it with publicly funded PBS/NPR. .

Posted by Don Williams | October 2, 2007 9:57 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don, do you listen to NPR/PBS? I don't know the intricacies of their financing but it is labeled PUBLIC broadcasting and PUBLIC radio. They've morphed into every bit the tools found at FOX or CNN or the WSJ. They used to be the default station on my drive to and from work. Now when I tune in I feel like I'm privy to strategy meetings of the Republican caucus. I think we're long past a time when an independent approach by government is possible. IGs are corrupt across the board. Oversight is a joke. Audits and reviews are contaminated. The thumb is always on the scale. For every Sy Hersh there are a thousand print and broadcast journalists worried more about their ratings and book sales than quality reporting. They're stenographers, and poor ones at that.

Posted by steve duncan | October 2, 2007 10:12 AM

Has anyone else noticed that Al has the same first name as Al Qaeda? Coincidence? I report, you decide.

Posted by JH | October 2, 2007 10:15 AM

Re Steve Duncan's comment "Don, do you listen to NPR/PBS? "
-----------
Yeah, I know. But since 911, they have at least made occasional attempts to inform America about major facts which the major networks and NY Times ignore.

And PBS's broadcast of Bill Moyers' blistering documentary "Buying the War" --re how the corporate media ran a scam on the American people in the runup to the Iraqi invasion -- is a classic. So I think there is hope for NPR/PBS.

Posted by Don Williams | October 2, 2007 10:20 AM

I work for a State Department program that sponsors development work in the Middle East, and one of its focuses is democracy promotion. Although the projects we fund are generally good, the political appointees in charge of things look at everything through the lens of neocon regime change/revolution; they think that funding these projects will lead to a vibrant civil society, which will then lead to democratic revolutions and next thing you know everyone in the region will be voting Republican and driving Hummers.

It of course doesn't work like that. Most reformers are Muslim fundamentalists protesting against their (US-backed) governments, and we can't support that. In fact, any genuinely popular movement, which is probably headed by some fundamentalist cleric or other, is completely dismissed by comments like "Don't worry about those 200,000 protesters marching in the largest demonstration in this country's history. I talked to a guy at the US embassy there and he says none of the marchers even know what they're protesting." There is no attempt to even remotely try to understand what motivates these people to risk arrest by marching. Is it a rich-poor thing? (This is how Hamas got so much support, by doing things like showing up with $10,000 cash if the Israelis bulldozed your house.) Is it a Sunni-Shiite thing? Why do these people support Sheikh So-and-So, and what can we do to genuinely address their concerns, which we'll of course have to do if we want to win hearts and minds? But of course we don't want to go there. True democracy goes so much deeper than we're willing to go, with our exchange programs and training classes targeted at people who are already rich, educated, English speaking, and pro-western.

The other problem is that American money is toxic, thanks to Iraq, Palestine, Iran, and so forth. People we give money to are immediately tarred by their government or the Muslim Brotherhood as tools of the Zionists and Crusaders etc. An extreme example of this is Iran, where people like Haleh Esfandiari--good, dedicated people doing good work--can't accomplish anything and end up getting thrown in prison on bogus charges.

Posted by Spokeytown | October 2, 2007 10:25 AM

Excellent post. My only quibble is that the part about how Bush doesn't like "foreigners holding elections that produce the wrong results" doesn't belong on the bill of indictment. Not liking it when elections produce evil theocratic governments would also characterize a decent president who did care about spreading freedom.

Posted by David J. Balan | October 2, 2007 10:27 AM

Yes, I want to see this Administration speak loudly and clearly about repression in Burma --
but please, no more chest-thumping about what support we're giving whom.

Since this comment was made, in particular, about the Orange and Rose revolutions, here's a
thought: instead of not chest-thumping about the support you're giving, how about butting the
fuck out altogether?

I was in Ukraine in 2004 for their do-over vote. American influence (ie. money) was obvious,
and it is overwhelmingly likely the CIA was highly involved. If you truly believe that it's "their
democracy", then let them vote and let the chips fall where they will. This means not just not
taking credit, it means actually *stay out*.

