A Whole New Level

I can't even describe how frustrating it is to read things like this from Sheryl Gay Stolberg in The New York Times:

But Mr. Bush, most experts agree, has taken the American freedom agenda to an entirely new level, by trying to foster democracy in nations that have not known it before, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Some historians have called it folly, and Mr. Bush conceded in an interview with conservative commentators last year that his critics believe he is “hopelessly idealistic.”

One point I really try hard to make in Heads in the Sand is that it's incredibly foolish to view the Bush foreign policy primarily through this democracy lens. For one thing, Bush's record as a democratizer doesn't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny. There's been no consistency of application (Egypt? Saudi Arabia?), and no record of successes -- look it up and you'll see much more democracy on the march during the 1990s.

But even criticizing Bush's record on this score is almost besides the point -- an emphasis on democracy simply isn't what's noteworthy about Bush's policymaking. What's noteworthy about Bush is his effort to completely cast aside notions of institutional, legal, or even practical restraint in American conduct abroad. He wants to reorder international relations around a highly asymmetrical bargain where we simultaneously flout all kinds of multilateral processes while also engaging in an unprecedentedly high level of meddling in other countries' affairs. Iran can't go anywhere near uranium enrichment, but we won't sign the Comprehensive Test Ban and won't stop building a new generation of nuclear weapons. Rather than anything resembling a practical approach to helping democratic political movements, we threaten to decapitate any regime we don't like (while, yes, shouting "democracy!") and then act baffled and outraged when other countries try to acquire weapons capable of deterring us.

This is what it's all about and this is what it's always been about. Fostering democracy in new places isn't especially novel, and isn't something Bush has particularly emphasized in actual policymaking. What's more, at this point in time it's just ludicrous -- completely detached from what even the surge's advocates say they're doing -- to see the mission in Iraq as having anything at all to do with democracy. What we're doing over there is taking what was once known as "failure" (creating a new post-saddam despotism) and relabeling it "success."

Comments

You forgot to add how disputing anything about the new status quo is unpatriotic.

Posted by Bill | March 13, 2008 12:04 PM

An example of the administrations' attempt to instill democracy in the Arab world was the elections in the Palestinian territories which resulted in the election of the Hamas terrorists. The administration was warned by both the Government of Israel and the PA of this possible outcome but their warnings were ignored. Our incompetent Secretary of State, Condolezza Rice insisted and her advice was accepted. The notion that democracy is the answer to the problems of the Middle East ignores the fact that, in the mentality of the Arab world, a strong hand at the helm is required.

Posted by SLC | March 13, 2008 12:14 PM

The best moment of hypocrisy was Condi's photo op wearing a shit-eating grin while standing next to the dictator of Equatorial Guinea, who is a tyrant and rumored to be a cannibal. Why? Because he has oil. Ironically, the son of their hero, Margaret Thatcher, is in jail in Zimbabwe for being part of a coup plot to overthrow the EQ dictator.

Posted by Reality Man | March 13, 2008 12:22 PM

Matthew has the wierd idea that "consistency of application" is the sine qua non of democracy promotion. But it is an utterly stupid idea. I mean, is it so difficult to understand that democracy promotion is an important value, and yet must also be balanced against other values (i.e., maintaining a good relationship with a country like Egypt that is important to the Arab-Israeli issue)?

As it happens, I think Bush has not made the right balance as regards Egypt and Saudi Arabia. But Matthew completely ignores that a balance must be struck at all. To Matthew, either you need to ignore everything else and promote democracy 100% of the time, or you have no right to claim you are for democracy promotion. How idiotic.

Let's hope that Matthew's book is better than this post.

Posted by Al | March 13, 2008 12:23 PM

You couldn't be more right!

Invading a sovereign nation and occupying it don't smack of democratization in any way to me - nor to most of the rest of the world.

When we are perceived as being more of a threat to the world than the Saddam Hussein, then talk of democratization is farcical.

When China can tell the US that we have no place in telling them about human rights, we need to look at the source - this administration's policy on torture.

One must actually believe in our democracy and its basic tenets like habeas corpus and the law to be a real advocate of democracy.

