The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewSam Francis Archive
Bush Signs U.S. Up for "Global Democratic Revolution."
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“When a term has become so universally sanctified as ‘democracy’ now is,” wrote the poet and social critic T.S. Eliot in 1939, “I begin to wonder whether it means anything, in meaning too many things…. If anybody ever attacked democracy, I might discover what the word meant.”

Eliot would have discovered little about the meaning of democracy had he lived to hear President Bush’s sermon about it last week before the National Endowment for Democracy, a federal agency devoted to spreading what the president calls “the global democratic revolution” across the planet.

“Democracy” as Mr. Bush used the term seems to have something to do with elections and competing political parties, but also with what he kept calling “liberty,” yet another word he never defined.

Whatever they are, it is the business of the United States to spread them across the world, and already amazing progress toward that goal is taking place.

Not only have we spread democracy by smashing Iraq but now we’re going to spread it all over the Middle East as well.

Iraq’s neighbors just better watch out.

The cult of “democracy” as the centerpiece of American foreign policy has been snooping around the corridors of power since President Jimmy Carter jabbered about promoting “human rights” (yet another opacity).

As Mr. Bush acknowledged last week, it is a cult that President Reagan, who should have known better, helped promote, and today the cult reigns supreme as the unofficially established religion of the U.S. government.

The chief theologians of the democracy cult these days are the neoconservatives, who themselves reign supreme within the Bush administration, and as recently as September, neo-con Joshua Muravchik, writing in Commentary magazine, declared that “enthusiasm for democracy” is a distinguishing characteristic of neoconservatives.

“Traditional conservatives are more likely to display an ambivalence toward this form of government, an ambivalence expressed centuries ago by the American founders. Neoconservatives tend to harbor no such doubts.” [The Neoconservative Cabal, By Joshua Muravchik,Commentary Magazine, September, 2003]

Mr. Muravchik didn’t define democracy either, but at least we now know that neocons disagree with the American founders as well as with today’s traditional conservatives, which is a big step forward.

Moreover, as liberal columnist E.J. Dionne writes this week about Mr. Bush’s speech, “the president embraced much of what liberal human rights advocates have been saying for years.”

It ought not to be a secret, though it seems to be unknown to most self-described conservatives these days, that “making the world safe for democracy,” let alone actually imposing democracy by force, is not a conservative idea. It descends from Woodrow Wilson, has grandparents in Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, and was peddled by John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (as well as Presidents Carter and Clinton) long before it began to twinkle among the brain cells of Mr. Bush.

The reason it is not a conservative idea—and indeed why it is a profoundly stupid and dangerous idea—is that conservatives grasp what the left cannot—that what we call “democracy” in this and other Western countries is a product of centuries of cultural and political evolution.

It does not exist in nature and is not a universal.

“Democracy,” if it means what I think it means, is culturally unique.

Mr. Bush last week (and the neoconservatives who write his speeches and have taught him his lines) was at pains to deny this.

“We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom—the freedom we prize—is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind.”[Full transcript.]

Very eloquent, no doubt, but is it true?

Not exactly. If “liberty” (which the president seems not to distinguish from “democracy,” a vital distinction of classical political thought) were the “design of nature” and the “direction of history,” it would be far more universal than it is or ever has been, and other cultures would be far more receptive to it than they are.

The truth is that “democracy” and “liberty” as most in the West understand them have flourished only in the West and only in fairly recent eras.

And what that means is that attempts to implant, spread, or enforce democracy where it has no historical roots and doesn’t belong will not only fail but will most likely create chaos and eventually tyranny—which is why such policies are a stupid and dangerous idea.

Mr. Bush’s worship of the liberal idol of “universal democracy” has already helped sink us into the murderous quicksands of Iraq.

Real conservatives—if any remain—need to resist and reject his ill-advised call for yet more global adventures with his faithful neocon companions.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Neocons 
Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Sam Francis Comments via RSS