Posted by McKingford | October 2, 2007 10:40 AM

Yes, I want to see this Administration speak loudly and clearly about repression in Burma --
but please, no more chest-thumping about what support we're giving whom.

Since this comment was made, in particular, about the Orange and Rose revolutions, here's a
thought: instead of not chest-thumping about the support you're giving, how about butting the
fuck out altogether?

I was in Ukraine in 2004 for their do-over vote. American influence (ie. money) was obvious,
and it is overwhelmingly likely the CIA was highly involved. If you truly believe that it's "their
democracy", then let them vote and let the chips fall where they will. This means not just not
taking credit, it means actually *stay out*.

Posted by McKingford | October 2, 2007 10:41 AM

Under US law, what would happen to a group of progressives who accepted money from foreign sources -- say the EU -- to promote democracy and reform within the US government?

Answer:
They would be thrown in prison for being "unregistered agents of a foreign power".

Their movement would infiltrated by government spies who would stage incidents that give the government an excuse to prosecute the movement's membership for being a "criminal conspiracy".

And if one individual in the movement committed the slightest act of violence, the movement would be labeled "terrorists" -- with Bush and the Republican Supreme Court saying they have NO rights. To a hearing in open court, to confront their accusers, or to be free from torture.

Yes, Burma has a shitty regime and yes, I would applaud if the Burmese people exterminated the brutes.

But the Neocons' two-faced global empire is a far greater threat --both to foreigners and to US citizens. Over 225 years ago, Edward Gibbon explained why we want the world to remain a community of independent nation-states:
------------
"The division of Europe into a number of independent states, connected, however, with each other, by the general resemblance of religion, language, and manners, is productive of the most beneficial consequences to the liberty of mankind.

A modern tyrant who should find no resistance either in his own breast, or in his people, would soon experience a gentle restraint from the example of his equals, the dread of present censure, the advice of allies, and the apprehension of his enemies.

The object of his displeasure, escaping from the narrow limits of his dominions, would easily obtain, in a happier climate, a secure refuge, a new fortune adequate to his merit, the freedom of complaint, and perhaps the means of revenge.

But the empire of the Romans filled the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies.

The slave of Imperial despotism, whether he was condemned to drag his gilded chain in Rome and the senate, or to wear out a life of exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or the frozen banks of the Danube, expected his fate in silent despair.

To resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly. On every side he was encompassed with a vast extent of sea and land, which he could never hope to traverse without being discovered, seized, and restored to his irritated master.

Beyond the frontiers, his anxious view could discover nothing, except the ocean, inhospitable deserts, hostile tribes of barbarians, of fierce manners and unknown language, or dependent kings, who would gladly purchase the emperor's protection by the sacrifice of an obnoxious fugitive.

"Wherever you are," said Cicero to the exiled Marcellus, "remember that you are equally within the power of the conqueror."
--------
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Posted by Don Williams | October 2, 2007 10:46 AM

Mr. Balan, Bush doesn't care about democracy in other nations. He doesn't care about spreading freedom. To the extent my assertions are faulty his empathy may be present only in consideration of how such emotions benefit him personally. He's a sociopath.
>>>>>>>
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV, currently DSM-IV-TR), a widely used manual for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15vc, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1)failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2)deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3)impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4)irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5)reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6)consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
7)lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush is a sick, genocidal madman. Read the symptoms. He falls into every category. Sociopaths don't "care" about anything but themselves.

Posted by steve duncan | October 2, 2007 10:53 AM

I want other nations to remain free of US control because I want a place to which I --or my descendents -- can flee.

Because the US was modeled on the ancient Roman Republic, the greed of our ruling elites matches that of the Roman patricians, and they are leading us down into the same abyss.

Edward Gibbon described that past world -- and our likely future:
-----------
"The minds of the Romans were very differently prepared for slavery. Oppressed beneath the weight of their own corruption and of military violence, they for a long while preserved the sentiments, or at least the ideas, of their freeborn ancestors.

The education of Helvidius and Thrasea, of Tacitus and Pliny, was the same as that of Cato and Cicero. From Grecian philosophy they had imbibed the justest and most liberal notions of the dignity of human nature, and the origin of civil society.