The NYT missed again - totally.

Posted by woodnsoul | March 13, 2008 12:24 PM

You couldn't be more right!

Invading a sovereign nation and occupying it don't smack of democratization in any way to me - nor to most of the rest of the world.

When we are perceived as being more of a threat to the world than the Saddam Hussein, then talk of democratization is farcical.

When China can tell the US that we have no place in telling them about human rights, we need to look at the source - this administration's policy on torture.

One must actually believe in our democracy and its basic tenets like habeas corpus and the law to be a real advocate of democracy.

The NYT missed again - totally. All this talk of democratization is simply Orwellian double speak.

Posted by woodnsoul | March 13, 2008 12:25 PM

Oh, and Matthew's other point is dumb too. He writes: "[Bush] wants to reorder international relations around a highly asymmetrical bargain where we simultaneously flout all kinds of multilateral processes while also engaging in an unprecedentedly high level of meddling in other countries' affairs."

International relations should be an asymmetrical bargain. The opposite - where everything needs to be symmetrical - is a horrible idea. That's the type of thinking that leads to North Korea and Libya having the same votes on the UN Human Rights Commission as the US does.

Deep down, Matthew's position seems to be that the United Stated is not any better a country than North Korea and Libya, and therefore we have no right to demand anything more than them. Which is a terrible position, both for the country and, I'd think, the Democratic party. The United States is in a position to (and should) demand asymmetrical bargains because we are better than Iran and North Korea. If Iran acted like the US or the UK or France, we'd have much less of a problem with them getting nuclear weapons. But they don't - and any policy that fails to recognize this is a bad policy.

Posted by Al | March 13, 2008 12:33 PM

Does the media actually think these wars were about democracy promotion, or were they just pandering to the lowest common denominator?

Posted by Monster | March 13, 2008 12:37 PM

"...in the mentality of the Arab world, a strong hand at the helm is required."

Stupid Arabs. Thank god that mentality has no traction in the West.

Obviously the idea of "democracy promotion" depends on taking government pronouncements at face value, which, I grant you, is the standard procedure of American intellectuals; but normal people are rightly skeptical.

Also, let's everyone read Weber. The state isn't a moral agent. It isn't George Bush's mind, nor can it be, in Matt's vision, Samantha Powers's.

Posted by Mark | March 13, 2008 12:38 PM

Let's all admit the obvious: Bush's "democracy" talk is the linear descendant of the "free world" rhetoric of the Cold War era. Both incarnations are completely empty. All either one of these terms ever meant was "pro-American."

Posted by Egypt Steve | March 13, 2008 12:40 PM

"If Iran acted like the US or the UK or France, we'd have much less of a problem with them getting nuclear weapons."

If they had deposed the Eisenhower regime?

Posted by Mark | March 13, 2008 12:42 PM

Doesn't Bush's whole 'democracy' spiel sound a lot like the British empire's argument, when they claimed that their aim was to 'civilize' the people?

Same lie, different century.

Greenspan said in his book that it makes him sad that noone is willing to admit in public that the Iraq war was about oil. But what's depressing is how easily we bought into the cover story.

Posted by desdemona | March 13, 2008 12:42 PM

If Iran acted like the US or the UK or France, we'd have much less of a problem with them getting nuclear weapons. But they don't - and any policy that fails to recognize this is a bad policy.

Just wow. That is amazingly myopic. Why can't Iran just act like France or the UK lately?

Posted by Bill | March 13, 2008 12:44 PM

Most educated Europeans during the Nineteenth Century would have agreed that the colonizing of territories in Africa meant a greater freedom for the indigineous populations -- freedom from what they perceived as the squalor, ignorance and barbarism of their cultures.

Certain Mitteleuropaeisch individuals in the 1930's believed that the NSDAP was fostering the dynamic right of all Germanic peoples to be free.

During the same period, a certain percentage of Japanese believed that they were liberating the oppressed populations of Asian nations from the tyranny of colonial overlords -- to enjoy freedom under the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

If you believe their popular media, a significant number of Russians feel that under the rule of Vladimir Putin (to be continued by proxy now that he has left the country's Presidency), Russians are able to enjoy unprecdented freedom to express themselves in a democratic society (Under Stalin, they might have said the same -- that they enjoyed freedom in a worker's state being the only difference).

