Bush and Woodrow Wilson
I haven't really done any checking on this, but for what it's worth:
My recent reading on the foreign policy of Victorian Britain has reminded me of the whole argument about whether the old European monarchies/empires were good or bad. Britain was kind of the leader among the victors after the Napoleonic wars, and therefore saw itself enforcing the Treaty of Vienna. Salisbury, as a young essayist, kept on defending this treaty, arguing that rebuilding and maintaining the old empires was a ticket to stability and peace. Of course you don't have to be terribly cynical to argue that Britain wanted to "balance" the continental forces so that it could have the rest of the world to itself.
The growth of Prussia was contrary to Britain's plans, and Britain did get involved in some actual wars, But basically there was peace until World War I. Wilson inherited the view that once again those antideluvian, or at least pre-modern monarchies had led a lot of countries into a needless war. He wanted to break up the old empires, and allow self-contained nationalities to have their freedom.
Some of his policies, which were certainly not his alone, led directly to the rise of Bolshevism and Nazism, the greatest nightmares of the twentieth century. Yet he thought he was making the world safe for democracy, and indeed spreading democracy in order to keep the world (the U.S?) safe. He may have believed at least as much as Bush that liberty could not be secure anywhere unless it spread everywhere.
Wilson waited until he was inaugurated for the second time--in March 1917--before declaring war with one of his pronouncements about democracy. Literally as soon as he did so, the German and Austrian generals who had taken over from the Kaiser arranged to get Lenin into Russia as quickly as possible. They probably intended simply to weaken the Tsar with a civil war, and force him out of the world war; it's pretty certain that Wilson didn't foresee or intend the rise of Bolshevism. Nevertheless, after a long and bloody war in Russia, Bolshevism it was. Germany lost despite the cleverness of its generals, and the victorious allies got on with the thrilling democratic work of breaking up Germany and Austria. Arguably, this had two main results. A vaccuum was created in central Europe, so that there was noone there to resist the rise of Bolshevik Russia. Secondly, the "humiliation" of Germany was one of the main sore points Hitler worked on. Wasn't there something to be said for putting the Kaiser's family back on the German throne, and leaving an Austrian throne in place as well? Possibly, er, undemocratic institutions instead of bloodbaths worse than anything that had been seen before?
At any rate, I guess that's what some of Bush's defenders on the Corner have in mind when they say they are uneasy about similarities between Bush and Wilson.
UPDATE March 6: I think it was Jonah Goldberg who said on The Corner (I can't find it now) that it might have been better if the Germans had won World War I--that is, I presume, if they had conquered France yet again.
In the Atlantic Monthly for March, David M. Kennedy argues that every president since Woodrow Wilson has acted on Wilson's principles. Quoting Walter Russell Mead, the principles are: "self-determination, democratic government, collective security, international law, and a league of nations...." Bush 43 seems to be saying that if you are serious about the first two, and focussed on your own national security, you may have to sacrifice the last two. Kennedy: "In the end, of course, Wilson failed to wean his country from its propensity to isolation." Wasn't there a somewhat more complete failure than that on Wilson's part--a failure to understand Europe, and the actual movements that were in play there?
|