The history of their own country had taught them to revere a free, a virtuous, and a victorious commonwealth; to abhor the successful crimes of Caesar and Augustus; and inwardly to despise those tyrants whom they adored with the most abject flattery.

As magistrates and senators, they were admitted into the great council which had once dictated laws to the earth, whose name still gave a sanction to the acts of the monarch, and whose authority was so often prostituted to the vilest purposes of tyranny.

Tiberius, and those emperors who adopted his maxims, attempted to disguise their murders by the formalities of justice, and perhaps enjoyed a secret pleasure in rendering the senate their accomplice as well as their victim.

By this assembly the last of the Romans were condemned for imaginary crimes and real virtues. Their infamous accusers assumed the language of independent patriots, who arraigned a dangerous citizen before the tribunal of his country; and the public service was rewarded by riches and honours.

The servile judges professed to assert the majesty of the commonwealth, violated in the person of its first magistrate; whose clemency they most applauded when they trembled the most at his inexorable and impending cruelty

The tyrant beheld their baseness with just contempt, and encountered their secret sentiments of detestation with sincere and avowed hatred for the whole body of the senate."
------------
Not quite the Bush Administration, but I'd say we're getting there.

People would want a first hand account of life in the Roman Empire should look at the accounts left to us by the Roman Senator Cornelius Tacitus.
His Histories, Annals, and especially his Agricola.

Posted by Don Williams | October 2, 2007 11:15 AM

Matt - good post, but one quibble - the United Arab Emirates are certainly not controlled by petty cruel dictators.

Agreed. And good lord, Matt, get Bahrain off that list. They have a real live parliament that can actually do things, and a monarchy that appoints minorities (Jews, Christians) and women to key positions to offset Islamist popular support.

Really, it's verging on racist the way you tossed those countries in there. Small, Arab...must be run by a cruel petty dictator!

Posted by nolaboyd | October 2, 2007 11:58 AM

For god's sake would you quit melodramatically quoating from Decline and Fall? It loses it's punch by the third time.

A: Decline and Fall is dated history.

B: The Romans aren't the be all and end all of civilization and besides that they're boring.

C: Stop hyperventilating.

Posted by DRR | October 2, 2007 2:14 PM

Re DRR's comment "The Romans aren't the be all and end all of civilization and besides that they're boring"
---------
1) We use history to provide empirical data to support political arguments.
2) The USA was designed originally to be a republic, technically we remain such, and there are few republics in human history for very long.
Most of our 5000 years or so of civilization have consisted of rule by one man. Sometimes benign and responsible, often not.
3) The Constitution which controls our nations evolution was designed based upon what the Founders knew about the Roman Republic and its fall.
4) In many ways, the evolution of the United States since its founding has tracked the evolution of the Roman Republic.
5) There is a bias within Americans that things will continue to run smoothly just as they have for the past 50 years, in spite of many historical examples --including many 20th century examples -- to the contrary.
6) Hence, there is an indifference to the dangers of Neocon imperialism.

Posted by Don Williams | October 2, 2007 4:00 PM

"Bush believes in elections. And he believes that elections have consequences. Why is this so difficult for the left to understand?

Posted by Al | October 2, 2007 10:09 AM"

If he is so committed to election, then why did al-Sistani have to basically force him to hold elections in Iraq?

Posted by Reality Man | October 2, 2007 4:12 PM

Re: Most of our 5000 years or so of civilization have consisted of rule by one man.

Not necessarily. True single-man rule is not all that common. Usually there's a Head Man (rarely, a Head Woman) but he has to share important aspects of his powers with others, notably a warrior class ("nobles") and sometimes an intellectual class ("priests") and even, occasionally, a plutocratic merchant class. Many republics by the way end up being dictatorships and oligarchies. Renaissance Florence was technically a Republic. Ditto for Venice. And what can one say about the "People's Republics"?

Posted by JonF | October 2, 2007 7:24 PM

Steve Duncan, you misunderstood me. I wasn't at all saying that Bush cares about democracy. He doesn't, and in the post Matt did a good job of pointing that out. I was just saying that one of the items that Matt cited by way of proof of the (correct) proposition that Bush doesn't care about democracy is problematic.

Posted by David J. Balan | October 2, 2007 9:19 PM