Members of a variety of cults have and continue to believe that, through surrendering their critical reasoning (and much of their personal wealth to the group's leaders), and in accepting the group's doctrines without question, they are more free.

History is full of delusionals, who claim that their actions "bring freedom" or "foster democracy". Anyone can make the claim, but that doesn't make it true; for example, "Freedom" is not the same as 'enlightened self-interest'.

In such cases it's clear those making that claim are liars, unworthy of trust, because they only seek to deceive.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 13, 2008 12:47 PM

Good point, Matt. One has to consider the policy from both its ends. On the one hand, it consists of a selective use of democratization in client states like Iraq, in which the government's sovereignty is set aside when it conflicts with the interests of the occupier. When the government of Iraq couldn't even successfully throw out a death squad gang - Blackwater - you know that democracy, there, is a farce.

But what is overlooked is how the policy inevitably leads to the degradation of democracy at home by an unprecedented expansion of executive power. Bush's notion of executive power is so outrageous that you really have to go back to Charles I to find anything like it in the Anglosphere. That expansion is built into the neocon and liberal hawk idea of 'intervention'. Without the executive being given tyrannical power, the 'small wars' which the bloodthirsty hawks urge will be subject to the same old approval of the legislature, which, given the mood of the American people, will pretty quickly put an end to executive adventurism. And the policy of torture, kidnapping, gross and continual violations of citizen's rights, subjected to judicial scrutiny, would quickly lead to its overthrow.
Hence, the new shape of the conservative movement - against 'big government' - any program that helps the middle and working class - and for the bit executive - i.e., a Fuehrer untrammeled by law or tradition. Hmmm, what does that remind me of? I'm gonna have to look that one up in Jonah Goldberg's book.

Posted by roger | March 13, 2008 12:48 PM

Al, I'll take a stab at symmetrical treatment, over total obliviousness as to why countries act the way they do (toward us), any day.

Posted by Chris | March 13, 2008 12:49 PM

This doesn't even mention his abysmal failures to roll out democracy in the US. Start with the Supreme Court decision that installed him as president and go on from there through all his misinterpretations and blatant flouting of the law.

Posted by mike | March 13, 2008 12:53 PM

"But what's depressing is how easily we bought into the cover story."

In fairness to the American people, however gullible (and culpable) they are, their support was rooted in fear. The democracy stuff was for the intellectuals.

Posted by Mark | March 13, 2008 12:54 PM

The MSM almost always uses Republican narratives to frame its "reporting" on politics and policy issues -- esp. when it comes to foreign policy and/or homeland security, but also in other areas. For example, some reporter or other is always tracing Republican opposition to health-care reform (or what have you) by droning on about Republicans' faith in "free markets" and never once mentioning all the money pouring into Republican campaigns from Big Pharma or the insurance industry or oil interests.

Posted by mary | March 13, 2008 12:55 PM

If a state doesn't have any shot of a meaningful voice in an international institution, why would it bother to participate? The conservative critique of the UN in the 1990's was that it didn't matter because we controlled it anyway (after all, Kofi Annan was our choice for SG that took many ballots to get appointed). When Bush came to power, the critique flipped to that the UN didn't matter because it doesn't do what we want and was anti-American. Of course these things can't both be true. We had a chance to reform the UN, but Bolton stopped that because it would step on the mirage of the unipolar moment, so he allied with the likes of Libya to block British ideas of reform (which, meanwhile, more sensible people like Khalizad supported). Nobody likes that North Korea has a seat at the table, but it's better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in. Wishing away bad people like Kim Jong-Il who are heads of state doesn't make them go away.

"Deep down, Matthew's position seems to be that the United Stated is not any better a country than North Korea and Libya, and therefore we have no right to demand anything more than them. Which is a terrible position, both for the country and, I'd think, the Democratic party. The United States is in a position to (and should) demand asymmetrical bargains because we are better than Iran and North Korea. If Iran acted like the US or the UK or France, we'd have much less of a problem with them getting nuclear weapons. But they don't - and any policy that fails to recognize this is a bad policy.

Posted by Al | March 13, 2008 12:33 PM"

Fucktarded Al to the rescue! You're peddling a bullshit strawman here Al. The question is why you have so little integrity and self-respect to post such crap.

It comes down to a question of legitimacy. If our actions are deemed illegitimate in the eyes of the world, it becomes harder to get things done. Since the ability to get what you want done, not just smack your dick on the world's forehead, is what power is actually about, unilateral action as a MO actually hurts American power. Whether or not we treat our own people well means little to people in places like Tehran if we treat them badly. To take Iranians as an example, if their interactions with us see them on the receiving end of having their democracy overthrown, having us back Saddam Hussein against them, threaten to invade them, rebuke their help in places like Afghanistan, blame them for all of our problems in Iraq while we both back the same government in Baghdad, etc., then it matter little to the average person if let women drive cars alone.

If we do things like that infringe on our own civil liberties while denouncing their own human rights abuses, we look like we are arguing in bad faith. Foreign policy isn't a seminar in which everyone reads from the same assigned text and comes to the table with the same basic views of how the world works. Failing to recognize the dichotomies between imperialism abroad vs. democracy at home, massacres abroad vs. rhetoric of civilization, etc. made the British Empire, an explicitly stated model for neocons, hypocritical and an enemy in the eyes of the colonial world's nationalists. Conservatives today have no idea what power is or how to use it effectively. They have embraced instead of constant fear mixed with self-righteousness that just leads to us flailing around hurting our own power.

Posted by Reality Man | March 13, 2008 1:15 PM

Good point Matt (and good plug for your book too). I should point out that not only has Bush been inconsistent in democratization (why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?), he has actually been counter to democratization. As others pointed out, he has tried to thwart democracy in Palenstine and Lebanon.

I believed, long before the Iraq invasion, that if democracy were delivered to the Middle East we would not like democracy very much. Middle Easterners would most likely democratically vote an Ayatollah into power in most of the Arab world. Someone who will not go with Western interests. So not surprisingly, as democracy spreads the Middle East is democratically voting into power Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorist organizations? But Mr. Bush, I thought that those cowards hid into the shadows because under the light of democracy they would perish? No? Looks like the do just fine in democracies.

Posted by freddiemac | March 13, 2008 1:16 PM

How many people does China have living under tyranny? But we take their money and buy their stuff because it's cheap. Notice the Bush administration isn't suggesting we boycott China like we boycott Cuba.

Posted by Helter | March 13, 2008 1:20 PM

As per the symmetry claim:

Sure, the United States will always wield more clout world-wide unless we continue in our current distructive ways, the Bush strategy has made us significantly less influential around the world by making it more difficult to deal with.

Its best to channel your influence through more transparent, multilateral agencies. What we have now is an opaque administration that reaches a decision internally and then issues edicts around the world and refuses to even negotiate them until other countries have already accepted most of the important elements of the negotiation. Nobody will work with in us in that kind of arbitrary and unfair framework. Instead, would-be allies reflexively work to diminish our influence. Since we cannot use our military power to achieve every foreign policy goal, we can be limited this way.

Symmetry versus Asymmetry is not the right kind of construction. But creating a framework where other countries have a reasonable opportunity to advance their interests will greatly encourage them to participate.

Posted by mpowell | March 13, 2008 1:25 PM

"Middle Easterners would most likely democratically vote an Ayatollah into power in most of the Arab world."

I agree with your general point and I hate to nitpick, but I'm pretty sure you don't have Ayatollahs in Sunni Islam.

Posted by Reality Man | March 13, 2008 1:38 PM

If Iran acted like the US or the UK or France, we'd have much less of a problem with them getting nuclear weapons.

Question: which one of the above countries has not made a habit over the last, say, two hundred years of unprovoked attacking and invading of multiple foreign countries? Hint: it's not the US, UK or France.

Posted by Stefan | March 13, 2008 2:03 PM

If Iran acted like the US or the UK or France, we'd have much less of a problem with them getting nuclear weapons.

Question: which one of the above countries has not made a habit of colonizing other nations for the purposes of wealth extraction over the last, say, 200 years. Hint: it's not the US, UK, or France.

Posted by freddiemac | March 13, 2008 2:08 PM

So, scorecard anyone?

Afghanistan: manipulated elections, powerless government, torture applied, occupation unpopular.

Iraq: the elected government is ineffective, corrupt, implicated in very serious abuses, and we armed some of its opponents. A mess worse that Afghanistan.

Palestinian Authority: we supported elections, we did not object to the kidnapping of very large proportion of the elected deputies, we tried to engineer coup'd etat, our meddling pretty directly lead to a civil war, a mess worse than Iraq. (Not least -- the guys we deemed "good" got almost zilch for their efforts, which undermined their cause).

Haiti: successful sponsorship of a coup. Mess, abated now.

Venezuela: unsuccessful sponsorship of a coup.

Guatemala: not a pip when a former dictator tried to violate the constitution by running for president. Guatemalans somehow sorted it out by themselves, but Administration two-faced as always. By the way of contrast, numerous "expression of concern" about constitutional measures in Venezuela.

Lots of countries: we validated local use of torture, mass domestic espionage and censorship of internet.

Posted by piotr | March 13, 2008 2:44 PM

The last sentence says it all. Bush just takes the sword to the Gordian knot of meaning, and relabels failure with success, q.e.d. He keeps playing Five Card Monte, and the press goes on with its analysis, but at the end of the day its just flim-flam, nothing more. There's a Lewis Carroll observation about something repeated three times becoming fact. I think the Boojum says this. Well, our boojum has created his own reality, and its been repeated in the press till its acknowledged gospel. Case in point is Iraq.

Posted by Jay Dwight | March 13, 2008 2:54 PM

Makes perfect sense. Note to self: must order that book.

Posted by Chris Dornan | March 13, 2008 3:18 PM

Matthew has the wierd idea that "consistency of application" is the sine qua non of democracy promotion. But it is an utterly stupid idea. I mean, is it so difficult to understand that democracy promotion is an important value, and yet must also be balanced against other values (i.e., maintaining a good relationship with a country like Egypt that is important to the Arab-Israeli issue)?
As it happens, I think Bush has not made the right balance as regards Egypt and Saudi Arabia. But Matthew completely ignores that a balance must be struck at all. To Matthew, either you need to ignore everything else and promote democracy 100% of the time, or you have no right to claim you are for democracy promotion. How idiotic.
Let's hope that Matthew's book is better than this post.
Posted by Al

Great comment by Al. And telling as well about "All or Nothing" Lefties who similarly see any effort to balance statecraft between competing interests as Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!

And their childlike faith in "transparent" multilateralism that has the legitimacy of the Mighty UN and International Law? Well, lets say the record of multiculti multilaterals outside the US led ones like NATO have had an abysmal record at stopping anything a rogue nation or set of nations does within it's cover of sovereignity.

It's all fine and good to show how wonderful multilateral agencies are in doing things countries let them in for willingly, like the WHO doing all sorts of noble projects - it's another when the matter is child soldiers, genocide, drug cultivation and smuggling, harboring terrorists, seeking out international criminals - when the affected countries say "no". And force is the only option and the Euroweenies and Asians and "along for the ride" Latins and Muslims insist on endless diplomacy rather than risk any of their citizen's asses enforcing Int'l Law or multilateral organization's wills.

Posted by chris ford | March 13, 2008 3:38 PM

Bush the decider is also Bush the fosterer. How is the fostering making out?

Posted by della Rovere | March 13, 2008 3:46 PM

Dead on. “What's noteworthy about Bush is his effort to completely cast aside notions of institutional, legal, or even practical restraint in American conduct abroad.” A perfect synopsis of why Bush foreigh policy is so incredibly frustrating....

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | March 13, 2008 3:47 PM

Re Mark

Mr. Mark is reading into my comment something that wasn't there. The fact that Arabs prefer a strong hand at the helm in no way, shape, form, or regard implies that they are stupid. It just means that, given the religious differences (e.g. Alawites vs Sunnis vs Shiites), a strong hand is required to preserve order. Thus Syria is relatively stable under the kleptrocracy of the Assad regime while Iraq is very unstable after the removal of Saddam. This is why many in the Israeli intelligence services were nervous about regime change in Iraq and are even more nervous about regime change in Syria. As bad as Saddam was and Assad is, there replacements may be even worse.

Posted by SLC | March 13, 2008 3:58 PM

Stefan,

Question: which one of the above countries has not made a habit over the last, say, two hundred years of unprovoked attacking and invading of multiple foreign countries?

All of them.

I know that you don't have even the vaguest understanding of just how utterly insane your ideas about the United States are. But please do continue your sisyphean quest of trying to convince Americans that the U.S. compares unfavorably to Iran. It's good for a laugh.

Posted by Mixner | March 13, 2008 4:46 PM

What we have now is an opaque administration that reaches a decision internally and then issues edicts around the world and refuses to even negotiate them until other countries have already accepted most of the important elements of the negotiation. Nobody will work with in us in that kind of arbitrary and unfair framework. Instead, would-be allies reflexively work to diminish our influence. Since we cannot use our military power to achieve every foreign policy goal, we can be limited this way.

Er, the United States is by far the most powerful and important nation in the world. Economically, politically, culturally, scientifically and militarily. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, no other nation even comes close. No other nation will come close for the foreseeable future. We call the shots. We set the standards. Other nations may defy the U.S. in relatively minor ways without doing themselves much harm, but unless they follow our lead in terms of broad policies and goals, they're only shooting themselves in the foot.

Posted by Mixner | March 13, 2008 4:57 PM

"We call the shots. We set the standards. Other nations may defy the U.S. in relatively minor ways without doing themselves much harm, but unless they follow our lead in terms of broad policies and goals, they're only shooting themselves in the foot.

Posted by Mixner | March 13, 2008 4:57 PM"

Yeah, just tell yourself that. Actually, by this point no one is really calling the shots. Bush is a joke who can't get anything done. All they can do is spike others' attempts to do anything good (such as Bolton working with dictators to kill our allies' attempts at UN reform). We can influence countries where we have huge troop levels, yet even then, such as Korea, we are widely hated and unpopular there. We can't even protect our own consulates (Kosovo). Meanwhile, the side we back in Palestine loses a civil war and a friend to many prominent Americans, Benazir Bhutto, gets killed in Pakistan. We can't even get North Korea to follow through on its commitments vis-a-vis the nuclear program. China and Russia have greatly improved their power and influence worldwide vis-a-vis the US, while Iran and Venezuela have done the same regionally. We are weaker than anytime since the Berlin Wall fell. I bet all of those countries that signed Kyoto, the Declaration on the Rights of Women, etc. are quivering in their boots. Or maybe you're talking about how much we love other regimes that torture? Yeah, none of those regimes (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) aren't shooting themselves in the foot.

Posted by Reality Man | March 14, 2008 2:45 AM

Al's comments are very well said and self-evidently true. Our default position should be support for democracy, with the important caveat that this support is dependent on reasonable guarantees for individual, especially minority, human rights. Genocide is often a popular majority phenomenon.

At the end of the day, we must accept the world as it actually exists, influencing change in directions we see as positive if we can. This is much more likely to be done with trade and cultural exchanges than with armed force, but to a certain extent the latter is necessary in providing a healthy environment for the former. And while we may not have as much influence as Mixner claims, I'm pretty sure Reality Man errs in the opposite direction.

On the UN, I see the current status quo as a crisis. With all its faults, reform could restore at least some of its relevance, and this could be a major positive development. But I think Reality Man vastly underestimates both the difficulty of reform, and the extent to which it's been frustrated since long before the Bush people got to Washington.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 15, 2008 6:31 AM

I knew Americans wouldn't begin to care about foreign policy until it started to interfere with their ability to play with their toys. Now they're all up in arms and 98% of them don't realize that boys playing with toys is what got us here in the first place.

Posted by VR2LNNNTT | March 16, 2008 3:59 AM